Sitting of 8 March 1922

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Liverpool (Exchange Division), in the room of LESLIE FREDERIC SCOTT, Esquire, K.C. (His Majesty's Solicitor-General).—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Jarrow Extension and Improvement Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

DIVORCE BILLS.
Mr. C. D. Murray, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Brassey, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Jodrell, Mr. Purchase, Mr. Rendall, Captain Watson, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Wills nominated members of the Select Committee on Divorce Bills.—[Colonel Gibbs.]
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  INDIAN PROPAGANDA (UNITED STATES).
  Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statements made in America by an Indian revolutionary, described in the Press as Mr. T. N. Ghose, director of the American commission to promote self-government in India; if he can state what steps are being taken to prevent the dissemination in America of calumnies
  1242
  on British rule in India and the interference of American citizens in the affairs of a friendly nation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to influence the views expressed by newspapers or individuals in foreign countries with regard to conditions in any part of the British Empire, but every endeavour is made to secure that correct information shall be available to all persons in the United States interested in the subject.

  TANGIER CONFERENCE.
  Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now inform the House of the date of the proposed conference between this country, France, and Spain upon the question of Tangier?
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: No date for the conference has yet been fixed, but it is hoped that the delegates will meet in London after the conclusion of the Genoa Conference.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to terminate the News Department, as proposed by the Geddes Committee?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: In view of the importance of the work of the News Department, it has been decided that it ought in the public interest to be retained, but considerable economies are being effected in its administration.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the fact that this was a Department set up for the purposes of the War, and, seeing that number of our diplomatic representatives has very largely increased, why is it necessary to continue that Department?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: It represents the relics of the old Ministry of Information and it is considered that we should retain what remains of it.
    Mr. HURD: Would it not greatly increase the usefulness and efficiency of this Department if the members of it were nominated by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association or some other body entirely divorced from the Government?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, I do not agree. I think the gentlemen serving the Department are extremely efficient.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Why is this Department necessary in 1922, when it was not wanted before the War?
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: What is the strength of the staff of the Department?
    Mr. MOLES: Could not the Department be abolished, and the information be circulated by—
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Are hon. Members who represent Ulster constituencies permitted to interfere in our affairs in this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, as long as they are Members of the House. The details of this matter can be discussed on the Estimate.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to reduce the expenditure on telegrams, which on the revised Estimate is four times the pre-War expenditure?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Every effort is made, and will continue to be made, to reduce the cost of telegrams, and, if possible, to keep it within the limit suggested by the Committee on National Expenditure. But the number of telegrams necessarily depends on the political situation in the world, and the amount of urgent diplomatic business to be done at any given time. It must also be borne in mind that the Foreign Office despatch telegrams abroad on behalf of other Government Departments over which they have no control, and that the cost of these telegrams also falls on the Diplomatic and Consular Vote.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons are employed on the special staff in ciphering and deciphering messages and carrying despatches abroad?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The number employed is 30, of whom 15 are permanent, but non-pensionable, and 15 temporary. It is hoped to make some reduction in the temporary staff of the Department concerned in the course of the coming financial year.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the fact that, before the War, instead of 30 there were only six King's Messengers, and that the whole of the cipher work was done by the ordinary staff of the Department?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, but the number of messages to be deciphered has vastly increased.

    POLAND (VILNA).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Polish Government has, or has not, accepted the supposed annexation of Vilna to Poland; and has His Majesty's Government expressed to the Governments of Poland and Lithuania their view as to the recent events in Vilna?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No decision has been reached by the Polish Government, who are reported to have resigned over this question. His Majesty's Government have repeatedly given counsels of moderation to both parties to the dispute.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have the Government given the Polish Government their views as to the desirability of Poland carrying out the award of the League of Nations?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is a question which it would require an afternoon to discuss.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is the question on the Paper. Have the Government supported the League of Nations in this matter?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think that that question arises.

    PASSPORTS AND VISAS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the visa on passports is abolished for citizens

    1245
    of Switzerland travelling to France, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Luxemburg, Lichenstein, Uruguay, the Dutch Colonies, the United States of America, and Denmark, and for the citizens of those countries travelling to Switzerland; whether any discussions, correspondence, or conversations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Swiss Government with a view to abolishing the passport-visa between the British Isles and Switzerland and vice versa; if so, with what result; and why British subjects are penalised by having to obtain visas for Switzerland when the subjects of so many other States are not so penalised.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I understand that arrangements for the mutual abolition of visas have been made between Switzerland and the countries mentioned in the first part of the question; but in several, if not in all, cases, persons seeking employment are excluded from the benefit of the agreement, and the agreement with the United States relates only to American citizens proceeding to Switzerland, and not to Swiss citizens proceeding to the United States. His Majesty's Government received and considered very carefully a proposal from the Swiss Government for the mutual abolition of visas for persons other than those seeking employment, but came to the conclusion that it was not desirable in present circumstances to relinquish the requirement of a Britisn visa for persons coming to the United Kingdom from Switzerland. The Swiss Government have been so informed. As regards the last paragraph of the question, His Majesty's Government is not aware why a Swiss visa is still required by British subjects who desire to enter Switzerland when it has been remitted in the case of American citizens, notwithstanding the fact that the United States Government maintain apparently the same course as ourselves in this matter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that this visa system is simply kept on by the Home Office, in spite of the fact that other great countries in Europe have seen fit to abolish it, and without encountering untoward results?
    Mr. SHORTT: We are taking the same course as the United State of America.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: In regard to the question dealing with persons seeking employment, is it the custom of the Foreign Office to give introductions as well as visas to those who are seeking to establish British trade abroad, and will they do that in the same manner as foreign Governments do?
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a little reactionary and behind the times?
    Mr. SHORTT: I do not think it is.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that any great disaster has happened to France, Spain, and other countries which have abolished visas to Switzerland?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am only concerned with this country.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Can the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs answer my question?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

  RUSSIA.

    RED ARMY (GERMAN EX-OFFICERS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an approximate number of the German ex-officers now serving in the Russian red army?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. The exact number is not known, but from the information available it is estimated that there are approximately 500 German ex-officers now serving with the Russian Red Army.
    Mr. L. MALONE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many French officers are serving with the Polish army?

    MRS. S. HARDING (IMPRISONMENT)
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, without additional delay, he will make public the text of the Government's two notes to Russia on the subject of

    1247
    Mrs. Stan Harding's imprisonment and thereby satisfy the public of this country that the gross outrage on a British journalist has not been allowed to pass without adequate protest on the part of His Majesty's Government; and will he further state what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to secure redress?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The papers are in print and will be laid almost immediately. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin on the 18th July last.

    SOVIET GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Prime Minister if it is the Government's intention to recognise the present Soviet Government of Russia with a view of opening up trade with other nations of the world, especially with Great Britain?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): A decision upon this question must depend upon the results of the Genoa Conference.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is His Majesty's Government's policy at Genoa in this matter, and shall we have an opportunity of discussing it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have nothing to add.

    ANTI-BRITISH PROPAGANDA.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Prime Minister in view of a projected early conference at Genoa and the contemplated attendance of representatives from all the most prominent world Powers, if he has received any reliable guarantees from the Soviet Government of Russia that they will put an end to the intrigues and plots against the British Empire, not only in the East of Europe, but in Asia and elsewhere; and if, in conjunction with France, they are taking steps to protect Poland and the smaller States bordering on Russia from the machinations and plottings of the said Soviet Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Isling-
    1248
    ton on 13th February. His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the independence of Poland and the other States bordering on Russia is being threatened by the Soviet Government.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Tchitcherin, the Soviet representative, has recently boasted of the great success of the anti-British propaganda in Persia, Afghanistan and other countries?

    EGYPT (ZAGHLOUL PASHA).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the conditions under which Zaghloul Pasha is confined in the Seychelles Islands; what is the state of his health; and whether he is being treated with the consideration due to his advanced years?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Governor of the Seychelles has been asked to bear in mind that the deportees are men of good standing; that Zaghloul Pasha is an elderly man who is not in good health, and that housing arrangements should ensure the comfort of the party.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ASSISTANCE" (LAUNDRY).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the amount of the loss incurred in running the laundry on His Majesty's Ship "Assistance" up to May, 1921; and whether, in view of the fact that the laundry was Government property and run by a private company, namely, the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, such loss will be borne by the Admiralty, or by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The loss incurred and borne by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes in running the laundry on board His Majesty's Ship "Assistance" up to May, 1921, was £1,233 13s. 9d. No part of this loss has been or will be borne by the Admiralty.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men who were transferred from southern yards to Rosyth Dockyard were promised permanent employment; and whether he can give assurance that the notices of discharge given to these men will be withdrawn?
    Mr. AMERY: The terms upon which workmen were transferred from southern dockyards to Rosyth provided that they should be placed on the established list after 12 months' satisfactory service at Rosyth, subject to the usual conditions as to eligibility. The great majority of these men have now been established, although for various reasons some have not availed themselves of the opportunity. In these latter cases the tenure of their employment at Rosyth is the same as that of hired workmen at any other dockyard.
    Mr. J. WALLACE: Has any decision been come to with regard to the transfer of some of these men to southern yards from the dockyard at Rosyth?
    Mr. AMERY: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that to me as a separate question.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men being discharged from the Rosyth Dockyard are being called upon to pay increased rents for their houses; whether the Admiralty own any houses in Rosyth; and, if so, whether these increases in rent have been approved by his Department?
    Mr. AMERY: The men now being discharged from Rosyth Dockyard who have had notice to quit their houses are not being called upon to pay any increased rent. A few men in the past who left the dockyard had their rents increased by the Scottish National Housing Company, Limited, in according with the practice adopted by the company towards tenants not in Admiralty employ. The Admiralty are the owners of the temporary dwellings at Rosyth, comprising the East and West Bungalow Cities, and have made no increases in the rents of men now being discharged. Instructions were given by the Admiralty in May last in respect of their
    1250
    houses occupied by discharged workmen tenants, that the service of notice of increase in rent was to be suspended until the men were in employment.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why ex-service men are being discharged at Rosyth; whether the terms of the Lytton Report have been carried out; whether the ex-service men are receiving a month's warning and a month's notice; and, if not, why ex-service men at Rosyth are receiving less notice than that given to other ex-service men and non-service men and women in all other Departments?
    Mr. AMERY: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to reductions in the clerical staff. No specific orders have been given recently as regards reductions, but such reductions would follow normally on reduction of work due to discharge of workmen. The local officers are instructed to effect discharges of clerical staff in accordance with the principles laid down in the Lytton Report. Clerical staffs employed in industrial establishments receive a fortnight's warning and notice of discharge.

    ELECTRICIANS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that there are very few Home appointments for electricians at Devonport and Chatham and can he see his way to remedy the deficiency; whether he is aware that the number of appointments for warrant electricians authorised by Mobilisation Form 1 is 52, whereas the number of officers of the electrical branch allowed by Order in Council is only 30; and can he, see his way to do anything in the matter;
    (2) whether he is aware that 51 men are now awaiting promotion in the electrical branch, and in some cases since 1917; that, owing to no promotions being made, these men are losing the advantage of time in warrant rank, which counts for a great deal when calculating time served for pension; that there is also the possibility of these men reaching the age limit and thereby becoming ineligible for promotion, and that this condition of things does not appear to happen in other branches where promotions are still

    1251
    taking place; and can he see his way to make a promotion for every retirement to fill the vacancy either immediately or periodically?
    Mr. AMERY: I regret I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend on the 6th instant.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the three questions I asked on Monday had nothing whatever to do with these two questions to-day, and will he kindly give his mind to these two questions which are on the Paper?
    Mr. AMERY: They seem to me to be identical.

    PILOTAGE MONEY (MINE-SWEEPERS).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that application was made to the Admiralty by the Grimsby Branch of the British Legion of Exservice Men for pilotage money on behalf of 40 skippers of mine-sweepers, and that payment has been made in only 11 cases; and whether he can state on what grounds payment has been delayed in the other cases, though the application was made at the Admiralty's request six months ago?
    Mr. AMERY: Of the 36 claims which can be traced as having been received from the Grimsby Branch of the British Legion of Ex-service Men, formerly the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers, 34 have been paid. I may point out that some of these claims were duplicates of claims previously received, and of the others only a proportion bore authority for payment to the organisation. Such claimants were accordingly paid either individually or on previous applications through other unions. If the British Legion are of opinion that any claims have miscarried or have been overlooked, investigation will be made if their secretary will forward particulars to the Admiralty.

    WELFARE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the 1922 Welfare Committee will be called; what will be the agenda; and whether the agenda has yet been circulated to all the ratings of His Majesty's Fleet?
    Mr. AMERY: The Welfare machinery will be revived this year, and it is proposed to announce the date shortly. The procedure is fully described in Admiralty Fleet Order No. 3604 of the 4th November, 1921, a copy of which I am sending the hon. Member. The matters for discussion are not laid down by the Admiralty.

    ARTIFICER APPRENTICES.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now state whether the new scheme for training officers for engineering and electrical duties has yet been worked out; and whether any, and how many, engineroom artificer apprentices from the "Indus" and "Fisgard" have been sent to Keyham engineering college?
    Mr. AMERY: The details of the scheme have not yet been approved, and no artificer apprentices, therefore, have so far been sent to Keyham, but when the scheme comes into operation, probably in September next, it is the intention that a few artificer apprentices who show sufficient promise (not exceeding one or two a year) should be chosen to undergo the course of training under the same conditions as the other officers.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether T. E. Davis, artificer apprentice, training establishment, has been discharged; whether he can say how long he has been an artificer apprentice; what were the reasons for his discharge; and whether such reasons were communicated to him in any way?
    Mr. AMERY: As the answer to this question is a rather long one, consisting of personal details, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer:
    It is assumed that the inquiry relates to Frederick E. Davis. An artificer apprentice of this name was entered in August, 1918, and discharged after three and a half years' training. During his period of training Davis was warned on three separate occasions: In December, 1919, for failure to attain the required standard in school subjects; in June, 1920 (when he was also put back for six months), for failure to attain

    1253
    the required standard in both school and workmanship; and in June, 1921, for failure to attain the required standard in technical subjects and workmanship. In December, 1921, Davis again failed to obtain the required standard in workmanship, and was accordingly discharged. His service certificate was endorsed, "Discharged as unsuitable," and, having regard to the repeated warnings given him, the precise reasons must have been well understood.

    FLEET FUELLING SERVICE.
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that an Admiralty weekly order was recently issued stating that vacancies for supervisors of machinery in the Fleet Fuelling Service would shortly arise, that those selected must be pensioner engine-room artificers, and would be borne in the general service party, and rated and paid as first-class engineers, he will say whether such positions have previously been filled by engine-room artificers; whether such an appointment has been filled at the Nore; whether the person appointed has passed an examination as a first-class engineer; and whether the said appointment was filled before the order was issued, and on whose authority?
    Mr. AMERY: The position of Supervisor of Machinery in the Fleet Fuelling Service has previously been filled by pensioner engine-room artificers, and such an appointment has been recently filled at Sheerness. The person appointed was rated first-class engineer in the Fleet Fuelling Service in 1904, under the regulations then existing, but prior to present regulations, which were not issued until 1915, and were to the effect that all future candidates would be required to pass an examination. The man in question satisfied the local engineering authorities as to his fitness for the position in the same manner as the engineers of all other yard craft. The appointment was not filled before the letter announcing the vacancy and calling for volunteers was issued.

    GARRISON CHURCHES (MARRIAGE LICENCES).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
    1254
    whether the churches situated in the Royal Naval Barracks at Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham are licensed for the solemnisation of holy matrimony; and, if not, whether any objection is seen to a licence being granted, observing that such a course is considered desirable by many men of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, there are only a limited number of churches which are licensed for marriages, and these churches are usually parish churches. There are considerable technical difficulties in licensing churches which are not parish churches.

    ABANDONED CAPITAL SHIPS (PAYMENTS).
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what sums have been paid, or are due, for the building of capital ships which were abandoned in consequence of the Washington decisions?
    Mr. AMERY: Certain sums by way of payment for work done and of advances, amounting in all to £533,279 17s. 3d., have been paid to contractors. The total payment which will ultimately be determined upon after taking those sums into account is the subject of negotiations which are now proceeding. I might add, however, that all but about £25,000 of the sum mentioned is in connection with gun mountings, of which a reduced number of the same type will be required in any case for the two new ships to be built in substitution.
    Captain BENN: Shall we know before the end of this financial year what it cost us to go on with these ships before we heard the Washington decision?
    Mr. AMERY: I am not quite sure.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ADMIRALTY (OVERTIME).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the reason for issuing Admiralty Order A.G. 17, offering a very considerable amount of overtime work, when over 300 ex-service men, including disabled men, are being dismissed from the Ministry?
    Mr. AMERY: The work in question is not permanent, but only of a periodically recurrent nature connected with the quarterly payment of pensions to seamen and marines. As the necessary additional accommodation and supervision cannot be provided during the normal working day, it is economical for this recurrent work to be carried out at piece-work rates of pay after office hours. I might add that the number of ex-service men under notice is 145.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not the fact that, although the work is quarterly, the notice itself states that there will be at least 70 to 80 hours' overtime per person? That must necessarily be spread over a long period.
    Mr. AMERY: I agree that it will be spread over several weeks in each quarter, but it is not continuous work.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for Air how many temporary officials there are in his Department above grade 1 clerk who were previously employed in other Departments from which their services were dispensed with on account of age, ill-health, or other causes; whether any of them are in receipt of pensions; and why these officials are retained whilst ex-service men are being discharged?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): A similar question was put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for North Cumberland on the 21st February, but, as then stated, I am unable to identify the cases referred to without fuller particulars, and these have not yet been given.

    TRADE BOARDS INQUIRY.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour the date upon which Lord Cave's Committee is expected to issue its Report on the Trade Board system; and the reasons why Trade Board rates of wages and conditions have recently been confirmed, whilst he has declined to confirm other Trade Board rates decided upon by the parties concerned under exactly similar conditions?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. M acnamara): I am unable to say
    1256
    definitely when the Committee will be in a position to present their Report. I hope, however, to receive it at an early date. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon Friend to my reply of 22nd February to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Alfred Davies), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he is likely to confirm the Trade Board rates for the grocery and provision trade?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer to which I have referred him, he will see that I took the view that in the distributive trades, where the problem is not quite so simple, we are really breaking new ground, and I thought it most expedient in that case, without prejudice, to wait for the Cave Report.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state what further provision, by means of legislation or otherwise, the Government proposes to make for the unemployed whose total period of benefit, including the extension of six weeks contemplated by the Act of 1921, will become exhausted from 5th April onwards?
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the unemployment benefit of large numbers of persons will expire within the next few weeks, he can now inform the House of what measures he proposes to take to deal with the situation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The situation which will arise when the present extension of benefit begins to be exhausted for those who have drawn it without intermission has, of course, received my most careful and anxious consideration, and is now under consideration of the Government. The volume of unemployment, though steadily and slowly declining, still remains very great, and I am afraid I see no immediate break on a wide front. Legislation will be necessary to make any provision beyond that

    1257
    sanctioned by the House last July. My hon. Friends will, therefore, have full opportunity for examining whatever proposals we may feel it necessary to make in this direction.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, just because legislation will be necessary, time is so short, and cannot he expedite the decision to which he is coming on this matter in view of the grave foreboding in many trades?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly there will be no loss of time.
    Mr. MALONE: Is there any truth in the statement which has been circulated that the right hon. Gentleman is going to reduce unemployment benefit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member must wait until he sees the proposal. It will be submitted to this House, and no doubt, with other hon. Members, he will have a full opportunity of discussing it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that he is advocating a reduction in these benefits?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can only repeat what I have just said.
    Mr. DEVLIN: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement on this matter, which is very urgent?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The 5th April is the first date on which those who have drawn the extension without intermission will be out of benefit. Of course, we must make a statement before that date, and as early as possible before it.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Labour how the percentage of unemployment in this country compares with that in Holland and Switzerland respectively?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: At the end of January 16·8 per cent. of trade unionists in this country were returned as unemployed. The most recent percentage published for Holland as a whole relates to last October, and affords no index to the present position. In Amsterdam at
    1258
    the end of January some 24 per cent. of members of trade unions affiliated to the unemployment insurance fund in that city were reported to be out of work. In Switzerland it is not the practice to compute unemployment percentages, but in the very important watchmaking industry those registered as wholly out of work at the end of January represent about 41 per cent., there being in addition a considerable number working short time.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Minister of, Health if he can give the number of schemes promoted by local authorities to find work for the unemployed; what sums of money have been sanctioned and expended by such schemes; how many people have been provided with work under them; how many schemes have been abandoned; what is the approximate benefit to the community; and what has been the rate of wages and hours adopted by such varying authorities?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Over 5,000 schemes have been submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee, and of these, 3,557 schemes, representing a total cost of over £25,000,000, have been approved. Of the schemes submitted, 167 were abandoned by the local authorities. It is estimated that the work directly provided by the approved schemes equals about 1,000,000 men-months. It would not be possible, without very great labour, to ascertain exactly how much money has been expended up to date or the rates of wages paid and hours worked, which, of course, differ according to the locality. As my hon. Friend will observe, the schemes materially case the unemployment situation, especially when account is taken of the large amount of indirect labour to which they give employment, and, moreover, the labour is employed on works of public necessity and utility.

    MILLFIELD ROPEWORKS, LEVEN.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the firm of James Robertson, Limited, Millfield Ropeworks, Leven, Fife, was recently found to be paying workers at rates lower than the Net, Rope, and Twine Trade Board general minimum time rates; if the firm

    1259
    in question has refused to pay Trade Board time rates; and what steps are to be taken to enforce the Regulations?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The report of an inspector who visited the Millfield Rope-works indicates that the position is as stated in the first part of the question. I cannot confirm the suggestion contained in the second part of the question, but I am taking steps to ensure that the firm shall comply with the requirements of the Trade Boards Acts.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTONGRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether he will present a Return showing the proportion of ex-service men to others given employment in the Civil Service since the cessation of hostilities; and whether he can give any indication of the numbers of the former who may expect dismissal in view of the anticipated reduction of staff?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I regret that information is not available in this precise form, but as regards permanent employment, between 1st January, 1919, and 1st January, 1922, certificates of qualification were issued by the Civil Service Commissioners in favour of 30,051 ex-service men. Similar information is not available as regards non-service men, but the number of such persons who were not already in quasipermanent employment, in respect of whom certificates of qualification have been issued, is relatively small. As regards temporary employment, the number of ex-service men so employed has increased from 24,271 in July, 1919, to 49,550 in February, 1922, an increase of more than 100 per cent., whilst the number of non-service men has, in the same period, been reduced from 34,163 to 5,433. I cannot give any useful estimate as regards the last part of the question.

    INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORY, TWICKENHAM.
    Captain GEEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 12 non-ex-service men are employed in the Government instructional factory for
    1260
    disabled men at Twickenham; and, if so, will he state the reasons for their employment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that 12 non-ex-service men are employed at the Government instructional factory at Twickenham. One of them will shortly be replaced by an ex-service man. The remainder are retained because they are skilled and experienced instructors, and it has not been possible up to the present to find ex-service men with the necessary qualifications to replace them.
    Captain LOSEBY: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to establish substitution committees in accordance with the Lytton recommendation throughout every Department of his Ministry?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The work of substitution under the Lytton recommendation is very thoroughly carried out in the Ministry of Labour. The only point at issue is whether we shall set up the Q branch. That, I think, has been set up some time.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (TRAINING DEPARTMENT).
    Captain GEEasked the Minister of Labour how many non-ex-service men and women are employed at the headquarters of the Training Department of the Ministry of Labour; and, seeing that the continued employment of these men and women is causing great dissatisfaction amongst the trainees, will he state the reason why the retention of these men and women is considered necessary?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Out of a staff of 85 men employed at the headquarters of the training department, seven temporary non-ex-service men have been retained because they possess exceptional qualifications and experience which are necessary in the interests of the trainees under the industrial training scheme. Qualified ex-service substitutes are not available. These cases are reviewed by me personally at frequent intervals. There are no women (except typists) on the headquarters staff employed on the industrial training scheme. But there are 17 non-ex-service women employed exclusively on the training of War widows' and disabled nurses and on the homecraft training schemes of the Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that there is at least one woman employed in the Establishment Officer's Department and three in the Controller's Department who are graded as typists in order that they may be retained but who are employed entirely on clerical duties, and he is aware that while ex-service men in no way object to the employment of hardship cases or of women being retained for purely women's work, cases of the nature referred to cause very serious dissatisfaction amongst the ex-service men.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not sometimes in the interest of the ex-servicemen to keep women who are thoroughly qualified for the job?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I make myself personally responsible for frequent periodical reviews of these cases and ex-service men get every preference. I will look into the cases the hon. Member has put, but I can assure him that every care is taken. As a matter of fact I have the figure before me of the total male temporary staff of which at present 98·95 per cent. are ex-service men.

    AIR MINISTRY.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for Air whether efficient ex-service men are being discharged from the Air Ministry to make room for clerical officers who qualified at the recent examination; whether cases have occurred in which it has been found impossible to obtain a sufficiently qualified clerical officer to fill the vacant post; whether the procedure in the case of substituting non-service personnel has always been to obtain a suitable substitute before dismissing the non-service man; why this preferential treatment has been extended to non-service men; and why ex-service men liable for substitution are not similarly retained until a suitable substitute is actually obtained?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first part of the question is that the permanent clerical officers now being appointed to the Air Ministry are in the main the product of the examination held as a result of the Lytton Committee's recommendations, and are most of them ex-service men; and certain temporary ex-service men who were not successful in the examination or who did not enter for the examination have been discharged from the Air Ministry. The answers to
    1262
    the second and third parts are in the negative and the fourth and fifth parts do not, therefore, arise.
    Captain GEEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that two separate investigation committees were set up under Clauses 36 to 39 of the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee, the first committee to investigate the claims of candidates unsuccessful in the recent examination for clerical officers as to exceptional circumstances which militated against the probability of their passing or qualifying in the examination, and the second committee to investigate the claims on the grounds of special competency; if he will state by whom the terms of reference of the first committee were drawn up; the terms of reference; whether they placed any limit on the considerations that were to be regarded by the committee as exceptional circumstances; whether the member who represented ex-service men in the body which prepared the terms of reference was selected from an association catering for other interests besides those of ex-service men; what was the constitution of the first investigation committee; did the chairman of the ex-service men's association send a written protest against the constitution of the committee and the limitations imposed; what was the constitution of the committee dealing with special competency; was there an ex-service representative on this committee; if not, why such an appointment was not made; whether several candidates, recommended as specially competent by their chiefs, were rejected by this committee, and the chiefs concerned have protested in writing that their evidence before the committee was misrepresented; and, in view of this injustice, if he will state why no steps have been taken to review all the applications by candidates for retention under Clauses 36 to 39 of the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee?
    Captain GUEST: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the identical question put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Islington yesterday.

    AIR SERVICE, IRAQ.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for Air whether applications are being invited for certain

    1263
    posts in Iraq; and, if so, will he undertake that these shall be filled entirely by ex-service men?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative; to the second, that suitable ex-service applicants will be given preferential consideration.

    BREWING TRADE (WAGES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour the wages paid to workmen by good employers in the brewing trade in March of 1919, 1920 and 1921, respectively; and the wages paid to similar classes of workmen during the present month?

    The following Table gives particulars of the rates of wages agreed upon by the Employers Associations and the Trade Unions concerned for some of the principal classes of workpeople employed in the brewing industry in various districts.

    Locality.

    Class of Worker.

    March, 1919.

    March, 1920.

    March, 1921.

    March, 1922.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    London

    Inside Workers—

    Men 21 years and over

    —*

    70

    0†

    76

    0

    70

    0

    Women 18 years and over

    —*

    38

    0†

    41

    0

    38

    0

    Horse Draymen

    —*

    77

    0†

    83

    0

    77

    0

    Mechanical Drivers

    —*

    80

    0†

    86

    0

    80

    0

    Burton-on-Trent

    Inside Labourers

    54

    0

    55

    6

    70

    0

    61

    0

    Girls in bottling stores—

    18 years of age

    —*

    26

    0

    31

    6

    28

    6

    21 years of age

    —*

    33

    0

    41

    0

    36

    6

    Carters and Drivers—

    1 Horse

    54

    0

    56

    6

    70

    0

    61

    0

    2 Horse

    56

    0

    58

    6

    72

    0

    63

    0

    Motor Lorry Drivers

    —*

    —*

    80

    0

    71

    0

    Liverpool

    Men, 21 years and over (except bottling department).

    —*

    66

    0

    74

    0

    66

    0

    Sheffield

    Inside men

    58s. and 59s.

    63s. and 64s.

    71

    0

    64

    0

    Carters and Lorrymen

    61

    0

    66

    0

    73

    0

    66

    0

    Women in bottling department

    32

    0

    35

    0

    38

    0

    35

    0

    Bristol and West of England.

    Inside Workers—

    Men 21 years and over

    —*

    —*

    67

    0

    62

    0

    Women 18 years of age

    —*

    —*

    31

    6

    30

    0

    Women 21 years of age

    —*

    —*

    40

    0

    37

    0

    * Information not available.

    † The figures relate to April, 1920, information for March not being available.

    Note.—The rates given are the minimum rates agreed upon by the Employers' Associations and the Trade Unions. In some cases, higher rates may actually be paid to a proportion of the workpeople. For example, at Burton-on-Trent, inside men on shift work are paid 8d. a shift (at March, 1922) above the rate shown for inside labourers. No information is available, however, as to the proportions of workpeople paid at rates above the minima shown.

  ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING TRADES (DISPUTES).
  Mr. MALONEasked the Minister of Labour, seeing that a national lock-out
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As the reply to this question involves a statistical Table, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has there been a reduction in the wages paid to these workmen, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman represent that to the President of the Board of Trade?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a very considerable Table, and I could not summarise it off-hand.
  Mr. LYLE: Is it not satisfactory to know that there are some good brewers?
  The following is the Table promised:
  of both engineering and shipbuilding workers is threatened within the next fortnight, that in the case of the shipyards the men's representatives asked that the whole question at issue should

  1265
  be submitted to a court of inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, that on the other side the employers declared that they would brook no interference by a third party with their manner of conducting their business, and that the shipyard unions have asked him to use his powers under the Industrial Courts Act so as to institute a compulsory inquiry, if he will, in view of the disastrous consequences of a national lock-out, exert his influence to bring about a saitsfactory settlement in both industries?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In both the engineering and shipbuilding disputes I have been able to secure a resumption of negotiations between the parties, and I shall continue to use my influence towards a settlement of the disputes by this means.

  HOUSING.

    EMPTY HOUSES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to extend to other local authorities the powers already possessed by the Corporation of London for levying rates on empty houses?
    Sir A. MOND: I am looking into this question, which is one of great difficulty, but I am not at present prepared to make any statement in regard to it.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Baronet say how soon he will come to a decision?
    Sir A. MOND: No.
    Mr. G. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received a resolution passed by the Abercarn Urban District Council that, in view of the house shortage in the country at the present time and having regard to the practice of certain property owners of declining to let vacant premises with a view to selling such premises with vacant possession at an enhanced price, if he will take steps, by legislation if necessary, to compel such owners to let their premises within reasonable time of their becoming vacant?
    Sir A. MOND: I have not received the resolution referred to. With regard to
    1266
    the suggestion for legislation, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on the 9th and 15th February to the hon. Members for the Heywood and Radcliffe and for the Dartford Divisions on the same point.

    SUBSIDY FOR NEW HOUSES.
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Health if he has received a resolution from the Abercarn Urban District Council urging that the Government should extend until 1924 the period during which the housing subsidy for new houses will be given to local authorities; and, in view of the pressing need for more houses, will he take steps to give effect to the resolution?
    Sir A. MOND: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the subject on Wednesday last.

    CONTRACT PRICES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the lowest prices he has recently accepted for contracts for three bedroom and two-bedroom houses built under the Government's housing schemes?
    Sir A. MOND: The lowest tender prices for two and three-bedroom houses have been £433 for the former in December and £425 for the latter in February.
    Mr. THOMSON: In view of these very low prices, will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving sanction to the local authorities to build more houses?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    SOUTHWARK SCHEME.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Health whether since November, 1919, he has received any housing schemes from the Southwark Borough Council; if so, how many, and if consent was refused by his Department and the reasons; will he state the total number of houses in the schemes submitted; and how many families they would have accommodated?
    Sir A. MOND: Apart from a proposal for reconstruction of a small area represented under Part II of the Housing Act, I have received only one housing scheme. This was for the erection of lock-up shops

    1267
    with 10 dwellings over them. Consent to this scheme was refused as the estimates showed that it would be excessively costly, the land being valued at over £13,000 an acre. It was also doubtful whether the erection of the proposed shops was within the statutory powers of the council.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Health whether he can state approximately the number of persons, males and females separately, suffering from various forms of consumption in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively; and, if not, whether he will take steps to secure this information from local authorities, and/or any other sources, and publish the same as soon as may be convenient?
    Sir A. MOND: The information desired by the hon. Member is not, I fear, available and I am reluctant to ask the local authorities to undertake, at the present time, such full inquiry as would be necessary. The hon. Member will, however, find on pages 13–14 of the latest Annual Report of the Ministry (Cmd. 1446), of which I am sending him a copy, certain returns as to notifications and mortality of this disease.
    Mr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Baronet not aware that the information asked for could be taken from the reports of the medical officers of the local authorities?
    Sir A. MOND: It would involve a great deal of work.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SALARIES AND BONUSES).
    Major Sir K. FRASERasked the Minister of Health whether, although the salaries or bonuses of various classes of local government officers were increased from time to time at the request of the Ministry of Health to meet the increases in the cost of living, no provision has yet been made by the Ministry for securing a reduction to follow the fall in the cost of living; whether he will state if rural district councils and other local governing bodies have no power to reduce salaries or bonuses except by consent of the officials themselves; and whether the Ministry have issued any circular or instruction to this effect?
    Sir A. MOND: My hon. and gallant Friend has been misinformed. I am sending him a copy of a circular which I issued to local authorities in August last drawing attention to the reduction in the Civil Service scale of war bonuses, and I am about to issue a fresh circular with regard to the further reduction which will take place as from the 1st of March. No sanction has been or will be given by me to the payment of war bonuses in excess of the Civil Service scale. The consent of the officials is not required to a reduction of salaries or bonuses unless the local authority have bound themselves by a contract.

    BOARD OF HEALTH INSPECTORS (WALES).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Health whether applications are being invited for the post of inspectors under the Welsh Board of Health; whether ability to speak Welsh is essential; and whether, seeing that some difficulty has previously been experienced in filling such posts, he will extend the age limits beyond those advertised in the case of ex-service men in all other respects considered suitable?
    Sir A. MOND: Applications have been invited for a few posts of assistant inspectors on the outdoor staff of the Welsh Board of Health, and on account of the nature of the work of these officers, candidates must satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners of their ability to speak the Welsh language. There would appear to be no necessity to extend the age limits beyond those advertised, as sufficient applications are available to fill all the vacancies. In this connection I would remind the hon. Member that ex-service men who are otherwise eligible and who have served in the Navy, Army or Air Force between 4th August, 1914, and 11th November, 1918, may deduct from their actual age any period of service between 4th August, 1914, and 31st December, 1919.

    LEPROSY.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Minister of Health whether, considering that the cases of leprosy in this country are reported to have been contracted abroad, and that there is no definite information

    1269
    as to the number of these cases, he will consider the question of making the disease notifiable?
    Sir A. MOND: This question has been carefully considered from time to time, but I am not at present satisfied that there is sufficient justification for making this disease notifiable.
    Sir C. YATE: Did not the last International Conference recommend that the notification of these cases should be made obligatory?
    Sir A. MOND: I should like notice of that question.

    ANGLO-FRENCH PACT.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that there will be an opportunity to discuss the proposed Franco-British Pact before the Conference takes place at Genoa, at which Conference commitments may be made which shall deprive this country of their freedom of choice and even of debate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The Pact is not one of the subjects to come under discussion at the Genoa Conference, and I am not prepared to go beyond the explicit assurances already given by the Prime Minister in reply to previous questions on this subject.

    PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for proportional representation or alternative vote at Parliamentary elections?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government have not discussed these questions or taken any decision upon them.
    Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Do not the Government recognise the necessity of some electoral reform?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.
    Captain W. BENN: Is it a fact that the Minister of Health has been asked by the Government to investigate this subject for them?
    Ms. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, he has not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What other way is there for the Conservatives in this country to show their feelings?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As at Wolverhampton.

    GENOA CONFERENCE.
    Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of inviting representatives of the Greeks and Turks to the Conference at Genoa in the interests of peace?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Greek Government, in common with the other European Governments, has already been invited. I see no reason for altering the decision of the inter-Allied Conference at Cannes not to invite the Turkish Government.

  IRELAND.

    BOUNDARIES (CORRESPONDENCE).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the circulation of a précis of the correspondence and discussions which took place between the Cabinet and the representatives of Ulster and Southern Ireland last year, so far as they bear upon the proposals for the alteration of the boundaries of Ulster, so that the House may, in connection with their consideration of the Bill to confirm the Articles of Agreement for the setting up of the Free State, know to what extent the Cabinet have withdrawn from the pledges given as to the territorial integrity of Ulster at the time of the passing of the Irish Government Act, which was accepted by Ulster on the faith of those pledges?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I know of no correspondence with the representatives of either party in Ireland on this subject; nor are there any papers which could be published.

    PRISONERS (RELEASE).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the men convicted at Manchester last year of shooting, arson, and other offences and sentenced to penal servitude have now been liberated?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made on this subject in the course of my reply to a private notice question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim on the 13th February last?
    Sir C. YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what that was?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot.

    CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.
    Mr. WILLIAM SHAWasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give an assurance that no undertaking of any kind has been given by the Government to the Irish Free State signatories to the Treaty that the embargo on Canadian cattle will be maintained?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. No such undertaking has been given.

    MURDERS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the alleged murderers of Captain Brown, who were arrested by the Provisional Government, have been brought to trial, and with what result?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The two men who were arrested by officers of the Provisional Government and are now in custody in connection with this murder have not yet been brought to trial.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Charles Herbert Burns, who was shot dead by the Irish Republican Army at Milford, County Donegal; whether he is aware that the murder of this ex-soldier has been justified on the part of the Irish Republican Army on the ground that it was by lawful authority; if he can say whether any representations have been made to the Provisional Government; and whether any arrests have been made by their authority in connection with this matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My inquiries into this case are not yet complete, and I should be glad if the hon. and gallant Member would some day next week repeat his question, of which he only gave notice yesterday.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the murder of Sergeant Cotter, who was murdered in broad daylight in Dublin, on Thursday last; whether any representations have been made to the Provisional Government with reference to this murder; and whether any arrests have been made as a result?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, no representations in the matter were necessary, inasmuch as the officers of the Provisional Government have given every assistance to the police in endeavouring to trace and capture the assassins. I regret, however, that no arrests have yet been effected.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS).
    Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is responsible for the payment of the pensions of the disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether the terms of settlement have been arrived at; and, if so, when they will be communicated to the men concerned, many of whom are out of employment?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): I assume that the hon. and gallant Member's question refers to those members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were recruited in Great Britain during the last two years, as these are the only members of the regular force who have as yet been disbanded. The Royal Irish Constabulary Office is responsible for the payment of pensions to these men, and a substantial payment in advance has already been made. The terms of disbandment in these cases—namely, the terms laid down in the Ninth Schedule to the Government of Ireland Act, 1920—were settled some time ago, and were communicated to the men on disbandment.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lot of these men have not been paid pensions which are due to them? Will he see that they are paid at once the pensions which are due to them?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware that any men have not been paid the pensions which are due to them, but I will make inquiry on the point.

    Ex-SOLDIERS, CRAIGAVON HOSPITAL.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in consequence of ejectment notices of a threatening character being served upon 50 Catholic ex-soldiers suffering from shell shock in Craigavon Hospital, these men have been forced to leave the hospital; and what arrangements have been made to continue medical treatment for these ex-service men?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I have been asked to reply. There were 26, not 50, Catholic patients in Craigavon, of whom 20 have now been discharged at their own request. The Government of Northern Ireland have taken complete steps to secure the safety of all patients at Craigavon, and it is hoped that the men in question will now be willing to return. Having regard, however, to the nature of their disability, a very sympathetic view has been taken of their position, and, for the moment, temporary arrangements have been made for continuing their treatment elsewhere under the personal supervision of a neurologist attached to my Department.
    Mr. DEVLIN: What is the character of the provision made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say anything more than what is given in the answer. I have to communicate by telegram. I understand that a- distinguished neurologist is looking after them.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to protect shell-shocked ex-soldiers who have been intimidated because of their religion and who admittedly according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) have been compelled to leave hospital in which they were receiving treatment and to receive treatment elsewhere.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the facts be as stated by my hon. Friend, I am certain that that will not be the last word on the matter, but I cannot believe for a moment that they are as stated. I will enter into communication with the other authorities.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Does anyone question the facts? Is it a fact that these men appeared before a Board, and admittedly
    1274
    they were right when the authorities were compelled to take steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his question on the Paper.

    HOUSING, BELFAST.
    Mr. McCONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the intentions of the Government regarding the building of 170 houses, already promised under the Discharged Sailors and Soldiers (Ireland) Act, in and around the city of Belfast, promised by the Irish Government; and, if not, what does the Government intend to do with the land f already taken for the purpose of building these houses?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This question appeared on the Paper for the first time in yesterday's Votes, and I am not yet in a position to reply to it. I must ask the hon. Member to give longer notice. I might say that generally with regard to questions as to which I have to communicate with Ireland.
    Mr. MOLES: Has not this question been hanging over for at least six months, and have there not been seven or eight questions put in reference to it?
    Captain C. CRAIG: Has it not been for years the invariable custom to put down questions the day but one before they are answered, and is it not the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland never refused to answer a question on the ground of shortness of notice?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not refused through any special malevolence on my part, but simply because I have not been able to get the information. The Chief Secretary's Department was a Department of the British Government, but I have now to address another Government with other Departments on all these matters.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Gentleman who put the question is himself a Member of the Ulster Parliament—one of the chief pillars of that institution—and yet comes here and takes up our time?
    Mr. McCONNELL: That is not true.

    MILITARY STORES, BIRR.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House for what reason the sale of furniture and other stores at the military barracks at Birr, King's County, was suddenly stopped by order of the Government in the middle of the second day's sale, when good prices were being realised; and what is proposed to be done with the property in these barracks which is still unsold?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I have explained in answer to previous questions, it has been arranged that surplus military stores required by the Provisional Government should be handed over to that Government subject to a valuation. In the case referred to by the hon. Member, the Provisional Government notified the Disposal Commission that they desired to exercise their option under this arrangement, and the Disposal Commission thereupon gave orders for the suspension of the sale The unsold property has been handed over to the Provisional Government in accordance with the arrangement already referred to.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very good prices have always been obtained and were being obtained at this sale which was suddenly stopped in the middle by order of the Government? Will he see that the goods which are taken over are handed over on the same terms as were being obtained at the sale?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say what the actual process of the valuation will be, but I certainly think that the facts stated by my hon. Friend should be placed on record.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (LOCAL ASSESSMENTS).
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the speech of the Chairman at the ordinary general meeting of the London and North Western Railway Company held on 24th February; whether he will state what authority is possessed by the National Conference of Assessment Committees to enter into any arrangement for the reduction of the assessments of railway companies; and whether he can give the House an assur-
    1276
    ance that no special relief of this kind will be given at the expense of rural and other ratepayers through private Acts or otherwise, pending legislation to deal with the subject as a whole?
    Sir A. MOND: I have seen a report of the speech referred to. The authority for the arrangement is to be found in the powers possessed by Assessment Committees of settling the assessment of rateable hereditaments. The arrangement is, in my opinion, a reasonable and economical one, and there is no ground for the suggestion that it involves a special concession to the railway companies.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the effect may not probably be an increase in the local rates?
    Sir A. MOND: Even so, I think the arrangement is a reasonable one.

    DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health in what way were the Returns of death from starvation which had been made for very many years before 1919 unsatisfactory; whether they could be made satisfactory; whether, in fact, the Local Government Board up to 1919 did, on receipt of information from the coroner of a death from starvation or accelerated by privation, call upon the guardians for information; whether, during the three years 1919–21, the usual communications have been addressed to the coroners; if not, what steps, if any, the Department has taken to see whether such deaths during 1919–21 might have been prevented by more effective Poor Law administration or how future deaths of a like character might hereafter be prevented or reduced in number; and whether the Registrar-General makes any inquiry of the guardians as to the starvation deaths which he records, or whether it is any part of his duty to prevent deaths from starvation?
    Sir A. MOND: The selection of cases for inclusion in the old Returns depended upon the terms of the verdict of the coroners' juries and on the classification of those verdicts by the several coroners. No uniform or scientific principle was

    1277
    followed; the Return was, in consequence, both useless and misleading. For these reasons, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a revival of the Return, even in an improved form. I should explain that the general inspectors of the Department are instructed to take immediate steps to investigate any suggestions, made at an inquest or otherwise, that a death has been due to some fault on the part of the Poor Law administration. This practice, which was instituted before 1919, is still in operation, and for the purpose which I assume the hon. Member has in mind is far more effective than any steps which could be taken on an annual Return. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    ROADS, WHITEFIELD, MANCHESTER.
    Mr. HALLSasked the Minister of Health whether he received a petition signed by a very large number of the residents in the Whitefield district, near Manchester, including the medical officer of health and several other doctors, complaining of the condition of several roads, and if the same was handed over to the Minister of Transport, who now declines to deal with them; and, in view of the statement by the signatories that these roads are not only impassable at times, but are a menace to the health of the people, especially little children going to school, will he now take steps to see that they are attended to at once?
    Sir A. MOND: I received the petition and forwarded it to the Ministry of Transport, who have had the matter investigated. The roads in question are not highways repairable by the inhabitants at large, but I am sending a copy of the hon. Member's question to the district council for their observations.

    WORKMEN'S WAGES, HILTON, ABERDEEN.
    Mr. ROSEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been directed to the wages now being paid by private contractors to workmen engaged in laying out new playing fields at Hilton, Aberdeen, viz., 10¼d. per hour, or 75 per cent. of the standard rate; whether such payment is an infraction of Clause (3) of
    1278
    Circular 1,776; and, if so, will he instruct that the contractors in question should be called upon to conform to the terms of the said circular?
    Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the two remaining parts, the circular referred to does not lay down any requirements as to the rate of wages in the case of schemes carried out by ordinary contract.

    DIRECT LABOUR, ISLINGTON.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health how many works were carried out by the Islington Metropolitan Borough Council by direct labour during the two years- ending 31st December, 1921; what was the total cost of such works and what was the total of the original estimate prepared by the Council's officers; whether the Borough Council proposes to construct its new Town Hall by direct labour, notwithstanding that two lower tenders were sent in by outside contractors; if he can give the amounts of those tenders and of the estimate of the Council's officers by which the work is to be done; and whether, in view of the burden which this policy imposes on the ratepayers, he will consider as to making representations to the Borough Council on the matter?
    Sir A. MOND: I have not the information which would enable me to reply to the first two parts of the question. I understand that the Borough Council propose to construct their new Town Hall by direct labour at an estimated cost of £61,000, and that the two lowest tenders received were for £59,936 and £60,577 respectively. I have no authority to intervene in the matter. The London County Council are the loan-sanctioning authority in these cases.

    KENYA (BUDGET).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he expects and intends that the Kenya Budget shall be made to balance during the coming financial year, so that there may be no need, by a grant-in-aid from British taxpayers, to provide the interest on the Kenya loan?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Kenya Budget is for the calendar year 1922 and is balanced. Some economies in expenditure have been secured since the year began, and it is anticipated that additional economies will be possible. There is no reason to suppose that any grant-in-aid will be required from the British Government.

  IRAQ.

    GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS.
    Brigadier-General NICHOLSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will define the geographical limits of Iraq now under British control, and for which money has been, and is to be, voted this financial year under the Army, Air, and Colonial Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The boundaries of Iraq have not been precisely delimited. As regards the Northern boundary the frontier between Turkey and Iraq was described in Article 27 of the Treaty of Sevres. The hon. and gallant Member is, of course, aware that that Treaty has not been ratified. On the south, Iraq is limited by the Persian Gulf, Koweit, and the desert; on the east by the Persian frontier; and on the west by a line running southwards from the point where the Tigris cuts the northern frontier to Abu Kemal on the Euphrates, and south of Abu Kemal by the desert.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the boundaries between Iraq and Turkey will be delimited, so that we may have some idea of our own responsibilities?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I wish I knew.
    Sir C. YATE: Have there been any infractions of the boundary by the Turks?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, there has been certain liveliness from time to time on the Turkish frontier, but nothing of a serious character as yet.

    ADMINISTRATION (COST).
    Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total estimated cost of administering Iraq this financial year; and if he will indicate the Estimates concerned, with the gross amount taken on each?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I propose to deal with this question fully when presenting the Supplementary Estimate for the Middle Eastern Services.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Air how many airships are in the possession of his Department at the present time; whether all or any of them are of German make; if it is proposed to retain all of them for air-service work or if any of them are to be disposed of; and, if so, how many?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is five; to the second, one; to the third, that it is not proposed to retain any of them for Air Force work and that in view of the present need for economy and of the inability of India and those Dominions from whom replies have been received to contribute towards their operation on Imperial air routes, it has with great regret been decided to pass them all for disposal. This process must necessarily take a few weeks, and during that time it is, of course, still possible for offers to be made with the object of running an airship service.
    Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: Does my right hon. Friend's undertaking given at the Guildhall that this material would not be disposed of before June hold good?
    Captain GUEST: No. There is some slight misunderstanding about it. We hoped that the further delay would be of value to the other Dominions, as no reply had been received then. Since then I have received a reply, and there is no object in keeping this material any longer.
    Major-General SEELY: Even if we dispose of the airships, will we retain at least a proportion of the skilled personnel, and the research staff to enable us to resume activities in case of necessity?
    Captain GUEST: In spite of the small monetary grant for this purpose, an effort will be made to retain some of the skilled members of the staff in maintenance and other parties.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Have the Admiralty concurred in this decision?
    Captain GUEST: The Admiralty views were represented a great many months ago, when their statements were considered very carefully.

    AIR STATIONS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for Air how many depots are now maintained for the Air Force in Great Britain; how many air stations are also provided, and can he state approximately in what parts of England and Scotland they are situated; and if it is proposed to give up any of these depots or stations, and, if so, how many?
    Captain GUEST: The answer to the first question is seven; to the second, 32, of which two are situated in Fifeshire, one in Flintshire, and the remainder in the counties east of a line drawn from Lincoln to Plymouth; to the third, that one air station will be relinquished in May next, and four others will be reduced to a care and maintenance basis early in April next.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Major WHELERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement as to the number of districts in the country where foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent; and what are the prospects of any relaxation of the restrictions now in force?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred since the 23rd January last in 30 counties in England and Wales and 12 counties in Scotland. With my hon. Friend's permission I will have them set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The restrictions which were applied to the whole of Great Britain on 5th February were withdrawn as from the 6th instant from the whole of the northern half of Scotland an^ from the southwestern counties of England and from South Wales. I hope that it may be possible shortly further to modify the restrictions in force in North Wales and in the southern counties of England.
    Major WHELER: Has the right hon. Gentleman reports as to the conditions in Yorkshire and other districts, and is there likely to be any withdrawal or modification of the restrictions?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am very much afraid the state of affairs in Yorkshire is worse than almost any other part of the country, and I cannot hold out any immediate hope of the withdrawal of the restrictions.
    Captain REDMOND: Has any case of foot-and-mouth disease yet been discovered in Ireland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware of any.
    Captain REDMOND: If that be the case, what is the reason for the detention of animals arriving at English ports from Ireland?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer is simply this, that all movement of stores has been stopped all over England, and there is no special rule applying to Irish stores.
    Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three weeks ago a cargo of pigs was detained at Holyhead, and that since then they have had to be slaughtered, and no action has been taken to prevent this?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should put that question down.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Will the Minister of Agriculture take steps to keep Irish cattle free from English infection?
    Following in the Return of Outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease:
    England and Wales.

    (1) The County of Durham and Southeast half of Northumberland.

    (2) The Carlisle district of Cumberland.

    (3) The Southern part of Westmorland.

    (4) The greater part of the three Ridings of Yorkshire and parts of the adjoining counties of Lindsey, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

    (5) Lancashire south of Garstang, Cheshire, and the adjoining parts of Salop, Staffordshire and Denbighshire.

    (6) The Norwich district of Norfolk.

    (7) Isolated areas in Suffolk, Essex, London, Kent, Leicestershire, Bedfordshire, Buckingham, Cambridgeshire, Hampshire, Middlesex, Kesteven (Lines.), Surrey, Sussex, East and Warwickshire.

    Scotland,

    (1) Renfrewshire, and the adjoining part of Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire.

    (2) Midlothian.

    (3 The Dundee district of Forfarshire and adjoining parts of Perthshire.

    (4) The Kircaldy district of Fifeshire.

    (5) Isolated areas in Berwickshire, Dumfriesshire, Stirlingshire, Kinross and Linlithgow.

    MILK.
    Lieut.-Colonel BELLasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the very serious state of affairs that has arisen in the milk-producing districts owing to the great reduction in the contracts of the dairy companies for the coming summer; and whether his Department has any policy to meet the critical situation that will arise?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am informed that in making contracts for the summer wholesale milk dealers are proceeding much more cautiously than usual. The Ministry has for some time past encouraged local education authorities to provide technical instruction and advice for the purpose of enabling farmers to adopt other means, besides immediate sale, for disposing of their milk. It is, however, obviously not within the Ministry's power to prevent large fluctuations in demand and prices, or seriously to modify their economic effects.
    Mr. ACLAND: As a way of dealing with this matter is it not for the producers themselves to form their own companies on co-operative principles?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, and, as my right hon. Friend knows, we have always encouraged that method of procedure.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of this country want their milk cheap and not dear?
    Lieut.-Colonel BELL: In view of the state of the industry, can the right hon. Gentleman give us any assurance as to whether the Treasury will assent to the relief which he promised during the agriculture Debate?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not aware that I made any promise in the agriculture Debate. In any case that does not arise on this question.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DESERTEBS (RUSSIAN NATIONALS).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers of Russian nationality are still officially posted as deserters from the British Army in the Labour Corps Record Office, Nottingham; and what steps are being taken to dispose of such cases?
    Sir R. SANDERS: The reply to the first part of the question is 147. In regard to the second part, when any such man's whereabouts are known, a protecting certificate is issued and his Army record closed.

    REDUCTIONS IN STRENGTH.
    Colonel Sir A. SPROTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that considerable anxiety exists on the part of many officers in the Regular Army at the present time on account of the proposed reductions in the strength of the Army; if he can reassure them by stating in what way, whether by offering inducements to retire or by compulsory retirements, this reduction is to be effected; and, if the latter, how the officers to be retired will be selected?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I am aware of, and sympathise with, the natural anxiety felt by officers, but the matter cannot be conveniently dealt with within the limits of a Parliamentary answer. I propose, in introducing Army Estimates, to explain the measures contemplated by His Majesty's Government. Every effort, consistent with the securing of essential public economies, will be made to mitigate hardship on individuals.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman arrange to have a statement made during Friday on the Supplementary Estimate in view of the intense indignation which prevails about this matter?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I do not know if it would be in order until the Army Estimates comes up.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    AMPUTATION CASKS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Pensions whether any reduction is made in the pension granted to ex-service men who have lost an arm or a leg of which the stump, upon being medically reexamined, is found to have lengthened somewhat since the previous examination?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no power to award pension in cases of amputation otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the First Schedule to the Royal Warrant. If, as I imagine, my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind a particular case about which he has written, I can assure him that it is being thoroughly investigated.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer "Yes" of "No" to the question whether there is any reduction made in the pensions of these men, simply because the stump of an arm or a leg may have grown half-an-inch or an inch in the interval since a man's last medical board?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think not. This particular case, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, is a case by itself, and, as I have told him, I am taking steps to investigate it.
    Sir F. HALL: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, he "thinks not," then apparently he is of opinion that this should not be done, and will he take steps, if any reductions be made or proposed, to see that these men get their full pensions?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am still of that opinion, and I will deal with this case on those lines.

    ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER FORCE (T. M. V. GRAHAM).
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that T. M. V. Graham, A.B., No. 1/42779, Royal Naval Volunteer Force, has no pension allowance; that this ex-naval seaman has a fractured spine and is paralysed, and has to be wheeled about in a chair, as he cannot do anything for himself; and will he inquire into the case?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This man is in receipt of pension at the rate for total disablement, and steps are being taken to renew the allowance for constant attendance which has previously been paid with the pension.

WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend the suffrage to women on the same terms as men."
The Bill is extremely short and simple, and its purpose is to extend the franchise to women on the same terms as those on which it is now enjoyed by men. The reasons for the Bill may be stated very briefly. We have had experience of the exercise of the franchise by women in one General Election and in a number of by-elections, and I think everyone admits that it has been entirely successful. We now hear no more of the old objections which used to be so common; of the idea that women would all vote together in one mass against the men; of the conception that granting the suffrage to women would bring about the downfall of the British Empire; nor even of the doctrine that some strange evil would befall women, and that they would be found very reluctant to exercise their vote. On the contrary, they have voted in numbers about equivalent to those of the men, and I do not think there is any ground for believing that they have exercised the franchise on grounds less satisfactory than those on which the male voters acted. As a matter of fact, the old "monstrous regiment of women" doctrine, which used to be not uncommon in this House, has been relegated to those homes of culture and progress, the City of London and the Scottish Universities. At the same time the position, I think, is not altogether a satisfactory one. Though, in my judgment, causes in which women are interested have greatly advanced by the granting of the vote to women, yet I think there are signs that, politically and socially, women are not yet regarded as entirely on equal terms with men.
Viscountess ASTOR: Tell that to the electors.
Lord R. CECIL: I do not want to go back to the controversies of last Session, but I must remind the House that certain

1287
incidents in connection with the failure of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill were not, in my judgment, such as would have occurred if that Bill had been mainly of interest to men and not to women, and in other matters the position is still less satisfactory. Last August this House passed, I think unanimously, a Resolution demanding equal treatment —I am putting it roughly—for men and women in the Civil Service. It was an elaborate Resolution, setting out in detail what was required, and it was assented to by the Government. As far as I know, practically nothing has been done in pursuance of that Resolution as yet, though we are told by the Government that the matter is receiving its closest attention. I might mention other matters, like the Trade Boards question, in all of which I think there is still a strong impression that women are not quite entitled to the same treatment as men, and it extends beyond this House. We have seen it in one of our great Universities, and, alas, quite recently in one of our greatest and best known hospitals. I put this Bill before the House very largely because it will sweep away one of the statutory differences between men and women in political matters. There is really no assignable grounds that can be alleged for the maintenance of that difference, and there is no reason whatever for thinking that a woman of 21 is more incapable of exercising the suffrage than a man of 21, and certainly there is no ground for thinking that she compares worse with a woman of 30 than a man of 21 does with a man of 30.
I do not propose to add any arguments in favour of the Bill, and I shall be interested to observe, if there is a Division, what support the opponents of this Measure receive. I have great hopes that the Bill will receive important support even on the Treasury Bench. I very much regret the absence of the Prime Minister, and particularly the cause which keeps him away from our midst. I am not quite sure what he would have done. It is true that in a celebrated letter he said it would be the duty of the Government to remove all existing inequalities of the law as between men and women, but recently he announced that the Government were not prepared to remove this inequality,
1288
and it may be that it is one of those cases which follow the well-known dictum that there may be jam yesterday, and jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. Then I turn from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the House, and there I have much greater hope. The Leader of the House made a speech to the Primrose League not very long ago, and I was delighted to read the earlier passages of that speech, particularly in view of the attitude which my right hon. Friend used to take up in reference to the question of women. He said:
"It is vital to the success of our political institutions and the stability of our social system that women should take their full share in the responsibilities of the franchise."
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Having given them the franchise.
Lord R. CECIL: I remember my right hon. Friend during the passage of the Bill supporting an Amendment to extend the franchise to women of 21, at that time.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN:-Then my Noble Friend and the supporters of the extension assured us that we need have no fear that such would be the result.
Lord R. CECIL: I am sure I never said anything of the kind. I remember that I opposed the Amendment, because I regarded it, as, indeed, it was, as a wrecking Amendment, but my right hon. Friend did, in fact, support it and supported it for very good reasons— very much the reasons that I have given to the House this afternoon. Therefore, I have great hopes of him, and his recent statements to the Primrose League show the great enthusiasm of a late convert to the women's cause. Now, who will oppose? [An HON. MEMBER: "Banbury!"] I have ventured to take advantage of the procedure of the House and to introduce the Bill under what is called the Ten Minutes Rule in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing in the Division Lobby who are for and who are against this proposal, and I have done so for this reason, that the Government has expressed great reluctance to put forward this reform. If the Bill was so fortunate as to be given a Second Reading by a large

1289
majority, I think that reluctance might become less. After all, they have got to consider the time of the House, and if they found there was a very strong feeling in favour of this Bill, then I hope we should have a stronger ground for pressing its further passage upon the Government. In any case, there is the opportunity for hon. Members to vote against this Bill if they so desire. If they vote against it and defeat it, that is the end of it. If they vote against it and it is carried, then I hope that at last a measure of justice and expediency will become law—expediency, because these anomalies in the franchise have no advantage and are far better removed so as to have the simplest franchise law that we can; and justice, because there is no ground whatever for saying that the class it is proposed to enfranchise are less capable of exercising the franchise than those who have already got it.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I am surprised at the Noble Lord introducing this Bill in this manner under the Ten Minutes Rule. Surely a matter which affects the enfranchisement of something like 5,000,000 electors is a matter that ought not to be brought in by a Bill under that Rule. It is an abuse of Parliamentary privilege, and I should have thought that ho, with his ancestral traditions, ought to know that the enfranchisement of large numbers of the people like that is a matter which can only be brought in by the Government and before a General Election, so as to receive the approval of the people In the short time there is at one's disposal, one cannot go into all the arguments on this matter. They were very thoroughly thrashed out in Committee about 18 months ago on the Bill which was brought in by the Labour party, and which died a natural death.
Viscountess ASTOR: No, no, a most unnatural death!
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In the first place, it is sought to enfranchise 5,000,000 women between the ages of 21 and 30. Already there are about an equal number of women and men voters in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] There are nearly so, and, as a matter of fact, there are two million more women than there are men in the country. That is the reason, and I submit a very good reason, why in 1918, when the Representation of the People Bill was before the House, Mr. Speaker's Committee, in a sort of agreed Bill, gave the vote to women over 30. That age was put in so as to equalise the number of men and women voters. I do not believe that there is any demand for the vote by girls of from 21 to 30, who have the greatest contempt for politicians.
Viscountess ASTOR: Speak for yourself.
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: You are only proposing to give the vote to people who really do not want it. Only to-day, as Hon. Treasurer of the London Municipal Society, a very successful society, I received a report that 40 per cent, of the new electors, who are mainly women, did not go to the poll, and you cannot get them to go to the poll at all.
Viscountess ASTOR: How many men go to the poll?
Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Those are only just a few reasons against the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will screw up their courage to vote against it and not run away from the Division, because I am quite convinced that they will receive the support of all the younger women in their constituencies, who do not in the least want to be bothered with the vote.
Question put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the suffrage to women on the same terms as men."
The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 60.

Division No. 40.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Bromfield, William

Ammon, Charles George

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Bruton, Sir James

Astor, Viscountess

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

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

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Borwick, Major G. O.

Cairns, John

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Barrand, A. R.

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Casey, T. W.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Irving, Dan

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Clough, Sir Robert

Jephcott, A. R.

Remer, J. R.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Jesson, C.

Remnant, Sir James

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rendall, Athelstan

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Johnstone, Joseph

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Cope, Major William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwlch)

Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Robertson, John

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kennedy, Thomas

Rodger, A. K.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Rose, Frank H.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Kiley, James Daniel

Royce, William Stapleton

Devlin, Joseph

Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

Seddon, J. A.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

Edge, Captain Sir William

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Ednam, Viscount

Lawson, John James

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Sitch, Charles H.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Spencer, George A.

Farquharson, Major A. C.

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

Fildes, Henry

Lunn, William

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Finney, Samuel

Lynn, R. J.

Sugden, W. H.

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

M'Connell, Thomas Edward

Sutton, John Edward

Foot, Isaac

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Taylor, J.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

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

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

McMIcking, Major Gilbert

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Frece, Sir Walter de

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Galbraith, Samuel

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Gardiner, James

Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Gillis, William

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

Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Glanville, Harold James

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Thorpe, Captain John Henry

Glyn, Major Ralph

Martin, A. E.

Tickler, Thomas George

Goff, Sir R. Park

Matthews, David

Tillett, Benjamin

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Moles, Thomas

Waddington, R.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Wallace, J.

Grundy, T. W.

Morris, Richard

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

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

Mosley, Oswald

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Murray, Hon, A. C. (Aberdeen)

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

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

Murray, John (Leeds, West)

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Halls, Walter

Myers, Thomas

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Hancock, John George

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Wignall, James

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

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

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

Hartshorn, Vernon

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Hayday, Arthur

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Windsor, Viscount

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Wintrlngham, Margaret

Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank

Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William

Wise, Frederick

Hinds, John

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Hirst, G. H.

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Yeo, Sir Alfred William

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbrldge, Mddx.)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hogge, James Myles

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Perring, William George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Arthur Henderson.

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Rae, H. Norman

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Raeburn, Sir William H.

NOES.

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Atkey, A. R.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

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

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

Bigland, Alfred

Kidd, James

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Larmor, Sir Joseph

Starkey, Captain John Ralph

Carew, Charles Robert S.

Lloyd, George Butler

Steel, Major S. Strang

Coats, Sir Stuart

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Stewart, Gershom

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)

Townley, Maximilian G

Dean, Commander P. T.

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

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

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

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godtray

Macquisten, F. A.

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Fell, Sir Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Forrest, Walter

Molson, Major John Eisdale

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Gee, Captain Robert

Nail, Major Joseph

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Pearce, Sir William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hailwood, Augustine

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee and Mr. G. Murray.

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

Phillpps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Robert Cecil, Major Hills, Sir Donald Maclean, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mrs. Wintringham, Viscountess Astor, and Mr. Aneurin Williams.

WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL,
"to extend the suffrage to women on the same terms as men," presented accordingly, and road the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CLYNES: In the event of progress being made with the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill in the course of the day, can the Leader of the House make any announcement as to how far it is intended to proceed with the other items on the Order Paper?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In that case we shall proceed up to eleven o'clock with the other Orders on the Paper, in the order in which they stand, and make as much progress as possible.
Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May we assume that the Second Reading of the Summer Time Bill will not be taken?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not after eleven o'clock.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [Mr. Chamberlain,]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 95.

Division No. 41.]

AYES.

[4.14 p.m.

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

Davies, Thomas (Clrencester)

Hope, J. O. (Berwick & Haddington)

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Dean, Commander P. T.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

Devlin, Joseph

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mostley)

Armitage, Robert

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

Astor, Viscountess

Edge, Captain Sir William

Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

Atkey, A. R.

Ednam, Viscount

Hurd, Percy A.

Baird, Sir John Lawrence

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

Barlow, Sir Montague

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

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S

Barnett, Major Richard W.

Ersklne, James Maicolm Monteith

Jephcott, A. R.

Barnston, Major Harry

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Johnstone, Joseph

Barrand, A. R.

Karquharson, Major A. C.

Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

Fell, Sir Arthur

Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

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

Fildes, Henry

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Kidd, James

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Forrest, Walter

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Betterton, Henry B.

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Birchall, J. Dearman

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Gangs, E. Stanley

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Borwick, Major G. O.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith

Gardiner, James

Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

Bowles, Colonel H. F.

Gee, Captain Robert

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

Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Lloyd, George Butler

Breese, Major Charles E.

Gilbert, James Daniel

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Cilve

Gllmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Lorden, John William

Brittain, Sir Harry

Glyn, Major Ralph

Loseby, Captain C. E.

Britton, G. B.

Goff, Sir R. Park

Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

Broad, Thomas Tucker

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Bruton, Sir James

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

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

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Greig, Colonel Sir James William

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James I.

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Macoulsten, F. A.

Carew, Charles Robert S.

Hallwood, Augustine

Magnus, Sir Philip

Casey, T. W.

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

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

Hancock, John George

Martin, A. E.

Cheyne, Sir William Watson

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Matthews, David

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

Middlebrook, Sir William

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Harris, Sir Henry Percy

Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.

Clough, Sir Robert

Haslam, Lewis

Mitchell, Sir William Lane

Coats, Sir Stuart

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Molson, Major John Elsdaie

Cockerill, Brigadler-Genoral G. K.

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovll)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Hilder, Lieut-Colonel Frank

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Hinds, John

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Cope, Major William

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Morris, Richard

Davles, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

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

Morrison, Hugh

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Wallace, J.

Murchison, C. K.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

Murray. John (Leeds, West)

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

Nall, Major Joseph

Rodger, A. K.

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

Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Flnchiey)

Rcyds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

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

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

Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Watson, Captain John Bertrand

Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

Seager, Sir William

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Nicholson, William G. (Petersield)

Seddon, J. A.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Norman, Major Ht. Hon. Sir Henry

Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut-Col. Sir John

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark

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

Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)

Parker, James

Smlthers, Sir Alfred W.

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

Pearce, Sir William

Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbrldge, Mddx.)

Starkey, Captain John Ralph

Windsor, Viscount

Perkins, Walter Frank

Steel, Major S. Strang

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Perring, William George

Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

Wise, Frederick

Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Cheater, City)

Stewart, Gershom

Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich. West)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Sugden, W. H.

Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Pratt, John William

Sutherland, Sir William

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Rae, H. Norman

Taylor, J.

Yeo, Sir Altred William

Raeburn, Sir William H.

Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

Young, E. H. (Norwich)

Randies, Sir John Scurrah

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Ratclifte, Henry Butler

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

Tickler, Thomas George

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Townley, Maximilian G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. MoCurdy.

Remer, J. R.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

NOES.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

Mosley, Oswald

Ammon, Charles George

Grundy, T. W.

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

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

Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

Armstrong, Henry Bruce

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Myers, Thomas

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

Halls, Walter

Newbould, Alfred Ernest

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Hayday, Arthur

Reid, D. D.

Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

Remnant, Sir James

Bromfield. William

Hirst, G. H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

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

Hogge, James Myles

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Butcher, Sir John George

Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

Robertson, John

Cairns, John

Irving, Dan

Rose, Frank H.

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Royce, William Stapleton

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

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Short, Aifrea (Wednesbury)

Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

Kelley. Major Fred (Rotherham)

Sitch, Charles H.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Kennedy, Thomas

Spencer, George A.

Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Spoor, B. G.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Kenyan, Barnet

Sutton, John Edward

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

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

Davison, J. E. (Smethwlck)

Lindsay, William Arthur

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

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

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Dixon, Captain Herbert

Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

Tillett, Benjamin

Finney, Samuel

Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Lunn, William

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

Galbraith, Samuel

Lynn, R. J.

Wilson, James (Dudley)

Gillis, William

M'Connell, Thomas Edward

Wintringham, Margaret

Glanville, Harold James

Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Moles, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Wignall and Mr. C. Edwards.

Resolutions agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. JOHN WILLIAM WILSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Turton to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charges (Rates) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
1. "That, in the case of the Chester Gas [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Milford Docks [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed new Clause (Publications of writs and other forms in English) in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) is not in order. It is an Amendment to Clause 1.

  CLAUSE 1.— (Provisions for giving the force of law to and carrying into effect Irish Agreement.)
  (1) The Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the Schedule to this Act shall have the force of law as from the date of the passing of this Act.
  (2) For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement, Orders in Council may be made transferring to the Provisional Government established under that Article the powers and machinery therein referred to, and as soon as may be and not later than four months after the passing of this Act the Parliament of Southern Ireland shall be dissolved and such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in accordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise number of members and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament, an election of members for the constituencies which would have been entitled to elect members to that Parliament, and the members so elected shall constitute the House of the Parliament to which the Provisional Government shall be responsible, and that Parliament shall, as respects matters within the jurisdiction of the Provisional Government, have power to make laws in like manner as the Parliament of the Irish Free State when constituted.
  (3) No writ shall be issued after the passing of this Act for the election of a member to serve in the Commons House of Parliament for a constituency in Ireland other than a constituency in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment to the Bill standing in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harms-worth)—at the beginning of Sub-section (2), to insert the words "Article 17 of,"—is out of order. That was a matter for the Second Reading, and it is not in order on the Report stage.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
  1322
  "Provided always that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland under Article 12 of the said Agreement the military defence forces of the Irish Free State mentioned in Article 8 of the Agreement shall then not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as the population of the Free State bears to the population of Great Britain."
  This Amendment is not intended to wreck the Bill, but to improve a Bill which stands sorely in need of improvement. I will move it in the fewest possible words, and not in any provocative spirit. What I propose to lay before the House is mainly a matter of arithmetic. If hon. Members will refer to Article 8 they will see it reads:
  "With a view to securing the observance of the principle of international limitation of armaments, if the Government of the Irish Free State establishes and maintains a military defence force, the establishments thereof shall not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as that which the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain."
  Perhaps a simpler way of putting that proposition is this: As the population of Ireland is to the population of Great Britain, so is the size of the Irish Free State Army to compare with the size of the British Army; or, to put it in a still simpler form, if Great Britain maintains a certain number of soldiers per thousand of its inhabitants, then the Irish Free State is entitled to maintain an equal number of soldiers per thousand of the population of Ireland. I am not going to express any opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of establishing such an army, but if such an army is to be established, Article 8 would be all right if, as a matter of fact, the Irish Free State were to include the whole of Ireland. That assumption, however, we all know, is a piece of make-believe. We all know that Ulster is going to contract out, and, therefore, we all know that the Irish Free State, when constituted, will consist of 26 out of 32 Irish counties. Therefore, I submit that it would be absurd to authorise the Irish Free State, comprising 26 counties, to add an extra soldier to her force for every hundred or two of a population which will be no more part of the Irish Free State than Yorkshire or Lancashire, or any other part of this country. I do not think that I need elaborate my points any further. It is

  1323
  perfectly clear to me that there is some necessity for this Amendment, and I imagine the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will have no hesitation in accepting it. After all, it puts in the very simplest form the fact that if Ulster avails herself of the powers given to contract out of the Act that the Irish Free State is not the whole, but only a portion of Ireland, and that, therefore, the size of the Army maintained by the Irish Free State should be reduced accordingly.
  Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  On the Committee stage of the Bill I pointed out to the Colonial Secretary the ambiguity under which we were leaving the Treaty. I pointed out that in Article 8 the Government of the Free State was talked about and also the population of "Ireland." I showed the right hon. Gentleman then, as now—and I think he must agree—how Article 8 stood in our eyes, and other hon. Members also pointed it out. What the right hon. Gentleman appears really to mean is this: The size of the army which the Free State is going to be allowed to maintain, or will maintain, under the Treaty is not in relation to the population of Ireland as compared with the population of Great Britain, but the population of the Irish Free State, as compared with the population of Great Britain—something totally different. In the six counties there is a population of 1½ millions, while the population of the rest of Ireland is something over 3 millions. Our population here in Great Britain is something over 37 millions. Therefore we may take it that the proportion is as 1 to 12. From that proportion, therefore, we may get what ought to be the number of men that the Free State may keep under arms if they want to observe Article 8 of the Bill.
  The strength of our Army is 335,000 men, excluding, of course, the troops in the Indian Empire, but including the Colonial and native troops. That number is going to be reduced under the recommendations of the Geddes Committee to something like, I imagine, 200,000 men. On that basis the strength of the Free State Army is to be a little more than 17,000. I will go a bit further and
  1324
  imagine that the Government meant when they concluded this Treaty that the Irish Free State was not to be compared with the total of the British Army at home and abroad. What they meant was the total of our whole Regular Army. At present that number is 140,000. That will be reduced under the Geddes recommendations to something less. We may put it, then, that the comparative strength of the Irish home army, which is called a Defence Force, as compared with the strength of the Army here at home, would be about 10,000 men.
  Here I am putting forward these two suggestions which seem to me may be what is meant; but I come now to the real suggestion, the one which, as I think, the Government really had in mind, but which I do not know the Free State Government had in mind. They really meant that the Irish Defence Force should be a Territorial Force, a Force for Home Defence, and that it should be based, therefore, on the strength of our Territorial Army in Great Britain. The Territorial Force of Great Britain numbers to-day, I understand, 218,000 men. Therefore, if it is the intention of the Irish Free State Government to maintain something in the nature of a defensive Territorial Army on the same lines as here, whose members are called out periodically for a certain short period of training, then on that assumption the Free State will have the right to maintain a Territorial Army or a Militia, if you like to call it so, of something about 18,000 men. I should say that is quite enough. Let the House remember that, in addition to this Territorial Force, at present there are being enrolled Civil Guards, which are to number 4,000. A private in the Civil Guard will get 70s., and a sergeant £5, with proportionally higher payments for the higher ranks. Supposing the Free State maintains a Militia or Territorial Force of 18,000 men, and has besides a picked Civil Guard of 4,000 men, then it will be amply well protected against any assault or any internal danger.
  I am approaching this question, not from a Washington Convention point of view and reduction of armaments. I am not approaching it as a League of Nations enthusiast. This question should be approached solely from one point of view, that of the Free State taxpayer. I am one who in a few months from now will

  1325
  likely be taxed, and probably heavily taxed by the Free State Government. Every sensible man will recognise that the Irish Free State will be a country like Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and JugoSlavia. It will be mainly an agricultural country. Unless the Free State is going to print paper money, or cripple its inhabitants with over-taxation, it cannot afford an expensive military establishment. It can only afford something in the nature of a small inexpensive militia. I should like to get from the Government that when they made this Treaty on behalf of the Government with the Irish Free State representatives that they gave them to understand that this Army would be a small inexpensive local militia and not a highly paid expensive standing force. I should like to know what at the present time what are the numbers of the Irish Republican Army. I see brigades dashing about here and there. Companies going here and there, and battalions going forward, and so on. I imagine that the number of men in arms in Ireland to-day is probably more than 20,000. Therefore I second this Amendment with the idea of getting from the Government exactly what has been arranged between themselves and Mr. Collins and the other gentlemen who appended their names to the Treaty. If they give us that, then I for one shall be very much obliged.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): No exact or detailed settlement was arrived at as to the basis or definition of what the Forces of the Irish Free State were to be compared with the Forces of Great Britain. The words in the Treaty embodied the whole agreement, so far as it was carried by the parties on both sides. Therefore there is latitude in interpretation. Of course, I am free to confess that no interpretation which we might put on it in this House can be final. Any dispute about the Treaty has got to be settled by agreement between the two parties concerned. If one, however, takes a reasonable view, and takes the figures as they are—at their highest—they would be very like the figures of which my hon. and gallant Friend has spoken, and on a logical basis, they should perhaps include a small regular force proportionate to our permanent and highly-trained Regular Army here, with another portion
  1326
  in the nature of a local Militia like our Territorial Army. That would be a fair comparison. An exact definition was not effected, and was not attempted to be reached, because the matter was not thought of sufficient importance to complicate the already difficult character of the negotiations. So we must stand on the words of Article 8. I can, however, quite conceive one interpretation which would give an increase of 4,000 or 5,000 men and another interpretation which would mean an abatement. But, taking the total at 30,000, we cannot conceive that it is likely to be a serious menace to this powerful country and Empire.
  Colonel NEWMAN: It is a menace to the Irish taxpayer.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put upon matters of expenditure in the Free State that searching criticism which he brings to bear on matters here, the result ought to be satisfactory. Anyhow, there is a margin of 4,000 or 5,000 men involved in the way in which this definition is ultimately interpreted. It is on that basis I propose to take the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. He needs to be very careful. He says that the only question is that of the proportion of the Army in Ireland to the British Army, and suggests that it has been decided that the Irish Free State Army is to be in the same proportion to the population in Ireland as the British Army bears to the population of Great Britain. But he says the Northern area, that is Ulster, will opt out. If so, the Free State Army quota should be reduced. He will see that that will make a reduction of about one-third or one-fourth; that is to say, by 5,000 or 6,000 men. So the issue involved in the Amendment is not larger than the variation which in any case will arise upon the definition which is taken of what the military establishments of Great Britain are for the purpose of this Treaty. I am with the hon Member who moved this Amendment in his interpretation. That is the interpretation we had in our mind, and the view which I am advised is correct. Again, I say, we cannot lay down the law, but the view we are advised is correct is, that if Ulster opts out, the quota of the Free State Army would be reduced proportionately to the population, and that the proper construction of Article 8, if

  1327
  Ulster contracted out, would require the word "Ireland" to be read in the sense of the Irish Free State, and "Great Britain" to be read as "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." We have no power or means of altering the Treaty or of giving a different interpretation of it. I cannot accept the Amendment, because if it limits Article 8, it is outside my power and the power of the Government to accept it without altering the Treaty, and if it is in accordance with Article 8, then, obviously, it is unnecessary.
  Captain COOTE: I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will not press this Amendment. I do not think the apprehensions which he has expressed are really justified, and if he remembers the attitude of the Southern Irish throughout he will realise that those apprehensions are not justified, and it will be the effort of any Government in Southern Ireland to keep taxation as low as possible. It is obvious that the Southern Irish are inclined to use all their endeavours in the hope that there will ultimately be an alliance between the North and the South, and one of the things they rely upon to achieve that union is the existence of a lower scale of taxation in the South than in the North.
  Colonel NEWMAN: What do you want 30,000 troops for?
  Captain COOTE: That is not the point. It seems to me that it will not only be the duty, but the pleasure of the Govern-of Southern Ireland to use all their endeavours to keep taxation at the lowest possible level. With regard to the immediate situation, I should say that it would be most dangerous not to allow those in Ireland who are loyally supporting this Treaty to use such methods as they are capable of employing to deal with the existing menace. I think to impose any limitations on the Free State Government to deal with the situation in Limerick would be unwise. We say to the Southern Irish, "We recognise your difficulties, and we will not insist too strictly upon imposing additional difficulties while things are in the present uncertain state in some parts of the South of Ireland."
  Sir CHARLESOMAN: I want the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to
  1328
  give me a pledge if possible. He is a very considerable student of military history, and he is aware of the fact that a nation may keep at any particular moment a comparatively small body of troops under arms, say 20,000, but by passing men extremely rapidly through the ranks and keeping cadres waiting, a nation may have 20,000 or 30,000 men under arms at one moment, and in this way may produce 250,000 or 300,000 men at a crisis. The great example of this in history is the case of Prussia in 1812 and 1813. Prussia was restricted by a treaty with Napoleon to keeping not more than 40,000 men under arms, but she passed through the ranks of the regular army and through cadres an enormous number of short-service men, with the result that she declared war on Napoleon after the Moscow retreat, and produced not 40,000 troops, but 250,000 men, which afterwards developed into 350,000 men. What measures has the right hon. Gentleman taken in the Agreement he has made in this case in order to see that nothing of that kind can happen? We should be certain that the Irish Free State will only be able to keep a regular army of a limited long-service kind, and that there is nothing which she will be able to develop enormously at short notice.
  Representations may be put forward that the Free State only requires 26,000 men under arms, but at the same time they may have a possibility of developing an attack on Ulster with ten times that force. There are ways of securing such things as agreements. The case of Bulgaria is a good example, where the character of the army and its strength is stipulated. It has to be a voluntary army and not raised by conscription, and its numbers are limited. It is important we should know that conscription will not be allowed in Ireland, that the passing of troops quickly through the ranks will not be instituted, and that Ireland will be provided with an army of well-trained and well-disciplined men and an army of a comparatively modest strength, strong enough to keep civil peace rather than a skeleton of what can be made into a most dangerous weapon of offence in times of trouble.
  Sip F. BANBURY: I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the lesson of Prussia in the time of Napoleon at the beginning of the last

  1329
  century is one which we ought to bear in mind, not only with regard to Ireland, but in reference to other places at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Colonial Secretary what steps the Government have taken in Ireland to meet that danger. I know it will be considered presumptuous for me to answer for the Government, but I am going to do so on this occasion. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government have taken no steps, and do not intend to take any steps, in that direction. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote) seems to me to be of a very innocent sort, and he appears to have a child-like faith in Ireland generally, and in Southern Ireland in particular. He appears to think that by conciliation—I suppose he has explored every avenue to find it—he is going to secure peace. He seems to think that conciliation, by some miraculous process, is going to achieve fusion between Northern and Southern Ireland.
  I have had a little longer experience in these matters than the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I venture to say that there is not the slightest chance of a union between Northern and Southern Ireland, either by conciliation or by force. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that taxation is going to be lowered in Southern Ireland. So it is, but only on some people, and there will be a great number of unfortunate people who will be taxed out of existence in order that the friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman at the present time may help themselves to the property of their unfortunate neighbours who up to the present time have been loyal to the British Crown. The Colonial Secretary made what seemed to me to be a very startling announcement. Speaking in reference to the number of the Irish Free State Army, the right hon. Gentleman said the matter was not of sufficient importance to go into detail.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, and I gather that he acquiesces in what I have stated. I am the last person to wish to misrepresent him or any other Member of the Government. He says that the size of the Irish Free State Army is a subject not of sufficient importance to
  1330
  go into detail about. I was not aware that this Amendment was coming on, but if I had been, I could have brought down quotation after quotation from speeches by Members who sit on the Treasury Bench in which they declare that they would not grant Dominion Home Rule to Ireland because it would involve an army. That was said by right hon. Gentleman opposite, including the Prime Minister. Having said that within the last one and a half years, that it is impossible to give Home Rule because it involves granting an armed force to Ireland, now we are told that it is not important to know what the number of the army is going to be.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not beyond the broad issue involved.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes. Not beyond the broad issue involved in this proposal. That seems to me to be a very startling proposition, and it is rendered more startling by the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) who has given us an account of what took place in 1812. The Colonial Secretary apparently is just as innocent as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, because the right hon. Gentleman says if Ulster refuses to accept this offer and declines to join with the Free State—which is certainly not controlled by people with a very high reputation—certain things will happen, and Ulster may be cajolled into accepting this arrangement. That is all nonsense, because Ulster is not going to have anything whatever to do with the Free State. Under those circumstances, I think we have to consider whether or not this proposal to allow the Free State in Ireland to have an army of this sort is not only a very great menace to Ulster but also to England as well—perhaps I ought to say to Great Britain.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The general question of the military force to be raised in Ireland is not raised in this Amendment. All that is raised is the size of the army, if Ulster either decide to come in or to remain outside the orbit of the Free State.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the Amendment to be:
  "Provided always that if an Address is presented to His Majesty by the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland under

  1331
  Article 12 of the said Agreement the military defence forces of the Irish Free State mentioned in Article 8 of the Agreement shall then not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as the population of the Free State bears to the population of Great Britain."
  What I was going to say was that the votes of hon. Members should be given in support of this Amendment, because unless that is done a greater force may be maintained than was originally proposed to be maintained, and that that would be a menace to this country. That was the argument I intended to put before the House. Unless something be done to ensure that this force is kept within reasonable limits, it would be a menace to this country. Under these circumstances, I am rather inclined to think that it is a matter of considerable importance, and we ought to show that we regard it as being such by going into the Division Lobby. I consider it advisable that it should be shown that some limit should be put to the force.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I think my hon. Friends from Ulster take the same view as I do with regard to this matter. It is a matter of supreme unimportance one way or another. I pay no attention to the Amendment or to Article 8 because I know that, whatever force the Free State desire they will have, and the Treaty will make no difference. The Ulster people understand that, as soon as the Bill goes through, it will be necessary for them to provide themselves with a sufficient force to protect themselves.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The Colonial Secretary's statement that it was a matter of little importance what number of men might be raised now, under Article 8, is typical of the way in which the Government have dealt with the whole of the Agreement. The question of the force is one of the most important things. Speaking in this House, I think it was at the end of December, 1920, the Prime Minister, I remember very well, attacked the proposal to have Dominion Home Rule and actually mentioned the number of men which it would be possible for Ireland to raise if we gave them Dominion Home Rule. He mentioned between four and five hundred thousand men. I remember that he held it up to frighten the Labour party. The Prime Minister told them in effect, You have always been against conscrip-
  1332
  tion, and yet, if we were to allow this, we should have to have conscription in this country. That showed the importance that the Prime Minister attached at that time to the matter, but, of course, they have changed their ideas, and we now learn from the lips of the Colonial Secretary that it was not considered to be of sufficient importance even to allow it to be put down in black and white. Apparently we are not to be allowed to put even a very mild interpretation on this matter. It is being left entirely for the Irish Free State to interpret it just as they like. We can well understand the manner in which they will interpret it, for Mr. Michael Collins, speaking on Sunday last, in alluding to North East Ulster, said:
  "If the Free State was established, union was certain. Forces of pressure and persuasion were embodied in the Treaty which would bring them both into a united Ireland."
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), I do not agree that it is a matter of little importance. Surely, it was one of the first things the Government should have done in framing the Agreement with these representatives of the Irish rebels? It was one of their first duties to the people of this country to say that it was not possible to allow a big force to be raised. Then the Colonial Secretary tells us that it is a matter of no importance. The whole manner in which the Agreement has been carried out shows that the Government has been dictated to by the Irish rebels. These are matters which jeopardise not only Ireland, but the safety of this kingdom. It has been left to be interpreted not by a clearly-drawn Treaty or Agreement, but to the Irish State to do as they like. It is one of those things, like other matters we have heard about, such as the boundaries question, which may lead to grave differences of opinion. We may have the representatives of the Irish Free State saying that they understood that they were allowed to have as large a force as they liked, and that they can raise three or four hundred thousand men by means of conscription if they like. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a widely travelled soldier and has fought in a great many campaigns throughout the world, must have devoted some attention to this matter while the Agreement

  1333
  was being put through I suggest that it was his duty above all people—he who had certainly far more military experience than others of the British negotiators—to see that it was not possible for the Irish Free State to go behind the word of
  the Treaty and raise these forces, such as they can do now, without breaking the Treaty in any way.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 275.

  Division No. 42.]

  AYES.

  [5.11 p.m.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Remnant, Sir James

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

  Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Stewart, Gershom

  Blair, Sir Reginald

  Houston, Sir Robert Patterson

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

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

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Butcher, Sir John George

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

  Whitia, Sir William

  Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

  Nall, Major Joseph

  Mr. Pennefather and Col. Newman.

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  NOES.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

  Cope, Major William

  Hancock, John George

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Armitage, Robert

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Haslam, Lewis

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Hinds, John

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hirst, G. H.

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Dean, Commander P. T.

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

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

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Hodge, James Myles

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Barrand, A. R.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Farquharson, Major A. C.

  Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Fildes, Henry

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Finney, Samuel

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

  Irving, Dan

  Bigland, Alfred

  Foot, Isaac

  Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Forestler-Walker, L.

  Jesson, C.

  Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bowles, Colonel H. F.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Britton, G. B.

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Bromfield, William

  Gardiner, James

  Kellaway, Rt- Hon. Fredk. George

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Bruton, Sir James

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Gillis, William

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Kiley, James Daniel

  Burdon, Colonel Rowland

  Glanville, Harold James

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Cairns, John

  Glyn, Major Ralph

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Carew, Charles Robert S.

  Goff, Sir R. Park

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Casey, T. W.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

  Lawson, John James

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar

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

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

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

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

  Greig, Colonel Sir James William

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lorden, John William

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Clough, Sir Robert

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

  Lunn, William

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachle)

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Halls, Walter

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Redmond, Captain William Archer

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)

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

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Remer, J. R.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Martin, A. E.

  Randall, Athelstan

  Tickler, Thomas George

  Matthews, David

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Townley, Maximillan G.

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Robertson, John

  Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Rodger, A. K.

  Wallace, J.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

  Morris, Richard

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

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

  Morrison, Hugh

  Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Watson, Captain John Bertrand

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Seager, Sir William

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  Myers, Thomas

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Sexton, James

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

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

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Wignall, James

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Norman, Major Ht. Hon. Sir Henry

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

  O'Connor, Thomas P

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Parker, James

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Wilson. Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smithers, Sir Alfred W.

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Pearce, Sir William

  Spencer, George A.

  Windsor, Viscount

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Stanley, Major Hon, G. (Preston)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Winterton, Earl

  Perring, William George

  Starkey, Captain John Ralph

  Wise, Frederick

  Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Wood, Major Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

  Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Yeo, Sir Alfred William

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Sugden, W. H.

  Young. E. H. (Norwich)

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Pratt, John William

  Sutton, John Edward

  Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Swan, J. E.

  Rae, H. Norman

  Taylor, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

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

  Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Members for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Pennefather) and for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth)—at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
  "Provided that the military establishments in Great Britain referred to in Article 8 of the said Agreement shall be understood to be those maintained in Great Britain for Home Defence and not such as may be maintained either in or out of Great Britain for service elsewhere."
  is covered by the discussion which has just taken place.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
  "Provided that the British Government assumes ultimate responsibility for the payment under Article 10 of fair compensation in terms not less, favourable than those agreed on by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who are discharged by the Government of the Irish Free State or who retire in consequence of the change of government to be carried out, and that such sums as may be incurred by the British Government in satisfying these claims shall be set off in the balance to be struck between the two Governments as a claim against the Government of the Irish Free State."
  This Amendment is simply a safeguarding Amendment, and, therefore, it is one
  1336
  which I hope the Government may see it right to accept. It does not really affect the Treaty except to put the ultimate responsibility for the payment of certain pensions upon the British Government instead of leaving it entirely to the Provisional Government. I cannot conceive that the Provisional Government or the Irish Free State Government would have any objection to the Amendment which I am proposing. The reasons for it are these. There are a great many officials in Ireland, who, after all, contracted to serve not the Irish Free State Government or a Republican Government or the Provisional Government, but the British Government. Many of them have served many years and are approaching the time for retiring and receiving pensions which are in the nature of deferred pay. These people find themselves in a very bad position under this Treaty, because the responsibility for paying them their pensions and giving them their gratuities on retirement is placed on the Irish Free State Government instead of resting on the Imperial Government. The interests of the people to whom I allude—and they form a very large class including Local Government officials, magistrates, policemen, ex-soldiers and pensioners, many of whom have served

  1337
  the Imperial Government for many years—were carefully safeguarded by this House in Section 54 in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which states that these officiate shall
  "continue to receive the same salary, gratuities and pensions, and to enjoy the same rights and privileges and to be liable to perform the same duties … 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 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."
  That completely safeguarded the position of these officials, but under this Agreement that safeguard has disappeared, and these men, many of whom have served long years under the British Government, and have shown themselves to be loyal officials, are now to be placed at the mercy of men who, at any rate up till quite recently, were enemies of the British Government. Assuming that the Irish Free State Government intend to carry out with goodwill everything in this Treaty, and to pay these men their pensions and gratuities, how are we to know that Mr. de Valera and his followers may not at some future time secure success at an election and proclaim a Republic, with the result that all these pensioners will probably find themselves, because they have been loyal officials and servants of the British Government, in the position of having their pensions stopped and of being impoverished and possibly driven out of Ireland? I suggest it is the absolute duty in honour of this House, acting in the name of England, to see that justice is done to these loyal men. It must be remembered that the more loyal they have been to the British Government, the more they are likely to be penalised. They are in fact being penalised at the present time. I have a letter here from a local government official who up till December last was receiving his pay from the British Government. He had been dismissed by a county council because he refused to carry out illegal orders which he received from that body. It was a Sinn Fein council which dismissed him, and the British Government, recognising their liability, went on paying him his salary, because he was their servant and not a servant of Sinn Fein. The Government
  1338
  continued paying it up till December last, the money being derived from Grants-in-Aid which were withheld from these public bodies, the Lord Lieutenant having declared that these officials should continue to receive their pay out of these Grants-in-Aid.
  This shows that the Government recognised their liability up till December last. Directly the Agreement was signed this man's pay ceased and he and his fellows are beginning to find that their loyal service to the British Government in the past is now placing them in a very bad financial position. This Amendment seeks to make it absolutely certain that these men shall not suffer in this way, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a matter in which the honour of this country is involved. It has never been the case before that any large number of men—there may have been individual instances—have been turned out of their employment and their contracts with the Government cancelled and repudiated by a British Government. The word of England has been passed in these cases. It is the proudest word which holds good among all the nations of the world. In Latin countries, in South America, if a man wishes to say that what he has declared is absolutely true, he swears by the English word. [An HON. MEMBER: "British!"] No doubt the Scottish people who have been in South America have been mixed up in the Spanish mind under the word "English" and so, too, have the Irish in the past, for they all came under the generic term "English." I submit that these men have an absolute contract with the Government which they elected to serve and that the Government cannot—no matter what it may cost—shed its responsibility for paying their pensions, and it cannot place the burden upon the shoulders of any other Government.
  Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It is a matter for some astonishment, to my mind, that, whereas in the Bill of 1920 there were no less than six Clauses, covering eight pages, devoted to this question of the payment of compensation to civil servants and others in Ireland who would or might lose their positions in Ireland when that particular Bill became an Act, as it did, now the

  1339
  whole thing is boiled down to a Clause of only 6½ lines in the Treaty. That Clause in the Treaty simply states, for what it is worth, that compensation shall be paid on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920. If this Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland had been a Treaty in the real sense of the word—if it had been a handshake between the two nations, between two peoples long estranged, who were both members of the same great Empire, and who were now going to clear up all their difficulties and come together in peace and amity for evermore—if the joy bells which rang in this country on that day last December had also rung out in Dublin the next morning—matters would have been different. But that is not so. It is not a handshake. It is simply regarded by the Irish Free State authorities as a method of getting the English bag and baggage out of Ireland. I am not complaining of that; I am not even saying that it is new. It happened in 1898, when the late Mr. John Redmond, speaking about eight miles from where I live, said:
  "Our object is to get the British bag and baggage out of Ireland."
  The object of this Treaty is to do that, to get the British connection out of Ireland and to get finished with it. That being so, we have to look to what treatment those who have formed our connection up to now will receive when this Treaty goes from our hands and becomes an Act of Parliament. My hon. and gallant Friend has asked what will be the treatment accorded to the Royal Irish Constabulary? I have here a letter which really gives a small pen picture of the future of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It is written to me by a woman in Dublin, and it says:
  "My husband was demobilised from the Royal Irish Constabulary in 1917 owing to injuries received on active service during the Easter week trouble the previous year. He was awarded a disability pension of 22s. a week. Within three months he was appointed a clerk in the Department of Agriculture and has worked there since. His activities in the Royal Irish Constabulary won him early promotion and about a score of favourable records, all of which now militate against him. His recent request for permanent appointment in the Civil Service has been refused for reasons stated in the attached letter."
  The attached letter is to the effect that no member of the Royal Irish Constabu-
  1340
  lary can come under the terms of the Lytton Report, because service in the Royal Irish Constabulary is not recognised as service in His Majesty's forces.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The question is not whether the Provisional Government are likely to admit members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the Civil Service, or otherwise, but who shall be responsible for the compensation which they are to receive. I do not think it would be possible to allow the hon. and gallant Member to pursue his present line of argument.
  Colonel NEWMAN: What I was going to endeavour to do was to point out to the House that someone has got to be responsible for the condition in which this unfortunate man finds himself, and I suggest that we ought to make it perfectly clear that the Irish Free State Government will have to be responsible. At the moment they refuse to do so. If I may read on, I shall be able to show my meaning. The letter proceeds:
  "He was specially mobilised for and despatched on active service by order of General Maxwell in April, 1916, and was so injured in discharging active military duties that his health gave way and he lost his situation."
  Then he got appointed to this position in the Board of Agriculture in Dublin, but his application that his appointment might be made permanent was refused, although the Board had no hesitation—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The very terms of this Amendment assume that there will be a number of ex-officers in Ireland who will have lost their employment. The question is who shall be responsible for the compensation paid to them. It is unnecessary for the hon. and gallant Member to labour the point, because the terms of the Amendment assume it.
  Colonel NEWMAN: I will ask the Colonial Secretary, when he comes to reply, to say that in a case of this sort the Irish Free State Government will be responsible for compensating the man for the injuries he suffered and the disability under which he labours. I could quote many more instances of hardship which the Royal Irish Constabulary, at any rate, fear they are going to suffer. I get letters from, them every day, and not only could I quote their grievances or feared grievances, but those of other

  1341
  classes of civil servants. With regard, for instance, to resident magistrates, are they going to be properly compensated when we leave the country? I have had several letters from them—from men who fear that, after having served this country faithfully in positions of great danger and difficulty, they are now going to be let down and left to starve on a miserably inadequate pension. I want to be told that that is not so. I do not want to labour the point or to put myself out of order, but this is our last chance to get from the Government an assurance that these faithful servants of the Crown, the difficulties and dangers of whose work are known to us who live in Ireland, are not going to be thrown to the wolves, but will got the full terms that they would have got under the Act of 1920.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the Minister is going, to accept this Amendment, I have nothing to say, but if not, I should like to supplement what the Mover and Seconder of the Ajnendment have said. The people affected by this Amendment are those who constituted the link between Great Britain and Ireland. Civil servants and others in Ireland were really divided into two classes. There were those who were intensely loyal to the British connection, and who believed that Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom; and there were those who, while under the British rule, were really steeped to the neck in Sinn Fein beliefs and doctrines. Dublin Castle was honeycombed in that way, and it even penetrated to some extent into the military service. That was largely why the policy which the Chief Secretary tried to carry out broke in his hands. It seems to me monstrous that these loyal men should now be left to the tender mercies of the Free State Government. We do not know yet whether there is going to be any Government in Ireland or not, or which of the parties is going to prevail. We do not know whether the South may not be reduced to a state of anarchy. We hope not; we hope that this experiment may turn out to be successful; but we have no right whatever to transfer these loyal servants for pension purposes to new employers. We are the people who employed them, and it is our duty to see them through. It is monstrous that we should depart from that duty and try to shift our responsibilities on to other
  1342
  shoulders. They had no option, no chance of changing their minds. I wish the Leader of the House were here to take a hand in this matter. He must remember that he is putting a great strain on many of us. There has not been such a sudden change of policy by any leader of a political party since what happened to Saul on the road to Damascus. Many of us wish to see this Treaty through, and to help to make it successful, but we do not think we should do that at the expense of any of those who have risked their lives and fortunes for a great many years, believing, above all things, in the word and good faith of Britain.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Article 10 of the Treaty prescribes that
  "The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920"—
  to which Act the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) referred in eulogistic terms, describing how many of its Clauses were taken up in dealing with this matter. The Article further prescribes:
  "The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof."
  We rest on the Treaty, which it is the duty and obligation of the Free State Government to carry out fully, fairly, and strictly. If, however, they do not—if any of the evil anticipations in which hon. Gentlemen have indulged come to pass, if there is no Government in Ireland, if there is nothing but anarchy, if there is a Government with which we are in a state of complete hostility—if that state of affairs is created, what is to happen? The Leader of the House, on the 19th December last, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) said:
  "Clause 10 of the Articles of Agreement defines the obligations of the Irish Free State in regard to the compensation of existing police and civil officials who may retire or be discharged in consequence of the change of government. The police and the officials concerned are assured of treatment not less favourable than that provided in the Government of Ireland Act, and His Majesty's Government will be the guarantor of their pensions."—[OFFICIAL REPOKT, 19th December, 1921; col. 413, Vol. 149.]

  1343
  In the ultimate issue we are the guarantor of their pensions. I do not propose, however, to accept this Amendment and to write this upon the text of the present Bill. I think that to do so would be to throw a quite unjustifiable slur upon the action of a Government which has not yet come into existence, and which, if it comes into existence at all, will do so on the basis of the Treaty, and will, we must assume, honourably execute the provisions of the Treaty. I could not accept the suggestion that this provision be inserted. I think it would tend to encourage people to think that they were entitled to evade their obligations, and to regard it as a statutory provision, in the event of their doing so, for the Government assuming responsibility. It would be most unfortunate to begin by assuming that an Irish Free State Government—which, after all, is the goal of this policy, and without which the policy would fail and many grave and immeasurable evils would supervene in our affairs—would not carry out its obligations. To assume that would be a great mistake, and I hope the Committee will not agree with those who would so assume.
  Sir F. BANBURY: For once, I am very glad to say, I agree with the Colonial Secretary. He has repeated, I understand with approval, the statement made by the Leader of the House on 19th December, that this country will see that the actual money is paid. Under these circumstances, it would be a mistake to put anything into the Treaty which would leave the Free State in the position that all they had to do was to repudiate their share of the bargain, and then the British taxpayer would pay.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: It does not say that. It will be charged against them.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite aware of that piece at the end. My hon. and gallant Friend and I are at one in these matters and neither of us believes in the Irish Free State, or any arrangement which may be made. I know what that settlement will be. We shall pay and we shall get nothing back. I do not want to encourage the Irish Free State to think that all they have to do is to say: "You must look after your own affairs. You have put it in the Treaty
  1344
  and you have to pay." I am rather inclined to think it would be better to be satisfied with the declaration of the Colonial Secretary. But I should like the Government to give us clearly to understand, in no uncertain terms, that should the unfortunate circumstance arise of the Irish Free State repudiating their bargain, these people would not suffer.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): We have said so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to say anything in any kind of way offensive, but over and over again statements have been made which have not been adhered to, and, therefore, if we are supporting the Government at present, we ought to have it clearly stated by some authoritative person that that is not going to take place.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary a point on which I am not quite clear. Have we the assurance of the Government that all these pensions, which primarily fall upon the Free State, are guaranteed by the British Government in case the Free State does not carry out its obligations, and does it include not merely the salaries of the judges and police, but of all the public servants who are referred to in this Clause?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Baronet did not understand the Colonial Secretary. In answer to a question put down by himself on December last, the Leader of the House said:
  "Clause 10 of the Articles of Agreement defines the obligations of the Irish Free State in regard to the compensation of existing police and civil officials who may retire or be discharged in consequence of the change of Government. The police and officials concerned are assured of treatment not less favourable than that provided in the Government of Ireland Act, and His Majesty's Government will be the guarantor of their pensions."
  I do not think it could be put more clearly than that. That answer of the Lord Privy Seal was carefully prepared to meet the question of the hon. Baronet.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I am very much obliged to the Chief Secretary. That removes the doubt I had. I was under the impression that the answer did not

  1345
  apply to all the officials in the public service who are referred to. If it does, it removes apprehensions on that score. Having got that from the Government, I suggest that it is most desirable to put it into this Bill. I am not casting any slur on the Irish Free State. We know that they are in great straits for money at present, and they may be in great straits for money in the future. If I suggest that possibly they may not be able to get the money to pay all these pensions and their other obligations, I am not saying that they are necessarily a corrupt and incompetent Government. I do not think anyone in the House will say it is not possible that that event may arise. If that is so, surely these old servants of the Crown, judges and others, who have served the Crown faithfully ought not to be left out in the cold. If there is no money in the Free State, surely this country, which appointed them, which has had the benefit of their service, and by whose action they lose their positions, ought to see that they are paid. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman says: "I promise you on the Floor of the House that they shall be paid." That is really not the way to do business. If you want to secure their position, you ought to put it in an Act of Parliament. What is the objection to that? I cannot see it. If you do not put it into the present Bill, will there be any opportunity of putting it into another Bill? It cannot go into the Bill dealing with the Constitution. We are not to be allowed to amend that. Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any other Bill which is coming on into which we shall be able to put a provision of this sort?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Supposing the Government ever become liable, they will have to pass a Bill to impose an obligation on the Exchequer.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: It is obvious that we cannot impose a liability on the Exchequer by the mere statement of a Minister. It obviously requires legislation to make good the promise the right hon. Gentleman has given us, but surely now is the time to do it. A year hence, when the occasion arises, there may possibly be a different staff on that bench from the people who now ornament it. Will they necessarily be bound by the pledges given by my right hon. Friend? I do not know. Perhaps
  1346
  they are. But be that as it may, sooner or later those promises given the other day will have to be put into an Act of Parliament. Why should it not be put in now? I am quite certain there is not a man in this House, whichever side he sits on, who wants to desert these old servants of the Crown or leave them to starve after their long service. There is not a man in the House who would not desire that our obligations should be recorded in this Bill and be made binding on us, and that would remove what at this moment is a very grave source of anxiety to these people.
  Lieut.-Colonel HURST: I should like to reinforce the point which has just been made. I approach this question from a very different angle from that from which it has been approached by a good many speakers. I have not spoken or voted against the Government yet on the Committee stage because I believe this Treaty, however much it may be criticised, is the best way out of a very difficult and bad situation. I am quite prepared to accept the formula of the Government that we must not go beyond the Treaty. We must have the Treaty, the whole Treaty and nothing but the Treaty in this Bill. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Amendment repugnant to the Treaty in any way. It does not go to the root of the primary liability of the Government of the Irish Free State. What it does is to add to that liability an additional security to the people whose pension rights we all want to see secured. The Government offers an oral promise that these men shall be looked after by the British Government if the Irish Government does not fulfil its obligation. If they have no objection to undertaking that liability, what objection can they take to having that liability given the sanction of an Act of Parliament? The difference is between the mere obiter dictum of a Minister and a statutory guarantee on which these civil servants can rely. From the point of view of the civil servant, that is all the difference in the world. Another party may come into power which may ignore this purely moral obligation, whereas if this Amendment is accepted, the pensioner will be able to rely on a statutory guarantee which is available under all circumstances. There is therefore all the difference in the world from the point of view of the civil

  1347
  servant, whose interests we wish to see protected.
  We are told that Clause 10 of the Treaty gives them a sufficient guarantee. It is quite clear that the agreements there entered into by the Government of the Irish Free State are really unenforceable. These officers have no agreement of service with the Irish Free State Government, and therefore a Law Court in the Irish Free State would in all probability refuse to recognise any legal obligation at all. Under Clause 10 the Government of the Irish Free State do not enter into any contractual relations with their servants. It is simply a pledge to the British Government, and it would therefore be futile for any of these officers in the future to take proceedings in Irish Courts for their pensions or for compensation. Their position is really very similar to that of the loyalists in North America after the War of Independence. At the end of the American Revolution the new Government of the United States undertook to secure that no loyalists there would suffer by reason of their adherence to the Mother Country during the War. With the best will in the world the Government of the United States was unable to fulfil that undertaking, and the British Government had ultimately to pay many millions in compensation to these loyalists. Where great men like Washington and Hamilton failed, it is not likely that men like Collins and Griffith will succeed. The rights which we give by Clause 10 of the Treaty are not enforceable. They are simply dependent upon the grace of the Free State Government, and the probability is that with the best intentions in the world the Free State Government will be unable to give effect to its good intentions and to give the civil servants those rights which we are all anxious to see enforced. That being the case, it is clear that a statutory guarantee by the British Government is necessary, and for these reasons moderate men—those who wish to see the Treaty carried out to the fullest possible extent—will certainly be with those who have raised this point on this Amendment in hoping that the Government will see their way to give what is only just and right to these civil servants.
  Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: The Government is extremely narrow-minded in deal-
  1348
  ing with this Bill. They seem absolutely unable to go outside the text of the Bill. They seem to be afraid to move one inch further than the printed matter in front of their noses. What can be the reason for that? It seems to me that they must have given some pledge, verbal or written, to the representatives of Sinn Fein that when the Bill was brought before the House of Commons they would accept no Amendment of any description. I understand the Chief Secretary says he is in complete agreement with the sense of this Amendment and pledges the Government, in the event of the Free State Government failing to fulfil its obligations, to carry out these obligations. If the Minister says the Government is willing to do that, why does he refuse to give it the force of law? In a year or so, when these things come up, some other Government—a Labour Government—may be in charge. More unlikely things have happened than that, and hon. Members opposite naturally will not be bound by pledges given by a former Government. The Government obstinately refuse day after day to accept any Amendments even though they entirely agree with them.
  6.0 P.M.
  There must be something which we do not understand, and something which is not creditable to the Government, to cause them to carry on their business in this way. Why are we doubtful whether the Free State Government will be able to carry out this obligation? Ireland is not a rich country. There will be a great number of people who will have to be found jobs when the Free Stat* Government is set up. There will be a great deal of social and material reconstruction to be carried out if Southern Ireland, which has been so much desolated in the last few years, is to be put right, and, with all the best will in the world, a new Government in Ireland will say, "Our friends first, and those who served our enemies last." Therefore these discharged officials will be the last of the beneficiaries of the Free State Government. Though they might be paid in time, they would have to wait a long time. On that ground, I press the Government to consider the matter, and to see whether they could not insert in the Bill a provision that the British nation has still some gratitude for those whom it is casting off, and will see that their pensions and the money owing to them are properly paid.

  1349
  There is another contingency which the Committee ought to face, and it is a real live possibility, and that is that the Free State Government may never function, and that a Republic may be set up. We see grave signs of unrest in many parts of Ireland. We see open rebellion against the Provisional Government. The golden opportunity for a General Election has been allowed to slip by, and has been put off for three or four months. I would not be in the least surprised if, when that General Election does take place, a Republican majority is returned in Southern Ireland, and not a majority favourable to the Free State. Where will the pledges for these wretched men be then? The Republican majority, even though they do not set up a real Republic, will say: "We are not bound by the pledges of Mr. Arthur Griffith or of Mr. Collins. We have always profoundly disagreed with them. We are not going to pay these pensions and this money owing to the servants of the hated English. We will not pay them one penny," What these wretched men can get is simply the word of the Chief Secretary, who as an honourable man would carry out his pledge if he could, but he may not be here, and his Government may not be here. However important a man may be, be he the Chief Secretary or not, his word does not carry one ounce of weight in a Court of Law. All that the Court of Law says is, "What is in the Act of Parliament?" and it takes no account of the declarations of Ministers, however important. On these grounds I do earnestly press the Government as a mere question of justice to do something really definite for these unfortunate people.
  Mr. MARRIOTT: I find it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. and learned Member for York, with the actual text of the Treaty, and I would call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the terms of Article 10—
  "The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who are discharged," etc.
  Then there is a Proviso in the following terms:
  1350
  "Provided that this Agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Force or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof."
  The words to which I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies are the following:
  "The British Government will assume responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to any of these excepted persons."
  What is the inference? In set terms the British Government accept responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to the excepted persons. The inference is, that they do not accept responsibility for the earlier part of the Clause. That is the distinct inference from, the actual terms of the Treaty. We have the Colonial Secretary quoting the opinion, or, as the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Lieut. -Colonel Hurst) described it, the obiter dictum of the Lord Privy Seal, in which he said that the British Government would assume responsibility for, and would guarantee, the payment of these pensions to the judges and other civil servants who were dispossessed, if the Irish Free State failed to fulfil their obligations. If that is so, why does not the Colonial Secretary accept the terms of this Amendment, which are in no way an infraction of the terms of the Treaty? I realise that the Government are not in a position to alter by a comma the actual Agreement which they have made with the Free State, but I ask the Government and the Committee this question: "Does this Amendment alter in any way, either in law or in morals, the obligations which the Government have entered into with the Free State in regard to the civil servants?" In these circumstances, I invite the Colonial Secretary to explain the omission from the earlier part of Article 10 of the proviso referred to.
  Viscount CURZON: In the event of the Free State Government not being able or not wishing to carrying out the obligations they have entered into under this Treaty, I understand that the Leader of the House has said that the British Government will undertake the liability. If that is so, will legislation be required to carry out the obligation which the Leader of the House admitted? If legislation is necessary, can the Colonial

  1351
  Secretary give an undertaking that he will bring in such legislation to enable the House to deal with the question?
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: My reply to the Noble Lord is, that you must have a Vote if you are going to pay money to the pensioners indicated in Article 10.
  Sir JAMES GREIG: The Amendment does not cover the cases in the contingency to which my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ashley) referred. Suppose the Free State Government is not formed, this Amendment would not operate, because it refers to
  "judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants who are discharged by the Government of the Irish Free State."
  It is far better, instead of putting in something which will not operate if the contingency which some hon. Members seem to fear arises, to leave it to the general moral obligation of His Majesty's Government, which has been given in face of the whole country. That will be much bettor than putting in an Amendment which will not cover the cases that might arise. Moreover, by inserting this Amendment we show doubt on our part as to the bona fides of any Free State Government which is going to be set up. To put such a provision in the Statute would be the very worse thing we could do.
  Sir W. DAVISON: The Committee is entitled to know where it stands in regard to the discussion of this Measure. Do the Government consider it a point of honour to accept no Amendment whatever on this Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order to raise that point on the present occasion. We must deal with each Amendment as we come to it.
  Sir W. DAVISON: The Amendment before the House is exactly one which emphasises my point. It is in no sense a wrecking Amendment. It in no sense dictates to any Irish Government, but is purely a matter of guarantee on the part of the British Government. It has been moved in most moderate terms, and it is accepted practically by the Colonial Secretary, who gives a verbal guarantee that the British Government will fulfil what is stated in this Amendment, but by reason of a point of honour, which is
  1352
  apparently enforced by the Government, or some one behind the Government, he will not accept it and put it in the Bill. If that is so, hon. Members would be very well advised to take no further part in the discussion of the Bill on the Report stage. It is a perfect farce, and it is degrading to the House of Commons that Amendments which are perfectly reasonable, and which are admitted by the Government to be reasonable, and which are even guaranteed verbally by the Government, are not to be put into the Bill. To proceed as a legislative assembly with a sham discussion when we are treated in this way is an absurdity, and I will take no further part in this stage of the Bill.
  Mr. SPENCER: I have a very great measure of sympathy with the very difficult position in which the supporters of the Amendment find themselves. On the one hand they have no faith whatever in the Free State Government discharging its duties at any time, and on the other hand they have no faith—and the last speaker was perhaps more pronounced than anyone else on this point—either in the British Parliament or the British Government or the British people. Nevertheless, the hon. Member is seeking to transfer a legitimate burden which should be borne by the Free State Government to a Parliament in which he has absolutely no faith. In the few words which the hon. Member has expressed tonight he has recanted the statements which he has been making consistently in regard to this Measure. We have this most amazing spectacle to Members on this side of the House of finding hon. Members opposite saying that they cannot trust either the Free State Government or the British House of Commons, while the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley) could not even trust the Labour party when they come into power. Even after a declaration has been made by responsible Ministers that the financial obligation will be borne by this country and this Parliament if the Free State Government fails to meet its obligations, they have absolutely no faith in themselves, in this Parliament or in anyone else.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and

  1353
  learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher)—at the end of Sub-section (1) to insert the words
  "Subject to the following modification, that is to say, the oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in like form as the oath required to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada"—
  is out of order. It would negative the Treaty.
  The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harms-worth)—in Sub-section (2), after the word "to" ["to Article 17"] to insert the words "the said"—applies to a question which was ruled out of order to-day.
  The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Finehley (Colonel Newman)—in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the house of"—is constitutionally wrong.
  The Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Jellett)—at the end of Sub-section (2) to insert the words
  "Provided always that in the event of the said Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland not being ratified by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the Members so elected to constitute the said Parliament within twenty-eight days from the date on which the said Parliament shall be first summoned to meet this Act and all the provisions therein contained shall cease to have effect, and all the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, shall thereupon become operative as if this Act had not been passed"—
  would have the effect of negativing the Treaty.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words
  "Any Order in Council under this Section may contain such incidental, consequential, or supplemental provisions as may appear to be necessary or proper for the purpose of giving effect to the foregoing provisions of this Section."
  This is the Amendment which I moved in the Committee stage and which I was asked to postpone until the Report stage. I acceded to that request entirely in order to have some occasion of agreeing to the wish of the Committee and not to lend colour to the statement which has been made so often that I am trying to meet every suggestion with a negative. This
  1354
  Amendment is being put in order to give reasonable facilities for dealing with incidental or supplemental provisions which may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Clause I. When this process of transferring the powers of the Government to the Provisional Government occurs, certain reactions will undoubtedly take place with regard to Ulster, owing to the area of some of the Departments of the Provisional Government being separated from the area of the present Irish Departments. We are taking this power in order to bring the Provisional Government in Southern Ireland into legal being without inconveniencing or hampering the administration of the Northern Government. It was said the other day in Committee by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), that it was a most abominable thing for the Government to take this power to do anything and everything by Order in Council, that it was a sign of the growing degeneracy of the age and the decadence of Parliamentary institutions, and to emphasise this my Noble Friend went so far as to suggest that this particular phrase "incidental, consequential or supplemental" was traceable by its literary form to me. I cannot claim that credit. I just took the trouble in the interval to look up a few of the precedents for words of this description and there are numberless such precedents:
  (1) The Winter Assizes Act, 1896, passed when a pure Conservative Government was in power, presided over by no less a statesman than Disraeli, provides in Section 2 (4) that an Order in Council made for uniting counties for the purposes of Winter Assizes may provide
  "for any matters which appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or proper for carrying into effect an Order in Council under this Act."
  (2) The Municipal Corporations (New Charters Act), 1877, also passed when a pure Conservative Government was in power, provided that schemes adjusting property and liabilities on the creation of a new borough might contain
  "such provisions as appear to the Committee of Council to be necessary or proper for fully carrying into effect any such adjustment and provision as aforesaid."
  (3) The Local Government Act, 1888, when again there was a Conservative Government under the great Lord Salisbury, provided in Section 59 that

  1355
  "a scheme or Order under this Act may make such administrative and judicial arrangements incidental to or consequential on any alteration of boundaries, authorities or other matters made by the scheme or Order as may seem expedient."
  (4) The London Government Act, 1899, passed when a Unionist Government was in power, also under Lord Salisbury, provided in Section 16 that schemes made in connection with the establishment of the Metropolitan Boroughs
  "may contain"—
  I ask the House to give attention to these remarkable words which have been attributed to the exuberance of my literary fancy—
  "any incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions which may appear to be necessary or proper for the purposes of the scheme."
  (5) The National Insurance Act, 1913, passed when a Liberal Government was in power, provides in Section 28 that regulations made by the Insurance Commissioners may contain
  "such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions as appear necessary for modifying and adapting the provisions of the principal Act to the provisions of the regulations and otherwise for the purposes of the regulations."
  (6) The Acts establishing the Ministries of Health and Transport, passed by the present Coalition Government—I am increasing the weight of the authorities as I go along—provide that Orders in Council transferring powers under those Acts
  "may make such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to any transfer of powers and duties."
  It will thus be seen that the powers contained in this Amendment are not new or revolutionary. There are precedents not only for the Amendment, but for the language in Acts passed by Governments of all kinds of political complexion, pure Conservative, Unionist, Liberal and Coalition that have existed in this country during the last 40 years. I trust that we may be allowed the latitude which all these distinguished authorities and administrations have taken on themselves in the past.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has repudiated the authorship of what appears to be very excellent language. But may I draw attention to the fact that an Amendment
  1356
  of this description, which was apparently introduced in former days, dealt then merely with the establishment of local authorities, the boundaries of boroughs and matters of that sort, and that that is a very different thing from giving powers to a new Government.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I could have quoted another precedent—the Act of 1920.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to say that I voted against that Act. Its absurdity is made manifest by the fact that we are now on the Report stage of a Bill which practically reverses everything in that Act. I do not think we need worry about the 1920 Act. This is a very much more important matter than the small matters connected with local authorities. No doubt when those particular Bills were introduced it was not thought necessary that the House of Commons should be consulted, but anything in reference to a new Government should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. Sub-section (2) of Clause I of this Bill begins:
  "For the purpose of giving effect to Article 17 of the said Agreement Orders in Council may be made."
  Then the powers of the Orders in Council are defined, and then the right hon. Gentleman wants to insert this Amendment at the end of the Subsection. I do not see the necessity of giving the power for Orders in Council at the beginning of the Clause and then inserting them in a slightly altered form at the end of the Clause, unless there is something which the House does not understand. When the Amendment was before the Committee it was postponed to the Report stage in order that we might have the opinion of the Ulster Members. It was said that it was necessary in their interests that this should be done. I am not satisfied that they are united in their idea as to what should be done. Even with regard to municipal and local matters, for which this principle was formerly introduced, it is a great mistake to allow it to be introduced into an Act of Parliament. During the War grave matters were delegated to the Privy Council, giving them the right to make Orders in Council affecting the liberties of the people in this country. Possibly in time of war that was inevitable, but the result is that at the present moment there is

  1357
  established in the minds of the Government an idea that all they have got to do is to introduce a certain Clause, and then tack on to it certain powers to issue Orders in Council which give them carte blanche so far as that Clause is concerned. Here the Government are to have power to do anything they like. Though I should be sorry to do anything which would in any way put difficulties in the way of the Ulster Government in administering their particular province, still this is a very important constitutional question. It is far beyond this Bill; it is far beyond even the question of Ulster. We cannot take up the line that this is a bad principle if it applies to the Labour party and a good principle if it affects our friends on this side. We must either take up the line that the principle is good or that it is bad, I think that the principle is bad and therefore I hope that the Government will not press this Amendment.
  Colonel GRETTON: On this matter the right hon. Baronet is a great authority. There is no greater authority in this House on Parliamentary procedure. I desire to add a few words to what he has said. I will call attention to the words of the Colonial Secretary in his attempt to justify the language which he uses. His alliteration attracted the attention of certain Members—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Not alliteration.
  Colonel GRETTON: In any case he endeavoured to show that language of a similar kind has been used in previous Acts of Parliament, but in all he said I did not catch one single instance where powers so wide and so sweeping, dealing with so vast a subject, have been handed over to any Government to be used by them through Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman quoted Orders dealing with matters of local government. He quoted powers given to make Regulations dealing with education and on other subjects, but all were of narrow range and none of them dealt with great national or constitutional questions. Here we are asked for the first time—certainly since I have been in Parliament—to hand over great administrative powers of a wide and sweeping character to the discretion of the Government of the day to be disposed of by Order in Council,
  1358
  without let or hindrance, in any way they may think fit. Surely this is a grave constitutional question. The Government in this particular Bill and in all this hasty legislation, have involved themselves in such a maze of irregularities that they have to take short cuts in order to solve the problem. In fact the Colonial Secretary has said that he does not know what may not be proposed. Anything may have to be done to deal with matters which may arise, and which, in the nature of the case, the Government have been unable to foresee I suggest that if this House does give these powers it ought to insist on the usual safegards, namely, that the Orders in draft, should lie upon the Table of the-House for a reasonable period in order that objection may be taken to them if necessary, and that they may be debated, and that the power of Parliament may not be altogether thrown away. Probably the House, at this stage, may be disposed to give these powers, however great the objection to doing so, but I think the Government should agree to allowing the Orders to lie upon the Table without becoming operative until a reasonable period has elapsed during which Parliament may take action. Much more may be said on the subject, and I propose, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move that a proviso be added to this Clause, that the Orders should lay upon the Table as I suggest.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words
  "Provided that any Order to be made under this Section shall lie upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 21 days on which Parliament is sitting, and that an Address may be presented to His Majesty, by either of the Houses of Parliament, praying that an Order may not be made."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This is very sudden. I could not possibly agree to this very serious limitation on the necessary and legitimate facilities which the Government should have for setting up the Provisional Government. After all, we are having a very difficult task at the present time, and this Bill, if it passes, will deal only with an interregnum period. Another Bill will be required to ratify

  1359
  the constitution of the Irish Free State, and before that Bill comes to the House the House will be in possession of the whole Irish situation, will know the position the Irish people have taken up, and will know whether the Free State Government is definitely constituted in accordance with it. That will be the time when we shall be able to take final views upon this Irish legislation. In the interval, what have we got to do? We have got to clothe with legal power and effective executive authority an administration which now has no legal foundation at all, but which, nevertheless, is still the means whereby we have to provide for peace, order, and good government in Ireland. Every day lost in transferring these powers, for good or for ill, to this Government, which is all we have to count on to make a success of the policy on which the British nation has embarked with the assent of both Houses, is serious. The business of transferring to them these powers cannot be delayed. I could not undertake that every step in transferring Departments, that every Order that is made to bring this new Government into existence, during the transitional period, shall first be laid upon the Table of this House for 21 days before becoming operative. I would not take the responsibility of trying to make this experiment a success if we were compelled to do so.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does that apply to Ulster?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This has nothing to do with Ulster. My hon. Friend has been allowing his brain to repose for a few moments and we have passed on to another Amendment altogether. This applies to all Orders in Council which may have to be made under the Bill. It is general in its application. There are Orders which would be required probably in regard to matters of convenience and adjustment relating to Ulster, but there are other Orders in Council which have to be made under the Bill, from time to time, and we could not possibly undertake that all these Orders should lie for 21 days on the Table of the House before passing into law. Let it not be thought, however, that this House has no remedy or that it is parting with its sovereign powers. This House still possesses all its powers in plen-
  1360
  ary fullness, and at any time on a Vote of Censure, or on the Adjournment of the House, or on any of the numerous occasions when the general policy of the Government can be debated, the House is invested with every opportunity for regulating, supervising and controlling the action of the Government. There is really no need to insert such a proviso as is proposed, in order to safeguard the powers and authority of Parliament. The administration stands or falls entirely by the support which it receives from the House of Commons, and the complaint which the hon. Members who have, moved this Amendment have previously made, is not that that Support has not been forthcoming, but rather that that support of the House of Commons has been given to the Government in abundant and overflowing measure.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I may point out to the House that I have now had time to examine this Amendment, and I find that it will not work. It will not make sense. It is a head without a tail. It provides for the laying of Orders in Council on the Table and for certain Addresses, but it makes no provision whatever as to what is to happen in case of the carrying of such an Addrees. I do not think I ought to put it to the House, because it will have no effect. Does the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) wish to move the next Amendment?
  Colonel NEWMAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to add the words
  "All writs, regulations, notices, and forms in connection with the holding of the aforesaid election of Members to serve in the first Parliament of the Irish Free State shall, if they are printed or published in Erse, be also printed and published in English."
  Every newly created or re-created State has a laudable ambition to use or to re-create its own language. I quite understand that. A newly-made State sometimes goes further than that, however. Take, for example, the newly-created State of Czechc-Slovakia. I was in Prague not many months ago, and I find that it is an offence there to speak German. You have to speak the Czech language. If one has no knowledge of the Czech language, that makes life in Prague to-day somewhat more difficult than it was in the old days when Bohemia was still a part of the Austrian

  1361
  Empire. There is an example of a newly-created State enforcing by law the use of the Czech language as against the Austrian language.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. and gallant Friend will permit me to refer him to Sub-section (2), I think he will find the effect of it is that what he wishes will be fully done. The election which is to be held under the provisions of this Bill will be an election under the British law, and consequently all the writs, regulations, notices, forms, and everything in connection with the election must be written in English.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any assurance from those who are to be Ministers of the Free State that they will stand by that? He is working on Sub-section (2) of Clause I of the Bill, which says
  "Such steps shall be taken as may be necessary for holding, in acordance with the law now in force with respect to the franchise, number of members, and method of election and holding of elections to that Parliament,"
  and so on. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day in the Dail Eireann, which is the supreme assembly ruling in Southern Ireland now, whose members—they are called "deputies"— did not take any oath, it was asked whether or not women between the ages of 21 and 30 should not be admitted to the franchise forthwith, and I understand the matter was held over for consideration?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If I remember rightly, the representatives of the Irish Provisional Government repudiated the suggestion and pointed out that this was a proposal brought forward by those who wanted to wreck the Treaty and create delay.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Yes, because they said it would take longer to prepare a new register. They did not say that it could not be done because it was contrary to anything in the Bill now before the British House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me his assurance here and now that in this election, which is going to be held some months from now, English will be used, I am content. This election will be held under the proportional representation system, which, in the first instance, is somewhat difficult for electors to follow.
  1362
  It is absolutely necessary in the case of a nation which does not yet know its own language—the mass of the people cannot speak Erse, though there are said to be 10,000 people who speak Erse only—that there should be a chance given to have this system of election explained in English.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that that is undoubtedly so.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Then I will withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SCHEDULE.

  ARTICLES OK AGREEMENT FOR A TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND DATED THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TWENTY-ONE.
  18. This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the Members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and, if approved, shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.
  Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 18, to insert the words

  (Signed)

  On behalf of the British Delegation,

  D. Lloyd George.

  Austen Chamberlain.

  Birkenhead.

  Winston S. Churchill.

  L. Worthington-Evans.

  Hamar Greenwood.

  Gordon Hewnrt.

  On behalf of the Irish Delegation,

  Art Ó Griobbhtha.

  Michaíl Ó Coiliain. Riobárd BartÍn.

  G. S. Ó Dugain.

  Seúrsa Ghabháin Ùi

  Dhubhthaigh

  6th December 1921.

  The hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) said there were only 10,000 people in Ireland who could speak the language of Erse.
  Colonel NEWMAN: Alone.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: I suggest that the Irish delegates, when they came over to sign the Treaty, might, for the benefit of the English people and the remainder

  1363
  of their countrymen, have signed their names in some intelligible language. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee the other evening politely told me that I had not spelt the Irish names right when I was postponing the Amendment to the Report stage. I may not have spelled them right to-day. I have no knowledge of exactly the right way to spell the names, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has more knowledge of the language of Erse than I have myself. I greatly sympathise with Mr. Speaker if he has to read the Amendment out with these names written in this strange language, but the object of the Amendment is that the Government themselves should have their names signed at the end of this Schedule and take the full responsibility. There is ample precedent for this. In the Coal Mines Control Agreement (Confirmation) Act of 1917 the Controller of Coal Mines, on the part of the Government, signed the Agreement, and the others on the side of the Mining Association, etc., signed their names also at the bottom of the Agreement, and that Schedule was put in the Bill, and is in the Act at the present day.
  That being so, I think we have every right to demand that the names, the, perhaps, illustrious names, of the Members of the Government who signed this Treaty should also be at the bottom of the Agreement, so that they may go down to posterity as the great authors of the Agreement, and so that, when the history of this matter is written, the real responsibility will lie with those who signed the Treaty, and not so much on the House of Commons which had to pass the Treaty after it had been signed. I have not noticed since I have been a Member of this House a great deal of modesty on the part of Ministers, but I can understand their modesty now in refraining from putting their names to this Schedule. I have no doubt that when the Agreement was signed there was a great rush of Ministers of State to have their names on this historic document, but now they find that it is perhaps not so popular in the country as it was when it was written, I can quite understand that they are not so keen on having their names at the bottom of it, and that they wish, perhaps, to have them removed; but I venture to say that we in this House
  1364
  must demand that they have their names on the Schedule, whether they wish it or not, and that they shall go down in history as the authors of this Agreement, whether it comes to be written that they were right or wrong. At any rate, I think everyone should know who were the authors, and that their names should be attached to this Bill.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I feel sure really that the right hon. Gentleman intends to accept it, because I cannot imagine that he and his colleagues whose names are here set forth would not be desirous of having the full credit of this remarkable instrument to which they have put their names.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. PENNEFATHER: The right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment? If so, he does so at an opportune moment for himself, because one of the reasons I was going to give as to why the Amendment should be accepted might not be altogether agreeable to him, but as he accepts I will say no more.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Schedule sets out what, by virtue of Clause 1, Subsection (1), is to have the force of law, and it is the signatories of the Treaty agreed to that were necessary and not the signatures to the Schedule. At the same time, I have consulted the authorities, and I am informed that there are precedents in which the names of the signatories of the Treaty have been included in the legislation which has been passed in this House, and in these circumstances, if it be the general wish of the House, I am quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment, though I must say that the hon. Gentleman who moved it has made a great many mistakes in the spelling of the Irish delegates' names, and if he will withdraw his Amendment, I will move a similar Amendment with the necessary corrections in the spelling. I would like, however, just to say two things before I sit down.
  First of all, I would strongly recommend the hon. Gentleman not to try and get himself a cheaply-earned reputation for being funny by trying to sneer at the Erse language of the Irish people. It

  1365
  may look very uncouth to English eyes, or unusual, but perhaps our language looks equally uncouth to Irish eyes. One never does know how one's self appears to others, and perhaps that is one of the things one learns as one gets on in life. One cannot always be quite sure that the inward vision of one's own presentment is in every respect coincident with external opinion, but I will say, in regard to the hon. Member's suggestion that those who signed the Treaty are ashamed or afraid to put their names to it, and are drawing back, because they think it is not so popular as it was when it was signed, that he is really doing us an injustice. We do not know—we cannot forecast—whether the ultimate effect of this legislation will be good or bad, but we do know that we have acted with a sincere desire to secure what was in the main interests of the country, and we believe that what we did has commanded the support of the people of this country.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I would like to suggest a further Amendment to the Amendment proposed, namely, that there should also be appended to this Treaty the illustrious names of those who are opposing it. We are now all engaged in giving our humble contribution to a great historic settlement, and it would be well that we should have the names of these gentlemen recorded, as I do not think it would be possible to have their names recorded for anything else. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) has made some sneering observations about the Irish language. — [HON. MEMBEES: "No."]—I would suggest to him that he should join with me in suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that an Irish class should be started in this House, and if he learns the Irish language he might be better able to speak the English language.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest we should be taught the language by some of the murderers?
  Mr. DEVLIN: I wish you would learn some sense of humour.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the hon. Member—
  Mr. DEVLIN: Oh, you are there again, are you?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the hon. Member commence the class which he advocates by reading the last name in the Amendment?
  Mr. DEVLIN: Certainly, but it is spelt wrongly. I must say this, as to the interruption about murderers made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), that I think he has murder on the brain. He seems to dream of murders, and think of murders, and talk in murderous language. I have been in this House for nearly 20 years, and I confess that, although I have heard the English language spoken very well in other places, I have never heard it spoken very well here, and I think that to lecture another people upon their language is hardly a becoming thing for a young politician who, no doubt, will shine in the future, after he has learned his own language a little better than he knows it now. The fact is that you do not seem to realise here that it is this country that crushed the Irish language, and that the Irish people are not speaking their own language to-day because the laws of this country have prevented it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment only proposes that these signatures should be added to the Schedule.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I had nearly forgotten that. I want to know now from the Colonial Secretary whether he will accept my suggestion in conjunction with the suggestion contained in the Amendment. If this Treaty is going to be the failure that is stated, why cannot the prophets of failure have their names recorded, so that the world in the future may know of their wonderful political prescience and power of prophecy? Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my suggestion.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid we shall have to leave that to the records of the Division.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how Mr. "Doublethigh's" name ought to be spelt—the last on the list?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Thanet withdraw his Amendment?
  Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Yes, I will withdraw, so that the right hon. Gentleman can propose his Amendment. I would like to say that I did not sneer at the Irish language. I was explaining my inability to spell it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If I wronged my hon. Friend, I will withdraw at once, and I am very glad to hear from him that he did not descend to sneers. I think we ought to keep clear of that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph 18, to insert the words:

  (Signed)

  On behalf of the British Delegation.

  D. Lloyd George.

  Austen Chamberlain.

  Birkenhead.

  Winston S. Churchill.

  L. Worthington-Evans.

  Hamar Greenwood.

  Gordon Hewart.

  On behalf of the Irish Delegation,

  Art Ó Griobhtha.

  Michaél Ó Coileain.

  Riobárd Bartún.

  B. S, Ó Dugain.

  Seórsa Ghabháin Ùi

  Dhubhthaigh.

  6th December, 1921.

  There are certain Amendments in the spelling of the Irish names, and these I will hand in to the Table. The second "h" in Griobhhthà should be deleted; there should be an "e" instead of "i" in the Christian name of MichaÍl 6 Colliain, and the second "i" should be an "e" in his surname; the name "BartÍn" should be "BartÚn "; the first initial of Mr. Dugain should be "E" instead of "G"; and the first Christian name of Mr. Dhubhthaigh should be "Seòrsa" instead of "Seùrsa."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I beg to move, "to leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"
  7.0 P.M.
  The Amendment which the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth) moved a few moments ago, and especially the contribution to its discussion, which came from the hon. Member for Falls (Mr. Devlin), supplied a little comic relief and hilarity which I have no doubt was very grateful in many quarters. When we get away from those moments of hilarity and levity, however, there are
  1368
  many of us who feel that the legislation in which we are now engaged has a very tragic bearing, both upon the history of this country and of our own across the Channel. I would not shrink from the ordeal proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falls for the opposers of this Bill, and I rise now to move that it be Read a Third time upon this day six months. There comes occasionally in the life of a man a time when he is advised that his only hope of prolonging his life depends upon his undergoing a serious surgical operation. That advice may be bad or it may be good, but when the surgeon has opened out the vital organs of a man, you cannot then argue that the advice was wrong or that the operation has been negligently or unskillfully conducted. You must then, at all hazards, allow him to close the body again and put the necessary stitches in the wound. His Majesty's Government, for good or for ill, have performed such an operation with regard to Ireland, and it is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that those of us who think that they have been ill-advised in their ways realise that now they must be allowed to complete their work. We realise perfectly well that they cannot now go back upon this Treaty, and now, when I am moving the rejection of this Bill, I wish it to be clearly understood that I do so because I do not admit that this is the right moment for this legislation, or that the Bill which we are now discussing, is either the only way or the best way of carrying out that Treaty. My object for the moment is not to enlarge upon alternative methods, but to point to some of the evils that have been done.
  There is one observation I would like to make which is not without interest in this connection. Whatever view hon. Members may take of this Bill no one, I think, will deny that it is the most drastic solution that has yet been proposed of a great controversy which for more than a generation has occupied the first place in British politics. Yet when this House comes to carry out this legislation, as we are doing to-day, we are met by this strange fact, that in no shape or form has it ever been submitted to the British people, nor has it ever been sanctioned by them, and except from such indications as may be gathered from the Press or other sources there is no constitutional certainty as to what the opinion of the

  1369
  British people is. It is certainly a strange thing that within a very few years of a Franchise Bill which has enormously increased the area of our democracy great legislative proposals of this sort can be presented to and carried through Parliament without any consultation of the people whatever. So much is that so that if you look back through the history of this Irish question I think some future commentator will call attention to the interesting fact that the more democratic a country becomes in appearance the less effective is the control which the people exercise over the Government.
  I remember very well that the present Leader of the House—I must again express my surprise that he is absent— among others persistently and emphatically used to complain, with reference to the Act which was carried in 1914, that those proposals made by the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) had never been submitted to the country, and it was mainly upon that ground that the Conservative and Unionist opposition to that Bill based itself during those years. Therefore it fills mo with surprise that these same right hon. Gentlemen, who took that action then, are now themselves parties to carrying a more important, a more drastic, and a more far-reaching Measure without any consultation with the people at all. We are told that in. many respects the War has altered all our conditions, and that we have a new outlook in many ways. I do not think anyone will say that the changes brought about by the War justify a departure from the first principles of democratic self-government in this respect, or that they justify the Unionist Ministers who complained in 1914 and are now doing worse themselves in 1922.
  The way in which we arrived at this legislation was through a correspondence opened by the Prime Minister, in the first instance with Mr. de Valera and continued afterwards with Mr. Michael Collins last summer. I wish now that we have arrived at the last stage to recall that that correspondence began with the Prime Minister emphatically laying down that there was a necessary condition precedent to any sort of negotiation, and that that condition precedent was a clear acceptance by the Irish negotiators of allegiance to the Crown and of adherence to the British Empire. He had hardly
  1370
  laid down that condition precedent when he waived it under the pressure which probably most of us remember, and he then began protracted negotiations which went on for months on all sorts of other points without that condition being complied with. Then we had for a long time, as we learned from various sources, a desperate search for a formula which would express some form of adherence to the Empire, and which the rish negotiators would accept. It was only at the last moment—there is no doubt about this; in fact I think the Colonial Secretary himself said so the other day—that the form which appears in this Treaty was accepted, of adherence to either the Empire or the Crown. I would like to call attention—although it is a minor point, I agree—to the language used in this Treaty on this point. Why has this new-fangled and unconstitutional language been introduced? In Article I:
  "Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire."
  Why did you not say: "The British Empire?" Is that not good enough? Why "The community of nations known as the British Empire?" There is no such community of nations, and it is certainly not a description so far as I know that is known to our constitutional law. Then in Article 4 another phrase is used. I believe it is intended to have exactly the same meaning, but there we have:
  "Group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."
  It is a very good thing, no doubt, either in oratory or literature to avoid tautology, but I should have thought that in legislation, where precision of all things is necessary, there was no occasion on the same page of print to describe the same thing in totally different phrases, and when both are new fangled and unconstitutional it appears to me to be a matter calling for some explanation.
  At last there was a grudging acceptance of the formula we have in this Treaty, but it was to obtain this grudging and ambiguous adherence to the British Empire, and an acknowledgment of the position of the King—without allegiance to him, be it noted—from Irishmen who, it must be remembered, make no pretence, and never have made any pretence of friendliness to this country, that the Government affronted the only real friends they have in Ireland and sub-

  1371
  jected them to indignity, to injury, and to injustice. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues have paid too high a price for that formula of adherence. What did the Government get in return for it? The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of these Debates, has assured us, and I believe he tries to assure himself, that in return for this betrayal—for I think it is nothing less— he has an Agreement which binds all Ireland within the Empire and in true allegiance to the Crown. I believe that is his contention, but I very gravely doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman really succeeds in deceiving himself in this matter. There are certainly a good many of us whom he does not deceive.
  I do not wish to labour the point taken last December over the Oath. Anybody can read it for himself, but I do want to call attention to the sort of defence put forward by the Government for this very unsatisfactory form of oath. I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his place a short time ago, but he has now gone out. I should have liked to call the attention of my right hon. Friend, as well as of the House, to the extraordinary logic which he used in defence of this form of oath. He went and looked up in a dictionary the meaning of "Allegiance," and came back here with great satisfaction to himself and informed us that he found in a dictionary that "Allegiance" was defined as a declaration of fidelity, and therefore he thought he had completely closed the matter and floored all of us who said that this declaration of fidelity was not an oath of allegiance. I should have thought that the Secretary of State for War would have been incapable of using reasoning of that sort. All I can say is that it is a long time since I had to do any elementary logic, but I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had used reasoning of that sort at the university in his youth he would have been plucked for his "Little Go." If I remember rightly, it was one of the most fundamental fallacies of which he made use, and his argument was just about as effectual as if I were to say a Secretary of State is a biped; therefore a biped is a Secretary of State.
  No doubt we have in this Article a declaration of fidelity of sorts, but what is
  1372
  unsatisfactory to us is that here alone of any part of the Empire, you are setting up a constitution, in which those who are to take part in it and conduct it are relieved of the necessity which every other part of the Empire has of taking an oath of true allegiance to the King. It is interesting to see the view taken of this by the other signatories to the Treaty. One of them, I notice, Mr. Barton, the spelling of whose name has just been corrected by the right hon. Gentleman, has already frankly joined the Republicans. He has repudiated the Treaty. He said he and his colleagues signed the Treaty under duress, and it is no longer binding upon them. He was announced, I notice, to appear—and, I suppose, he did appear—on the platform of Mr. de Valera, the leader of the Republican Party in Ireland, on the 12th of last month. Let us see what the other signatories have been saying. This is what Mr. Arthur Griffith said on 7th January, speaking in the Dail in Dublin:
  "It did not mean that they would not go beyond the Treaty."
  We are not allowed to alter a comma of the Treaty in this House, but Mr. Griffith said openly, and it was published in the Press, that it did not mean they would not go beyond the Treaty,
  "but they would move on in comfort and in peace towards an ultimate goal. There is no more finality than that this generation will be the final generation on earth."
  That is to say, the signature to the Treaty was for tactical purposes, in order that he might join with Mr. de Valera later on. This is what Mr. Michael Collins said:
  "It gave Ireland freedom, not the ultimate freedom which all nations hope for and struggle for, but the freedom to achieve that end."
  Then he went on:
  "Judged by the touchstone of relations between Ireland and Great Britain, we will have a certainty of freedom which cannot be interfered with."
  In other words, he entirely repudiates the idea that they get the freedom which they require under this Treaty, but it gives them the means of getting it later on. Take another of these signatories, Mr. Gavan Duffy. Speaking on 19th December he said, apropos of the matter we were discussing on an Amendment to-day:
  "The statement that the Irish army would be governed by the King of England was just as true as that their flag would be the

  1373
  Union Jack. It will be the duty of those who frame the Constitution according to the wishes of the Irish people to relegate the King of England to exterior darkness as far as they can."
  Then Mr. Duggan—they have all said practically the same thing—
  "Who was going to say what oath the army were going to take? If the Minister of Defence ordered the army to take an oath of allegiance to the King, he was putting the discipline of the army to a severe test."
  I venture to think that it is a test which probably will be too severe for most of the army of Mr. Duggan. Lastly, I would like to point out to the House that Mr. Arthur Griffith, who is the head negotiator—I do not know exactly what his official position is with regard to the Provisional Government, but, at all events, he is the man who is the responsible negotiator with my right hon. Friend—is also President of the Assembly which, I believe, is called Dail Eireann in Dublin, which is the established Government of the Republic, and, therefore, he is in a double capacity. He is at one and the same time negotiating as the representative of the so-called Irish Free State, and he is holding the position in Ireland of President of the Dail. What I would suggest to the House as the truth to be drawn from this, is that the barrier which separates Republicanism from Free Stateism is an extremely frail and flimsy barrier, and those who are deluding the Government here into thinking they are going to set up a form of constitution in Ireland within the Empire, and accepting allegiance to the Crown and all the rest of it, have given the fullest possible notice that they are going to kick down that barrier at the Very first opportunity.
  I want to ask my right hon. Friend what is going to happen then? Surely we are entitled, in a matter of this sort, to look a little way beyond our noses. The Government have given no indication whatever of how they are going to meet a situation which, I agree, is not inevitable, but, obviously, is one within the bounds of possibility if not probability. What are the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues going to do then? The Prime Minister has told us that England, in that case, would fight, just as the Northern Union fought to prevent the Southern States of America from seceding. But when the Prime Minister said that, it was some months ago. The pro-
  1374
  bability, or, at all events, the possibility, is that the Prime Minister has entirely altered and we cannot assume, because a few months ago he was going to fight as the North fought against the South, that he is prepared to do it a few months hence, when the case will really arise. What I have no doubt will happen will be that if this case arises, and if any of us look up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and read out to the House what the Prime Minister said, we shall be received with a wave of incomparable oratory from the Prime Minister, and be told that they were quite different circumstances. Then, no doubt, the Leader of the House, the leader of the Unionist party, will come in dutifully behind the Prime Minister, and tell us that separatism is the only real union.
  I want to fasten my attention for the moment on the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill. He says that he will be no party to an Irish Republic. He told me emphatically that he would not be a Member of a Government that was prepared to acknowledge an Irish Republic, and that was said by the right hon. Gentleman, not a few months ago, but a few days ago, and I will say this for him: I think he is a very much less nimble quick-change artist than his chief, and I am willing to accept the statement of the Colonial Secretary that he, at all events, will not be a Member of a Government that will acknowledge an Irish Republic. He is going to be a Die-hard. I do not know how long it will be before the right hon. Gentleman will come out as a Die-hard, but I am afraid he will be in a very bad way, because when he does come out as a Die-hard—and he has already intimated to us that he will under certain circumstances—he will get even less support than I expect to get to-day. He will not get the support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), because he told us yesterday that he is not in favour of any representative of England or the Crown having anything to do in Ireland at all. He will not get their support or mine either, for reasons which I will tell him. How is he going to set about his policy of resisting the Republic, which, he told us a few days ago, he was resolved upon if such a situation arose? He will have to deal with a situation 10 times as bad as that prevail-

  1375
  ing last July. He and his colleagues have given up all the strategic positions in Ireland. They have evacuated almost all their troops, or, at all events, a large proportion, and they have given up their barracks. Every day loyal policemen who have served them in the past are being murdered, and the few that are remaining are being told by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that they have got to look to Sinn Fein, that is to say, to the Republicans, for their pensions and their future. So that when the right hon. Gentleman starts resisting the Republic, as he tells us he will, he will not get a man to serve him in Ireland. How is he going, then, to do it? He has also surrendered the seat of government, and not only that, but he surrendered it under circumstances, I believe, if I am rightly informed, of every possible indignity, to the representative of the Crown. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can deny it, but my information is that the representative of the Crown, having these indignities put upon him, came over here and tendered his resignation to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is really no truth in that. There was a misunderstanding as to the hour of signing the Declaration in accordance with the Articles of the Treaty, but there was absolutely no personal indignity or discourtesy of any sort.
  Mr. McNEILL: Of course, I entirely accept that. I was misinformed upon that point. At all events, as I pointed out, the difficulties will be infinitely greater. The right hon. Die-Hard will have to start afresh from the very beginning. What is he going to do? Is he going to flood the country with Black and Tans? I doubt very much whether he will get any who are willing to serve him. I do not think he will. Will he have the Chief Secretary, and will the Chief Secretary on that great day be a brother Die-Hard? Will he be ready to keep the Republicans on the run? Will he be there to get them by the throat? Will the right hon. Gentleman come to this House and ask for, I do not know how many troops? I think he said—I believe it was a gross exaggeration—it would require 100,000 troops to do the business last July. How many hundred thousands troops will it take to carry out
  1376
  his policy of resisting? How many millions of money is he going to ask of this House to carry out that policy? I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has other plans and other resources. I cannot believe that he has not thought of this situation, because if is really a very likely one to arise. Has he got some other plan, apart from Black and Tans, and the Chief Secretary, and troops? Does he contemplate, for example, enforcing the will of this country by, we will say, economic blockade? I do not know whether he does or not. But if he thinks that it might be done by economic blockade the question immediately suggests itself: Why was not that method tried last summer? Therefore I really cannot see how by any possible method the right hon. Gentleman is going to make good the declaration which he made in this House only two days ago, that he would never be, a party to allowing a republic to be set up. The attitude of the Government—and I believe the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman is the same as that of the Government—I do not think he is isolated, because I have already quoted the Prime Minister to the same effect—their attitude is really an absurd one. Under the actual conditions obtaining in Ireland, a republic will no sooner be proclaimed than it will be acknowledged, and I now tell the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: By whom will it be acknowledged?
  Mr. McNEILL: By you—not by the right hon. Gentleman, because, as I say, he is going to be isolated as a "die-hard," but by the British Government.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I feel bound to repudiate that view at once. Taking into account the character of the struggle now going on in Ireland I consider there should be no ambiguity whatever as to the answer to such suggestion, and our attitude to it.
  Mr. McNEILL: As I have already said, I entirely accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt the Prime Minister, too, in the statement he made four months ago, was just as sincere in that declaration as in many others that he has gone back upon. The position of the right hon. Gentleman will be a hopeless one, and that is why I say that when the time comes, if the right

  1377
  hon. Gentleman engages in the enterprise of reconquering Ireland—because that is what it will be—that is the only way of preventing a republic being set up—he will stand alone, and not only be a "die-hard," but a "last-ditcher." He will himself ultimately be found, I have no doubt, in the last ditch—
  "Still grasping in his hand of ice,
  That banner with the strange device
  —Too late!"
  Because he will be too late; he will not got the support which he might have got if he had pursued a different policy. It is the practical certainty that this will occur that so terribly aggravates in the minds of some of us the treatment which the Government has given to Ulster by this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman—not he alone, but he and his colleagues—time after time have done all they could with utter recklessness to drive Ulster into the Sinn Fein constitution, absolutely reckless as to whether the constitution into which they were driving the people was a constitution that would be alien as well as hostile to this country. Then they have patched up this Treaty in unthinking haste—as I believe it was unthinking haste to patch up the pretence of a peace at any price. Pusillanimous panic in the dead of night, when as has been revealed by several gentlemen in Dublin, they were alternately cajoling and threatening or imploring the Free State representative to sign. They did not even take the trouble to make their Treaty or instrument intelligible as the debates we have had in Committee have abundantly shown. On that night these right hon. Gentlemen were working with the mingled audacity and funk of the burglar who is shovelling the contents of the safe into his bag. They were too flurried to be coherent.
  We have had Debates in Committee which have brought to light several of the most glaring ambiguities in the language of this Treaty, ambiguities in all probability—I do not know what the Government think—can only be resolved in blood. The right hon. Gentleman himself has acknowledged that several important adjustments will have to be made to make the position of Ulster clear. But, he tells us, we may not make them now. We have shown in Committee that the effect of this Treaty is to tear great rents in the fabric of the Constitution which
  1378
  this Parliament conferred upon the North of Ireland only a few months ago, and which was opened by the King himself in person with words of exhortation and encouragement to make it a success. The effect of this Treaty is that in the North of Ireland the administration of justice is paralysed. The Council of Ireland, which Northern Ireland never asked for and never wanted, but which was accepted because it was forced upon her by you— that Council of Ireland upon which depends, under your own Act of 1920, part of the essential machinery of government in Northern Ireland, that cannot function under this Treaty. And if you in your impatience had not guillotined a number of Amendments which we put upon the Paper, I have not the slightest doubt we might have shown many other cases of glaring injustices, and in probably not a few the right hon. Gentleman would have had to confess that adjustments would have to be made.
  He has promised us that these adjustments will be made in time. They are going to be made by some future legislation, but he cannot give us the slightest idea of the date. We have got to wait. I say "we," because I associate myself in this matter with my Friends from the North of Ireland. That rich, commercial community has got to wait for these adjustments till the quarrelling factions next door have tired of bloodshed, and until they have produced their constitution—a constitution, remember, in which the North of Ireland has no concern or interest—none! Yet it has to wait for these adjustments until that constitution is made. This Bill, as amended by my right hon. Friend, now gives them four months in Ireland to have their election, I think it is quite likely it may take as many years. I think that Irishmen setting out to form a constitution are capable of almost endless activity and dispute, and he would be a very bold person who would say that the election would be over in four months. What are you going to do then? Come down with another Bill to this House to amend this one, and to extend for a few more months the time within which the election can be held, while more quarrelling goes on in Dublin; and all that time the North of Ireland is held suspended with regard to its administrative functions? Four I months is long enough, and more than

  1379
  long enough, because all through that time you keep the North of Ireland suspended and in absolute uncertainty as to the future; uncertainty, for one thing, as to whether her territory is going to be filched from her by the Boundary Commission. Uncertainty, also, as to how their institutions in the North of Ireland are to be made to work. The worst of it is that all this uncertainty is an uncertainty which makes it absolutely impossible to put down the fighting and the bloodshed and the quarrelling and the bombing which is disgracing the town of Belfast at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Absolutely we all agree about that. It makes it impossible to restore either peace or order.
  That being so, is it surprising that some of us have felt very strongly about this legislation? By an enormous majority this Bill will, no doubt, be read the Third time. I should like to say, if I may, that in these Debates on the Bill, first for ratification, then Second Reading, then Committee, now Third Reading, if, I say, in the course of these Debates I have spoken with unnecessary heat or ascerbity or with too much insistence, I would ask the forbearance of the House. I know in the views I have expressed I have properly represented the opinions of those Englishmen whom it is my privilege to represent here. But I confess that I have not been able to forget that I also am speaking personally on a subject very near to me and which touches closely my own country, the country of my birth, the country of my boyhood, the country where my mother and father lie buried. In comparison with those considerations it is a small matter to me that after a good many years' faithful service to this House and, I hope, loyalty to the party, I find myself now with no leader, a member of a shattered party, with old friends and political comrades passing with cold glances in the Lobby. That is pretty grievous. But a very much deeper grievance than that springs from the firm conviction which I hold that the policy which the Government has pursued and are now carrying out is going to bring to my own country not peace, but a sharper sword than ever, and to the Empire to which all loyal Irishmen are proud to belong, weakness and dishonour.
  Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I beg to second the Amendment.
  1380
  I do so, feeling my own limitations, with great reluctance, but with great sincerity. I ask as one who has not troubled the House on many occasions for its forbearance, lest in moments of some emotion one may let loose words or expressions which, perhaps, are too vigorous, but which really are expressions of very deep and real feeling. I have heard it said— indeed I believe it is assumed in quarters outside the House—that the action of those with whom I am associated have been more frequently in antagonism to personalities, and particularly to that of the Prime Minister. I have no knowledge of that, and I have certainly no sympathy with it, and if I had any antagonism in the matter it would be directed in other quarters and in other directions. I feel that old days, old associations, and old creeds that have been thought and preached by men at whose feet one has sat, with all the traditions of loyalty attaching to them, are sometimes strained under modern conditions. If I had an antagonism it was not in my heart, but rather to one who bears an illustrious name, and who, rightly or wrongly, came down to this House not long ago and created a new code of morality when he said, that while he was still adhering to his own conviction that the Union was the best for this country and for the Empire, he would have been taking the path of ease if he did not destroy the illusions of his followers and undermine his creed.
  I wish to ask since when has this new code of morality been accepted. The denial of conviction is put upon a pedestal and adherence to principle is to be thrown into the dust. This is a bitter thing for many of us. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) spoke with great feeling at the end of his speech, and whatever our differences may be upon this great question, I think we must all have been touched by his reference to his own personal connection with Ireland. The curious part of all this is that those who go into the Lobby to support the Government to-day are those who are most exercised in their own mind not only as to the reality of things, but as to any reasonable hopes of peace for the future. I have heard hon. Members say, "I wonder what will happen after this Bill has passed." They expect their pious hopes to be realised, but will they? What

  1381
  justification have they to ask us to support the Government in this Bill when the sole thing that they can put forward for our consideration is the expression of a pious hope?
  We have heard a good deal about gambling in futures. I have no personal acquaintance with that process, but I am told it is tricky and risky, and I am also told that the results sometimes are dangerous. On this question I am sure that gambling in futures would not only be dangerous but destructive when the agent through whom the gambling was to be effected queered the pitch in advance by stating his determination to ruin the escapade. It is a curious thing that the Government who were carrying through this Bill by a system of mass compulsion will not accept the protests of those who are convinced that the Bill itself must end in final failure, and bring greater ruin and disaster upon Ireland than any other previous British Government has ever achieved. They will not accept the words I will not say of their own representatives in Ireland, although they have given their trust to the head of the Provisional Government, who, on the morning of the signing of the Treaty, said:
  "Get the Treaty Act passed through the British House of Commons. Complete the evacuation of British troops from Ireland, and the demand for full Republican rights must be conceded by Great Britain."
  I very respectfully suggest to the Colonial Secretary that that observation of the head of the Provisional Government is worth considering. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can demand an explanation from him, but if he got an explanation it would not be worth anything, because he knows perfectly well that Mr. Michael Collins is not master in his own house. There are other and greater forces which are rendering his position impossible, but it was an impossible position from the first. I wish to say one other thing. We are opposing this Bill in no niggardly spirit, but through the strong and intense convictions that the very words of those people who are now in a position of some authority in Ireland have distinctly told the Government of this country that they are not masters in their own house, and indeed that they will use their positions to achieve what the Government say they will deny them. Mr. Michael Collins
  1382
  said this in Dublin on the morrow of what he called the surrender of Dublin Castle:
  "If the majority at the General Election votes Republican, then you know whose side I am on."
  That is the man who signed the Treaty, and whose word you are asked to accept to-day, but there is another thing. Reference has been made to the treatment of Ulster. What did Mr. Michael Collins say on this subject?
  "If the Free State was established union was certain. Forces of pressure and persuasion were embodied in the Treaty which would bring the North into a united Ireland."
  We are told there is no coercion within the four corners of this Treaty, but every line of the Treaty spells coercion. Every line of this Treaty should be read carefully by those who have based their action upon a determination on the hustings never to see the rights of Ulster impugned or coerced or coercion made effective. It is a sad thing that with a new code of morality and the eternal demand for a revision of the Ten Commandments because of political exigencies, that we should be asked after these years of controversy to endorse something that is in itself essentially destructive of the very existence of the British Empire, for what you are adopting with regard to Ireland to-day will be taken, and is being taken in other parts of our Empire, as a symbol of nervelessness of the British Executive, and by that troubles will occur. Where they will end depends, yes, on Providence, and perhaps on government, but they will never depend on a Government that sacrifices all its principles, and all its duties, for its first duty is to protect those people who are its loyal citizens, and who wish to remain in and not go out, and who are determined, notwithstanding injustice, to cling to that Empire of which they are proud to be members.
  I remember in 1893 hearing in this House as a small boy one of the most marvellous speeches that it has ever been my lot and privilege to hear on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill. On that occasion I heard Mr. Gladstone wind up that marvellous speech when he pictured, with all the graphic power at his disposal, with the memory of Holman Hunt's great picture in his mind, Ireland knocking at the door of the House of Commons. I was taken out of the

  1383
  House by the then Chaplain of this House, who was afterwards Dean Farrar, and I said to him, "Marvellous!" "Yes," he said, "words, idle words." He then said, "Once you embark upon this policy you can put no limit to the ambition or the idea behind it. You cannot control it to-day once you have accepted the principle." The principle has been accepted, and the Ulster danger is as real and imminent to-day. Those who believe in the essential unity of the British Empire, and who dislike with some intensity the cant use of cant expression, like self-determination which if properly analysed means anarchy, deny that any portion of this Empire, heedless of the interests of the race, has a right to demand from the Imperial House of Commons those powers which Parliament cannot endow them with if Parliament acts as a trustee for the Empire as a whole.
  What are we confronted with to-day? The Colonial Secretary told us last week that if this Bill goes through, then Ireland would be called upon to thresh out a Constitution. We do not know what that Constitution may be, and yet he told us at the same time that once it has been threshed out and agreed to by some assembly in Ireland, and has been translated into the form of a Bill in this House, then, indeed, again this House will have no power to alter by one jot or title what is contained therein. Is it the function of an Imperial Parliament to register the decrees of a Government that has sacrificed its Constitutional rights in this House? The Colonial Secretary said we could not alter one jot or title of the Treaty, but that we were to be allowed to consider the possibility of altering something which he now tells us will be brought into being, and we shall still be unable to alter one line of it.
  The Government are guardians of the Constitution and of the Empire, and they have no right to insult the House of Commons and the people of this country by telling their representatives that whatever may be imagined or concealed in the fertile brains of a clever race has to be accepted when put into a form of Constitution, and that not one word of it can be altered of those tendencies which are inherent in the Constitution that will be
  1384
  framed by those who have had least experience in framing it. In the intensity of my conviction I would only like to say one thing more. We who are opposing this Bill feel keenly the disadvantages under which we suffer. Feeling perhaps that a split may occur amongst those forces with which hitherto we have been identified, we also feel this far more strongly, that unless a protest is registered and unless notice is taken of our protest, then indeed the very foundations upon which our country has been built up are shattered. It was written by a poet of old, Omar Khayyam:
  "The moving finger writes and, having writ,
  Moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit,
  Can lure it back to cancel half a line;
  Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it."
  That is what we feel is the position the House is asked to take up to-night. We know that tears will flow, but neither the return to common sense nor a relapse into sanity by the British Government can prevent tears being shed, and prevent the destitution, horror and panic and the destruction of everything that we have valued in this Empire's foundation, and symbols of something higher than our own Imperial civilisation, the foundations of morality and everything that causes us to be proud of this country, which we claim to be the missionary Empire of the world.
  8.0 P.M.
  Viscount WINDSOR: With the greatest diffidence, particularly after the last able speeches, I rise to address the House for the first time, being fully aware of the importance of the Debate on which we are engaged, and still more aware of my lack of experience in such discussions. I will therefore assure hon. Members that I will detain them but a very short time, and I bog them to accord to me the sympathy and indulgence which they have traditionally accorded to those addressing them for the first time. It is possible that I might have taken an earlier opportunity of doing so, had it not been for the fact that since I entered the House I have invariably spent much of my time considering which way to vote on division. Hon. Members are in the habit of wording their Amendments with masterly craft and ingenuity, in such a way as to trap the unwary and uninitiated like myself. How far I have been successful in avoiding the

  1385
  traps remains to be seen, but I hope, before long, to be able to reverse the position. I am glad there is no difficult Amendment in question in this Debate, but I do not mean thereby necessarily to imply that I find it all plain sailing even now.
  It is primarily because of the complicated nature of the whole Irish problem that I have risen to try and make my views clear on the subject. I am one of that numerous band of men who believe that, if Ireland had been justly and firmly governed during the last 15 or 16 years, the present situation would never have come about, but realising the actual facts of the impossible position at present existing, have come to the conclusion that the only chance of escaping from our difficulties lies in the passing of some such Measure as the Government have brought forward. I therefore voted for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I intend to vote for the Third Reading. Having embarked on our present policy, its rejection would not only obviously create an even worse position in Ireland itself, but would put us once again in the wrong in the eyes of the rest of the world. I intend to vote for this Bill, not because I am in agreement with every detail of it, but rather because I feel that under the circumstances there is really no alternative. I do not think I am quite alone in this attitude. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has constantly implied during the course of the discussion that the House has endorsed, by a large majority, every detail of the Government policy incorporated in the Irish Treaty. I venture to say that that is not entirely the case. Personally, I have voted with o, number of other hon. Members in favour of several Amendments, though, I admit, with little success, but in so far as the Treaty as a whole is concerned, I feel that some measure of the kind is absolutely essential, and as these Amendments have been rejected, there appears to me to be no alternative.
  I, for one, can never forget the loyalty and patriotism which have always been shown by the inhabitants of Northern Ireland in contrast to the inhabitants of the rest of Ireland. I should have thought, therefore, that the Government would have been scrupulously careful to avoid in any way acting unjustly to Ulster. But what has actually happened is that the Government have, without
  1386
  doubt, broken a definite pledge they gave to Ulster, that her territory and her rights should in no way be infringed by this Treaty. There can be no question of this. It has been demonstrated and proven time after time in this House. I have listened intently throughout the Debates on this Bill with a real desire to hear some justification for this action. Ministers have given numerous explanations of it, but never a justification. The truth of the matter is that there can be no real justification for an action such as this. Take the Council of Ireland. There are certain services, including railways and fisheries which, under the 1920 Act, are to be dealt with by the Council of Ireland—a body consisting of an equal number of representatives of Northern and Southern Ireland. When this Treaty comes into force in Southern Ireland these services will be dealt with by the Irish Free State Parliament, whereas in Northern Ireland they will still be dealt with by the Council of Ireland, whereon the Irish Free State will have an equal representation. This is admittedly unjust. Ulster may not interfere with Irish Free State affairs, but the Irish Free State may interfere in Ulster affairs.
  Take, in the second place, the boundary question. I fully realise that this is a most delicate matter. The situation is I this: that the Government have left it to a Boundary Commission to decide whether or not a large part of the six counties at present under the Northern Parliament is to be handed over to the Irish Free State—in direct contravention of the pledge already given. Let us assume that the Commission decides to hand over a large part. Will the Government allow this to be done? It is hardly conceivable. Ministers have repeatedly stated in this House that it was never their intention that this should be so, and I am confident that Ulster would have the support of a great majority of the people of this country in resisting any attempts to rob her of a large part of her territory. Would it not be much wiser to settle matters such as this as soon as possible?
  The Government have argued that the difficulties which have been alluded to may never arise, and that therefore there is no reason to jeopardise the passing of the Treaty in Ireland by raising these questions. Surely this is a most danger-

  1387
  ous policy. It is this policy of constant procrastination that has brought us to this pass. Do not let us fall into the same error once again. I appeal to the Government to act before it is too late. Why should not they go to Mr. Collins and his colleagues and try to get these matters settled forthwith? The proposals they will have to put forward are essentially just and reasonable, so there cannot possibly be anything to be afraid of. The situation is, I admit, a most delicate one, and I entirely sympathise with the desire not to prejudice opinion in Ireland in any way against the Treaty, but the Government should at least have the courage of their convictions and act upon them. It is no good allowing these doubts and difficulties to continue and to mount up for the day of reckoning which is bound to come. A satisfactory settlement cannot possibly be built on uncertain foundations such as these. It is not only most dangerous, but it will also put the Government in any further negotiations they may have with Sinn Fein, at a very serious and obvious disadvantage.
  There is one other point I should like to mention. The whole essence of this Treaty is that it should be based upon the goodwill of those concerned in it. What is the use of enlisting the sympathy and goodwill of one section of the population in Ireland while, at the same time, alienating the sympathy and goodwill of another section of the population, particularly when that section is the one that has stuck to this country through thick and thin? That Ulster has legitimate grievances hardly a single Member of this House will deny. I have been continually hoping that the Government would be ready to meet Ulster at least half way; that they would be ready to do something more than merely express sympathy, but I regret to say that up to the present I have not seen any sign of this. Could not the Government still act in such a way as to mitigate the anxiety that is felt by all sides with regard to this question?
  I have detained the House too long already, and I will only add this in conclusion: I know full well that it is much easier to criticise than to say anything of a useful or constructive nature, but I have given expression to these humble
  1388
  criticisms because I feel keenly that the one great chance of success for this Treaty is that it should be based on the goodwill of all those concerned in it. I recognise the courage required to bring forward such a far-reaching Measure. I sincerely hope it may be given every possible chance of success, and that the grievances referred to may yet be swept away. It is difficult at present to see what the result of this Treaty is going to be, or what fate may have in store for Ireland, but surely it is the earnest desire of every single one of us, to whatever creed or political party we may belong, to see peace and content restored to that country, and a large number of us, if not actually all of us, to do everything we possibly can to make this Treaty a success. I trust that this may be made as easy as possible. We most earnestly wish to see this accomplished, and thus to have erased for ever one of the greatest blots on the pages of the history of our country.
  Captain CRAIG: My first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the Noble Lord on a very able speech. I am glad to have had the pleasure of hearing a maiden speech of such quality. The only criticism to make is that having put the points so well as he has done, I cannot possibly see how he is going to vote for the Government. Ulster Members were in some doubt as to the action which they should take on the Third Reading of this Bill. We were urged by some to follow the course we pursued on the Committee stage when the Government guillotined our Amendments. I personally desired to follow that course, but, unfortunately, as far as one can see, this House, and to a large extent the country, has ceased to care what happens to Ulster. The fate of the 400,000 loyalists in the South of Ireland and of the 800,000 in the North of Ireland no longer seems to concern the people of this country, and therefore any little gain we might have secured in the shape of publicity for our case by abstaining from voting on the Third Reading would have been lost, owing to want of interest in our affairs. It was felt therefore I should make one more statement of Ulster's case and that we should record our votes against the Bill when the Division comes.
  The Bill before us is one, as we all know, to set up a Free State. It is a

  1389
  more important Bill than any Home Rule Bill this House has had before it. The amount of self-government it is proposed by this Bill to give to the Irish Free State is much greater than it has ever been proposed to confer on Ireland before. For that reason alone we claim that the fullest possible opportunity of discussing the Bill, and putting before the Committee such Amendments as we thought necessary, ought to have been given to us. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the amount of time which was given by a former Government to Bills of a somewhat similar character. In the case of the 1914 Bill the Liberal Government gave no fewer than 34 days to the Committee stage—seven days before they proposed the Guillotine and 27 days after. Yet on this occasion, when we have been debating matters of greater importance than that, we were only given a paltry three days! We feel strongly that the Government has treated us in a manner it should not have done, especially bearing in mind the position in which we are likely to be placed by the operation of this Bill. They ought to have had more consideration for us.
  This Bill in itself is a more important Bill than any which preceded it, and when we consider, as has been plainly stated by several speakers, that, without any doubt whatever, the result of the Measure will be in a very short time— probably within the year in which we are living—the setting up of a Republic in Ireland, it surely became a thousand times more necessary that every safeguard should be introduced into the Bill to cover the position of Ulster and of those loyalists who before long will become citizens of that Republic. I was surprised, I must confess, to hear the Colonial Secretary repudiate this suggestion. I thought the House of Commons had realised perfectly definitely and clearly that there could be no other result flowing from this Bill than the setting up of a Republic in Ireland in a very short time. I am amazed that the representatives of the Government should make any pretence that that will not be the result of this Bill. It has been stated by practically everybody connected with the Treaty—by Mr. Collins, for instance. Then, again, Mr. Barton, one of the signatories of the Treaty, has gone over to the side of the Republic, and nearly
  1390
  everyone connected with it has declared that it is only a step on the way to a Republic. Therefore I cannot understand how for one moment the Government should make any attempt to deny that that will probably be the result. I say that 20 days would not have been too much to give to the consideration of Amendments which were designed for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of Ulster.
  I now come to the question of justification for the action which we took in Committee. I will leave aside for a moment the Amendments we had on the Paper dealing with the boundary question and other matters which we admit would have necessitated an alteration in the Treaty itself. I will come to those Amendments which we put down for the purpose of dealing with the effect of this Bill on the Act of 1920. It is quite clear that this Bill cuts clean across that Act, and in many respects sets up a condition of affairs in Ulster which can only be described as one of chaos. We have the question of the Court of Appeal. We have the question of the Council of Ireland. We have the question of several Government Departments which are at present common to both North and South. All these are affected by the passage of the Bill, and Amendments could have been carried, dealing satisfactorily with those questions, which would not have altered the effect of or detracted in any way from the meaning of the Treaty.
  It is quite futile for the Chief Secretary to urge, as he did in answer to every Amendment that we put on the Paper, that to accept such an Amendment would affect the Treaty or the Bill to such an extent that they could not proceed with it. That is not so. It simply means that the Government, foreseeing, I have no doubt, great criticism of their Bill, and hoping to get a nasty business finished in the shortest possible space of time, obviously, before they entered upon the Committee stage at all, made up their minds that they would accept no Amendments. That is the only explanation that can be placed upon the action of the, Government, because on several occasions the Colonial Secretary acknowledged and admitted the reasonableness of the Amendments, and admitted that, without such Amendments, Ulster would be placed in a very unfortunate position. The only

  1391
  consolation he could give us was that in due time legislation would be undertaken to cope with the position. I need not say, however, that we place no value on such promises as that. In the first place, we do not believe promises given by the Government, and, in the second place, the Government themselves have not even the power to make such promises, because, on their own showing, it must be many months, at any rate, before the opportunity will arise for bringing in such legislation, and we all pray to God that before that the Government may disappear.
  Having dealt with the Committee stage of the Bill and the Government's action thereon, I should like to re-state in a very few words the position which Ulster takes up with regard to this Bill. I have stated, on more occasions than one, that we hoped that an agreement would be reached between the Government and the Sinn Feiners. When I heard that a Treaty had been signed which was going to bring peace to Ireland, I was as pleased and as happy as any man in this country, during the few minutes that elapsed between the time when I saw that statement as a headline in a news-paper and when I read the text of the Treaty. We all wanted the Treaty to be a success, because we in. the North of Ireland realise that without peace we cannot possibly hope to carry on. The condition of affairs in the North of Ireland at the present time can only be described as lamentable. It is terrible, and it is very largely duo to this very Treaty. The border line between the Northern and Southern parts of Ireland is at the present moment like an armed camp. The tramp of policemen and soldiers is heard all day long along the whole length of that line, and the people there are living in a constant state of fear of raids, kidnappings, and incursions by the inhabitants of the Southern parts of Ireland. That is all due directly to this Treaty, and at the very best, we are told, that condition of tension and strain cannot be removed for four or five months. It is a scandal that any Government should submit a portion of its territory, especially one so close to its home as this is, to a state of affairs like that.
  It seems unnecessary, however, to enter into the boundary question at any length. I believe it is admitted by everyone—it
  1392
  has been admitted freely by the Noble Lord who spoke before me, and who is a supporter of the Government and is going to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, and I believe nearly every other Member of the House must admit—that the Boundary Commission was put into the Treaty against all the pledges and promises ever given by the Government. I have been unable to understand how the House of Commons has been able to take so lightly as it has taken these distinct breaches of pledges by the Government. I was always under the impression that, if a Government was convicted, openly and without any equivocation or doubt, of a breach of a pledge, that Government would have to go. This Government, however, has broken pledge after pledge, but not only do the Government themselves appear not to be disturbed in the slightest degree by that fact, but their supporters, whatever they may feel about it in their hearts, apparently think so lightly of it as not to consider that it necessitates their calling the Government to book and voting against them.
  From the beginning of these Debates, the Government has never attempted any justification of these broaches of pledges. The two most important are, of course, with regard to boundaries. They have stated that in no circumstances were the privileges and rights of Ulster to be abrogated. They have stated that Ulster was to be absolute mistress in her own house. They have given us, by the Act of 1920, which we look upon as a sort of Charter, six counties over which we are to rule. We say that those are three solemn pledges, and we cannot understand that the House of Commons sits quietly by and expresses, apparently, no surprise, and certainly casts no blame on the Government for having broken them. The Colonial Secretary is here, to wind up the Debate, I suppose, for the Government, and I hope he will take the opportunity, while there is yet time, of telling us what the justification of the Government is in this matter. We have not heard it yet, and I, for one, shall be very much interested to hear how they are going to justify their action with regard to putting in the Boundary Commission contrary to the pledges they have given to Ulster, and including Ulster in the Trish Free State. If these matters had been left out, if the Government had taken up with their co-negotiators, the

  1393
  Sinn Fein envoys, the honest and straightforward position that Ulster had been given the six counties and was to be left with those six counties, that Ulster had been given a Parliament, and that every opportunity and encouragement was to be given by this country to make that Parliament over those six counties a success—had they done that, instead of having embittered every Ulster Member in this House, instead of having brought about a state of anarchy in Ulster at this moment, they would have had us, the Ulster representatives in this House, gladly following them into the Lobby in support of their Treaty.
  I think the House will admit that we have right on our side. I know it is too late to expect any considerable alteration in the Division lists when we divide at the end of this Debate. I do not want in any way to appear to be threatening the Government, because that would be foolish and ridiculous, but I want to warn them, and I hope they will take this warning. Already they must see for themselves into what a serious mess they have got themselves by their action in respect of the Boundary Commission. They must see quite plainly that the condition of affairs which exists on the border at the present moment, and to a large extent the condition of affairs which exists in Belfast, are due directly to their action in connection with this Bill. That being so I want them to take my warning in all seriousness. I can assure them, as certainly as that I am addressing the House of Commons, that their action in appointing a Boundary Commission is bound to lead to further bloodshed and that far from bringing peace to Ireland, far from bringing North and South closer to one another, far from bringing nearer the day which I understand many people look forward to when it will be possible for the North to join hands with the South under one Parliament, they are putting that day off indefinitely. They are gaining nothing by it. They are placating their enemies at the expense of their friends. They have thrown their friends over, so it seems to me that the motto of the Coalition in future will be, "Embrace your enemies, and kick your friends." We have been treated throughout this matter not as friends—far from it. We have been treated as if we were the people in all the negotiations who least
  1394
  deserved consideration. We have been treated as a footstool which was in one's way might be kicked to one side. Conduct and treatment of that sort can never conduce towards peace. I know it is too late to have the matter of the Boundary Commission changed in any way, but it is still their duty to get themselves and to get us out of the difficulties in which they have placed us. They have tried to delay the operation of the matter. They have tried to throw the onus on the shoulders of the Prime Minister of Ulster and Mr. Collins to settle the matter between them. It is they who have to do it. It is they who have brought in this Bill, it is they who have brought about all this trouble, and it is they and they alone who will have to find a solution of the question.
  I regret very much that so many of my old Unionist Friends who have fought side by side with me on the question of the Union for many years past will be in a different Lobby from me to-night. I cannot understand how any man can adopt to such an extraordinary extent the old adage, "Do wrong that right may come out of it." There is no question that the wrong that has been done to us outweighs any possibility of good or happiness which may come out of the rest of the Bill. It has been wrong for the Colonial Secretary to argue that this matter of the boundaries cannot be touched. He has shown us that other matters in the Treaty have been capable of adjustment. He has shown us that a certain date in the Bill, which was inconvenient for the Government, was capable of change. He went to Mr. Michael Collins, or Mr. Collins came to him, and between them they made two changes in the Bill. They agreed first of all that instead of the Treaty being ratified in Dublin as soon as may be after the passing of the Bill they were to have four months in which to do it. They also agreed amongst themselves that certain words having a quite clear and definite meaning should have another meaning altogether. That was done for the purpose of staving off as long as possible this boundary question. If there is to be further anarchy, further fighting and further bloodshed over this question I would rather get it over now than have to look forward to it in five or six months. That is what is certain to happen. I

  1395
  consider that Ulster has been shamefully treated in this matter. I was a staunch follower of the Coalition, and I think most of my colleagues were, until two or three months ago. I believed the Prime Minister was actuated by the best of motives. Now I find that the very contrary was the result. I can only hope the dismal forebodings which it has been my duty to place before the House may never be realised, but I can say for certain that the only way to prevent them being realised is for the Government to find out, and to find out soon, some means by which the effects of the Boundary Commission can be avoided.
  Brigadier - General COCKERILL: I doubt if I should have risen but for the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bradford (Major Boyd-Carpenter), who spoke as a representative of the party to which I belong. I cannot command his eloquence, and I cannot compete with his fierce and almost fanatical vehemence of language, but I can speak with the same sincerity. The pity of the speech to which we listened with such great admiration, the tragedy of it, was to my mind that it was not delivered three or four years ago. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to me to have forgotten that there was such a thing as a General Election, at which he was returned to this House, and he seemed to have forgotten the pledges to which he, as well as I, subscribed. Those pledges were very clear. The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) asserted that the Government had broken pledge after pledge. It cannot at least be said that they have broken any pledge in regard to the solution of this Irish problem. The pledge contained in the joint manifesto of the party to which I belong was clear and explicit. It was a pledge to explore every possible path which might lead to a peace with Ireland excepting only two, one that might lead to the severance of Ireland from the Empire, the other which might lead to the coercion, by which was obviously intended the coercion by force of arms, of Ulster. The hon. and gallant Gentleman two years ago, when the former Bill was before the House on Second Beading, admitted that some form of Home Rule was inevitable. The ques-
  1396
  tion, therefore, that lay before the country and before this House was what form of Home Rule should be given to Ireland. Was it to be a form agreed between representatives of this country and of Ireland, or was it to be a form of Home Rule dictated to Ireland by Great Britain? Was it to be permanent because accepted by Ireland, or evanescent because forced upon them by force of arms? The solution of the Irish problem at which we are arriving in this Bill differs from every solution which has been previously offered to the country. It differs fundamentally in one particular—and here I am afraid that at least one of my hon. Friends present will be horror struck— because this solution is a Unionist solution. I will seek to prove that statement under three heads. I maintain that it is a Unionist settlement in method, in substance, and in authorship. The authorship is a matter of small moment, but, as a fact, the procedure by which this settlement with Ireland, whether it proves permanent or not, has been reached, was a procedure put forward by a Unionist Member of this House, first in the Press and subsequently in this House, and accepted within three days of its being put forward, by the first of the representatives of Ireland who sign this Treaty. I remember that when it was put forward originally it met with little or no support except in Ireland, and it was not until, many months afterwards, a Member of the other House, also a Unionist, went over to Ireland, putting on a new pair of spectacles through which to see Ireland, and returned to this country its convinced advocate that the procedure, by which this settlement has now been reached, began to gain support. I heard not long ago from the Government Bench a claim made by the Leader of the House that when, a few months later, the Gracious words of His Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Northern Parliament—words which were put into his mouth, according to constitutional practice, by his Ministers—had been delivered, it was a Unionist Member of the Government who pressed upon the Prime Minister that it was necessary to follow up the Gracious words of His Majesty's Speech by some such practical suggestion for peace with Ireland. Therefore, in its initiation and conception, in its support and its advocacy, and finally in its presentation to the Government, the Bill

  1397
  was, so far as persons were concerned, a Unionist Bill. Further than that, when it passed its Second Reading the majority of Members who voted in favour of it were Unionist Members.
  Captain Viscount CURZON: So were the majority who voted against it.
  Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Thirty-five Unionist Members voted against it, but more than four times that number who voted for it were Unionist Members. That is merely the personal question.
  In method, this Bill is in no sense contradictory of Unionist principles. The Bill gives force of law to agreed Articles of peace. I heard arguments in Committee to the effect that the word "Treaty" was ill-selected, as it was unconstitutional to make a Treaty with subjects. It is a Tory principle to maintain the Constitution, but the main principle of the Constitution is that sovereignty resides in Parliament, and that Parliament has power to amend the Constitution. One of the reasons which impels me to support this Treaty with the majority of the people of Ireland for a settlement of this long-standing feud between the two countries is that during the war with Ireland, for it was a war, the hands of the soldiers were tied because the corollary of the power to make a treaty with subjects, viz., the power to make war upon subjects, was not accepted. What really tied the hands of the soldiers? There was a rebellion, and it is, I think, a legal fiction that even when a rebellion becomes more than a rebellion and is, indeed, equivalent to a nation taking arms against another nation, you must still adhere to the principle that you cannot repress that rebellion, to whatever extent it has gone, except on practically the same lines that you can pursue in suppressing a not or similar disturbance. Fundamentally it was that difficulty that tied the hands of our soldiers. Had our troops been able to make war against those who were in the field against them, they would have been in a position to protect our forces, officers and men, in Ireland to a far greater extent than they were, in fact, able to do. Moreover, we should have been in a position to hold those who were in the field against us subject to the laws of war, where the disorders were, in fact, amounting to a state of war. I need not
  1398
  go into that now, but, in my judgment, it would have been of immense advantage to our troops in Ireland had we been able to accord belligerent rights to the troops who were opposed to them, and instead of carrying out this legal fiction that they were merely rioters disturbing the peace, had been able with both hands to make war against them—with both hands, and with clean hands, fighting hard, protecting life, liberty, and property, and ensuring the safety, not merely of our own troops, but also of the civil population in Ireland. To hit with both hands and to hit clean as well as hard—there is nothing contrary to Unionist principles in that. To offer peace with both hands when you have hit hard is also a Unionist principle, and to shake hands when you have come to the end of the use of force.
  I sometimes think that hon. Members who oppose this Bill are not really in full possession of the facts as to the inner history of these negotiations with the Irish people. I have heard hon. Members on the Benches below me, which are almost empty now, Conservatives and Unionists, who are commonly called "Die-hards," suggesting that we have shaken hands with murderers in making this Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I think they are unaware of what has really happened. What has really happened is what I ventured to say on a former occasion in this House would happen. I said that the weapons of reprisals would break in the hands of those who used them, that that method would fail, and ultimately the Government would be compelled to make war with both hands against the Irish people if they were to restore peace. But any Government worthy of the name was right to offer to the Irish people, as to any other enemy in the field, to make an honourable peace before they proceeded to the last resort of open war. And it was only when His Majesty's Government definitely offered peace or war, and, in the event of the enemy selecting peace, definitely invited them to send their plenipotentiaries on equal terms to negotiate an honourable peace between the two parties, and that that offer was accepted, that this Bill resulted. It is a method in which there is nothing contrary to Conservative and

  1399
  Unionist principles. We sought to obtain peace, we offered war or peace, and, as Abraham Lincoln did years before as between North and South, we offered them, before waging war to the end, the chance of sending their plenipotentiaries, and, if they willed, of making an honourable peace. They accepted that offer, and here is the result of their labour.
  May I turn very briefly to the substance of the agreement. That, too, is Unionist in character. It does pay our debt to Ulster. Is there anyone in this House who supposes that a peace could not have been obtained with Ireland, had there been no Ulster problem, long before this peace was obtained? It was obvious that a peace could have been obtained much earlier. The Prime Minister, speaking from that Bench last Christmas, pointed out that peace might have been obtained earlier, but it was, he said, first essential to secure the position of Ulster. The position of Ulster, as I believe, is secured under this Treaty. She has the right to stay in or come out, and I should have liked to have heard some recognition from the representatives of Ulster of what, after all, has been an act of great sacrifice on the part of the people of Great Britain when they continued this war against Ireland longer perhaps than would have been necessary had there been no Ulster problem, and only made peace after they had secured the position of Ulster. We have to this extent paid our debt to Ulster, and nobody disputes the debt which we owe to her.
  9.0 P.M.
  Criticism has centred largely on the question of the boundaries of Ulster and the Boundary Commission. In my eyes this is one of the very best points in this Treaty. I cannot develop that point at length now, but my reading of history, for what it is worth, is that every war that has been fought in recent times has resulted in some transfer of territory between the belligerents, and where you find the same result invariably following every war, it seems to me that that result cannot be wholly disconnected with the cause of the War. Nations grow, and as nations grow their boundaries become too constricted for them, and they seek to expand, and that expansion in settled lands like Europe
  1400
  can take place only at the expense of their neighbours. If you have no machinery for that expansion other than war, I think you must dismiss from your mind the idea that this last War was a war to end war. If I have any criticism—and I made this criticism four or five years ago, when the question of the League of Nations was still in the melting pot-about the League of Nations, it was because it seemed to me that its purpose was to maintain for all time territorial rights unaltered, and that seemed to me to be flying in the face of Providence and contrary to nature. The face of Europe is not the same to-day as it was a thousand years ago or a hundred years ago, and, if you do not provide some means of altering boundaries by peaceful methods, the only method of altering them is by war. Here you have under the aegis of the British Empire those two countries, North Ireland and South Ireland. I hear on all sides the desire expressed that they shall form in the very near future one country and one nation.
  Captain REDMOND: They do form it.
  Brigadier-General COCKERILL: I share in that aspiration, and even when that aspiration is fulfilled it would still be wise that the boundaries should be well and properly delimited. I see no reason why we should suppose that the Chairman of the Commission is going to be either a fool or a knave. You will have two other Commissioners. I believe that we can entrust the delimitation of the boundaries between the two peoples to that Commission and I welcome that Commission as an example of good sense. I think, too, that this Bill is itself a splendid contribution to Imperial unity because it enshrines in it this principle of peaceful adjustment of differences between nations, and what more can we hope than that any differences between the nations of this great Empire should be peacefully dealt with and that machinery should exist for that peaceful adjustment? I think, too, that this Bill is even an example to Europe and to the world of how international differences can best be adjusted, for if they are not adjusted by conference they must be adjusted by conflict. The view which I voice may not be accepted altogether by every Member of the Unionist party, but I believe that it contains nothing contrary to, but is in harmony with Conserva-

  1401
  tive and Unionist principles, and I support this Bill because it surrenders no principle to which we were pledged at the last election, because it insures the supremacy of the Crown, because it maintains the unity of the Empire and because it gains from the people of the South the admission that the coercion of Ulster is unthinkable.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: While profoundly disagreeing with four-fifths of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, there are only two points to which I wish to refer. The first is regarding his statement that this Bill is only carrying out our pledges given at the General Election. We fulfilled our pledges, in every way, in the passing of the 1920 Act, and had we told our Unionist supporters that we were going to set up an Army, Navy and Air Force entirely independent of the control of the British Government, none of us would have been returned. I wish now to address myself to that most important question, the effect of this Bill on the safety of Great Britain and the Empire, and to nothing else. We have had so much of everything else that it is high time we addressed ourselves to this point. When the Articles of this Treaty were first published, 18 Members of this House immediately wrote a protest, signed it, and sent it to the Prime Minister. I am happy to say I was one of the 18, and I have been protesting against these proposals ever since. In the Debate on the Address I spoke at some length against this Treaty, on the ground of the danger involved to Great Britain and the Empire. On the Second Reading of this Bill, I had only two and a half minutes in which to lodge my protest, and so was unable to say much about it, but I did make my protest. Throughout the Committee stage I have voted for every Amendment which I thought would elucidate this Bill and help to make it workable. Now we come to the Third Beading, and once again I lodge my emphatic protest against the whole Measure, as being a danger to the Empire. Throughout all the Debates which have taken place in connection with this unfortunate so-called Treaty, the safety of Great Britain has been inadequately dealt with. Everything else has been talked about at length until one grew sick of it, but this matter of primary
  1402
  importance has not been adequately dealt with.
  Captain REDMOND: Poor Great Britain!
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: When the Debate on the Address was in progress, the Prime Minister did refer to the fact that an army and a navy—he did not refer to an air force but, of course, that is included—were being given to the Irish Free State, but he treated it in an utterly inadequate and misleading manner. He made great play with the need for giving adequate military force, because we were giving an independent government, and he laid great stress on the fact that we were limiting these armed forces. I put this to the House. If we limit these forces, what does it indicate? It indicates the fear of consequences if those limits be exceeded. In other words, the Prime Minister recognised the danger which was involved in these Articles, but yet he incurred it. I ask the House whether we are going to incur this danger? In December, during the Debate on the Address, the Colonial Secretary said:
  "Certain I am that any force which is raised in Ireland will not he a force beyond the military power of the British Empire to control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1921; col. 178, Vol. 149.]
  I ask, have we controlled the armed forces which Sinn Fein raised in the course of the past three years? Far from it. We have surrendered to them.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Hear, hear!
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: Suppose that presently Sinn Fein turns round and says, "We are not going to have these limits." Are we, as suggested by the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, going to war to enforce them, and will the Overseas Dominions help us to do so? I leave the answer to the House, but I think it is pretty obvious. Putting aside these embarrassing questions, let us see what is the potential danger involved in ibis Bill. The Prime Minister has told us I hat the maximum number of men in the Irish Army, for the whole of Ireland, will be 40,000. To-day we hear from the Colonial Secretary that for the Free State portion of Ireland they might be between 20,000 and 30,000. I will take the lowest number, the 20,000, and I put this to the House that given a standing army of trained and armed men of that number, in 20 years they would have 200,000 trained men ready to mobilise. I say 20

  1403
  years, but it might be even less, and I would point out that we are passing this Measure not for to-day nor to-morrow, but, so far as we know, for ever. It is no exaggeration to say that in 20 years, at any rate, it will be possible for the Irish Free State to mobilise 200,000 trained men. Now, it is the avowed intention of the Sinn Feiners to establish a Republic for all Ireland. There is no question about that. They have accepted this Treaty as a stepping stone towards that. It is true that so far as my figure of 200,000 is concerned, they may have to wait 20 years to have so many, but if the opportunity arose, and if the Irish Free State could mobilise even half that number, when Great Britain possibly was involved in a war on the Continent or elsewhere, what would happen? Ulster would be over-run at once. The resources of Ulster would be at the disposal of the Free State. A Republic would be declared and every port and harbour on the coast of Ireland would be at the disposal of an enemy. Will anyone deny that we may be embroiled in a European war in the course of the next 20 years? Here is Germany, a great nation, suffering humiliation as well as loss of territory and other material losses. Is it to be supposed that they are going to accept that for ever? I regret to say I cannot believe it. Suppose Germany and Russia combine to dismember Poland, which is made up of a part which was German and a part which was Russian, what would happen? There is no question they would effect their purpose on Poland, and what would happen next?
  The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the point.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I come back to the point. I say if such a situation as that arose we would be embroiled. This country and Ulster would be denuded of troops, an Irish Republic would be set up and the harbours of Ireland would be at the disposal of an enemy, or a combination of enemies. It may be, that though they might set up a republic and might have these 200,000 men, they could not actually invade this country. The Navy would prevent that.
  Captain REDMOND: Not at all.
  Rear-Admiral ADAIR: What of the Air Force, however, they are to be permitted
  1404
  to set up? It is only 90 miles from the coast of Antrim to Glasgow; it is only 120 miles from the Hill of Howth to Liverpool, distances which are far less than those covered by the German bombing craft which attempted to destroy London, but, apart from the damage which might be done to our cities, there is the grave menace of damage by aircraft attack on our shipping bringing our food and commerce to these ports, in addition to any danger from such navy as they may have. What is the naval side of it? We are allowed, by the grace of the Irish Free State, to use four harbours in the time of peace. Apparently—I do not say it is so—the remainder of the ports and harbours are to be considered foreign territory, and we are not to use them. One of the great preparations for war in the Navy is that you should know every nook and corner of the coast that you are going to use, and from that in the future the Navy is to be debarred. In time of war, we are to be allowed to use any harbours that we may require. They are supposed to be open to us, but supposing such a state of affairs as I have already mentioned in connection with their Army and Air Force, not one of those ports would be open to us. On the contrary, they would be available for the enemy, but closed unmistakably to us.
  I will just illustrate this in this way. So long as the surrounding shores of any harbour are in the hands of an enemy, you cannot use that harbour except by forcible entry. May I tell the House this little incident? In the Gallipoli campaign the "Queen Elizabeth," a huge battleship, anchored one day in what was thought to be a safe anchorage for a rest. In the course of a very few minutes she was under the fire of well-hidden field guns, and she had to up-anchor and get away as best she could. That illustrates the danger of using a harbour, the shores of which are in the hands of your enemy. Further, the approaches to these harbours may be mined, they may be defended by aircraft, or they may be defended by such submarines or other craft as are in the hands of the enemy. This provision as to the use of harbours in war is an absolute sham, and it is just worth the paper that it is written on. If we were friendly with the Irish Free State, in the case of war with other countries, there would be no question as to our use of these harbours

  1405
  without any Treaty; if there were a common enemy, of course we should use her harbours without reference to any Treaty; if, on the other hand, she were hostile we could not use them, and if she were neutral we could not use them without embroiling her on one side or the other. So much for the use of harbours in war; I say these provisions in the Treaty are an absolute sham.
  As to the Irish Navy itself, here we have a provision as to ships being maintained for the protection of revenue and fisheries. Any such craft must be armed, and there is the nucleus, though only a small one, of a navy. That is only the commencement of it, because in five years' time this nucleus may develop into a so-called Coastal Defence Force. The wording of the Treaty is:
  "The foregoing provisions of this Article shall be reviewed at a conference of representatives of the British and Irish Governments to be held at the expiration of five years from the date hereof with a view to the undertaking by Ireland of a share in her own coastal defence."
  That is absolute chicanery. I am confident that no such provision as that was either suggested or agreed to by the Admiralty, and I challenge the Government to say that this provision received the mature consideration of the Admiralty and was agreed to by them. I challenge them to say whether that was so or not. If we refuse to give them this force at the end of the five years, is it to be supposed that they will accept that refusal? Certainly not. They have forced the Government to put that provision in the Articles for the very good reason that they are determined to have a Navy of their own sooner or later, and sooner or later they will have it. Let me now for a moment quote the Prime Minister as to the effect of setting up this Navy. I had his words by me, but I cannot find them for the moment, but he said, in effect, that it did not need any Navy of battleships and so on to be a menace to Great Britain, but that it is quite possible that they should have mine layers and submarines, just the craft, to use his own words, that cost us our troubles mostly in the War. In fact, they will have their Coastal Offence Force, quite ready to start out from their harbours at any moment when the opportunity arises to destroy our commerce and our food supplies which pass round their coasts.
  1406
  That, however, is not all. I suggest to the House that France has attached great importance to submarines. If French submarines at war with us were to use Irish ports as well as their own, our difficulties in suppressing them would be enormously increased, and further, in the case of such a combination as I have mentioned, of Germany and Russia, there is no question that if they endeavoured to launch against us a submarine service, it would be a terrible menace to the safety of the food supply and the commerce of this country, and the whole of the Irish ports would be open to them to use. Now I think I have said enough to show what is the potential danger of giving to the Irish Free State, or rather to the Irish Republic, these armed forces—Army, Navy, and Air Force. That is my honest opinion. I say it is an appalling danger to this country and that we have no right in this House to incur that danger. That is my opinion, but I am going to support it by quoting two people whose opinions ought to carry great weight in the House. The first is Gladstone. No protagonist of Home Rule ever before advocated or suggested an army or a navy independent of Great Britain being set up in Ireland. This is what Gladstone said:
  "It may be said, and said truly, that the case of the Colonies is not identical with that of Ireland and does not resemble it. The nearness of Ireland compared with the remoteness of the Colonies prevents it."
  We have had a great deal of reference to the Boer War in South Africa, and to what happened when we gave them what was more or less their independence. Do not let us have any more rubbish talked about South Africa. Liverpool could not be bombed from Cape Town, but it could from Dublin. Here is the opinion of Lord Grey of Falloden:
  "Between Great Britain and Ireland there can be but one foreign policy, one army, and one navy, and we cannot stand any separation in these matters."
  Why did Lord Grey say that? Because if they are given a separate army and navy great danger is involved to this country. I say if this Bill is passed we are not merely committing a most appalling blunder, but we are committing a most grievous sin against future generations in this country.
  Captain REDMOND: Unlike the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down (Admiral Adair), as a mere Irish

  1407
  nationalist representative of Ireland—Southern Ireland it is true—I have not yet taken any part in the proceedings in this House in regard to this Treaty. I feel, however, that I should not let an occasion such as this pass without giving some expression to the feelings, not only of myself and my own constituents, but also of the great body of the people of the South of Ireland who are not represented in this House. The whole course of this Debate this evening has seemed to me to deal with matters which are not realities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would fear the possible arming of the Ireland of the future. I am glad that I am not an Englishman, because, if I were, I would be ashamed and humiliated to hear that statement from an hon. and gallant ex-member of His Majesty's Navy. I will go no further than that, except perhaps to thank him for the exceedingly high compliment he has paid to the Irish people by being able to think that 5,000,000 Irishmen are equal to 45,000,000 Englishmen. In regard to the speeches delivered by the Mover and Seconder and by the supporters of this Amendment for rejection, I would like to say one word. They have all struck the same note, and it is simply a note of alarm, a note of fright, a note of fear. Even the eloquent speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bradford (Major Boyd-Carpenter), eloquent indeed it was, and touching in in many respects, seemed to me
  "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
  He said that he feared the future. The same was said by every other speaker; the same was said in 1893. He was in this House on the occasion of the attempted passage of a measure of self-government for Ireland, an eventually successful passage, in that year, and so was I. I remember it to this day, and the same speeches were made then as have been made to-day.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They have turned out to be right.
  Captain REDMOND: Separation was the cry in those days from those benches, and it is exactly the same parrot-cry to-day.
  Sir F. BANBURY: It has turned out to be right.
  Captain REDMOND: The right hon. Baronet says it has turned out to be right. Has the Act of 1893 been put into operation in Ireland? If not, how can it have turned out right or wrong?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said the speeches made have turned out to be right.
  Captain REDMOND: I am grateful to the right hon. Baronet for his interruption, because the refusal of the Act of 1893 to the Irish people by another place is the very reason why 20 years after you have to-day, and shall have, to give more to satisfy the Irish people than was necessary at that time. The same note has been struck all through, and the Mover of this Motion by his speech to-night has done nothing to alleviate the passions of the people either in Northern or Southern Ireland. It is a strange fact that people talk very glibly and very lightly of affairs in Ireland who do not live there. I live there, I want to live there, and I want to see the people there in enjoyment of their rights and liberties in proper, sober, and contented self-government. I believe, and the reason I am supporting this Treaty is that I believe, that this Treaty properly accepted and properly worked will bring that into being. In the first place the majority of the Irish people have through their representatives accepted this as a settlement of the Irish question. The only Irish assembly in existence elected by the people on the same franchise as you have here in this country has also accepted this Measure; and mark you this, that included in that assembly were several gentlemen who previously were known as South of Ireland Unionists, and who themselves came forward willing to join with their Southern fellow-countrymen in the acceptance and working of this Measure. Furthermore, it may not be known to this House that the Irish Press has been unanimous in their acceptance of this Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unanimous?"] The Irish Press has been unanimous, both metropolitan and provincial. There has not been a single journal in Ireland of any repute which has not advocated the acceptance by the Irish people of this measure of justice. What is the great difference between this proposal and the proposal of 1920, about which we hear so much to-day? The Act of 1920 was condemned in every corner of Ireland, and it had not even the support

  1409
  of a single Irish Member, whether he came from the North or the South. This proposal has at least this to its credit, that it has the support of the majority of the Irish representatives.
  Apart altogether from that, let me look at this proposal, not from the view point of hon. Members who have spoken this evening, which has mostly been from the point of view of the safety of the British Empire. According to the hon. Member who has just sat down, England will totter, and the British Empire will fall to destruction, at the very mention of the prospect of Ireland being able to raise a few thousand men to man a navy, or to fill up the ranks of an army. Let me look at it from the Irish point of view, and, after all, we have some right to consideration in that respect. This Bill, to my mind, confers upon the Irish people a full measure of legislative independence. It gives to the Irish people complete control of their own affairs. It gives to them, for the first time in history, the right which properly belongs to them, and that is to control their country according to their own ideas, and along their own lines; and, furthermore, it gives them the right to form their own constitution within the bounds of the terms laid down in the Agreement. I have now been in this House for over 12 years. I came here as a supporter of Ireland's national claim. That claim was for executive and legislative independence. In my opinion, this Treaty confers both. I have been associated with the Irish movement all my life. My family have been on these benches for over 80 years. They have come to this House generation after generation from O'Connell's time down to the present moment, fighting for what they believed to be the inalienable right of the Irish race. Could I as an Irishman, with a record such as that, not feel rejoiced in my heart of hearts to-night at the thought that, perhaps, at any rate, this Treaty will give the Irish people the one chance for which they have been struggling for so many generations, and that is to prove themselves worthy of the trust you have placed in them?
  It is true there are two conditions laid down in this measure of freedom. Those conditions are conditions which we on these benches have always been willing to accept. Early last year I, myself, made a personal appeal to the Prime Minister.
  1410
  I begged him to set up a constituent assembly for Ireland. I begged him to let the Irish people decide upon a form of government consistent with, and within and alongside, the other great nations that go to make up what you call your Empire. I told him that if he did that, and if he provided all safeguards for those who, for no reason in the past, seem to want them for the future, the Irish people would be only too willing and ready to accept it, but the Prime Minister turned a deaf ear. Sooner than do it then he was prepared to—and unfortunately he did—wallow through the welter of bloodshed and of murder, until eventually he saw the folly of his ways. It has been done now, and done at last. It has been done rightly, but, unfortunately, as usual, it has been done rather tardily. There is a defect with regard to this proposal, and the defect is writ in one word, and that is "partition." The idea of thinking that by dividing a country into two units and setting up two executive authorities you are then going to bring it together again is surely a rather muddleheaded Saxon way of dealing with a problem of this kind. The hon. Members from the North-East corner of Ireland—I do not claim to call them Ulster representatives—have complained about this Measure. Their complaint is principally based upon one thing. It has been that great and sacrosanct Act of 1920—the Act for which not one of them went into the Lobby to vote, the Act that they themselves declared they did not want, the Act that was forced down their throats by the British Parliament. They base their entire claim upon that Act.
  It is really the irony of fate for Members like us upon these benches to sit here and see hon. Members from Ulster calling the Prime Minister and his Government betrayers, saying that they have broken their pledges to them, and saying the British Government's word is not its bond. Honour commenced in 1920, forsooth, with hon. Members opposite. I suppose it was right for the Prime Minister and his friends to tear up the Homo Rule Act of 1914, which was passed, at any rate, by a great majority of this House, and with the assent of the people of this country, and also with the backing and approval of the majority of the people of Ireland, and on the strength of which the Irish people, through their spokesmen here in this House, allied themselves with this country in time of war. It was right

  1411
  for the Prime Minister to tear up the Act of 1914, but, forsooth, the Act of 1920, which was not wanted, which was forced down their throats, which they would not walk into the Lobby to support—the Act of 1920 must be sacrosanct, and the Prime Minister has grossly betrayed them if in any way he interferes with the property which they now claim as theirs under that Measure. We often hear the phrase, "We will not permit a single inch of our territory to be taken from us." Who gave them the territory? When was it theirs? When did Tyrone and Fermanagh belong to the ascendancy party of North-East Ulster? Tyrone and Fermanagh to-day are part and parcel of Ireland, as they always have been, and always will be. I was a Member for Tyrone in this House a little, more, perhaps, than any of the hon. Members opposite, and I say that no one has a title to stolen property. They stole portions of Ireland, and stole it meanly and improperly. They stole it meanly because they did not admit that they wanted it: they would not take it. Now that the property, which was stolen and handed over to them, is about to be, or should be, restored to its rightful owners, they hold up their hands in holy horror and say, "You must not disturb us. You must leave the property that has belonged to us since 1920, and if you do not, you will rue the consequences." There are many courses open to my friends from the North of Ireland—I venture to call them friends because I regard them as brother Irishmen. They may call themselves Ulster men, but if you say that one of them: not an Irishman, I can assure you you had better look out. There are three courses at least open to these gentlemen. First of all, there is the Boundary Commission proposed in this Treaty. They do not like the Boundary Commission. Why? For a very good reason. There is going to be an impartial chairman on the Boundary Commission—
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is there?
  Captain REDMOND: According to the terms of the Treaty, and if you can believe the word of an Englishman and an English Act of Parliament, it is so. I leave the rest with the right hon. Baronet. According to the terms of the Treaty, there is going to be an impartial
  1412
  chairman. At any rate, he is not going to be a North or a South of Ireland man. Hon. Gentlemen will not accept the Boundary Commission, for the very good reason that any impartial chairman, take him from Timbuctoo or Hong Kong, who has any nous, any intelligence, any sense of justice, could not but divide the country—if division is at all possible, which I myself very much doubt—differently from the way it has been arbitrarily carved out in the Act of Parliament which hon. Members have had forced down their throats, and to which they now so strongly adhere! The second course is to take in the whole of Ulster. We hear a great deal about Ulster from hon. Members who live in Ulster, but they would not have Ulster. Why would they not have the whole of Ulster? Do they think that Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal are not parts of the Province of Ulster, and, if so, why would they not have them? Let them move an Amendment to this Treaty, or to the provisions of the Act of 1920, giving them the whole of Ulster. No! Why? Because they do not represent the whole of Ulster, and they would not get the support of the majority of the people of Ulster.
  Let us come to the third alternative. With all respect to them, I think it is the only alternative that any rational, sensible-minded Ulsterman would adopt. It is to come into the Irish Free State. That sounds very ridiculous. Hon. Members may smile. But I have been in the North of Ireland quite recently, and I have met many business men there, differing from me in politics, who have expressed to me their own opinion that it would be far better for the North to come in with the rest of Ireland. What I want to ask to-night is this: Why should not the North of Ireland come in and work with their fellow-countrymen throughout the rest of the land? After all, what will be their position if they do come in? One would think that they were immediately going to be swallowed up and destroyed. What will be the position? In the first place there will be no Boundary Commission. They will enjoy the occupation of, and legislative and administrative functions over, the same territory which they now purport to enjoy under the Act of 1920. That is, they will have the full six counties within their control

  1413
  as they have not, but as they might have, at the present moment, the only difference being that the services, which are now reserved for the Imperial Parliament, would be transferred to the Irish Parliament in Dublin, in which the North of Ireland men would have at least a very fair and adequate representation.
  I am perfectly sure if they were to take that step, that the Southern Irishmen would meet them more than half way, and give them adequate safeguards and guarantees both as to their religious and political convictions and their pursuits in the Ireland of to-morrow. There is also another way out for these hon. Members, which, however, I do not put forward seriously. It is that they should adhere to the policy that has been preached for so many years, and so ably and so strongly by their late leader, Lord Carson. It is this: "Leave us alone, that is all we want; do not come near us: all we desire is to be part and parcel of England." I do not put that proposition very seriously, because I know full well they do not for one moment entertain it in their minds—to become once more part and parcel of this country, to be treated as an "English" "shire," like Yorkshire and Lancashire. That is a proposition which not one of these Members would dare to put before the people of Ulster to-day! No reply? Very well! Having secured self-government for at least a portion of Ireland in which they have resided all their lives, like every other measure which they have resisted, they will hang on the more tenaciously to it than any other people in any portion of the country?
  I am most anxious that Ireland should come together, that peace and order should be restored, that the chaos, both in the North and South, should cease. The only possible chance is for every sensible and patriotic Irishman, no matter to what party or creed he belongs, to come in now and support the Provisional Government and the Free State which has been set up in that country. I should like to say this: as a Nationalist Irishman, I give no credit whatsoever to this Government or this House or to any party in this House for this Measure of freedom. I hope I shall not give offence in making these remarks. I say that this should have been done, and could have been done, years and years ago. It was not done, and we have the consequences,
  1414
  unfortunately, in Ireland to-day. This I characterise as a pure Measure of expediency on behalf of the present Government. I believe the Government of to-day, those who are proposing this Measure, care no more for justice and fair-play than any Government in days gone by. We in Ireland have been betrayed by all British Governments and all British parties, and we therefore know the value of their words and the value of their pledges. I make this exception because the Labour party have never had the opportunity. The Labour party have never had the opportunity of, having the responsibility of office in this country, and therefore I do not place it within the category. It may be said that I am bitter. Yes, I am exceedingly bitter, and I have every reason to be bitter. If I am bitter, what can you conceive of the feelings of the vast majority of the Irish people? You say they are anti-British. Well, they are anti-British, and they have every reason to be anti-British, and all I say is this—you cannot go about kicking a dog and maltreating it for an extensive period and come along afterwards and offer it a bit of sugar-coated candy and expect it to lick your hand. That cannot be done. An hon. Member below me says it can. Well, he has a greater knowledge of the canine species than I have. You cannot maltreat an animal and expect it to have any regard for you. However, the hon. Member may have a wonderful power of dealing with dogs. I hope his power will be as useful in dealing with his constituents when he goes for the next election.
  Much as I feel, and deeply as I feel resentment of the way that we in Ireland have been treated in the past—we especially on these benches by Government after Government of this country—I believe now that at any rate, from what motive I care not, this Government means business. So far, they have kept their word in regard to the Treaty, and I am glad to be able to say that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has shown during the Committee stage of this Bill that he will stand no nonsense, no matter from what quarter it comes. If this country keeps its word—and mind you, it will be a novelty in regard to Ireland—but if it does, then you may trust Ireland to keep hers. I want the future to be a future of amity and friendship

  1415
  between these two peoples. I want to let bygones be bygones, not only between Great Britain and Ireland, but also between Irishmen themselves. I want Irishmen themselves to come together and to prove as good citizens of this great commonwealth of nations as have Irishmen in every other part of the Empire.
  After all, I have been throughout the Empire and know something of it. I know what I am talking about when I say that Irishmen have been your leading lights and pioneers in the legal world, the political world, and in the sciences and industries of the British Empire. The Empire you boast about is by no means a British Empire. It was built by Irish brain and brawn as much as by any other. I do not know whether hon. Members have been as much as I have throughout the Dominions, but I have spent quite a time there, and there is no part of the world, America not excluded, where this Bill will receive most hearty accord than throughout those great self-governing countries which go to make the British Commonwealth of nations. If Ireland is given a chance—if only Ulster people would show that sense and patriotism with which they have been so often credited—time and commonsense will be the healer of all these troubles, and though this is by no means the millennium, though I for one, and those with me, were never consulted about the smallest details of the proposals, I feel that if these proposals are carried into force, they will lead to future happiness and prosperity in that country.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I should regret if this Debate came to its conclusion without someone belonging to the Celtic fringe, the Principality of Wales, availing himself of an opportunity of expressing some measure of sympathy, indeed a great measure of sympathy, with the Bill that is now before the House. I am sneaking the mind of those associated with me on these Benches as well. I have listened to the Debate since its inception, and I am bound to say I have been very much impressed by the great sincerity and conviction disclosed by hon. Members opposing the Measure. I gather from some of the remarks made that this is going to be the end of all things in Ireland—the end
  1416
  of religion and civilisation, indeed, you might say that "Ichabod," from now, is going to be written over the portals of Ireland. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), who opened the Debate, spoke of the tragic significance of this Bill for Ireland. I confess I am not able to understand this unfortunate Jeremiah, which we heard repeated by speaker after speaker on the opposite benches. I venture to controvert that point of view. This might prove to be the most favourable opportunity yet afforded the Irish people for burying the wretched controversies of the pa6t. We may well to-night be witnessing the rebirth of a nation, and the re-birth of a nation is, indeed, a solemn hour. We may perhaps be present at the time when we may be making possible the redemption of liberty in Ireland, the rejuvenation of her national pride, the restoration of her national unity, and the resuscitation of the spirit of liberty which very often makes small nations become great in history.
  I may say that we discovered the real kernel of the opposition in the expression of the hon. Member for Canterbury, who said:
  "The more complete the democratic institution, the further are the people removed from control over the country."
  It seems a curious expression of opinion in these enlightened days. I quite understand that the hon. Member docs not like democracy, judging from that expression of opinion. The hon. Member who followed him, in an excellent speech, expressed the opinion that, having once started on the road of democracy, you cannot look back. We have often stood, I believe, at the edge of a pond and have seen a stone thrown into the pond, and have observed, as a consequence, a circle being formed, and larger circles, till they have reached the edge of the pond.
  Something of that kind has happened since the War of 1914. We have stored up the idea of democracy. It is now penetrating into the mind of all the nations of the world, and not least into the mind of the Irish people. The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that they live in the pre-1914 days. We are living in days when new ideals, new aspirations, and a new outlook pervade the minds of the people of the world.

  1417
  If, therefore, we are to keep moving with the times, I have a profound conviction that some newer form of democratic constitution must be provided for the Irish people.
  I will not follow the example of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) in making quotations from people on the Sinn Fein side. That is rather a dangerous precedent to adopt because quotations can be produced which would reflect very little credit on some of the erstwhile leaders of the hon. Member's own party. It is no use reviving these bitter memories, and the quicker we forget those foolish utterances on both sides the better it will be for the prestige of each side. It is the essence of democratic government that whatever form of government be accepted it must be one which has the consent of the governed. The early American constitutionalists laid down that it was the inherent right of every people that they should enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I ask hon. Members opposite whether there is any chance of enjoying those things unless you give-some form of self-government to Ireland. Do hon. Members opposite seriously suggest that the people of Southern Ireland regard the present condition of things as satisfactory. Furthermore, I would ask, would they suggest that the people of Ulster would regard the present condition of things as wholly satisfactory? In each case I think the answer would be in the negative. The Irish people under the present system have seen their country depopulated, millions of people have left their native shores, and when one thinks of all this we are reminded of the lines of Scott:
  Breathes there the man with soul so dead
  Who never to himself hath said
  This is in my own, my native land!
  Those millions of Irish people who left their native shores felt impelled to do so largely because they have not been allowed to call Ireland their native land. Their native industries have been ruined and their native language has been destroyed. For 800 years they have been crushed under the heel of what they believe to be the invader. Has the Irish people deserved all this? They are amongst the finest people on the face of the earth. They are thinkers in the highest degree, chivalrous almost to a fault, and they have a literature that is
  1418
  most beautiful and a genius that has dazzled the world. Millions from time to time have laid down their lives on behalf of this country, and yet in Ireland you have attempted a method of repression which has completely failed. There is but one other alternative, and that is to try the method of reconciliation. I say, and my countrymen from the Principality say, God-speed to the Irish people in this new attempt at self-government that is going to be made. An hon. Member opposite said they desired peace, for without peace they cannot live, and I entirely endorse that sentiment. The fair flower of liberty cannot live nor thrive in an atmosphere of suspicion and internal rivalry. Therefore, on behalf of my fellow-countrymen, as I believe, and incidentally on behalf of the Labour party, I wish this Bill every possible success and wish good luck to the Irish Free State.
  Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: I have so far remained silent during the discussions of this Bill, and during the passage of the Act of 1920 through its various stages, but I feel that I should be lacking in my duty if I did not put before the House what I believe to be perhaps a novel point of view upon this subject. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I quite admit that this Bill may have been a necessity. I believe that the Government were beaten to their knees by this so-called Irish Republican Army. I believe they could not go any further, and they could not restore order in the South of Ireland. The Government came to this House in the last Session of Parliament and they proclaimed to all of us that they had made an honourable settlement.
  That is what a great many of us dispute. We say no honourable settlement has been made at all. It is possible to judge a man's character by his face, and on the face of this Bill stands clearly imprinted its character, and in it can be seen two things, fear and, if I may say so without offence, cunning. In its very looseness of expression it shows that the Government had in mind all sorts of possibilities whatever hopes they may have expressed. The Secretary for the Colonies has insisted upon this point, that he must in honour carry through this Bill as being the legalising of the Treaty. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken gave us an interesting quotation. I will venture in conclusion to recall to the right hon.

  1419
  Gentleman's mind another quotation, and it is this:
  "His honour rooted in dishonour stood,
  And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."
  Viscount CURZON: I would not have taken part in this Debate had I not thought it my duty, as one who has consistently opposed this so-called Irish settlement, to do my best to justify my action. An hon. Member opposite said that all the speeches he had listened to on this Third Reading Motion had begun and ended on a note of fear. My attitude towards this Bill is not based on a note of fear. I would not oppose the settlement of Ireland, I have never opposed it. What I have opposed is this particular interpretation of the settlement, for I do not regard it as a final settlement. I have always safeguarded myself on this Irish question by declaring that three things are absolutely essential to a settlement. First, there must be no quibble about allegiance, secondly, we cannot concede to the Irish people the question of defence, which is an Imperial matter, and, thirdly, we must protect the loyalists. If we can get a settlement embodying these three reservations I will support it just as ardently as I have opposed this proposal. In my view the oath in this Bill is no oath at all. It binds no one, it means practically nothing. The people to whom you are proposing to hand over the country are people who make no secret of the fact that they oppose the Treaty altogether, or look upon it as a stepping-stone to something else. Only last Sunday Mr. Michael Collins, one of the signatories of the Treaty, said they could not keep the British out by force, and so the Republican ideal was surrendered. But having beaten them by the Treaty, the Republican ideal, surrendered in July, was again restored. There is also the question of the boundary. Talk about Alsace-Lorraine, why that is nothing compared with what is opened up by the state of uncertainty in which the whole question of the Ulster boundary is likely to be placed. I have opposed this Bill with absolute sincerity. It goes very much against the grain for me to find myself constantly in opposition to those with whom I am accustomed to act. But I have felt it my duty to vote as I have done, because I see in this no settlement,
  1420
  but only the seeds of future difficulties, and even war. I regard it as a desperate gamble which could only be justified by its success. If it fails it opens up a prospect almost appalling. I hope it will succeed, but I wish to take no responsibility for it, and for that reason I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This Debate is now drawing to a close. No one will pretend it has been a pleasant Debate to conduct. I have felt acutely conscious, during its passage, of the intense and natural feeling of the Ulster Members on the whole of the great issue that is before the House of Commons. I have also felt conscious of the inevitable feelings of self-questioning which must arise in the breasts of those who for so many years have been, in one form or another, the opponents of Home Rule settlement in Ireland. I listened, as others in the House listened, with the greatest attention to the admirable speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bradford (Major Boyd-Carpenter), in whose eloquent periods and tones one discerned the gifts which he has inherited from his distinguished father. No one could have listened to that appeal without being affected by it, and I say at once, if I have to address myself to that argument, that there is no one who pretends that this solution is an ideal solution, or that it has been brought about in the way which, if we had had an absolute, plenary, unchallenged direction of events, we should ourselves have chosen. No one pretends that.
  I feel intensely some of the incidents which have occurred in Ireland since the truce, where loyal, faithful officials, policemen, soldiers, standing at their posts, not only under the authority of the British Crown but under the safeguard of the Irish nation, as signified in a compacted document and Treaty, have been shot dead, and no penalty has been exacted so far—though I am sure it will be, in the name of the Irish people—from those who have done these criminal and detestable deeds. I feel the wrecking, the squandering, of so many loyalties in Ireland, which have been held firm through all these long years of tension. I feel also the position of my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) and of the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford

  1421
  (Captain Redmond), who spoke earlier in the Debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Waterford said he was bitter, and he said some things which I think were a little wounding to the House. But he had a right to be bitter. I do not think we are in a position to ask for compliments from him. After all, he is one whose father devoted the last few years of his life, after a lifetime spent in advocating the Irish cause, to aiding the British Empire, and he himself served with distinction and courage in the Guards Division; and when men like him and like my hon. Friend the Member for the Falls Division, who used all his powerful, human, persuasive eloquence to urge recruits to join the fighting line at the moment when the bayonet was literally at our throats, have suffered so terribly by their adherence to constitutional methods and by their loyalty to the great conception of the British Commonwealth of Nations, it is no use pretending that we, who are for the time being the anxious custodians of the interests of the Imperial Government, are in a position to rejoin upon them with acrimonious severity. But you must not look at this settlement as if it were your ideal. You must look at it in relation to the possible alternatives. What are the possible alternatives? No doubt if we had persevered through these last six months raising military and police forces, developing all our mechanical methods of warfare, pressing on the process of subjection by every means at our disposal—and they are very great—we should be further, on our road to-day than we were in June and July, when the Treaty was signed. But we should have paid a very heavy price in the whole security of our social and political structure today in this island, we should have paid a heavy price in the opinion held of us all over the world, and I think we should have been forced, in spite of all our efforts, into action which would have inflicted in many forms reproaches upon ourselves, in our own hearts and in our own consciences. It was because we found we were being drawn increasingly into action on a great scale of a kind which Britain cannot effectually carry through, not because of I her weakness, but because of her strength, that we were definitely brought in a great atmosphere of national feeling to an attempt to make a solution, even under
  1422
  the most unfavourable circumstances, even when we were exposed to every kind of taunt, by peaceful means and reconciliation.
  We are now embarked in the full tide j of that experiment and effort and act of faith, for such it is, and I should like to ask the House to be very careful when obviously it is a matter of common interest to us all and common importance—all jour fortunes, whatever view we take, are affected by the success or failure of this effort—not to allow itself to despair too soon, not to allow itself to lose heart and faith and hope in the long, weary, disappointing, vexing journey in which we have got to persevere. In the first place do not let us exaggerate the state of Ireland. It is quite natural, when the newspapers collect the information each day and present to us in the morning their budget, that all the things that go wrong should be collected, all the disasters, all the outrages, all the unfortunate episodes and regrettable incidents should figure on the morning page. But there is much more in the life of Ireland than the many unfortunate incidents which are chronicled in the papers. You would get an entirely distorted view of Ireland if you were to take your opinions entirely from the daily budget of incidents. I have been making one or two inquiries into the social, sporting, religious, and industrial life of Ireland, and I have acquired a few facts quite different from those that give one the impression of a general condition of anarchy. For instance, a glance at the sporting columns of the daily newspapers will suffice to show that the social activities of the general public in Ireland have almost reverted to the conditions of normal times. The "Sunday Independent" of the 26th of last month, which is a paper I have examined, contained reports of no fewer than 26 important football matches in Southern Ireland, and announcements of no fewer than 29 Gaelic football fixtures for that Sunday. That would rather shock my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He might regard it as another instance of Irish depravity. The attendance at the semi-final of the Irish football cup is said to have surpassed all recent records. In the International Rugby Match between England and Ireland, played in Dublin on Satur-

  1423
  day, 11th February, the spectators numbered between 16,000 and 18,000, and the public interest was up to the standard of pre-War days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who won?"] Do not let us add to our partisanship by entering into that question. The same issue of the "Irish Independent" contained reports of a meeting in Cork on the 24th February—Cork is a very bad place—for the purpose of forming a divisional association of the Football Association of Ireland in Munster.
  Among outdoor games, hockey is much in favour, and it is not unlikely that the end of the season will find Ireland holders of the international championship in this game. Racing is very active. Meetings were held recently at Proudstown Park, Navan, and Kilcoman, county Waterford. Seven race meetings are to be held in March, and 15 in April. Coursing and hunting have continued with little or no interference or interruption during the winter. The contest for the Irish Coursing Cup was recently held at Limerick. Indoor amusements have almost reverted to normal conditions. The Dublin theatres have had an exceptionally prosperous season. Dancing is now probably in greater vogue in Southern Ireland than it has been for several years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give up reading!"] I will not give up. I am endeavouring to present a true picture of the social life of Ireland, and I am entitled to give these facts. No one can form a true opinion of the public affairs of a country who does not watch carefully the social life of the people.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Rub it in.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Finally, the Meath, Kildare, Ward Union, and Kilkenny Hunt Balls have all been held without the slightest interference. I will not prolong the story. Why do I dwell upon these things! [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I think it is ridiculous for people to suppose that the life of Ireland at the present moment is composed of outrages and murders. In the main, the life of Ireland is going on in a normal fashion.
  Sir W. DAVISON: So it went on during the Black and Tan period.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, there are shocking incidents, but there have been
  1424
  a great many fewer people killed than were killed before. I commend these facts to the consideration of the House, not indeed that the House should imagine that all is well in Ireland—that would be a most foolish thing to do—but that they should not readily accept the arguments which are put forward that the whole country is rapidly lapsing into a condition of Bolshevist anarchy. Nothing of the sort has taken place.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that 30 theatres were open during the great terror of 1794 in France?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, that is an historic fact, but I do not think it at all alters the argument or the facts which I have brought before the House. It is like my Noble Friend to try to suggest that what is now going on in Ireland is a parallel to the great terror in France—an attitude of frenzied exaggeration which seizes theologically-minded people when they approach certain political questions. I can assure my Noble Friend that there have been many cases of this kind of thing in Mesopotamia.
  Let me come to a more serious and a more difficult aspect of the case. The hon. and gallant Member for South Antrim (Captain Craig) asked me to refer to the charge which he brought against the Government, of broken pledges. The two instances in which he alleged there had been a breach of faith were, first, the boundary Clause, and, second, the inclusion of Ulster in the Free State area. I do not think that there is much in that second point, because they are included in the Free State area with the full right of opting out, and not for one moment will they be in the Free State area, except in a purely nominal way. But as to the first point I think that one may push a charge of technical breach of faith too far, and I do not think that all the very strong expressions that have been used in the course of this Debate are justified by what has actually taken place. After all, my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Ulster have had themselves to face situations in which a charge of technical breach of faith might be made with some show of force, and in which again they felt that the circumstances were such that, as men of honour and men of good faith who had to face the difficulties of

  1425
  the situation, they could do no other than they did.
  Mr. MOLES: We consulted them first and you did not consult us.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no doubt that when the Covenanters outside the six counties were excluded by an agreement into which, very patriotically, hon. Members for Ulster entered, they had a claim to say that—
  Mr. MOLES: We consulted them.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That situation was as embarrassing to them as I frankly admit the position is embarrassing to us. The hon. Member for South Antrim said on the 29th March, 1920:
  "I knew that the allegation would come sooner or later that, we had broken the Covenant which we had signed in 1912 when we bound ourselves, all the Unionists in all the counties of Ulster, to stand by one another in the crisis which then threatened. There has been a great deal said as to a breach of the Covenant by those of us who voted in favour of the six counties, and we are now prepared to admit a technical breach of that Covenant."
  I am not quoting this as a matter of reproach, nor am I condoning in any way any breach of good faith. The hon. Member for South Antrim would, I think, have taken the action of a man who would conduct, with the utmost good faith, any affair in which he is concerned. What I do say is, that with a quotation of that kind, which I am entitled to read, some moderation of language should be applied in criticising the Government. I do not say this as an excuse at all on our part, but I have very frankly said, that I wish we had had time to send the final proposals which we reached late at night over to the Northern Government in Ulster to get their opinion before any final decision was taken. I wish we had, but I think, as the late Leader of the House thought, had we taken that step at that time there would have been a complete breakdown, and a complete breakdown when we had disbanded a great many of our means of organising a hostile policy in Ireland, when we had for three or four months Been allowing our machinery of war to rust or to remain in abeyance, and when, after this country had done its part so largely, we should have had to come out of the conference room and urge them to organise another 100,000 men to subdue Ireland, should we not have been under-
  1426
  taking a task which might well have proved beyond our strength and political influence. I only put this argument not as an excuse for any failure which we may have made in grappling with these difficult matters, and not to impugn any action the Ulstermen have taken, but only in order to say that they must mingle a certain measure of charity in their examination of the actions of public men and of Governments in regard to the baffling subjects which press for decision in the present difficult situation of the world.
  Mr. R. McNEIIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that if on that night he had stated to Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith, "We cannot for the moment sign the Treaty because we have pledged our word," that these men would not have said, "Very well, as men of honour we will allow you time to consult"?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not admit the form of the question, but I am quite certain if this Treaty had not been settled that night it would never have been settled at all. The men who signed on the other side had no idea of the treatment they were going to receive when they returned to Ireland. They firmly believed they would be supported by the great mass of their colleagues and compatriots. They little knew they would be held up as traitors by others. Had this Treaty not been signed that night, there is no doubt the Government would have, had to face circumstances incomparably more difficult than if we had broken off in July of last year. I say this about the boundaries. All through these Debates I have definitely refused to be drawn into attempting to write an interpretation upon the Treaty, and the reason is this: If I had dared to write such an interpretation the only result would have been that other interpretations would have been immediately put forward on the other side of the Channel. You would have claim and counter-claim.
  Viscount WOLMER: Like the other agreements the Prime Minister has made.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That seems to me a singularly inadequate and irrelevant interruption. If the House will bear in mind the form of Article 12, without asking me to put any interpretation upon it which in any case would have no effect, they will see how very carefully this whole matter has been considered by the

  1427
  Government from the general point of view, and also from the special point of view, The Article says:
  "Provided that … a Commission … shall determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland"—
  the boundaries—
  "and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920"—
  I dwell on those words—
  "and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission."
  I absolutely decline to be drawn into an attempt to interpret or forecast, and for very good reasons, what the ultimate decision of the impartial, judicial tribunal will be, but I do say that a careful study of these words will reveal the fact that, even in the stress and difficulty of these times, His Majesty's Government have punctiliously held in view the essence of the Ulster position. More than that I do not propose to say.
  The hon. and gallant Member for North Bradford (Major Boyd-Carpenter) whom I do not see, but who spoke so well before dinner, suggested that the British Empire had been drawn into a great humiliation at the present time by the action which we have taken. I quite agree that we could not possibly have done what we have done on the morrow of Majuba Hill, but on the morrow of the Great War we are, I am sure, entitled to look upon these matters from the point of view of what we considered in the long interests of the British Empire as likely to afford the best and the surest solution, without being deflected either one way or the other by feelings of national pride. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) said, "What shall we do if the Irish break the Treaty—if, instead of getting the Irish Free State, we find an Irish Republic returned at the elections, or if the whole country slides into general disorganisation?" I think we must do what we can. I think we must be very careful not to try to do what we cannot. I do not wish to dwell too much upon the ugly hypotheses which may arise in those circumstances—I am going to dwell on them, but not too much—but I do ask the House to measure up in their minds the enormous power, wealth,
  1428
  strength of Britain and the British Empire compared to the resources of Ireland, and I do think it is necessary for them to bear in their minds the economic relationship between this country and Ireland. Ireland exported last year £205,000,000 of produce, and of those £205,000,000 Britain bought £203,000,000. Ireland bought from abroad for her own needs £203,000,000, and of that she bought from Britain £161,000,000. Broadly speaking, we are the sole market of Ireland, and we are also the sole source from which, she obtains the coal, manufactures, and vital needs which equip an agricultural country with the means of civilised being.
  If you strip Ireland of her grievance, if you strip Ireland of the weapon she has hitherto used, if you strip her of the accusation against Great Britain of being the oppressor, if you strip her of her means of exciting and commanding the sympathy of almost the whole world, of the support she has received in the United States, in our own Dominions, indeed, throughout the whole English-speaking world, if by acting in strict, inflexible, good faith you place Ireland in the position that if she breaks the Treaty she is in the wrong and you are in the right, that she is absolutely isolated in the whole world—then, I say, the strength of your economic position, emerges in its integrity. Is it not an extraordinary thing that Ireland should play such a great part—I hope this argument will not be offensive to my hon. Friend who sits there all alone representing Belfast (Mr. Devlin), but I must express the situation as I see it—and has played for so long such a great part in British Imperial affairs—convulsing parties, disturbing Governments, holding the balance for years, putting the Conservatives out of office in 1885, and the Liberals in office in 1892 and again in 1910—[HON. MEMBERS: "1906!"]—in 1910, holding the balance in all our great affairs? Naturally, when we look back and see what Ireland has done in this matter through the agency of the Parliamentary party, we have a feeling that Ireland is an enormous power, bulking in our affairs as a factor of first magnitude. But when Ireland is stripped of her grievance and stands on her own resources, then, and then alone, will you know how weak she

  1429
  is, how little power she has to do us harm. When the Sinn Fein ideal is realised—"Ourselves Alone"—though they may wish to follow their own way of life in Ireland, as they have a right to wish, the power to stand in the path of the British Empire and to obstruct our world-wide policy will have absolutely departed. Even if she has the will—and I do not think she would have the will—she would not have the power.
  See how this question has been altering as the generations have passed. At the Union the population of this land was twice that of Ireland. Now it is ten times that of Ireland. The problem has altered. I say this for the benefit of hon. Members who may feel there is some inconsistency in their life policy in adopting these methods now. The whole situation is steadily changing. Ireland will be revealed to have been strong only in her grievance, and England weak only in the assertion of her power on interior Irish affairs. But if the power of Ireland to harm us will be small, the power of Ireland to help us will be very great. Why should you assume that they will not try to help us?
  The hon. Member for Bradford quoted a statement of Mr. Michael Collins which I do not remember to have seen, although I am very fully in touch with what has been said. He quoted this statement indicating that they were looking forward, when the Army was gone and the Bill was passed, to set up a Republic. I do not recognise such a statement, but I am certain it is not in accordance with what the Provisional Government are actually doing. I think it quite possible that leaders of the Provisional Government have said from time to time, "We do not accept this as a final settlement." That is no more than to paraphrase what Mr. Parnell said, "No one has the right to set bounds to the onward march of a nation." Mr. Griffiths said, "This is not the last generation to live in the world." I see nothing to interfere with the loyal observance of the Treaty in an observation of that kind, provided the action taken is loyal action in accordance with the Treaty. I have heard statements here which seem to suggest that the Irish leaders are only waiting an opportunity to tear up the Treaty, and proclaim a Republic. I do not believe it for a moment. But let me quote what their
  1430
  other enemies say about them. They stand in a cross-fire at the present time. A few days ago there was this revolt in Limerick. The Commandant of the Irish Republican Army, who revolted against the Provisional Government, issued the following Proclamation:
  "The aims of the head of the army"—
  that is, the Irish Republican Army—
  "and the majority of the general headquarters staff are now unquestionably to subvert the Republic, to support the Provisional Government, and to make possible the establishment of the Irish Free State. We declare that we no longer recognise the authority of the present head of the army, and renew our allegiance to the existing Irish Republic, confident we shall have the support of all ranks of the Irish Republican Army and of the loyal citizens of the Irish Republic."
  11.0 P.M.
  There is clear evidence, in my opinion, that the action the Provisional Government is taking is deeply obnoxious to those who are determined to set up, if they can, a republic in Ireland, and I have no doubt whatever that the matter will not rest entirely in the region of words. I ask from the House, now that the Bill is going through its Third Reading, all the help we can give to the Irish Provisional Government. Even although there is much with which to be dissatisfied, although there are many episodes which are disheartening or awkward, nevertheless these men need our help, and we have every interest in according it. If we are able to help them, and they are able to win through and establish an Irish Free State, such as we all can figure in our minds, in hours of reflection, then, undoubtedly, that Free State will have a power to help us, to help the British Empire, as it will to an extraordinary extent, first of all by helping themselves, by showing that Irishmen are capable of producing a Government in their own country, and for the life of their own country, which is not markedly below the standard of the civilisation of Western Europe. Secondly, in the Dominions and in the United States. Lastly, they can help us in the whole world by showing the whole world, as we have shown the peoples in the case of South Africa, that we possessed a secret that no other nation in the world has known, how to discover and to employ.

  1431
  The Leader of the Ulster party complained of the indifference of the House. He said that his friends had put their case with the greatest earnestness—and with the greatest ability—that the House had received indifferent, but that enormous majorities—I think convinced majorities — [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—had supported and sustained the Irish Free State Bill. I think the House has been influenced by two quite different sets of considerations: first of all realising the grim facts of the position in which we stand, and the
  definite pledges we have given, and also by a feeling of hope and faith which, in spite of the unpleasant, disheartening facts, and uncertainties of the Irish situation, has not died out in British hearts. It is from these two motives, faith and hope, that we are entitled on the Third Reading of this Bill to say: "We have put our hands to the plough, and we will not look back."
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 52.

  Division No. 43]

  AYES.

  [11.2 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

  Cowan, sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A, (Widnes)

  Ainsworth, Captain Charles

  Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)

  Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

  Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

  Armitage, Robert

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

  Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)

  Hinds, John

  Atkey, A. R.

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hirst, G. H.

  Bagley, Captain E. Ashton

  Devlin, Joseph

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

  Baird, Sir John Lawrence

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Edgar, Clifford B.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. Sir A. J. (City, Lon.)

  Edge, Captain Sir William

  Hopkins, John W. W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Ednam, Viscount

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Barlow, Sir Montague

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

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

  Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Barnett, Major Richard W.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

  Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

  Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Irving, Dan

  Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

  Evans, Ernest

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

  Fell, Sir Arthur

  Johnson, Sir Stanley

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

  Fildes, Henry

  Johnstone, Joseph

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

  Finney, Samuel

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Foot, Isaac

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Foreman, Sir Henry

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

  Forrest, Walter

  Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Fraser, Major Sir Keith

  Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

  Boscawen. Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gange, E. Stanley

  Klley, James Daniel

  Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  King, Captain Henry Douglas

  Breese, Major Charles E.

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Britton, G. B.

  Gillis, William

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

  Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

  Bromfield, William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lawson, John James

  Brotherton, Colonel Sir Edward A.

  Glyn, Major Raiph

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

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Gould, James C.

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.

  Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)

  Lorden, John William

  Cairns, John

  Greenwood, William (Stockport)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Cape, Thomas

  Gregory, Holman

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Carew, Charles Robert S.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)

  Carr, W. Theodore

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

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

  Lunn, William

  Casey, T. W.

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Lyle, C. E. Leonard

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

  Hailwood, Augustine

  Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

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

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

  McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Halls, Walter

  Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)

  Churchill. Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

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

  Clough, Sir Robert

  Hancock, John George

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Coats, Sir Stuart

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  McMicking, Major Gilbert

  Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

  Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Harris, Sir Henry Percy

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

  Cope, Major William

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Manville, Edward

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Hayday, Arthur

  Mason, Robert

  Matthews, David

  Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

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

  Middlebrook, Sir William

  Remer, J. R.

  Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)

  Mitchell, Sir William Lane

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Robertson, John

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

  Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Morden, Col. W. Grant

  Rodger, A. K.

  Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Rose, Frank H.

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Morris, Richard

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Vickers, Douglas

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund

  Waddington, R.

  Murchison, C. K.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wallace, J.

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

  Myers, Thomas

  Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

  Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor

  Naylor, Thomas Ellis

  Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

  Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)

  Neal, Arthur

  Seager, Sir William

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

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

  Seddon, J. A.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

  Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

  Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

  Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

  Sexton, James

  Warren, Sir Alfred H.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

  Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

  Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

  O'Connor, Thomas P

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.

  Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

  Parker, James

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Williams, C. (Tavistock)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Sitch, Charles H.

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

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)

  Wilson, James (Dudley)

  Pearce, Sir William

  Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

  Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Spencer, George A.

  Wise, Frederick

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

  Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Perring, William George

  Starkey, Captain John Raiph

  Worsfold, T. Cato

  Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Young, E. H. (Norwich)

  Pratt, John William

  Sugden, W. H.

  Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

  Purchase, H. G.

  Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Rae, H. Norman

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Sutton, John Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Swan, J. E.

  Col. Leslie Wilson and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.

  Taylor, J.

  Redmond, Captain William Archer

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

  NOES.

  Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

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

  Moles, Thomas

  Archer-Shee. Lieut.-Colonel Martin

  Dixon, Captain Herbert

  Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)

  Armstrong, Henry Bruce

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)

  Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Gwynne, Rupert S.

  Pain, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. Hacket

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

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

  Pennefather, De Fonblangue

  Blair, Sir Reginald

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

  Poison, Sir Thomas A.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

  Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

  Remnant, Sir James

  Brown, Major D. C.

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.

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

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

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

  Lindsay, William Arthur

  Stewart, Gershom

  Butcher, Sir John George

  Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

  Lynn, R. J.

  Wilson, Field-Marshal Sir Henry

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  M'Connell, Thomas Edward

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)

  McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)

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

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Reid and Viscount Curzon.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  SUMMER TIME BILL.
  Order for Second Beading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

DENTISTS ACT, 1921 (REGULATIONS).
Mr. SEDDON: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order in Council under the Dentists Act, 1921, dated the 16th day of January, 1922, approving
1434
Regulations of the Dental Board of the United Kingdom, presented on the 7th day of February, may be annulled."
I want to say, in passing, that I joined the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) in protesting against a five-guinea charge. It is an imposition and not a registration fee. I have reliable authority for doubting whether the medical or any other profession ask for such an imposition as five guineas for all time as far as these applicants are concerned. Therefore, while I entirely agree with and am prepared to support the hon. Member for Wood Green, I want to raise another issue which, I think, is of vital

1435
importance to very many men. The numbers I cannot give, but many hundreds of ex-service men who belong to this particular profession answered the call of their country, and their absence from the country during the years of war has, under this. Act and the Regulations that have been drawn up, given rise to a very serious grievance so far as their position is concerned. But I am not going to make any charge against the rival organisations that are in existence for the unregistered men. There are two societies that have been catering for this class of practitioner. One of them, by the consent of this House, was permitted to avoid certain conditions which were imposed upon other people who did not happen to belong to it. The Act provided that members of this particular Society, by virtue of 12 months' membership, should go on to the register, providing their character was of proper standing. Without making any attack on the society, I want to say that its charter made it impossible for it to take in more than 2,000 members. It is estimated there were some 10,000 unregistered dentists in the country who would make application for registration, and therefore if the society could only take in 2,000, there were 8,000 who were precluded from joining it. Where it hits the ex-service man is in this way. A man might belong to the society and go on to the register by virtue of his 12 months' membership. But the larger number who did not belong to it were asked to undertake an examination, and had inflicted upon them certain disabilities. Therefore there was created a certain privileged section of unregistered men as against another section of unregistered ex-service men who did not belong to the society. During the War it was made easy for medical practitioners and dentists to get on the register. There was a skeleton examination.
Lieut.-Colonel RAW: No.
Captain ELLIOT: That is a grave accusation to make.
Mr. SEDDON: I withdraw the statement. I want to point out there was not a supply of dentists sufficient for the requirements of the Army. In Egypt, for instance, one registered dentist was in charge of 4,000 troops. It was physically impossible for that dentist to carry
1436
out his duties for the men under his charge. What happened? He discovered that amongst the men serving there were dentists who were not registered, and he called them to his assistance, made them sergeants and corporals, and they gave efficient service under the superintendence of that registered man. According to this new Dental Board, that service cannot count at all; it is supposed to be unofficial service. I speak as a member of the Committee that dealt with this Bill, and that Committee, as the hon. and gallant Member who took exception to my remark just now, and who was on the Committee, will agree was unanimous that, so far as the ex-service man was concerned, there should be a consideration, even latitude, and a little elasticity on the question of registration. The position now is that, unless a man belongs to this particular society, the Board have laid down certain stringent regulations. They say that he must give proof of considerable practice before he entered the Army. In fact they go so far as to say that his pre-War service and his post-War service must be of the same duration, namely, five years, as in the case of the unregistered man who is making application to be put on the register. The man who belongs to the particular society I have mentioned, by mere virtue of his membership of that society, goes on to the register ipso facto, whereas the other men who do not belong to that society must give the same evidence of five years' dental practice before the War and since the War as the other people who will come under this Act. The greater number of ex-service men do not belong to this society. If these men, who were permitted to serve the troops, which they did, although it was done unofficially—if these men who went to serve their country are to be so treated, while other men who stayed at home are going to be put on by virtue of lapse of time, then these Regulations will inflict a grievous hardship on the men who did their duty to their country, and will give preferential treatment to the men who stayed at home.
I may be told that the action of the Dental Board is for the purpose of safeguarding the public. I am all in favour of the public being safeguarded against men who are, I will not say untrained, but who lack experience; but I have here a document which shows that a man who was not in practice before 1919, and who

1437
belongs to a particular society, is going, because of that membership, to be placed upon the register ipso facto, whereas others who do not belong to that society are to have an examination imposed upon them. I think that is grossly unfair. We have got short memories. We said men who went to the war should get every consideration. With these new Regulations the vast majority of ex-service men, who cannot give proofs—and it is not always easy to do it—are going to be put in a position which is not only detrimental to themselves, but is a breach of faith so far as the country is concerned with the men who went to serve the country in its hour of trial. All I ask the Minister of Health to do is to withdraw these Regulations and see to it that not merely membership of an organisation is going to be the talisman to go upon the register. We ask for equality of treatment for ex-service men irrespective of the organisations they belong to, and if that is done, I am convinced that a grave injustice to hundreds of ex-service men will be removed and the Government will be relieved from the responsibility which has been put upon their shoulders by the new Dental Board which has been set up. My only concern is that we should fulfil our pledges, with due regard to the protection of the public. If a man has been in practice, irrespective of the society he belongs to, since 1919, surely it is some indication that he had practised before he served in the Army. Do not let us penalise men, simply because of membership of a society, who did their duty in our hour of need.
Captain LOSEBY: I beg to second the Motion.
It is well known that the most influential ex-service men's organisation feel very strongly upon this point, and they think, rightly or wrongly, that they have been differentiated against, and to a certain degree, at any rate, penalised through their service, and they sincerely hope this prayer will be met in order that they may make their representation in due course. I believe the country hardly realises the extent to which professional and semi-professional men who served during the years 1914–19 have been penalised through that service as opposed to men who did not undergo those sacrifices, and I am quite convinced that when the right hon. Gentleman realises that
1438
it is after all only a small point that is asked of him, that these Regulations should be withdrawn in order that these representations, which I believe he will find are very weighty representations, may be made, he will accede to it.
Mr. RAFFAN: I should not have intervened in regard to the main point which my hon. Friend is bringing before the House had he not been diverted from his main argument to make something like an attack on the manner in which the Dental Board has dealt with members of the Incorporated Dental Society. As to his main thesis, that in considering what Regulations should have been submitted to the Dental Board he should have special regard to the position of ex-service men. I am in entire agreement with him and as a matter of fact not only was it the opinion of the Committee of this House which considered the Bill that that should have been done but there is express provision in the Bill that it should be done. I have no doubt the Chairman of the Board will be able to explain in what way the Board has given consideration to that provision in the Act. I shall be quite content to wait for that explanation. So far I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend that it is a proper point for him to raise, but when he says that men have been differentiated against because they are not members of the Incorporated Dental Society I do think that he should have regard to what has happened in regard to the whole history of this matter. The Departmental Committee which inquired into the question, and whose recommendations were carried into effect, came to the conclusion that members of the Incorporated Dental Society, in accordance with the rules of that Society, were all people who conformed to the rule as to five years' practice which the Act called upon other people to prove. Therefore they made a recommendation that it would be a saving of time if instead of investigating whether each member of that Society had had the necessary five years' practice to qualify, they assumed that members of the Society had had the five years' practice, which they were bound to have under the rules of the Society. That recommendation was given effect when the Act was formed.
It is true that in Committee upstairs my hon. Friend endeavoured to secure,

1439
not that the members of the society should cease to occupy that position, but that other organisations should be placed in the same position. His resolution, if adopted, would have left out of consideration a large number of ex-service men who are members of no organisation. The Committee upstairs after carefully considering the matter decided by a majority of 26 votes to six that the Departmental Committee had been perfectly right in the recommendation which they had made that members of the Incorporated Dental Society should be in a different position from the members of other organisations. The Chairman of the Dental Board, who has been Chairman of the Departmental Committee, said:
"This is one of the most difficult questions we have to face. It was not without much consideration that the Departmental Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the Incorporated Dental Society do stand on a very different basis of claim from that occupied by any other Society."
He also pointed out that the Incorporated Dental Society was the only society that years before this Bill was thought of really tried to afford the unregistered dentists assistance by means of lectures, demonstrations and laboratories to render them proficient in their profession. In view of these considerations it was decided that members of that society should be in a better position than others, and it was felt that evidence had been submitted which showed that those members already conformed to the conditions laid down. For that reason I think my hon. Friend has introduced matter which is extraneous.
Mr. SEDDON: I studiously avoided any attack, but I have here a letter, and this is the gravamen of my charge. This is the case of a young man who started a surgery in 1919. I have his history before that. He is a member of the Incorporated Society, and I maintain that according to the Act as it stands, this young man, as a member of the Incorporated Society, will come on the register ipso facto.
Mr. RAFFAN: If my hon. Friend and those associated with him had evidence of that kind, the proper place to bring it forward was before the Departmental Commitee.
Mr. SEDDON: I had not got it then.
Mr. RAFFAN: Apparently it is a solitary case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This matter was fully considered by the Departmental Committee. If my hon. Friend or those associated with him had any evidence of this kind, they had full opportunity of bringing it forward. There was further opportunity of bringing any cases of this kind before the Committee upstairs, but no charge of this kind was brought. We hear of this thing for the first time when it is impossible to test it in any way whatever. But the whole point is that my hon. Friend is not now making an attack on the Regulations but on the Act of Parliament, and he is endeavouring by moving an Address as to Orders in Council to secure a verdict which he failed to get upstairs when the Bill was passing through Committee. I submit that that is something which he is not entitled to do. I regret it all the more because it docs not appear to me to be relevant to his main ease. I should regret if it were found necessary to hold up these Regulations because that is bound to cause delay. The Regulations when considered have again to come here and lie upon the Table of this House for 21 days. This will lead to a considerable amount of delay. Therefore if the point which my hon. Friend raises can be met in any way without a revision of the Regulations I should very much prefer it as I have no doubt he would. With regard to that I await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lamborne (Mr. Acland), the Chairman of the Board, will make. I have intervened not in the main ease of my hon. Friend but to clear up one view which has been put forward.
Mr. ACLAND: In reference to the instance referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon), I can assure him that this gentleman will not get on the register if the particulars given in this letter be true, because in that letter it is stated that the person concerned is under the age required by the Act. Therefore, whether he is a member of the Incorporated Dental Society or not he will fail on the matter of age, and there is no grievance at all. With regard to the main point, if there is one, having disposed of that particular question, I think that I, as chairman of the Dental Board, ought to say something so that the House may know exactly what the Board has done in reference to these

1441
ex-service men. I think that my hon. Friend is incompletely informed on the matter. There has been bad staff work somewhere. He is no doubt in quite an honourable position as Parliamentary agent of the rival society, the National Dental Association, and is no doubt in touch with the secretary of that society. The secretary of that society knows what we have done with regard to ex-service men, and knows certainly that the Board has not decided at present to refuse to register one single ex-service man who has the qualifications. On the contrary, the guiding principle on which we have made up our minds is this.
The Act says that persons admitted to the register ought to have practised for five out of the last seven years. It asks the Board to take special thought and care with regard to ex-service men, provided hey are satisfied these men can safely practise on the public. The Act clearly contemplated that there should be some continuity of practice, but that where, owing to War service, that continuity has been broken, allowances should be made. Therefore the first Resolution we came to was that if a man had practised for five years in all, even though that period might have been interrupted by his War service, and he might not, therefore, be so up to date in his practice as he other wise would be—if he had practised for five years, partly before and partly after War service, even if it were not in the last seven years, he should be admitted automatically. Where he has not completed a period of five years, partly before and partly after War service, and there is no proof that he has done any genuine dental work, during the War—
Mr. SEDDON: I have a letter from the Registrar, stating that practice during the War is unofficial and should not be taken into acount.
Mr. ACLAND: I am coming to that. Where an ex-service man has not completed five years' practice, we must have regard to the question of whether or not he is qualified to practise on the public. After all, we are giving him a life inclusion in the register, and must be certain he is fit to practise. Unless the question of his having practised dentistry during the War arises, we think it right that he should submit himself to one of the examinations which we are bound to hold
1442
with regard to other classes of persons, and which will be held in different centres in England, Ireland, and Scotland. To that examination we ask him to submit without the payment of any fee. The arrangements for examinations in dentistry are very expensive, but we only ask these men who have not completed the five years' period to let us have the reports of the examiners upon them, and they are free to enter the examination with no fee at all. That seems to be our duty, having regard to the instructions given to the Board under the Act, that they are to have regard to the fitness of these men to practise.
With regard to the actual practice of the profession during the War, the difficulties are very great. I, as chairman of the Board, was faced with 40 or 50 cases of men who claimed to have practised during the War. Most of them simply said that they treated men of their squadron for toothache in cases of need, or something of that sort. It merely meant that they were carrying their forceps with them and making a half-crown when anybody wanted a tooth taken out. That is not the practice of the profession of dentistry in any high sense Having to decide between all the varying cases, from the case of the man who just carried his forceps to the case of the man who was, in some way or other, officially approved as a dentist, we came to the conclusion that unless there was some genuine evidence that a man had some official engagement as a dentist during the War, we could not account the period of War service as being an equivalent—not an equivalent, but as a ground for excusing him from what we regard as the normal course with "under five-year" men, namely, that we should have the report of some competent person upon their technical ability before they are admitted to the register and practically endowed in the profession. We realise that one of the most difficult things we have to do is to decide what is evidence of such practice during the War as can be regarded as equivalent to practice outside the War. Up to the present, not one single applicant of any kind has been refused, and there are, in fact, several dozens of cases to be decided at the next meeting of the Registration Committee on that matter. I must put) this point to the House—that the I annulling of these Regulations would

1443
have no effect on that matter at all. In the Regulations there is nothing with which ex-service men have to comply, and, therefore, to annul the Regulations would annul nothing concerning the ex-service men.
Mr. SEDDON: The memorandum.
Mr. ACLAND: There is the last Minute of the Board laying down the preliminary conditions. The Regulations contain nothing as to what line the Board shall take with regard to these ex-service men, because every case has got to be dealt with on its merits, and the furthest we have gone yet is to lay down certain preliminary conditions, which are not at all ungenerous to the ex-service men, but which shall guide the Board. Apart from that, we have not turned down a single case of an ex-service man. That being so, I think the House ought to believe that the Board is going to carry out its duty with every possible consideration for those ex-service men who can in any way be brought within the general policy of safety to the public, and leave these matters of detail to the Board itself. So far as we have drawn Regulations for our own guidance, they have all been in favour of the ex-service men, and I do not think it a hardship to the ex-service men that they should have to submit themselves to a practical test. It will be a very simple examination. I have conferred with our examination committee and they, say they will have every disposition, if there be anything like a decent standard of ability shown, to let these men in. All admit that the country owes them a debt, and ought to help them in their profession in every possible way.
My hon. Friend came, first of all, with a particular case, which was not a case of a man who would be let on the Register at all under our Regulations; and, secondly, he made a statement that there was a differentiation between the Incorporated Dental Society and other persons, and that other persons would have to submit to an examination, which, as he knows, is entirely outside the facts. The main bulk of other persons do not have to submit to examination at all, but come on as persons who have been in practice for five years. He tried to make out that there was an examination for those who were not members of the Incorporated Society. I think he, as a
1444
definite Parliamentary agent of a society, ought to have informed himself better as to the facts before making an attack on a rival society in this matter. With regard to the ex-service men, I hope I have convinced the House that no hardship upon them has been intended or inflicted from one part of the United Kingdom to the other.
Mr. N. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has confined his remarks to the ex-service men's position under the Act. May I ask him if he has anything to say with regard to the recurring annual charge?
Mr. ACLAND: I regarded this as a fresh Debate. As I was saying the other night, we have asked for that money for the purpose for which the Act says we are to use it, namely, education and research, and the training of people so as to help them in their profession in the future. We knew it was rather a heavy fee, but not so much as solicitors have to pay annually, and for which they get no advantage. I agree that doctors pay nothing, but the State has managed to set aside an amount for education and medical research. The State at present gives no money for dental research. We are in the Act practically instructed to provide that money, but we admit frankly that we have started with rather high fees. These are fees lower than solicitors and barristers pay. If hon. Members say -that dentistry is not a learned profession, then I agree with their argument, but we have, to get money for dental education and research, and are practically instructed to do so under the Act. We knew quite well, and admit, that the fee is high, but we think that if we find after a few years that we have enough money to give sufficient help to education and scholarships, it may well be possible to reduce the fee from £5 to £3, or even to £2. We are instructed under the Act, however, to accumulate a sum capable of use for education and scholarship.
There has not been a single protest from a dentist. Not one has come to the Board, to the Privy Council Office, or to the Ministry of Health, and I think it extraordinarily ungracious if any dentist has made a complaint—which I do not believe to be the case, considering the amazing benefits this is conferring on them in putting them on the Register,

1445
although they have not gone through the training the men on the Register have—of having to put aside a little money in future years to help other people against whom the doors are shut, and who can only be put on the Register by being given the training provided for here.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): When this Act was established a Dental Board was appointed by the House. That Board represented all sections of the profession, and was appointed for the very object of preventing the time of the House being occupied with detailed discussions such as we have heard to-night, upon which discussions Members are quite incapable of forming an opinion without a great deal of work and research. These squabbles we had in the Committee upstairs when the Bill was going through, of the character that the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) brought out tonight, are not subjects which ought to take up the time of the House, particularly at this hour of the night. The whole object of the Dental Board was that it should have reserved to it the dealing with Regulations which had been carefully considered by my Department and by the Privy Council. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why lay them on the Table?"] We lay them on the Table in order that they may be considered. The Regulations had nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have no complaint from any organisation or dentist about the Regulations. The hon. Member himself never gave me any notice that he was going to raise this question. I have had no representations from any ex-service men's organisation at all.
Mr. SEDDON: I have.
Sir A. MOND: I say I have not. I contend that some notice should be given to responsible Ministers that a matter of this sort is going to be raised so that they may have the opportunity to inquire into it.
Mr. SEDDON: It is on the Paper.
Sir A. MOND: All that is on the Paper is a Motion to the effect that the Act and the Dental Board are futile and useless. I have had no notice of the point the hon. Gentleman was going to raise, and I have had no complaint from any organisation of ex-service men on the point he has raised. I only wish to add a few words
1446
regarding the fee. The fee is fixed at present at £5 a year. I cannot understand why £5 is looked upon as a colossal demand to make on a dentist. A dentist's practice is a fairly lucrative business, so far as I understand it, and £5 is not in itself an abnormal sum. But I will say this. An organisation that is just started has got to provide itself with certain office accommodation, and the Board were authorised by the, Act to raise funds for the purpose of dental education. The question of dental education is of particular interest to hon. Members who represent the Labour party. It is particularly to their interest that there should be a possibility of providing funds in order to enable the educational facilities which are required to replenish our dental service, so that members of all classes can enter this profession, and entry to the profession shall not become exclusively the privilege of better class people who can afford to pay for the education to enable them to become dentists. This fund is to be raised to enable the Board to give educational facilities to the very people whom, I should have thought, my hon. Friend wanted to enter the dental profession. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the income?"] Between £35,000 and £40,000. It is to provide funds for dental research, dental education, scholarships and examinations. Naturally and rightly this organisation wants to have some office. I do not say it will be necessary or advisable to continue this amount for a number of years, and I should say that a couple of years would be a reasonable time to have it brought under review. In a couple of years I think the matter should be reconsidered, and it will very probably then be found that a lower fee will foe required. I hope the Dental Board will not hesitate to use its income for the purpose for which it is meant. I trust, with this explanation, the House will agree to these Rules going through, so that the very important work of the Dental Board and the registration of dentists may proceed.
12.0 M.
Mr. ACLAND: May I just say that if I am still Chairman, and I think I can also say, on behalf of the Board, that we will most cordially take up that suggestion of the Minister of Health, and bring the matter up for consideration after two years to see whe Mr. ACLAND: May I just say that if I am still Chairman, and I think I can also say, on behalf of the Board, that we will most cordially take up that suggestion of the Minister of Health, and bring the matter up for consideration after two

1447
years to see whether there are sufficient funds to enable the fees to be reduced.
Mr. SEDDON: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has complained that I did not go to him and that he had no representation made to him. I may tell him that the British Legion are very, very keen on this question and feel very strongly, and if no representation has been made it is not their fault—it is my fault; I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not going to him. After his statement and the Chairman, that these ex-service men will be given that elasticity and consideration that their
1448
service warrants, I do not wish to Divide the House.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at One Minute after Twelve o'Clock.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  STOPPAGE OF PENSION (A. E. BREWER).
  STOPPAGE OF PENSION (A. E. BREWER).
  CLEARING HOUSES AND CLINICS.
  CLEARING HOUSES AND CLINICS.
  EAR AFFECTIONS.
  EAR AFFECTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY (HOME SERVICE MEDAL).
  BRITISH ARMY (HOME SERVICE MEDAL).
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
ROYAL NAVY.
  CADETS, DARTMOUTH (REDUCTIONS).
  CADETS, DARTMOUTH (REDUCTIONS).
  TUG "ULYSSES" (ERRONEOUS PAYMENT).
  TUG "ULYSSES" (ERRONEOUS PAYMENT).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  CONTRACT DEPARTMENT, ADMIRALTY.
  CONTRACT DEPARTMENT, ADMIRALTY.
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
  MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT.
IRELAND.
  DUNDRTJM ASYLUM (ALLOWANCES).
  DUNDRTJM ASYLUM (ALLOWANCES).
  SOUTHERN IRELAND (MIGRATION).
  SOUTHERN IRELAND (MIGRATION).
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL FOR DEFECTIVE CHILPREN BARKING.
  SCHOOL FOR DEFECTIVE CHILPREN BARKING.
  NON-PROVIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  NON-PROVIDED SECONDARY SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
PEACE TREATIES.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN CABLE COMPANIES.
  GERMAN CABLE COMPANIES.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
  IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.
  EX-CABINET MINISTERS' PENSIONS.
  EX-CABINET MINISTERS' PENSIONS.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES.
  TAXATION.
  TAXATION.
  BUDGETS.
  BUDGETS.
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
  APPLICATION FOR NATURALISATION.
  APPLICATION FOR NATURALISATION.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (DEMONSTRATION).
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (DEMONSTRATION).
  LIVE STOCK (SHIPPING FREIGHTS).
  LIVE STOCK (SHIPPING FREIGHTS).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, HAMPSHIRE (RENTS).
  SMALL HOLDINGS, HAMPSHIRE (RENTS).
  BLIND WELFARE.
  BLIND WELFARE.
  AUDIT STAMP DUTY.
  AUDIT STAMP DUTY.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  TKA STOCKS, IRELAND.
  TKA STOCKS, IRELAND.
  MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, GERMANY, AUSTRIA, AND RUSSIA.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, GERMANY, AUSTRIA, AND RUSSIA.
  MERCHANT SHIPS (DISTRESS SIGNALS).
  MERCHANT SHIPS (DISTRESS SIGNALS).
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BOROUGH COUNCIL.
  NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME BOROUGH COUNCIL.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
  PARCELS POSTAGE (HOME-GROWN FOOD).
  PARCELS POSTAGE (HOME-GROWN FOOD).
  FAIR WAGES CLAUSE (MESSRS. MACFARLANE, LIMITED).
  FAIR WAGES CLAUSE (MESSRS. MACFARLANE, LIMITED).
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICER PENSIONERS.
  INDIAN ARMY OFFICER PENSIONERS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to the preparation of Jurors books, and otherwise to amend the law relating to jurors and juries in England and Wales; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read lª; and to be printed.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to assimilate and amend the law of real and personal estate, to abolish copyhold and other special tenures, to amend the law relating to commonable lands and of intestacy, and to amend the Wills Act, 1837, the Settled Lands Acts, 1882 to 1890, the Conveyancing Acts, 1881 to 1911, the Trustee Act, 1893, and the Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read lª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª; and to be printed.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees whether he is now in a position to give the House any information with regard to the Great Northern Railway Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for putting the Question. Your Lordships

349
will remember that this Bill was down for Second Reading yesterday and Lord Ampthill gave Notice of his intention to move its rejection. For that reason we put the debate off until Tuesday next. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked me if it was quite certain the debate would come on next Tuesday, and I replied that I thought it would. Since yesterday, however, the promoters have further considered the position. I have gathered from private conversations that the objection of noble Lords who oppose the Bill is to Clause 31 of the measure—a rating clause. I have not taken any part in the discussions beyond the fact that I have seen the promoters, and I understand that if the Bill is read a second time and reaches Committee, they are prepared to withdraw Clause 31. It was for the convenience of your Lordships that I thought this announcement should be made at once; and in that case I hope there will be no objection to the Second Reading next Tuesday.

TRAFFORD PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
SHEPTON MALLET WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
SOUTH WALES ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
AYR BURGH (ELECTRICITY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª, and committed.
MAGUIRE'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

HOUSING ASSESSMENTS.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether houses erected by local authorities under the
350
Housing Act can be assessed for local rating, not by the overseers but by assessment committees in the first instance; and further, is it the case that the assessment committee of the Clutton Board of Guardians have assessed such houses at nine pounds a year, while the rent charged by the local authority for these houses is nineteen pounds ten shillings a year, the tenants having also to pay all local rates; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Notice on the Paper in order to obtain, if possible, from the Ministry of Health some declaration upon general principles. My reason for putting down specific details was merely to have something to go upon and to be able to ask the local authorities concerned what they were doing in the matter. I do not, however, wish to argue the matter from the narrow point of view of the action of one particular assessment-committee, but rather to discuss it as a question of principle, because I gather that if this particular action is approved we shall find others following the example. My attention was drawn to this matter from the fact that the overseers of a parish in which I happen to own some land, informed me that an intimation had been given to them by the assessment committee that they were not to rate these houses erected under the Government housing scheme at the actual rent, which is always the criterion and basis upon which houses are rated where there is bona fide letting. I am sure the noble Earl, with all his experience as a large landowner, will not disagree with the statement that it is the duty of the overseers to make an assessment to begin with, that the assessment then goes to the assessment committee, and that it is unusual for the assessment committee to intimate in the first place what the rating should be.
This particular case is very peculiar, because these houses, which belong to the local authority and were put up with the Government subsidy, are let at the rate of 7s. 6d. per week, the tenants paying all rates and taxes. In other words, they are let at £19 l0 s. a year. But the overseers have acted upon an intimation from the assessment committee that they were to rate these houses at a gross value of £9 a year, and a rateable value of £7 a year. That seems to me to establish a most extraordinary precedent. It is saying that the rent is so excessive that it is impossible

351
for the tenants to pay rates upon it. It would look very bad indeed, it is argued, if the tenants had to pay 5s. or even more a week, instead of 2s. 6d. a week, in this area, where the rate happens to be from 14 s. to 15 s. in the£, although it is purely an agricultural district.
The point is this. What the local authority ought to have done, to my mind, was to put down the actual amount of the rent, and if it was found impossible for the tenants to pay rates on that basis, they should have said: "We will pay these rates ourselves and put the amount against the £19 10 s. which we receive." I think the difficulty of this preferential rating arises in two ways. The assessment committee will say: "What does it matter to us what are the rates that we receive? When we put upon these houses this fictitious value of £7 a year, although we let them at £19 10 s. a year, it does not matter to us, because we receive in rent what we lose in rates." That would be perfectly true if it stopped there, but we have to remember that by the extravagant system upon which these houses were put up under the Ministry of Health, they ought really to let at £76 a year, and it is reckoned that taking the whole country, there will be a deficit of about £56 on every house which will have to be made good by the Imperial Exchequer, with the exception of the amount that can be raised by a penny rate.
We all know that the bulk of the loss must fall upon the Government and the Ministry of Health, but when they are making out the accounts showing the extent of the loss, the Ministry of Health will naturally say that these houses are let at £19 10 s. a year and therefore they must receive credit on that scale; and the local authority will lose what the Ministry of Health gain. If each house had been assessed at a fair rate, say £10 a year instead of 2s. 6d. a week, the rates would amount to something like double, or 5s. or 6s. per week. The consequence would be that the local authority would get double the amount of rates from their tenants, while the Government, on the other hand, would lose £9 10 s. because they would be able to debit the local authority with only £10 a year instead of £19 10 s. This system, therefore, is going to have the bad effect of increasing the local rates when the account is taken between the local authority and the Ministry of Health, though it may be argued that it is as broad
352
as it is long, because the rating authority will get back in one way what it loses in another.
I do not, however, want so much to deal with this small point as to raise the question of great public importance, whether in this country it is desirable to have different forms of rating. I am sure that the county rating committee will not be ready to recognise this fictitious rate of £9 for cottages which are let at £19 10 s. The noble Earl knows that the county committee makes its own assessments, and they will say that it will not be fair to other ratepayers to give preferential rating to certain occupiers because they happen to be tenants of the local authority. Equally, we shall get the anomaly that, under Schedule A, the district council will not pay Income Tax on the rent of £9 a a year but will have to pay on the full amount of £19 10 s. The Income Tax Commissioners will not agree to give preferential treatment to one taxpayer rather than another.
A further difficulty is going to arise. I notice that the Ministry of Health have accepted the Report of the Geddes Committee which says that the Government have made an awful mess with their housing policy (houses having been put up at extraordinary prices and in too great a hurry), and that there is going to be a heavy loss of something like £56 a year on every house. It is suggested that the best way is for the Ministry to cut their losses and sell for what they can get. I should like to know what is going to be the position in such a case as this. Naturally, when a man buys a house—and very often it will be the person living in the house at the moment—he will argue that the rates are very low and he can afford to give very much more than he would do if he were rated up to the hilt. What will happen when such houses are let by a private owner? You will get a very curious state of things. Are they to be sold with regard to this preferential rating, and when they are sold, are the rates to be put up? It will be very unfair to a poor man who buys and then finds that as it is no longer Government property, or local government property, he has to pay like any other individual. It will cause all sorts of difficulties, and, in some cases, a good deal of hardship.
I do not want to argue, however, on the particular point, because I am quite aware

353
that an aggrieved ratepayer can, if he is rich enough, go to Quarter Sessions and tight it out at the cost of some hundreds of pounds. He can say: "You have no right to assess my house at £19 10 s. Although the rent of somebody else is £19 10 s., you assess him at £19." I know that can be done, but I want to know whether the Government approve of the idea of preferential rating by local authorities of their own property, and whether the Government will not say that in their view the rating authorities ought to go on the old idea of assessment—that when there is a bona fide rent it should be the basis of rating. It is, in my opinion, very undesirable, and against public interest, that you should have preferential rating, and for that reason, if for no other reason, it seems to me that we should have some general declaration from the Government that it is undesirable that houses should be rated by local authorities, especially their own property, in such a manner that the actual rent is not the basis. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, with regard to the first part of the Question of the noble Lord, I may say that it is the duty of the overseers to prepare supplementary valuation lists whenever property not included in the valuation lists in force becomes rateable, and, according to the information at the disposal of my right honourable friend, that was done in this case; but the clerk of the rural district council in question, in response to a request from the overseers, advised them as to the rateable value to be taken. I have copies of the correspondence and they are at the disposal of the noble Lord. As regards the latter part of the Question, to which the noble Lord devoted most of his remarks, the facts as stated in the Question appear to be correct, but I can express no opinion whatever as to whether the assessment has been made correctly or incorrectly. It is a matter which can only be decided by the Courts, as the noble Lord pointed out, and it is not one in which my Department has any power of interference.
My noble friend, in the course 'of his speech, discussed the general question of rating, and while expressing no opinion on the particular case mentioned in the Question, and on the distinct understanding that my right honourable friend's
354
Department has no power to give directions as to the assessment of properties, perhaps I may be permitted to offer a few observations, although I cannot follow the noble Lord far into the hypothetical questions which he put. I may say that my Department would view with disapproval any inequitable assessment, either of new or old houses. Certainly underassessment of new houses would be inequitable, because it would, in effect, increase the burden of expense which falls upon the other ratepayers, and it has never been advocated by my Department.
On the other hand, it is equally important that new houses should not be over-assessed as compared with existing similar houses, and it is notorious that many old houses are under-assessed. If, however, old houses are assessed on the basis of existing rents, and the rents of new houses have been properly fixed, this inequality should not happen, because the rent of the new houses, subject to some addition for superior amenities, should be the same as the rent of similar existing houses, and consequently the rating value should be similar. My noble friend has asked for Papers, and I am quite ready to put at his disposal all the correspondence that has passed on the subject. I have had copies typed and I shall be glad to give them to him. I hope that this will satisfy him, and that, in view of the expense, he will not press for them to be printed.
LORD STRACHIE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his answer, and I ask leave to withdraw my Motion, because I am quite satisfied with the expression of opinion he has given upon the general question.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

REGULATION OF COAL MINES.
VISCOUNT HALDANE VISCOUNT HALDANE had given Notice to move, "That it is not expedient that the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, should cease to have effect." The noble and hearted Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to move this Motion in the form in which it appears on the Paper because it was foreseen that that might happen which did happen. Last

355
night, in another place, a Resolution that Part II of the Act should not cease to have effect failed, and as a Resolution of both Houses is required to keep it alive, even if you pass this Motion in its full technical form, it could not operate; but that does not prevent an expression of opinion upon the situation.
It is a most extraordinary situation. The Government are entirely in agreement, so far as I can judge from the correspondence and declarations of the Minister of Mines, with what I am going to say, but they have been defeated by the use of a technical provision in the Act in a very extraordinary fashion. Your Lordships may remember that the propositions contained in Mr. Justice Sankey's Report. were not carried into effect—that is to say as regards the main body of those provisions. But there was in Mr. Justice Sankey's Report a proposal that there should be set up Conciliation Committees—pit committees, district committees and area committees, and the National Board, which should be consultative, and on each the coal owners should talk with the representatives of the men, and should see whether they could not adjust difficulties.
The Government thought that an excellent plan, for they embodied it in the Mining Industry Act, 1920, which they passed, and there it is. Now that was not a suggestion which was put upon the coal owners by the Sankey Commission. On the contrary, it was proposed by the coal owners themselves. I have here the Sankey Report. and the document embodying what is, in substance, the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1920, signed by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. R. W. Cooper, Sir Adam Nimmo, Sir Allan M. Smith, and Mr. Evan Williams, all of whom—Lord Gainford would, I think, bear me out—are very eminent members of the body which he knows so Well. They said: "Let us meet the men and we can adjust all our difficulties with them." It is not anything compulsory, it is consultation, and accordingly I think the Government very wisely, acting upon their suggestion, put that purely voluntary system into the Act of 1920. These committees, consisting of equal numbers of representatives of the masters and men, were to meet together—one for the pit, one for the district, one for the area—and talk over such matters as safety, health, welfare, maintenance, and increased output, and see whether they could not adjust disputes which might arise.
I should have thought that when these committees were set up we should have a very valuable means of coining to a termination of these disputes which have had such disastrous consequences. But the miners at first did not think this good enough. They said: "No, we do not want to adjust things by districts again; we want to adjust them on a national scale." Your Lordships will remember that there was a proposition for a national scale of wages. The result was a most disastrous strike, which lasted for a long time, and the miners were beaten and were at the mercy of the mine owners. Then the devil, having been sick and having been willing to be saved, recovered himself, and the mine owners, who had proposed this very system of conciliation, suddenly turned round—both parties turned round, in fact.
The miners, not being able to get what they wanted, which, as the result of the battle, had been found to be too much, said: "We shall be very glad to take Part II of the Act and to settle these disputes." But the mine owners thereupon said: "No, we do not want that any more. What we want is to manage our industry perfectly unfettered, and we are not going to consult with anyone. Anything we do we will do of ourselves and we cannot give any recognition to that provision in the Act." What made the situation acute were the very peculiar terms of Section 17. We were not thinking of it much here when the Bill was discussed as a Bill. Otherwise, I should certainly have turned attention to it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It was a good deal discussed. I was in charge of the Bill myself, and I remember.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Well, we did not appreciate what a curious position it would create. The section states—
"If at the expiration of one year from the passing of this Act it appears to the Board of Trade that the scheme of this Part of the Act has been rendered abortive by reason of the failure on the part of those entitled to appoint representatives as members of the pit and district committees, area boards, and the National Board to avail themselves of such right—"
That, your Lordships observe, includes both masters and men—
"the Board of Trade shall issue a report of the circumstances—"

357
That is to say, if they cannot both agree——
"and that report shall be laid before Parliament, and at the expiration of thirty days during the session of Parliament from the date when it is so laid all the provisions of this Act shall cease to have effect, unless in the meantime a resolution to the contrary is passed by both Houses of Parliament."
That is very extraordinary, because here is a voluntary system for inviting negotiation and agreement which the Government itself apparently judge most advantageous. It is put into the Pill on the suggestion of the coal owners, and these words are added, according to which, if the parties do not agree, not merely do you not set up the committees, but you never can set them up again; that part of the Act lapses. It is repealed by the temporary failure, it may be, of the two parties to come to an agreement. That is why I say that if I had appreciated what this clause meant I should have offered very strenuous opposition to its introduction into the Bill.
Now, what has happened? As I have told your. Lordships, the miners, having been beaten, said: "Very well, let us see what arrangement we can make under Part II. We will appoint our representatives on the pit and district and area committees." But then came the mine owners who said: "We will have nothing to do with this." And, really, I have, seldom read a more pathetic document than that which records the observations of the Minister of Mines on what they did. Mr. Bridgeman seems to have acted most sensibly and most sympathetically. The mine owners flatly refused to carry out their own proposals by appointing their own representatives.
After much correspondence they sent a deputation to Mr. Bridgeman, and this is what he said on August 24 last (I am reading from page 10 of a Parliamentary Paper laid on the Table)—
"You have spoken frankly to me and I hope you won't mind my speaking rather plainly to you on this point. It has been urged that if the Miners' Federation could hold up the working of this part of the Act for a year, that was a sufficient reason for the Owners Association, who had already agreed to work it to go back on that agreement and now say they would have nothing to do with it. It rather reminds me of the parable of the man who had two sons and told each to go on an errand. One said 'I go not' but went, and the other said 'I go' but went not. In this case you said I 'go' in favour of working this part of the Act, but according to the attitude of the present moment it appears you are not going to do so. On the other hand the miners said they would not go, and now are going. I think public opinion would be, as in the
358
case of the parable, on the side of those who formed a bad resolution at first and thought better of it later."
I entirely agree with what Mr. Bridgeman did, and I do not think he had any alternative but to report that the mine owners refused to agree, and therefore there was no chalice of putting Part II of the Act into operation, with the conciliation provisions which it contained.
What I think he ought to have done, however, or rather what the Government to which he belonged ought to have done, was to have moved in the House of Commons and in this House identical Resolutions to say that it was not expedient that Part II should come to an end. Where such a very unreasonable attitude (for do not hesitate to call it so) was taken up by people who had originally proposed the very plan—a plan, not lot compulsion, but for appointing bodies which could negotiate and meet—I think it was the duty of the Government to move those Resolutions. Last night they did not move any Resolution, but I gather that they would not put on their Whips against it. By a comparatively small majority, for these days, the Resolution was lost. That prevents any Resolution your Lordships may pass to-day from being effective, but it does not prevent the subject from being discussed.
This is not a matter which concerns only the miners. There is an agreement in existence which, after a little time, will come to an end. If the circumstances of the coal trade improve at all it is extremely likely, with the state of feeling which this kind of action beings about, that you will have another dispute and another strike. I am not one of those who think that the coal owners are in such a very powerful position that they can afford to speculate upon the future. Just now they are in possession of the field—the stricken field. They have beaten the miners. They are in a position to refuse to do anything. But in a matter of this kind, where the Government has a policy—a policy which the Government has pressed., a policy not of interfering with their business but of bringing about that kind of conciliation which we have in the Whitley Committees, and which is the order of the day—that the mine owners should refuse, and should lead the Government to a position in which, without a Resolution of each House. Part II cannot be kept alive, seems to me to be a very disastrous situation.

359
It is inviting misery for the country generally, a misery which arises from the kind of dispute which almost inevitably terminates in a great strike. I am not afraid of that just now. The miners have been too heavily beaten; but that time will pass. Human nature is human nature, and the bitterness will assert itself again, and all because the mine owners do not choose to take advantage of the proposition which they themselves made, and which, at their request, was embodied in this Act of Parliament, but which they now refuse to put into operation. I move the Resolution which stands in my name.
Moved, "That it is not expedient that, the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, should cease to have effect."—(Viscount Haldane.)
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I listened with some interest to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount and. I was surprised at the way in which he reflected upon the coal owners of this country. He indicated in his speech that the miners and the coal owners are, as it were, at arms length; that we have had a fight; that the men have been worsted in that fight, and that now the coal owners have the miners at their mercy. The true facts of the case are quite different. We certainly had a difference with the miners which arose very largely out of the long period of Government control of the industry during the war.
Reference has been made to Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission. It is true that at a time when the coal industry was under the control of the Government, Mr. Justice Sankey and some of his colleagues reported in favour of certain alterations in the law, such as those to which the noble Viscount has referred. But after the Sankey Commission had reported it became obvious to those interested in the trade, as well as to the whole country, and then to the Government, that it was necessary that the trade should be freed from Government control. After the Government had released the industry from control we found we were in such a condition that we could not carry on our collieries and continue to pay the wages which the Government- had ordered us to pay during the period of control. It was due to that situation that a difference arose between the miners and ourselves—between the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and the Mining Association of
360
Great Britain—as to whether matters connected with the industry should be settled in the districts or whether they should be dealt with on a national basis. Upon that we had our difference, and a strike occurred.
It is true that in the end we came to a general agreement amongst ourselves that, instead of ascertaining prices nationally, we would ascertain the prices which had been realised in the districts, and also that joint accountants should take out what the costs in each district were, and that we should co-operate under an agreement to share the profits in the industry. As a result of that agreement the whole situation has changed, and there never was a period in the history of the coal trade in which employers and employed worked so unitedly together to secure economy in the industry and avoid waste. The result of this system of co-operation, and of sharing of profits by ascertaining month by month what the profits are in each district, has been to alter entirely the attitude of a great number of the employers to their men, and I know that a great number of the men are working whole-heartedly in the interests of the industry.
The men have accepted the proposition that the wages which are payable in the industry are those which the industry can afford. We have come to an agreement which cannot be terminated before the end of this year, but which I believe both sides are anxious shall be continued for many months, if not years, to come. It is possible that it might be amended by agreement. Under that agreement we have set up by voluntary action, not only a National Board but district boards to which all questions of difference arising in the industry are referred. These boards, which are conciliation boards, and on which any question of difference arising is referred to an umpire, have removed all friction which existed in our collieries. If there is any question connected with a pit committee—and there are many places where there are pit committees—and a settlement is not arrived at, it is referred to one of these district boards and is there discussed. If in any particular colliery where there is not a pit committee a group of men have any grievance whatsoever they send a deputation to see the mine manager, and if they cannot settle whatever difference of opinion there may

361
be, it is referred to their leaders and is considered by the methods of conciliation which exist now in every district.
Under this voluntary arrangement I am glad to say that things are working in the right direction, and, as I say, at no period in the history of the coal trade have things worked more smoothly between employers and employed than they do at the present time. It might be understood from the noble Viscount's speech that the coal owners have changed their attitude n regard to this matter. When the Act to which he referred was before your Lordships' House on August 3, 1920, I addressed your Lordships upon this very point of the pit committees, and I explained exactly what the view of the coal owners then was. There is one paragraph in my speech which is so applicable to the present situation that I think I cannot. do better than read it to show your Lordships what was the attitude of the coal owners at the time of the passage of the Ministry of Mines Bill. These are my words—
"In regard to the pit committees I should like to say that when the miners have asked for industrial democracy with a view to freeing the condition of the miners we have endeavoured voluntarily to enter into arrangements with them. Pit committees have been established already voluntarily in many districts, and in some have worked well. We have conciliation boards by which to-day we are adjusting wages in the localities according to the different circumstances which arise, and so far as I know cordial relations exist in the various districts between ourselves and our men. It is proposed by this Bill to establish this machinery compulsorily. In my evidence before the Coal Commission I had not compulsion in my mind but a voluntary arrangement, because I believe that voluntary arrangements between employers and employed are far better than compulsion used by the State in connection with the promotion of harmonious working. It is because I believe that voluntary arrangements can and will be entered into that I see a prospect of industrial peace in the future."
We have entered into voluntary arrangements. We see now in front of us a period when we can co-operate together as we have never done before.
The miners had ample opportunity during last year, if they so desired, to ask us to appoint these pit committees voluntarily if they wanted them. Not once in any single district, during the course of this and the past year, have they asked us even to confer with them on the question of establishing these pit committees. If they had wanted them they could have come to us, and we would have discussed it
362
freely with them in a voluntary way. But we have objected to a hard and fast compulsory measure which will tend to create friction, and which may divide the responsibility between the manager and the men in connection with the working underground. That ought to be the sole duty of the mine manager. The mine managers are all against these compulsory powers. They realise that they are in charge of a colliery, and are responsible for the lives of the men underground. They are not prepared, by statutory enactment, to share with the men responsibility for the underground operations, but they are prepared voluntarily to enter into conversations with the men with a view to trying to improve anything which can be improved by the ordinary voluntary processes of conciliation through tile district board, and, if necessary, the National Board.
To set up these pit committees compulsorily under an Act of Parliament means the appointment of a large additional number of inspectors. It means, I believe, great additional expense in working the Coal Mines Act, and this is not the time when such expenditure can be wisely undertaken, if ever it can be undertaken. I believe the safety of the men was never better looked after than it is at the present time, and there is no advantage whatsoever in the compulsory application of this Act for the creation of pit committees. It would limit possibly the opportunities which now exist for the men to make suggestions, and, instead of having that elasticity which you always get under a voluntary system, there would be, under a compulsory system, a hard and fast watertight arrangement which could only lead to friction.
May I also say that the colliery engine men and the mechanics, who are a very important section of the workmen employed in the colliery, are opposed to Part II on the ground that their independence would be menaced. Their union, which is composed of the most highly skilled of our workmen, has been compelled to sever its connection with the Miners' Federation, and it is not willing to acquiesce in any proposal of this character. You have the mine managers opposed to this compulsory enactment, and you have the further fact that we have voluntarily entered into arrangements with the men which are working satisfactorily. In these circumstances, I think it would be a great

363

misfortune to the country if we were driven back upon compulsory methods—which mean additional expense to the nation—when all is well with the industry. Allow us voluntarily to arrange things in the way that we are doing at present and it will be best for the country, and for all concerned.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount moves, "That it is not expedient that the provisions of Part II of the Mining Industry Act of 1920 shall cease to have effect." The noble and learned Viscount, as he was quite justified in doing, went into the previous history of this question. He went back to the Sankey Commission, and to the Act of 1920. Probably the proposals of the Sankey Commission are still fresh in the minds of your Lordships. The noble and learned Viscount stated that the particular proposals which are embodied in this debatable ground—Part II of the Act of 1920—were suggested by the owners themselves in Part C of the Report. I think it is quite true that the committees were so suggested, with the exception of the area boards which were not, I think, in Part C of the Report. The only contention on that point between the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, is that Lord Gainford maintains that the owners' report in favour meant that voluntary committees were to he appointed, and not compulsory committees under Statute.
Though that no doubt is so, I think the attitude of the owners went a little further than was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, in the speech he has just made. As it is relevant to this discussion I desire, if your Lordships will allow me, to give some quotations—because one wants to be fair to both sides— showing the attitude taken up by the miners when this Bill was introduced. This had some influence possibly on the attitude taken up by the owners at a later stage. During the passage of the Bill all the miners' representatives expressed themselves as strongly opposed to this measure. Mr. Hartshorn, a very well-known representative of the miners, said in another place on June 30:—
"This Bill cannot be operated except with the whole-hearted co-operation of owners and miners. I do not think there is a ghost of a chance of securing that co-operation for a Bill containing
364
such principles…. This Bill does not settle or solve a single problem with which the industry is faced at the moment. It simply defers it, and proposes to set up a lot of machinery which is going to irritate all the men employed in the industry from John o' Groats to Land's End."
At the Miners' Conference Mr. Robert Smillie was no less emphatic. He said—
"The Government ought to have given the Bill the title of the 'Enslavement of the Miners"
Mr. Hartshorn, at the same Conference, on July 8, 1920, said—
"The Executive Committee has examined the Bill, and it has come to the conclusion that a more reactionary Bill could not possibly have been conceived by the biggest enemy of our movement. The Government cannot set this Bill in motion unless the miners co-operate in setting up the machinery of the pit committees, the district committees, the area boards, the national committee, and the advisory committee, and in the absence of that machinery the Bill becomes a dead letter. This conference ought to make the pronouncement, so that the Government should know that if they go on with the Bill the Federation has pledged itself to have nothing whatever to do with it if it ever becomes law."
The Conference passed a resolution to that effect.
Again, Mr. Hartshorn, on June 30 in another place, said—
"No scheme will be acceptable to the miners —and when I say that I mean that it will not be worked—no scheme will be operated by the miners which destroys the national basis upon which wages are to he regulated. That is fundamental."
Your Lordships, therefore, will see that while the Bill was in progress through another place the most unqualified condemnation was expressed for Part II generally by the miners' representatives. Miners' representatives used very vigorous language. I do not think it would be possible to use language of more thorough and absolute condemnation than was used by these gentlemen outside and, during the passage of the Bill, in another place.
At that time the attitude of the owners was very different. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has given us a very interesting account of their attitude all through, and has told us how their representatives on the Commission supported proposals which, he said, were to be entirely voluntary and not enforced by Act of Parliament. But when the Act was going through the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, used these words in this House:
"We shall have difficulties under the provisions of this Bill, if they are adopted, but we all intend

365
as coal owners to do our part and work these provisions honourably…. The coal trade takes no responsibility in connection with this Bill, but we look forward under its provisions to being again entrusted with the control of an industry to which in the past we believe we have not been unfaithful."
The noble Lord, Lord Joicey, spoke very much to the same effect.
That was the situation. You had the coal owners prepared honourably to work the Bill though they did not take any responsibility for it. You had the most emphatic condemnation of the Bill on the part of the miners themselves. As a result, the rather remarkable clause, Section 17, to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, was passed. I understood him to say that it was passed on the suggestion of the coal owners.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No. What I said was that I did not really appreciate what an extraordinary clause it was when we debated it, otherwise I should have said more about it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then I can only suggest, most respectfully, that when I make a, speech he should listen carefully to what I say. I have looked up what I said on that occasion and I find that I called die attention of the House particularly to that clause. I said it was a most peculiar and extraordinary clause and one which I had never seen in an Act of Parliament before. No doubt that was forgotten. The clause was passed, and passed simply because of the attitude of the miners.
The whole idea and basis of the Act was that these pit committees and area committees should be worked on a voluntary basis. Without voluntary co-operation it would be of no use at all. If one side or the other stood out, the Act became perfectly futile. Then followed the coal strike and its lamentable consequences. The result of all this was that although the Minister of Mines was under statutory obligation to bring out Regulations setting up the organisation of these committees he did not do so, because he felt it would be impossible whilst there was so much disturbance in the trade itself. Neither side would be able to pay proper attention to the Regulations, and it might be that discussions later between both sides would probably make changes in the draft Regulations necessary. He, therefore, felt, it advisable to wait until a later stage.
366
Then we come to an interesting point in the history of these proceedings. The negotiations were brought to an end on August 12, 1921; and I ask your Lordships to pay particular attention to the dates of subsequent events. In a letter dated August 12, the very day when these proceedings were brought to an end and the settlement made, the Miners' Federation notified the Minister that they were now prepared to co-operate in carrying the Act into effect. There was a very rapid change, apparently, in the attitude of the Miners' Federation. They had made the attempt to nationalise the mines and have wages on a national basis, and had failed. They altered their tactics at once. Having failed for the higher stakes, they decided to try for the lower stakes in the Act. It looked as if the whole thing was settled, that the Regulations might be issued and the operation of the Act take place.
But four days afterwards, on August 16, a letter was received from the mine owners who, apparently, had gone through some internal change. They said that by reason of the failure of those entitled to appoint representatives of the workers on the various boards and committees, they had decided not to co-operate in working the Act. It was pointed out to them by the Minister of Mines that their letter was based on a complete misunderstanding, because it was obvious that until the Regulations had been issued it was impossible for either side to appoint members to committees which were not yet set up. Long discussions proceeded between the owners and the Minister of Mines. The attitude of the Minister was urgent that the owners should still stand by what they had said two years before, that they intended honourably to abide by the Act and carry it into force, and although, two years before and up to rather a late date, the men had taken up an opposite attitude, that they should not, take advantage of that but in the interests of the industry itself agree to co-operate. The noble and learned Viscount has commended the action of the Minister of Mines, but the Minister of Mines failed entirely to persuade the owners.
The, owners have stated their views this afternoon through Lord Gainford and given us the reasons why they do not wish to co-operate any longer. I do not want to add very much to that except on two points. They have stated—,I have taken this from the correspondence—that during

367
the long negotiations no mention was made of Part II of the Act and they therefore rather assumed that its provisions were no longer operative. They further considered that the settlement arrived at on August 12 rendered Part II of the Act unnecessary. The Minister of Mines proceeded calmly on his way. He issued the. Regulations, and when no notice was taken by the owners and he received a letter saying that they were not going to act upon them, he made a report to Parliament to that effect. There the matter stands, and I can only say, on behalf of the Minister of Mines, that he deeply regrets that owing to this double volte face it seems impossible to enforce provisions which he thinks would be of great value to the industry.
The only question which remains for me to deal with is whether the Government ought to proceed and try to enforce, if possible, arrangements which are really of an entirely voluntary nature. The view of the Government is that as all this elaborate organisation—pit committees, area committees, National Board—depends upon friendly co-operation between the two parties it is almost a contradiction in terms to say that it shall be compulsory, and to try to enforce this form of co-operation would probably create fresh disturbances in the industry. It would be a great mistake to attempt any such action.
It has been suggested—I do not think the noble and learned Viscount suggested it—that Part II should remain on the Statute Book and not be put into operation; that at some future time it may be possible to put all this machinery into action. The Government attitude is that if the Act is not operative it is much better to put an end to it. If it is contended that in the trade itself they are able to manage their own affairs by arrangements as to wages, etc., then probably the maintenance of this particular provision, inoperative, on the Statute Book would have a bad effect on those voluntary proceedings, and it is better that the matter should be wiped right away from the Statute Book and the State take no more direct responsibility for arrangements which should be left to the trade itself. That, very shortly, is the attitude of the Government, and the noble and learned Viscount will see, therefore, that on behalf of the Government I cannot accept the Motion that he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I confess that any of your Lordships might be a little bewildered at the situation, because it appears that whereas when this Act was passing through Parliament the miners were in favour of one course and the mine owners of another, they have now exactly changed about, and the miners are now in favour of the course which the mine owners then supported, while the owners are in favour of the course which the miners previously advocated. It also appears that His Majesty's Government, who are responsible for the clause which now stands as part of the Act of Parliament, are no longer anxious that it should remain part of the law of the land.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Under the circumstances.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so. I do not altogether quarrel with the attitude which the Government have adopted, and I say so, not because I have at all weakened in my belief that conciliation by means of some instrument of organisation as between employers and employed is the proper remedy for our industrial difficulties, but because of the speech which was delivered a few minutes ago by my noble friend, Lord Gainford. Lord Gainford gave a very good account of the situation to your Lordships, and I am sure that every one of us must have listened to him with the keenest satisfaction, because he showed that the condition of things in the coal trade is very smooth as between employers and employed, that all the ferment of a few months ago has entirely died down; and that matters are working on a perfectly friendly footing.
He also showed that the mine owners appreciated what had been said in Parliament and outside as to the necessity of taking the men into their confidence, and had, as I understand him—he will correct me if I am wrong—adopted a method of communicating financial results from time to time, so that the men received a complete assurance that they knew exactly how things stood, and that upon the strength of the figures so revealed no difficulty was experienced in coining to an arrangement as between the parties. He also showed that in a great number of cases voluntary pit committees and voluntary district committees have been set up; that they are working perfectly smoothly; and that the employers are quite willing,

369
in every case where an application has been made to that effect, to treat the men upon a footing of complete confidence. That is the temper under which industry ought to be carried on, and we should be very unwise to do anything to interfere with that temper. I agree, of course, with Lord Gainford and others that if these things can be clone on a voluntary basis it is far preferable to their being done on a compulsory basis. Compulsion is not sympathetic to the English temperament, and it certainly involves friction which a voluntary agreement avoids. We may rest content, I think, that the coal trade, at any rate, is on the right path. I do not mean to say that they have completely created the necessary machinery on a voluntary basis, but they are on the right way to do so, and all we can do is to wish them God-speed in their work.
Before I sit down, I should like to say, as I did when this Bill was going through Parliament, that I believe in this machinery of committees between employers and employed. The actual clause which we are discussing is unnecessarily cumbrous, if I may say so—indeed, I think I said so on that occasion—but the system of committees is the right one. I do not believe we shall ever come to the end of our industrial troubles in this country—I am not speaking only of the coal trade, but of industry generally—until the employers show themselves quite willing to take their men into their full confidence as to the conduct of the industry. It is true that they may apparently lose a little by communicating matters which they would prefer to keep private to a number of men who may not be able absolutely to keep secret what they know. But they will gain a great deal more than they will lose, thanks to the smoothness with which the industry will work. I am sure that until it is recognised that the men are partners in the industry, and essential partners, we shall never really achieve industrial peace; but if this can be done through a voluntary machinery, and by the agreement of all parties, without friction, it is of course far better than any compulsory Statute. In all these circumstances, I need not say that, so far as I ace concerned. I shall not support the noble Viscount in his Motion. It is academic in arty case, because it cannot have any effect, the House of Commons having refused to take the same course. I ant glad, however, that we are not going to
370
apply the principle of compulsion where the voluntary principle will do equally well.
LORD VERNON: Can the noble Viscount tell us whether the possibility of amending the Act and producing an arrangement satisfactory to both parties, has been considered or discussed with either party?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think the question addressed to me really concerns the views of the mine owners and the miners, and I do not think that, as representing the Government, I can very well give an answer on that point.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: All you had to do was to pass the Resolution.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, after the discussion that has taken place, I would venture to make an appeal to the noble Viscount who introduced this Motion. We owe him a debt of gratitude for having evoked the speeches which we have heard, especially that of Lord Gainford, which has really destroyed his case and cut the ground from under his feet. I want to add just one consideration to those which have been advanced. Not merely would this proposal dislocate the whole arrangement in the coal industry, which is now proceeding on so satisfactory a basis, but it would cause gigantic expenditure. I do not know if the noble Viscount remembers that we saw the expenses connected with the Coal Mines Department of the Board of Trade go up from £60,000 in 1913 to £211,000 in 1921. I understand that if this proposal were put in force, there being some 3,000 pits, committees would be set up in each pit under the Bill, to which we objected at the time on that ground. There are, I believe, twelve members of each committee who are to be paid. There must also be a Government member attached to each of these committees, and I am given to believe that there would be 3,000 places at once filled for the purpose, not of improving the relations between employers and employed, but of disturbing the arrangement which has been reached in the interval.
We all of us now recognise that the Sankey Commission was a terrible blunder and that it delivered a panic-stricken verdict. 'But it did one good thing. It broke down for ever the principle of putting men who are already committed and thoroughly partial into a Committee

371
of that kind with instructions to report within a very short period. This proposal would bring forward again one of those close approaches to nationalisation at the very moment when it has been shown that the whole business can be satisfactorily carried out by private endeavour between those concerned without that intervention of the State which we all deprecate. In those circumstances, I earnestly hope the noble Viscount will not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
On Question, Motion negatived.

TERRITORIAL ARMY V.A.D.
LORD LAWRENCE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Notice— namely:—When the new scheme for Territorial Army Voluntary Aid Detachments will be issued In concrete form; and whether they are aware that the present registered Detachments in a great number of instances exist only on paper, most of the members having resigned, and that this condition is brought about owing to lack of any definite conditions and regulations as to service and qualifications for membership. Are they further aware that the temporary rules already issued are too vague, and that intending members of Voluntary Aid Detachments will not accept them in their present form?
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, the answer to the Question of the noble Lord is that the Central Joint Voluntary Aid Detachment Committee, which includes representatives of the Territorial Army Associations, the Order of St. John, and the British Red Cross Society, has recently submitted a scheme in outline for the reorganisation of the Voluntary Aid Detachments. This scheme is at present under the active consideration of the Army Council. Every effort is being made to expedite the preparation of the new scheme, but there are still certain important questions of detail to be settled. I need hardly say that the final decisions on the scheme will not be delayed any longer than is essentially necessary. I understand that the War Office have no official information as to the existence of detachments on paper alone, nor as to the resignation of members in larger numbers than would naturally he expected on the termination of a great var. Temporary rules, such as
372
are referred to, must of necessity be unsatisfactory. I hope that the new scheme when issued will remove such difficulties.

ATTACKS ON ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the murder of Head Constable Davis, on Thursday last in Tipperary, and as to the attack upon him and the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the occasion of their surrender, by orders of His Majesty's Government, of Tipperary barracks to the Irish Republican Army; and as to what steps are taken by His Majesty's Government to protect the lives of faithful officers of the Crown who are compelled to undergo such humiliations.
I have ventured to put this Question on the Paper, not because it is a mere individual instance of the savagery that is taking place in Ireland now and has existed for some time past, but because I desire to draw attention to the manner in which the most faithful servants of His Majesty are being treated under the Government which, whether in fact I do not know, but in law at all events, is responsible to this House. It is not so very long ago that your Lordships took every opportunity of saying what a splendid body the Royal Irish Constabulary were. I have heard that throughout the twenty-eight years I spent in the House of Commons, and I heard it repeated very often when I happened to come across to this place. They were the most faithful servants of His Majesty, and they were those faithful servants under difficulties which I doubt very much if all your. Lordships, at all events, ever really comprehended.
I have often met Englishmen who asked me, perhaps in the County of Kent, "Why do von not do with a few policemen in Ireland, as we are doing in the County of Kent?" as if Tipperary were Kent, or Limerick were Kent, or Surrey, or Sussex. These amen were men who every year, and every day of every year, carried their lives in their hands to try to serve the Government, of this country. Of course, that is now all changed; and I shall not on the present Question, which I have put down for information, talk more than I can help of what has happened since you were beaten in Ireland. You have surren-

373
tiered at discretion, and I should have thought that at all events you were great enough to do something to try to help those who had so faithfully served you as have the Royal Irish Constabulary.
But, my Lords, you, or rather the Government, have done nothing, except to try to get out of Ireland as fast as you can, and leave these unfortunate men to the tender mercies of those who, under your orders they were trying to keep within the law and were helping to punish when they did things which were outside the law. A more abject humiliation for any country has, I think, never been witnessed, but you can, at all events, stand the humiliation in the comfort in which you live, and the freedom from that kind of thing which you enjoy over here. No doubt you do, and I suppose there are very few of your Lordships who in the morning ever read about these murdered policemen. Apparently, nobody cares very much about these murdered policemen. They are of no more use to you, and indeed they are an encumbrance because I suppose they will get some kind of pension, if not from you, perhaps from your successors in Ireland.
Let your Lordships contemplate what humiliation these men have to go through because you have left them there to carry oat the humiliating policy which you have inaugurated. You have told these unfortunate men: "It is quite true that yesterday we ordered you to treat the Irish Republican Army and the servants of Mr. Collins and Mr. de Valera as outlaws and murderers and lawbreakers, but we ask you now, in the process of handing over the country after we have been beaten, to treat them as your masters, and you must be their attentive servants." That is humiliating enough even to a poor Royal Irish Constable. If that were all, I suppose humiliation breaks no bones, and it leaves people alive as a rule; and I suppose these men can go on and do something else. But I rarely take up an Irish newspaper, which I feel it my duty to read every day, without reading of the murder, or humiliation of various kinds, of these police or of others who have helped you. When marching through these places, where they were once in authority, they are jeered at, and sneered at, because, having once been your servants, you have now abandoned them.
The particular case to which I call attention shows that there is nobody to give
374
them protection, and that I say is an outrage. What happened last Thursday The police in Tipperary barracks were ordered by His Majesty's Government to hand over the barracks to the representatives of what is called the Provisional Government, which is, of course, a Government without any legal sanction or legal authority at all, but which is allowed to go on as a result of your being driven out of Ireland. The bulk of these men, as I understand the matter, left the barracks, and there remained in occupation the Assistant District Inspector and twelve other ranks—thirteen in all. They handed over the barracks to the representatives of your Allied Government, the Provisional Government. That was bad enough. They walked out, and the criminals and the others walked in as the restorers of law and order.
Then they started to proceed to Dublin, as they were ordered to do, bringing their motor cars, which belonged to your Government, to deliver them over; and they had hardly gone a few yards along the road when they were ambushed by the friends—or, if you like, the enemies—of the Provisional Government, to whom they had just handed over the barracks. Four of them were shot. One of them, Head Constable Davis, was killed, and the other three are seriously wounded. Thereupon, the representatives of the ambushing party proceeded to take £160 from the District Inspector, and also all the cars, arms, and ammunition, including twenty rifles, sortie revolvers, and 2,000 rounds of ammunition. It is hard to believe that such a thing can happen in what is called a civilised country.
My anxiety is not merely for these poor men, but for the remainder of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I want to know what this Government is going to do for these men, and how it is going to protect them in the future. Are you going to ask them, when you have withdrawn your soldiers and run away, to take all the risks of carrying out your policy of evacuation, handing over their barracks and their stores and their ammunition to the representatives of the Provisional Government, to run the chance a few moments afterwards of being shot in the streets in the performance of that duty for which you give them no protection?

This poor man—I do not know that it interests anybody, probably not; but I state it really that his relatives may know

375
there is somebody that takes an interest still in the Force—this poor man, Head Constable Davies, was 22 years in the service of His Majesty's Government, a faithful servant. He leaves a widow and five children. I want to ask whoever replies to me what the Government is going to do for the widow and the five children. No statutory compensation, as in ordinary cases, is at all adequate in a case of this kind, because the murder and outrage have been committed through your negligence and your incompetence and cowardice. You cannot escape your responsibility. You are the only Government responsible. And in following the evolution of events in Ireland at the present day, it is certainly a most extraordinary thing that the Government seem to think that, by ignoring what is going on, and getting the Press to ignore what is going on, you can really avoid responsibility for what is happening.
As I said before, this is not an isolated ease; there are many similar, some worse. In the same paper in which I read this I saw, almost in the next column, that a policeman had been kidnapped in the course of his duty, who, when he got back to his family, after his treatment while he was so kidnapped, had immediately to be sent to a lunatic asylum. Well, I am only an Irishman. I hope you are all proud that you are Englishmen, and I hope you are proud of your achievements in the pacification of my country.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I think it is high time that your attention was drawn to the manner in which His Majesty's Government are treating the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Auxiliary Police. I refer particularly to the humiliating circumstances under which they are made to hand over their surrendered barracks. I have a letter here which appeared in the Morning Post, and was sent by a father, who received it from his son in the Auxiliary Division of the R.I.C. He says that "the A.U.S. at the Castle "—I do not know whether you know Mr. Cope, but I really think, if the Government want peace in Ireland, the sooner they remove Mr. Cope the better—
"Mr. Cope, the A.U.S. at the Castle, is intent on advertising our shame. We have to hand in all our kit before we leave, except uniform, great coat, and rifle. Then we march right from Beggar's Bush Barracks with empty rifles to Westland-row, in order that the public may jeer, hoot, and boo the defeated. And 'discipline is
376
to be preserved on the route.' For this disgusting piece of humiliation the Government have hired a transport ship at Holyhead, in which to collect our rifles and uniforms."
You would have thought that the Government would have some consideration for the feelings of these wretched men who have been put in this position in carrying out the policy of the Government. Surely, when these men of the R.I.C. march out of barracks they should, at any rate, go with bands and flags flying, and ammunition, and all the rest of it. Taking away their ammunition is the sort of thing that a victorious enemy would do to a defeated force. It is not fair. I do think that they should have some consideration.
I do not wish to say anything nasty, but the truth of it is that the Government are afraid of hurting the susceptibilities of Sinn Fein. They do not mind how they hurt the feelings of their own loyal people, but they will not do anything which would annoy Mr. Collins and his followers. Surely, the Government have not forgotten all that the R.I.C. did for them? I heard the Lord Chancellor make speeches in which he told how wonderfully they had performed their duties, how loyal they had been. But now, as one of them told me the other day, the Government treat them rather as if they were the enemies, and Sinn Fein were the friends.
How many police have been murdered since the truce, and since the surrender, I do not know. A great many have been murdered, and I only know one case where the' murderers were actually caught red-handed, and that was in the murder of a warder in a prison—a most horrible murder, in which they chloroformed the warder, and beat him on the head, and performed all sorts of other atrocities on him. In this case the man was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. There were four of them as a matter of fact, and they were released by the Lord Lieutenant. Why were they released? Simply and solely because it was known that, if these men were hanged, it would displease Mr. Collins. I am sure even those of your Lordships who think that this Treaty, or surrender as I call it, was justifiable would wish that the R.I.C. should be properly treated, and I ask your Lordships to insist that this shall be done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, if the noble Marquess had pursued the convenient

377
course of informing me of the additional complaint that he intended to make should have acquainted, myself, as far as I could have done so, with the facts to which he desired to call your Lordships' attention. The noble Marquess has indicated that the members of the R.I.C. in the course of the evacuation which is being carried out are being treated with humiliation. Had the noble Marquess told me that he proposed to make that complaint I would have addressed myself to it. If he chooses to repeat it with Notice on the Paper I will make myself very familiar with the facts. Let me in the meantime tell him that I do not choose to accept as possessing the least authority an anonymous letter appearing in the Morning Post.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May I say that it is known all over Ireland?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess says that it is known all over Ireland, but a mere general affirmation of this kind does not carry the slightest weight with me, until I have made inquiries as to whether it is known or whether it is admitted. I have heard too many sweeping statements here and elsewhere to yield credence to them until I have heard the facts. When the noble Marquess tells me that it is known all over Ireland he is probably not unaware that it is said with a great deal of iteration that terrible things are proceeding in Belfast.
LORD CARSON: So they are.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So they are, and undoubtedly at the present moment upon both sides in Ireland events are taking place which are shocking to all persons who desire the pacification of that country. But when the noble and learned Lord has accused the Government—and I am not sure that your Lordships are not involved in his condemnation—of every kind of cowardice and neglect of duty in a speech in which I think the word "humiliating" or "humiliated" will be found by those who read it in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT, to have occurred sonic seventeen or eighteen times—
LORD CARSON: Quite right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR:—we may at least examine the situation in a little
378
cooler perspective than the noble and learned Lord has done. The noble and learned Lord is an Irishman. He is at this moment pursuing, and has for many years pursued, a career in England. When we are told, in a speech overloaded with somewhat exhausted adjectives, of the humiliation to which all Englishmen are exposed, we may at least feel ourselves entitled to say that the English nation—which has not been accounted throughout. the centuries, either under this or any other Government, to be the careless custodian of the honour of England—in dealing with this problem of Ireland is entitled to consider its own difficulties, its own duties and its own resources.
It is our view, whether or no it be the view of the noble and learned Lord, that the overwhelming majority of the people of England are behind the Treaty and intend to support the Treaty. We are of opinion that had we made an appeal in the early part of this year, as many of us would have desired to do, for a clear statement of opinion from the constituencies of this country upon this Treaty, there would have been an overwhelming reply in favour of the terms of the Treaty. Indeed, those who favoured the intention which was then suggested by certain persons of taking the opinion of the country, were met by the reply: "There is no justification whatever for consulting the country upon the Irish Treaty because it is universally conceded that the country is strongly in favour of that Treaty." We may be right or we may be wrong; we may still be driven to ascertain whether we were right.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I say, we may still be driven to ascertain whether we were right or whether we were wrong, and we shall certainly not shrink from doing so should such a contingency occur.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the meantime, until it has occurred, and whether we are right or wrong that the assumption be well-founded that the course which we have adopted in the difficult circumstances in which we have been placed is one which has the overwhelming support of the people of England

379
and that they at any rate are behind us,. I for one listen with the most complete indifference to these taunts and accusations, and these "humiliating" epithets—
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR — and to the noble and learned Lord's continued interjections, which are a little novel in our experience in debate in this House. The noble and learned Lord made another observation to which I will make bold to take exception, characteristic as it was of his controversial and Parliamentary methods. He said that the Royal Irish Constabulary not only enjoy no support and no sympathy from the Government, but that the Government looked upon them as an encumbrance because—I think the expression was—the Government had to pay the pensions. To me it is astounding that a noble and learned Lord, occupying a responsible position, should think it worthy of him, or worthy of the office he holds, to say of any English Government that they look upon the R.I.C. as an encumbrance in the sense and with the only possible suggestion underlying it, that their disappearance is a subject of indifference because they will become a financial charge upon the State. However low may be the opinion which the noble and learned Lord has of the Government, give me leave to say that that taunt is as unworthy of the Government as it is unworthy of himself and of the position that he holds.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall have an opportunity if and when this subject is resumed—as in the ordinary course it presumably will be when the proposals of the Government come before the House—of dealing, I hope suitably, with these and other observations and criticisms that may be made. That occasion will, perhaps, be one in which I may ask your Lordships' indulgence with more relevance than on the very limited Question which has been put to me to-day. I have had prepared a detailed answer which refers to the specific points contained in the Question of the noble and learned Lord, and I will ask the leave of the House to read that answer which I think affords the information requested.
In accordance with the general scheme for the concentration of the R.I.C. prior
380
to disbandment Tipperary police barracks was evacuated on the 2nd inst. In view of the disturbed condition of this county in which the authority of the Provisional Government carries very little weight, the Provisional Government are not taking over evacuated barracks on evacuation; nevertheless it is considered undesirable to continue to occupy these barracks with comparatively small detachments of the in case a further Clonmel incident should occur. In this case, therefore, all readily transportable material was removed from the barracks, the premises were locked up and all but thirteen of the garrison proceeded to Dublin by train, taking with them the greater portion of the arms, etc.
Thirteen men were left behind to bring up the transport, and these left for Dublin on the 2nd inst. Immediately after leaving the barracks, fire was opened upon this party, which was returned by them. Firing from both sides continued for some time, in the course of which four of the police were wounded (Head Constable Davis fatally), and it is believed four of the attackers were wounded. After some time the police, who were largely out-numbered, surrendered. The wounded were conveyed by the attackers to Limerick Junction, and sent on by train to Dublin, and the remainder of the police were released, and they also proceeded to Dublin. The property lost, by the police on this occasion consisted of £160 in cash, 20 rifles, some revolvers, 2,000 rounds of ammunition, and four motor vehicles. Three members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been arrested and will be tried by Court Martial on a charge of complicity with the attackers on this occasion.
It must be recognised that the position, both of the police and of the Provisional Government in this particular area—in which there is definite rebellion against the authority of the Provisional Government—is very difficult. The police have, in the present circumstances, neither the authority nor sufficient strength to crush the rebellion which took place at a time when they were in course of evacuation. This evacuation is now complete, and there is reason to hope that no further incidents of this kind will occur. As regards the Provisional Government, it is clear that they are no less anxious than the British Government to restore peace and order in this disaffected area. Their resources, however, are not, at the

381
moment sufficient, nor the circumstances propitious for definite aggressive action. They are, with the assistance of the British Government, expediting the formation, training and equipment of their own Defence Force, and there is every reason to believe that public opinion in. Ireland is consolidating itself behind the Provisional Government, and that this tendency is hastened by arrogant and high-handed acts such as are being committed by the recalcitrant section of the Irish Revolutionary Army in Tipperary and Limerick.
This is a short statement of the facts, but it will, I think, show that the situation is one on which, if I might offer advice to your 'Lordships, you would be well advised to reserve complete judgment until the findings of the Court Martial of which have spoken. I do not think it wise or right that I should say more at a time when these proceedings are still pending, and I will only advert in a very few moments to the general situation. The situation is, according to the best information of the Government, that at the present moment the authority of the Provisional Government is recognised over the greater part of Southern Ireland, but there are, at the same time, considerable districts in which the military forces that heretofore acknowledged allegiance to the Republic have refused to adhere to the Provisional Government, and there are two or three districts of which it is not an exaggeration to say that they are to-day in complete disaffection from the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government is sanguine enough to believe that, with the passage of a little time, they will be strong enough to deal with the rebels from their authority.
All this, of course, is full of anxiety for every one of us, but, if I am asked for my perfectly honest opinion, it is this, that bad and anxious as the situation is, I cannot see that it is not a gain that you have in Southern Ireland men who have hitherto been organised against us now, as far as one can see, honestly attempting to carry out their duty and their responsibility, and to put down this movement in the South of Ireland. I say plainly that, having once satisfied myself that we have treated them properly, I would far rather that they were undertaking that task than that we were, and I believe that if that task is effectively and successfully
382
carried out by them the fact that it should be done by them and not by us will have resulted in an economy of English lives, and will also, in the end, conduce to permanent peace in Ireland.
I did not wish to become involved in so general a discussion. I had confined myself in the first place to a written answer to the Question asked by the noble and learned Lord, but, my Lords, I must say plainly that, being unconscious myself of anything of which I either am ashamed or have any need to be ashamed in the course I have taken, and the views I have adopted upon the subject of Ireland, as long as I am assailed in this House either by the noble and learned Lord, or by anyone else, with invective and terms of contempt, and as long as those with whom I act are so assailed, I shall make such answer as occurs to me and as I deem adequate. When the debate is resumed in a more general form, as it will be next week on the Second Reading of the proposals we are bringing forward to carry out the Treaty, if your Lordships are good enough to allow me I shall attempt a complete restatement of the grounds which have led me to the conclusion I have formed, and by which I myself am content to stand.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate, and. I only say, in reference to the observations of the noble and learned Viscount, that whatever views the country may take as to the advisability of the Treaty—about which I pronounce no opinion, not having the omniscience of the noble and learned Viscount—I am quite sure that the country is thoroughly ashamed of the methods and the circumstances under which that Treaty was carried out. I rose only to remind the noble and learned Viscount that he has not answered the Question which my noble and learned friend put as to what steps are being taken by His Majesty's. Government to protect the lives of faithful officers of the Crown who are compelled to undergo such humiliation. The noble and learned Viscount told us that certain parts of Ireland are in rebellion against the Provisional Government, but he did not tell us what steps His Majesty's Government are taking.
I might, in particular, remind him that my noble and learned friend—or it might have been the noble Marquess—asked him what compensation was going to be given

383
to the widow and children of this constabulary officer who lost his life in the service of the Crown. I do not want to use very strong language, but that is an obligation, as it appears to me, of honour, not only upon the Provisional Government, but upon His Majesty's Government. I think your Lordships would wish to be assured that His Majesty's Government will look upon it as a debt of honour, and will see that whatever compensation is payable to this officer's widow and children is paid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Marquess has called my attention to an omission from my answer. I think I intended to deal with the matter. He says I have not answered the Question as to what steps are taken by His Majesty's Government to protect the lives of the faithful officers of the Crown who are compelled to undergo such humiliation. No particular steps were taken beyond what I have stated in the answer that I have read. What was done was that thirteen of the garrison were left armed to return to Dublin. There was not the slightest reason, as far as I am aware, to suppose that those thirteen men were in the least likely to be the subject of an attack, for in this district, and in contiguous districts, even smaller bodies of men have been left and the evacuation has proceeded peacefully. The noble Marquess will observe that I gave the impression that in the view of the authorities there was something significant about the matter and that it is to be made the subject of Court Martial proceedings, but I do not think it can be called reckless to leave thirteen armed men in the barracks as a final company.
As to what is to be done for the widow, the noble Marquess, as a very experienced Parliamentarian, will understand that I am very unlikely to know exactly the answer to his question, but I will tell him for what I will make myself responsible. During the past three anxious years we have made provision which has been considered adequate—it has not been the subject of complaint—for all those who have lost their lives among the police. The same terms will be given in this case. I agree entirely with what the noble Marquess says that no money compensation can meet such a case, but so far as money can meet it, I will undertake that it shall be adequately treated.

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS THE EARL OF WEMYSS rose to ask His Majesty's Government how many cattle have been compulsorily slaughtered during the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and to ask what the cost has been; to draw attention to the correspondence that took place between - the Board of Agriculture and Mr. Crossley of the Poplars, Ashford, at the time of the last outbreak; and to ask the reasons for the Board's refusal to try the suggested cure; and to draw attention to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts; and to move to resolve, "That it is desirable to inquire into the efficacy of the various alleged cures with the view of a curative treatment being made a substitute or an alternative to the present policy of slaughtering infected cattle."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am aware that the number of cattle slaughtered is considerable, and I am also aware that I shall be told that they only amount to about one-eighth per cent. of all the cattle in the country. I confess that I attach less importance to hearing the precise numbers than to ascertaining whether the Government are convinced, and if so by what facts and by what evidence, that this compulsory slaughter is the best way of dealing with this disease.
I approach this Question quite unbiassed. If I have been impressed by what I have heard on the other side I am ready, and should be rather pleased, to be convinced by the noble Earl opposite, but it is impossible to deny that the present method of slaughter is costly, wasteful, and, to a certain extent, barbarous. If he can prove that it is the only way then there is nothing more to be said. But many people, a daily increasing number, believe that it is not the only way, and that the same and better results could be achieved by less drastic methods.
I desire to tell your Lordships of a gentleman who claims to have discovered an infallible cure and who is prepared, moreover, to give ample pledges of his belief in his own cure and of his own good faith. I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that I do not vouch for this cure. I am only stating what I have been told. This gentleman claims that before the Act was passed he cured hundreds of cases; that lie never lost a single case, and that the treatment he recommends is easy, inexpensive and in-

385
fallible. He makes this further extraordinary claim for which, of course, I do not vouch; that just as ailing children after measles become strong, and as many of us in much later life who have undergone some severe illness become stronger and develop a regrettable rotundity of figure, so the cattle who have had this disease put on flesh more quickly and come to market in a better condition than their less fortunate companions who have not had the disease.
I do not know what importance to attach to this, but when we remember that not a great many years ago people who had consumption were shut off from every breath of fresh air and that they are now put on the tops of high mountains with all the air that they can get, we see what amazing somersaults medical science can turn. We must not be surprised at anything. I should not have brought up this man's case unless he had told the Government that if they would let him treat cattle for this disease he would undertake, if they gave him two guineas and out-of-pocket expenses for every case he treated, to pay full value for every animal that died under his treatment. It seems to me a very fair offer. It is a sporting offer, perhaps rather too sporting. It suggests the Golden Ballot, or Premium Bonds, or whist drives.
I do not think it was refused on that ground. I understand the Government in their reply said they were interested in the prevention, not in the cure, of this disease. Everyone will admit that prevention is better than cure. But if you cannot prevent, will you not try to cure? If you have failed to prevent, will you not try to cure? As far as I understand—I may be wrong—the Government have not advanced one bit in their knowledge of this disease. They are still groping in their original darkness and have not even discovered the bacillus or the bug. They have no knowledge as to what brings the disease, or why it comes, or why it goes away, or when it will come again. They are still in absolute darkness; and yet their only policy seems to be a futile search after prevention, followed in time by what I may almost call an orgy of slaughter.
I should be obliged to the noble Earl if he will explain to me exactly when this slaughter begins. I am not sure that I understand, but I imagine it is something like this. Supposing, for the sake of argu-
386
ment, that this Act applied to human beings. It is an unpleasant hypothesis, and I only use it by way of illustration. But supposing I were to invite my noble friend to dinner and he were good enough to accept, and that during dinner I developed symptoms of influenza—I suppose he would be slaughtered.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: You would have to be certified.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: But after that he would be slaughtered. Of course, I should be slaughtered, too, and that, I am sure, would be some consolation to my noble friend in his last moments—something like the glass of ruin given to a French criminal on his way to the guillotine. But what I want to know is why either of us should be slaughtered? Why should not I have treatment, and if I respond to the treatment, then be allowed out? Why should my noble friend not be put under observation, and if he does not contract the disease, be allowed out too? We do not apply this sort of treatment to human diseases. Medical science tries to do three things. It tries to prevent disease, to stamp out disease, and to cure disease; and I am not at all sure that their attempts at curing disease are not more successful than their attempts to stamp it out or prevent it. Enteric, diphtheria, tetanus, pneumonia, have none of them been stamped out, but they have been robbed of their sting and deprived of the greater number of their victims by curative and prophylactic methods.
Why should you not try the same thing with cattle? I dare say I shall be told that the farmers of this country are in favour of compulsory slaughter. All I can say is that they would be very strange people if they were not. They would be superior to human nature. Under your Act they have full protection. If their cattle are infected they get, or are supposed to get, full compensation without the trouble of taking them to market, and they have this indirect and additional advantage that when the slaughter begins the price of cattle goes up. It went up enormously in Scotland at the beginning of this outbreak, and the result is that you offer to the farmers what practically amounts to a fully paid premium policy with an additional bonus in the shape of a possible appreciation of the value of their stock No wonder the farmers are in favour of it.

387
I think it only fair, however, to tell your Lordships of a conversation I had with a very prominent member of the Farmers' Union. I will not say where it was, but he said to me: "Of course I am in favour, or rather my Union is in favour, of slaughter; but while I rejoice as a farmer I deplore as a citizen the public waste in this most unnecessary slaughter. Many farmers agree with me, and farmers have told me that they would be quite contented if this slaughtering were done away with, and if the farmers were given some compensation while the treatment was going on." I give you that for what it is worth.
In my Motion I have made some reference to administration. I do not know that. it is very important, but I read the other day that 127 tons of coal had been used to consume the carcasses of 100 oxen. We have witnessed, on occasions of public and private rejoicing, the roasting of a whole ox. A more unpleasant spectacle I cannot imagine, and I can quite believe that a large amount of fuel is consumed in doing it. But science must surely have found better means of dealing with these carcasses than by using the best coal, and I cannot help saying to the Government: Why these unsavoury bonfires, and why this costly holocaust of slaughtered hecatombs?
There is another point, the element of compensation. I do not think we need suppose that there are any wide and general complaints regarding the allocation of compensation. If there were I am sure we should have heard of them. But I did hear of two glaring cases close to one another. It was not, of course, in this outbreak, in which, I suppose, the compensation has not yet been allotted. In one case a man owned a stock of pedigree cattle. They had an illustrious line of ancestry, but something had gone wrong with the strain, and they were degenerate sons of sturdy sires. The owner would have been pleased to take £6,000, and he was offered £24,000. I do not give his name; the name was withheld from me, because naturally, if it is unpleasant to be considered a war profiteer, it would be worse to be considered a foot and mouth disease profiteer, or a cattle plague king. Close by was another man who, I was told, had a stock which was not pedigree, though extremely good, and he was offered only half the value of that stock. I give that as an instance.
388
I dare say my noble friend does not know of it, and may disbelieve it. I cannot vouch for it, but I was told it on very good authority.
In conclusion, I would only add this. You have just had a severe attack of this disease. You had an attack a short time ago; it is quite impossible for you to tell when you may have the next attack, nor can you tell how severe that attack may be. It may come in a severely epidemic form, when, I suppose, your slaughtering operations would not be able to overtake it. I imagine there is some limit to the number of cattle you could slaughter. I ask my noble friend, if he will not, on behalf of the Government, consider whether it is not worth while to examine these cures. It will not prevent the Government from continuing their researches; it will not prevent them from slaughtering; and if they examine these cures and find they are of no use, they will be no worse off. If, on the other hand, they find one or inure of them to be efficient they will then, perhaps, though not escaping the reproach of having carried on a foolish policy for a long time, be able to claim at least that they had the discernment to discover, and the courage to correct, the mistake when it was pointed out to them. I hope my noble friend may be able to give us sonic hope and encouragement in this matter.
Moved to resolve, "That it is desirable to inquire into the efficacy of the various alleged cures with the view of a curative treatment being made a substitute or an alternative to the present policy of slaughtering infected cattle."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER): My Lords, I think it will be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if I first of all read the answer as regards the numbers and cost—that is the first thing asked by the noble Earl in his Question—and I can then deal with his points concerning the cure. The slaughter of 20,813 cattle has been authorised by the Ministry up to and including March 6 in connection with the present outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The existence of the disease was first reported to the Ministry on January 23 last, and the outbreak now embraces some 981 separate cases. The gross amount of compensation payable in respect of this

389
number of cattle is approximately £580,000, but from this figure a deduction should be made for salvage receipts the amount of which is not yet definitely known, but is estimated at £70,000. A sum of £510,000 may therefore be taken as being approximately the net cost in respect of compensation for the cattle slaughtered up to March 6.
I might mention at this point, in order to afford as complete information as possible to the noble Earl who, in his Question, referred only to cattle, that the other animals, namely, sheep, pigs and goats, which have been slaughtered in connection with this outbreak, number some 23,600. The net compensation payable in respect of these animals is estimated, however, to amount to not more than £89,100. There are also certain administrative expenses which should be to ken into account in estimating the cost of the outbreak. These charges, consisting of salaries of the additional inspectors, wages to slaughter-men and the expenses of dressing the carcasses and disinfection, are estimated at a total of £135,000 to date.
Having given these figures I think I might be allowed to make one or two observations on the points raised by the noble Earl. First of all, as to the suggestion that these animals are slaughtered straight away if they are suspected, I may say that they are not slaughtered until an inspector of the Ministry has given a certificate that the animal has contracted foot and mouth disease, and has also certified what animals have been in contact with the infected animal. It is necessary, of course, to have extra inspectors, which naturally costs money, and further I think I am right in stating that almost all these animals are slaughtered by professional slaughtermen, and probably with humane killers.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I never implied anything else.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: Quite so. But that naturally adds to the expense. As regards the point which the noble Earl raised about the cost of coal and the compensation, if he will give me details I will try to ascertain the facts about it. I believe that the £135,000 includes the coal, because I think in many cases the bodies are burnt.
With regard to the correspondence to which the noble Earl refers, I may say that
390
Mr. Crossley addressed a letter to the Ministry in January, 1921, in which he stated that foot and mouth disease could be cured, and that he was prepared to undertake the demonstration of a remedy. The Ministry's reply was that it was aware that there were a number of methods of treatment of foot and mouth disease which are beneficial in enabling animals to get through the attack safely, but that the policy of the Ministry did not permit of the remedial treatment of infected cases, and was directed rather to the complete elimination of the infection as expeditiously as possible by the slaughter of diseased animals and those animals in immediate contact. The reason why remedial treatment is not adopted is because it would involve the maintenance of the infection while the treatment was taking effect, and so long as the virus exists there would always be a very great risk of its conveyance to other stock in the vicinity, indeed, of the permanent establishment of the disease in this country, as it is in most Continental countries.
On the question of the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts I may take this opportunity of stating that the administrative procedure adopted under those Acts has never been called upon, since its formulation nearly thirty years ago, to deal with an outbreak so extensive as the present. In consideration of this fact, and of the obscurity which exists as to the origin of the present outbreak, the Minister has arranged to set, up a Departmental Committee to inquire into the working and administration of the Acts. I think the reference to the Committee is drawn very widely, and they will inquire into several of the subjects mentioned by the noble Earl. I have the terms of reference here; they are as follows—
"To inquire into the origin and circumstances of the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease and into the policy and procedure which was pursued in dealing with the disease, and to report whether any alteration of the methods of administrative control hitherto adopted or any amendment of the existing law is necessary and desirable."
In addition to that the Ministry is entering into correspondence with Governments on the Continent in order to arrange for their co-operation in an International Inquiry into the general question of the treatment of foot and mouth disease. It is hoped that it will be possible to arrange for the investigations to be carried out on the Continent, where, as foot and mouth

391
disease is always present, it will not be necessary to maintain a centre of infection in an otherwise free country.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: In these circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I should like to say one word on this question of cure versus slaughter. Of course, the trying of cures of necessity means the maintaining of a sphere of infection in this country. You have to have infected animals on which to try your cures. Now, the policy of successive Governments has been, for the last thirty-two years, the moment an outbreak is discovered, to have slaughtered as speedily as possible all animals infected and all those that can possibly have been brought into contact with them. The effect of that policy, and the cost of that policy, are wonderful. During the whole thirty-two years, I believe, the average cost of thus dealing with the disease has been only £9,000 per annum, and the advantage to this country throughout that period has been enormous. I am informed that in France, during 1920, the loss to farmers owing to foot and mouth disease amounted to five and a-half millions.
In spite of what people may say there is no doubt that it is disastrous for anybody to get foot and mouth disease into his herd. Even if the animals are cured, and there are cures, from all I am told those animals lose in condition. When they recover, no doubt they pick up quickly, but I am informed that it is a most dangerous thing if the disease is contracted by cows or ewes, as it very frequently brings about abortion. It would be a most serious thing if the hill flocks in Scotland were attacked with the disease just before lambing time, because it might mean the loss of the whole season's lambs. Therefore, to say the disease does not matter is not quite true. It is a serious thing.
In addition, there are other important points to take into consideration. Whenever, during the last thirty-two years, this country has been free from foot and mouth disease all the other countries in the world have come to it to buy pedigree stock, but whenever you have the disease in this country the ports of all those other countries — of Argentine, Brazil, Canada, America, and South Africa—are closed
392
against us. The moment the disease is stamped out the buyers of those countries flock back here to buy pedigree stock. If we go in for the policy of allowing the disease to remain in the country for the purpose of curative treatment, it is certain that the disease will hang about for a longer period, and that foreign countries will close their ports against our cattle, and the trade in pedigree stock will be stopped for a long time, involving serious loss to the nation.
It is not true that the Ministry never undertake any investigations in this matter. As a matter of fact, only about a year ago they commenced to carry on investigations. They began by trying to find the virus. Apparently they could not find the virus of foot and mouth disease, because it cannot be seen with a microscope. In order to get preventive treatment by injection the very first thing you have to do, I am told, is to cultivate the virus, and they never got so far as to be r able to cultivate the virus. Therefore, the prospects of finding out a preventive or cure which is a certainty seemed to be very remote indeed—at all events, they do not seem to be very encouraging.
I can only say in conclusion that there is a great outbreak, and that if it goes on much longer—I think we have got it in band and that there will not be another flare-up—it will be impossible to continue the policy of slaughter indefinitely. In the meantime, it is inevitable that when you have a flare-up like this, the first really serious one for more than thirty-two years, you should have nearly everybody coming along and saying lie has a sure cure for it. The gentleman who has written to the noble Earl is not alone in this matter. A short time ago I was rung up by a friend in the City who said he knew of a professor at Berne who had an absolutely infallible cure. The first question to be asked is why, if these people have an infallible cure, do they not try it on the Continent, where the disease is rampant. I hope that at the present moment it will not get about the country that we have been wrong in the past in the policy of slaughter. By the means we have adopted, except on this occasion, the thing has been stamped out in a few weeks, and it would be a great pity to abandon that policy until some mixture is found which is, not a cure, but a preventive.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for his

393
explanation. I said at the beginning that I had no bias on this subject, but that the cure I recommended was not a foreign one but an all-British one. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WOMEN POLICE.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice to draw attention to the Report of the Committee on the Employment of Women on Police Duties (of which Sir John Baird, Bart., M.P., was Chairman), in which the first conclusion arrived at was the following: "That the experience of the war has proved that women can be employed with advantage to the community in the performance of certain police duties which, before the war, were exclusively discharged by men"; and to ask, if in view of the large amount of expert evidence received by that Committee in favour of the above recommendation, and also in view of the useful work since performed in various centres by women police, information will be available as to the source of the evidence which led the Committee on National Expenditure, in their Second Interim Report, to make a recommendation which, if adopted, would lead to the disbandment of the women police patrols in the Metropolitan area.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, in framing this Question I have endeavoured to word it so that, as far as possible, it would tell its own tale. Nevertheless, this subject has more ramifications and bearings than might be, at first sight, apparent. Of course, the central feature of the recommendations of the Committee now known as the Geddes Committee is that of economy at any rate, ostensibly. But I am only voicing the feelings of a vast number of people when I offer the opinion that the utility of the women police and the women patrols is not negligible, but that the economy effected by the proposed disbandment would be negligible, both in a direct and an indirect way.
For example, t he building which is used, I understand, as the headquarters of this Division of Women Police will, I presume, be continued, even if that portion of the force is disbanded for the time being. It will be utilised, I suppose, for some police purpose, and therefore the expense of the maintenance of the building, fire and light, and so forth, will
394
continue, though at present it is debited to the charge of the women police. Then as to the uniform, which has been in use only for a short time. At the present, time it almost seems impossible to buy except in the dearest market, but, when it is a case of selling, it is always the cheapest market. One can imagine the sort of value set upon scrapped uniforms.
With regard to the question of pensions, I am aware that in another place some official announcements have been made which would seem to indicate that the claim to pensions, if these officials are disbanded, would be evaded or, at, any rate, could not be made good. I confess I am very much puzzled by that statement for the reason that in the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the points are mentioned under which the women police are deprived of the privilege of pensions. For example—
"No provision relating to pensions, gratuities or other payments to or for the benefit of the widow or wife of a member or ex-member of a police force shall apply to the: widower or husband of a policewoman"
and again—
"A police woman shall not be entitled to reckon as approved service any service before the passing of this Act unless she pays to the police authority a sum equal to the aggregate rateable deductions which would have been made from her pay if this Act had applied to her during such service."
I think it is recognised maxim, and especially a legal maxim, that when cert in disabilities are mentioned other things are assumed not to apply; in other words, that those who do not come under these exceptions would, according to the Act, be entitled to pension. Perhaps I ought to apologise to my noble friend who will answer this Question for bringing up the matter of pensions, but if he would wish me to raise it on another occasion I should be only too pleased.
I pass on to the other supposed sources of economy. Of course, many things which are done by the police women now could be done by the men, and I cannot refrain from adding that I am second to none in the feeling of admiration for the manner in which the Metropolitan policemen perform their duties. There was a magnificent example of that in the historic events of Tuesday of last week. Of course, the tribute paid on that occasion was primarily to the splendid order of the crowd, but I think it is agreed that the tact and judgment of the police help to make a crowd

395
orderly and well behaved. But there are some duties which certainly can be performed better by the women police than by even the best and most experienced men.
For example, in the case of women or girls who have got into trouble and been brought before a magistrate, the work of women police in passing them on to some voluntary institution, where they can be cared for, has been recognised for a long time by the Police Department, and I believe they have an admirable lady at the head of that particular section. But one official cannot cover the whole ground in such a matter, and it seems certain that the number of such cases passed on—and therefore saved from corning on the rates, because there is the liability of the workhouse and the prison—has greatly increased. For last year the number was 1,131, which is certainly much in advance of the figure of some previous years.
I will give one other example of the usefulness of the women police. The rule is that when a woman prisoner is being taken from the place of trial to a prison she must be accompanied by a woman official. Since the institution of the women patrols this duty has to a large extent been fulfilled by the women police. But a male member of the Force has to accompany the prisoner and the woman escort. It seems rather a cumbrous method, but the reason it has to be done is that, as yet, the women patrols have not been sworn in, and therefore a full-fledged policeman has to accompany them. The remedy for that is to swear in the woman, and economy would lie gained thereby. Then there would be no need for the extra expense of a policeman. The total amount saved in that direction would be considerable.
Lastly, I wish to refer to the testimony as to the value of women police. Sir Leonard Dunning, in his annual Report for the whole country, speaks of their value, especially in preventive work. He goes on to say—
"Sexual immorality does not always lead to the commission of crimes or offences which clearly lie within the preventive duties of the police, but it does, directly and indirectly, to so great an extent that its prevention, even when it is not unlawful, cannot definitely be said to lie outside the duties of a police force."
I think you will agree that anything that tends to reduce immorality is indirectly a benefit to the State, in the practical utilitarian sense.
Another example of official testimony before the Baird Committee is what was said by Mr. J. W. Olive, C.B.E.—
"There are certain duties which the women police can and do now discharge which formerly had perforce to be carried out by the ordinary constable, but which it is desirable that women, properly qualified, should undertake—"
and so on. Another witness, a superintendent of police, Superintendent James Billings, said—
"In the beginning I was somewhat sceptical as to what the results would be. For that reason I have given special attention to the matter, and I am fully convinced, now that Women Patrols are established—I am speaking of the women who have had careful training in the work—they have proved very useful and a great adjunct to the carrying out of the police duties generally. They have done a lot of excellent work, particularly in the direction of cases of a certain sort in open spaces—Hyde Park in particular."
In addition to that testimony, people who are in contact with social work in the fullest sense have given their opinion in no uncertain tones. A few weeks ago a conference convened by the National Council of Women—at which forty-four Societies concerned in various branches of social welfare were represented—considered the recommendations of the Geddes Committee on this matter and passed a unanimous resolution that it would be a mistake and a misfortune if the women police were disbanded. In addition to that, twenty other societies expressed a similar opinion; so that sixty societies have indicated their strong feeling upon the subject. After all, they can form an opinion. It is not like people giving an opinion of civil servants inside a Department, because that must be left to their official superiors. But these people are, to use an apostolic phrase, living epistles. "known and read of all men." I am very glad that the most rev. Primate has remained in the House to-night because he has had the most unrivalled opportunities of becoming a repository of all such information and will. I hope, give the House his views on the subject.
Lastly, may I say that if, unfortunately as so many people think, these policewomen are disbanded in this City of London it will be a cause of regret throughout the country because the system is still a comparatively new one. It has been tried in various centres, in most cases with great success. Of course if it is stopped in London, that will have, or may have, a deterrent effect, though I believe only for

397
a time. In my opinion, if this force is disbanded now, it will come into existence again, because we can no more keep women out of the police than your Lordships can keep women Peers out of this House.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, although the contemplation of these empty benches is not exactly stimulating to a full statement upon such a subject as this, or indeed upon any subject, I should not like the noble Earl who answers on behalf of the Government to speak until I had at least put before him a word or two as to the perplexity in which we find ourselves in regard to this matter. Until a few days ago the position was bewildering enough; but it has become very much more bewildering during the last twenty-four hours, because the answer given last night in another place seems absolutely inconsistent with the recommendation on which it was based and which was made by what is called the Geddes Committee.
The whole of this question rests at this moment upon the Report of the Committee on National Expenditure. On page 69 of that Report the Committee say this—
"We have considered the question of the employment of the women patrols."
This refers to London and to London only.
"These women patrols, 110 in number, are in addition to the numbers of police. Their pay is only a little less than that of the 'uniformed' constable."
Now notice this—
"Their powers are very limited, and their, utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible. We do not think that in present circumstances this expenditure can be justified."
I have waited day by day since the publication of that Report in the hope of seeing what is "the evidence submitted to us" which proves the work of these policewomen to be negligible. Last night, in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary was asked whether he would state what witnesses appeared before the Geddes Committee to give an account of the women patrols, and whether any members of the Women's Force were called, and his reply was—
"The Committee consulted the Commissioner of Police and myself. No witnesses from the force were called."
398
Now note this—
"It must be remembered that the question was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State in a time of extreme financial stringency."
There was no question, he said, as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but the whole point was that the Geddes Report, as he called it, said that their powers were very limited and their utility from a police point of view was, on the evidence submitted to the Committee, negligible. The evidence submitted was that of the Home Secretary himself, and the Commissioner of Police and no one else, apparently, at all, and the utility of the women police was thereby proved to be nil.
What are the real facts as to what had gone before? Just think for a moment what the story was. Two years or a year and a half ago the Government appointed a very strong Committee of eight persons to investigate the question of the employment of women police. That Committee met under the chairmanship of Sir John Baird, and took an immense mass of evidence which occupied over 160 pages of a large Blue Book. They called 47 witnesses whom they examined in full, and they made a unanimous Report. Their recommendation upon this particular point was this—
"After careful consideration of all the evidence we are of opinion that in thickly populated areas, where offences against the law relating to women and children are not infrequent, there is not only scope but urgent need for the employment of policewomen."
That recommendation was based upon a mass of evidence from all sorts of people, to some of whom the noble Marquess has already referred, who were giving testimony as to the value which they as Chief Constables, as police authorities in different parts of the country, or as magistrates, felt to belong to the work of the women police. It was done with enormous care, and may I say incidentally, if we are talking about economy, obviously at very great cost.
Sir Nevil Macready, who gave very useful evidence indeed, said that he thought the force had fully justified its existence. And he continued—
"I cannot say at the present moment to what extent it should be increased."

399
He said further that if he got certain powers he would desire to see the force very greatly increased, and would transfer to it a very large amount of work which was now done by men. That may or may not be so; but it was the evidence given by an expert upon the subject the Committee were called upon to consider. Then Sir Leonard Dunning, the Home Office Inspector of Constabulary, said that the fact of having a woman to do this particular work made the whole difference, because—
"her very sex gives her influence over the child whose mischief has brought him under the notice of the police, before the mischief takes the form of crime, and over the mother to whose neglect the offence of the child is so often due."
And he goes on to say how difficult it is for the police to extract from these girls the kind of evidence that is necessary in such cases. May I say it is very bad for them to give it; it is bad for a young female to go into details on this subject to the police. That is thoroughly to the bad, and is recognised by witness after witness.
Further, a man like Superintendent Billings says—
"In my opinion they would be very well employed as matrons at police stations, and also in the place of constables on reserve at the police station, particularly at those stations where a great many women are dealt with. Many women who come into police stations would naturally make a better and fuller statement to a woman than they would to a male police officer, and a carefully trained woman employed at a police station on reserve duty, instead of a constable, would, in many cases I am sure, be found very useful indeed, and probably it would bring about some saving."
Supplementary to that, I should like to say that it is wrong to suppose that this is an occasional thing happening now and then.
During one year alone—1921—the women police in London took 429 statements, and 1,131 women and girls passed through their hands to such hospital or other treatment as was required. All over England and Scotland, to some degree, the same thing is going on. There is evidence about it in all parts of the country, though the evidence is not unanimous as to the advantage. The minority who spoke against it, however, is so insignificant that the Report, as I have already pointed out, is unanimous on the part of the people who devoted a great deal of time and trouble to investigating the whole matter.
Now we are suddenly told that this is to come to an end. When we ask why it
400
is to come to an end, we are told that it is on the ground of cost. The Home Secretary says that on the evidence submitted the utility of these people is negligible. He was asked last night what was the evidence upon which that opinion was based, and he said: "It was the evidence which I gave and the Commissioner of Police gave." But no other members of the force were called, nor was anybody else called who was capable of speaking about it in the country, nor were any of those called who had done the work. This statement of the Home Secretary is made in the face of the printed Blue Book containing the evidence of all the people who, one after another, recommended this system, and in face of the unanimous Report in favour of it. What does this upsetting of it mean? Is it really a question of economy? One wonders where the economy is going to come in. The numbers of the women are not very large, and the cost is not very great. The Inquiry itself cost an immense amount of money, and it produced a unanimous Report that the work ought to go on.
However, the question I want to raise to-night is not whether or not the women police are a gain to the public service of the country. Upon that I do not profess to be an expert, though I have seen some of their work both in town and in the country, and am strongly in favour of it. But my good opinion may be a complete mistake. What I want to point out is that we have no evidence now before us upon which there can reasonably be justified a complete change of policy upon a large question of this kind. If it were said: "They are costing too much, there are too many of them, and we must diminish the number and economise on their pensions or their pay," or something of that kind, one could understand it. I could understand it if it were said: "We shall continue to observe the principle which has so far been carried out because we believe that principle to be right, but we must economise." If that were said I should answer: "Very well, I regret a great many things that we may be asked to do in the way of economy; we regret this as well as ethers, but we must acquiesce for the country's sake." But that is not the question here. Here it is a question of a complete change of the policy which has been deliberately adopted after being supported by a mass of evidence and by the unanimous Report of a Committee appointed to inquire into it.

401
Whether the change now proposed be right or wrong, it certainly has never been justified to us upon any evidence whatever. We ought to know, and we are entitled to know, what is the ground upon which this work recommended by a large Depart mental Committee is to be put on one side. Upon that we have no evidence whatever before us. I feel that to be a position in which we cannot acquiesce. We must know why the change is to be made. If it is merely a question of economy, let it be so said, but it will be almost impossible, I think, that economy would be brought about, sufficient at any rate to justify a complete change of policy in the face of such a Report as that made by the Departmental Committee appointed by the Home Secretary.
The matter requires, I think, to be very much more openly handled. We desire to know why it is that this change has been brought about. We want to have the evidence before us, if there be any, which answers and neutralises the mass of evidence collected upon the other side. We have not that evidence before us at this moment. I hope the noble Earl who speaks for the Government will be able to tell us that such evidence has been collected, or that he will put before us some evidence to show that the change is made professedly on the grounds of economy only, and that there is no question of the utility or non-utility of the work. This is far too important a matter to be allowed to rest where it is, and I hope we shall have from the Government to-night a statement that will clarify our minds on the subject.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in reply to the Question of the noble Marquess, I should observe in the first place that Sir John Baird's Committee, which the noble Marquess quoted, took the view that women cannot be regarded as substitutes for men in a police force, and, therefore, that the women police must be looked upon as supplementary to the regular Metropolitan organisation. I do not think anyone can fail to endorse the finding of the Committee which is quoted by the noble Marquess in his Question, and the experiments which have been undertaken since the Committee reported, and since women patrols have been working, bear testimony to the efficiency and usefulness of the women in the sense in which the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate referred to them. This usefulness has been repeatedly
402
voiced by my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, in the House of Commons, and also in circulars issued to the police, and in other ways. The Report of Sir Leonard Dunning read to us is a case in point.
As to the reasons why the Home Secretary has decided upon the disbandment of this force, when Sir Eric Geddes' Committee examined into the expenditure of the Home Office, this question of women patrols was one of the matters gone into. The Committee consulted my right honourable friend and the Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir John Horwood. The question at issue was not as to the efficiency or usefulness of the women police, but whether the work that they were undertaking was of such a nature that it ought to be maintained at the expense of the State at a time of extreme financial stringency. The most rev. Primate has referred to the fact that no witnesses were called from the police force, except, of course, the Chief of Police. It was open to Sir Eric Geddes and his colleagues to ask for other views, but in order to arrive at their decision they did not think it necessary to go into the matter further than they did. They had all the evidence which they thought, they required.
The decision of the Committee has been read to your Lordships by the most rev. Primate. I should like to read the last paragraph of it in which they say:
"Their powers are very limited, and their utility from a police point of view is, on the evidence submitted to us, negligible. We do not think that in the present circumstances this expenditure can be justified."
In my opening remarks I quoted the opinion of Sir John Baird's Committee to the effect that women patrols could not be regarded as a substitute for men in the police force, but must be regarded as supplementary to that force. Let me amplify the statement of the Geddes Committee for one moment. The Geddes Committee, having regard to the limited scope of women patrols as compared with the regular police, and the short period during which they have formed part of the Metropolitan Police organisation, considered that the service was one which in the present urgent need for economy should be dispensed with. That recommendation my right hon. friend felt bound to carry out. It is not a question as to whether the

403
force was desirable or doing good work. What was under consideration was the question whether we could do without this particular force at the present time? It is a question what we can do without, not what it is desirable to keep if we can. Really it is a question as to what we can afford.
With regard to the question of which the noble Marquess gave me private notice, and also his inquiry as to pensions I will answer briefly, but if he wishes to have any further information I should be grateful if he would give me further Notice. Steps are being taken for the disbandment of the Metropolitan women police patrol to commence on March 31, and they have been given notice that after that date their engagements, which are for a period of twelve months expiring at various dates in 1922, are not to he renewed. Now as to pensions. My right honourable friend in answer to a question last night in the House of Commons stated that women patrols will not be entitled to pensions on disbandment. The reason is that they are only engaged for a year at a time. They have not hitherto been assimilated with the ordinary police force. It is true, as the noble Marquess has said, that deductions have been made from their salary for the purpose of pensions but these deductions will be refunded to them as soon as their notices expire.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: The limited period is, of course, a matter of importance. If they are engaged for twelve months only they are in a different position from the men. I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this subject, and what has fallen from the noble Earl relieves me of some of the observations I had proposed to make. I gather from his last sentence that the disbanding of these women will he wholly unaccompanied by any pensions at all.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is so.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That, of course, is a very important matter from the point of view of economy, because it would be quite indefensible to establish a force of this kind and at the end of a few months to disband them with pensions, which are only payable to people whose services have been long enjoyed. The question as to the
404
need for their disbandment is quite different. I thoroughly understand the need for economy and on that point I agree with the noble Earl. I think it is quite impossible at the present moment for any Department to ask that money shall be provided on the basis of the efficient administration of that Department. The only claim they have a right to make is that all the money that can properly be allotted to their Department shall be given. They have no right to ask that any Department should be carried on at a superfine pitch of excellence which the country cannot afford. In other words, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and not according to our taste.
But is it quite so clear that economy is going to be effected by the way it is proposed to treat these women? It seems quite likely that the force as now established, with its present personnel, is in excess of what we can reasonably pay for. The services they discharge may not be commensurate with the payment they receive. But as the most rev. Primate has pointed out there are quite a number of functions these women discharge which can only be properly discharged by women, and I agree with him that it is a bad thing for everyone—for the children, and it is not a good thing for the man—that young girls should be interrogated as to offences of a sexual character without the intervention of a woman. It is eminently desirable that this branch of their services should, if possible, be kept on foot, and so far as I can gather that might be done without the complete disbandment of these women. This view may not carry out all that is desired by the noble Marquess and the most rev. Primate, but my own feelings would be satisfied if I could be assured that the duties which are essentially feminine will still continue to be discharged by women, although they may cease to be regular members of the regular Metropolitan Police Force. That is a slight modification of the view that has been put forward in the debate and I hope the Home Office will give it their serious attention.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot at the moment reply to the noble and learned Lord on that point, but I assure him that I will bring it to the notice of the authorities concerned.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

RHONDDA (PETITION FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS.)
Report from the Committee for Privileges to be taken into consideration on Wednesday next. (The Chairman of Committees.)
HUNTINGFIELD (CLAIM TO VOTE).
A witness ordered to attend the Committee for Privileges To-morrow.

COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
CAMBRIDGE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

E. Stamford,

E. Chichester,

V. Hood,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore) (chairman),

L. Redesdale;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 21, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners Praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to
406
the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

M. Bath (chairman),

M. Linlithgow,

V. Falmouth,

L. St. John of Bletso,

L. Manton;

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 21, at twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
Leicester Freemen Bill.
Swansea Corporation Bill.
Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.