Sitting of 22 March 1922

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
HONG KONG COUNCIL.
Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I beg to present a petition from the British inhabitants of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong, numbering 1,500, praying for the abolition, so far as non-Chinese unofficial members of the Council are concerned, of the principle of Government nominees, and the substitution of popular election thereon and the adoption, so far as non-Chinese members of the Council are concerned, of a larger electoral body than exists at present.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA

    TERRITORIAL WATERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 12-mile limit for territorial waters was claimed by the Russian Government before the War; whether attempts were made then to interfere with British vessels fishing in those waters; whether His Majesty's Government then made any protest; if so, with what result; whether any protest is being made now against the same claim and interference; whether some nine or 12 months ago the Russian Government proposed a conference with His Majesty's Government on this subject of territorial waters and other matters; and what was the response of His Majesty's Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The Russian Government in December, 1909, passed a law claiming to regulate the movements of all vessels within 12 nautical miles of the shores of
    430
    the Russian Empire; His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd was immediately instructed to reserve the rights of British subjects. In July, 1910, the British trawler "Onward Ho" was arrested by Russian authorities while outside the 3-mile limit. In consequence of the representations of His Majesty's representative, the ship was shortly afterwards, released. In June last the Russian Trade Delegation in this country communicated to His Majesty's Government a recent Soviet decree for the protection of fisheries, claiming to exclude foreign vessels from Russian waters up to 12 nautical miles from the shore. His Majesty's Government immediately protested, but have expressed their willingness, whilst maintaining their objection to the 12-mile limit, to consider any draft of a convention for the protection of sea fisheries which the Soviet Government might put forward. No such draft has so far been submitted.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the negotiations continuing or commenced about this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the limit is not put forward as a territorial limit, but because of the breeding grounds, and can this matter be cleared up?
    Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Have the Government any naval vessels near this spot which could put a check on these piratical operations?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think the Government have no naval vessels in those waters. I am not quite sure what matter my hon. and gallant Friend refers to as the subject of negotiations. As he knows these fisheries have been the subject of very strong representations which continue to be made to the Soviet Government.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When this took place in June last year were the Boards of Agriculture of England and Scotland informed so that they could warn our fishermen of the danger?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no doubt that the Board of Fisheries in Scotland were aware of what was taking place.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Why did the Government in the case of the Czarist Government take strong steps to secure

    431
    the release of our fishermen, while in the case of the Soviet Government they only made representations?
    Dr. MURRAY: Would it not be a better policy to agree with the other Powers for a 12-mile limit?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: That is an exceedingly debatable question.
    Mr. LYLE: Does the hon. Member think it is any use holding any conference whatever with the Soviet Government, because they never keep any of their promises?

    TRADE WITH GERMANY.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the total exports from Russia into Germany and from Germany into Russia in the year 1913?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): There is a marked discrepancy between the Russian and German figures of trade between the two countries in 1913. According to the German figures, exports to Russia amounted to about £43,300,000, and imports from Russia £70,000,000. According to the Russian figures, imports from Germany amounted to about £68,800,000, and exports to Germany £47,900,000. In neither case are the figures of trade between Finland and Germany included.

    BULGARIA.
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any representations to the effect that Greece is not carrying out the spirit of Article 48, Section 3, Part III, of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, of 27th November, 1919, in which the Allied and Associated Powers undertook to ensure the economic outlets of Bulgaria to the Ægean Sea; whether difficulties have been put in the way of Bulgaria which restricts her trade through such ports as Dedeagatch; and what action His Majesty's Government intend to take in this matter in order to press Greece to carry out the provisions of the Treaty?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Article quoted from the Treaty of Neuilly im-
    432
    poses not on Greece, but on the principal Allied Powers to whom the Treaty transferred Western Thrace, the obligation to provide Bulgaria with access to the sea. The principal Allied Powers, to meet this obligation, inserted special clauses in the Treaty, signed with Greece on 10th August, 1920, by which Western Thrace was transferred to Greece, but this Treaty is not yet ratified. Until it is ratified, and Western Thrace ceded to Greece, she cannot be pressed, nor will she be in a position to give effect to its provisions.
    Mr. MALONE: Will the hon. Gentle man take steps to prevent the Greeks from molesting the Bulgarians?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: I was not aware that they were molesting them.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Has this country any individual obligation to see that the Greeks carry out the Treaty?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CADETS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many naval cadets are now under training at the naval colleges at Dartmouth and Keyham and in the training cruisers; whether it is considered essential that this number should be trained for His Majesty's Navy; how many cadets were under training in March, 1914; and how many cadets is it proposed to enter during the present year and in 1923, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): 651 naval cadets are now under training at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth and in the training ships, as compared with a total of 1,034 under training in March, 1914. No cadets are now sent to Keyham. The present number of cadets under training, when account is taken of the reductions to be made in the present two senior terms at Dartmouth on passing out, is considered essential to meet requirements. The number of entries proposed to be made during 1922 is 164; the number for 1923 will not be fixed until later when requirements can be more clearly foreseen, but a slight increase will probably be found to be necessary.

    FISHERY PROTECTION VESSELS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many gunboats or other war vessels are employed in fishery protection duties; where they are employed; whether the waters of Iceland and the North Coast of Russia are ever visited by these vessels; and, if so, what was the date of the last of these visits, respectively?
    Mr. AMERY: Eleven sloops and trawlers are employed on fishery protection duties, the details of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. H.M.S. "Harebell" visited Icelandic waters from the 4th to the 12th August, 1921. No fishery protection vessel has visited Russian waters since the War. A vessel is in readiness to proceed to these waters, but orders have not yet been issued for her sailing.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that recently the fishermen have been treated with much harshness, and does this not show the advisability of sending these vessels much more frequently?
    Mr. AMERY: I will take that into consideration.
    Viscount CURZON: Do these vessels possess the extreme speed necessary to enable them to catch the craft with which they have to deal?
    Mr. AMERY: I must ask for notice of that question.
    The details referred to are as follow:

    H.M.S. "Harebell" (sloop), Senior Officer.

    H.M.S. "Godetia" (sloop), Local Fishery Naval Officer, North Sea, Lowestoft.

    H.M.S. "Exe" (trawler), Moray Firth, under Scottish Fishery Board.

    H.M.S. "Garry" (trawler), Grimsby.

    H.M.S. "Liffey" (trawler), Grimsby.

    H.M.S. "Kennet" (trawler), Lowestoft.

    H.M.S. "Dee" (trawler), Lowestoft.

    H.M.S. "Colne" (trawler), Falmouth.

    H.M.S. "Ettrick" (trawler), Falmouth.

    434

    H.M.S. "Doon" (trawler), West Coast of Ireland.

    H.M.S. "Cherwell" (trawler), Irish Channel.

    PETTY OFFICERS (CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT).
    Sir THOMAS BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any alteration has been made in the home dockyard Regulations concerning the employment of pensioner chief petty officers of the Royal Navy and colour-sergeants of the Royal Marines in a clerical capacity in certain dockyard offices; and whether it is anticipated that this Regulation will be affected by the recommendations of the Treasury Committee, presided over by Lord Lytton?
    Mr. AMERY: No alteration has been made in the Regulations concerning the employment, in a clerical capacity, in certain dockyard offices of pensioner chief petty officers of the Royal Navy and colour-sergeants of the Royal Marines. The question will, however, come under review in connection with the general reorganisation of Admiralty civil establishments.

    NAVAL DEPOTS (LICENSED BARS).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the giant of a fully licensed bar to chief and petty officers' messes in shore establishments, requested in Item 42 of the general requests of the 1919 welfare committee; and whether he will state if any objections exist to this request being acceded to, observing that non-commissioned officers of the Army and Royal Air Force are in possession of this privilege?
    Mr. AMERY: As the conditions at the naval depots differ widely from those obtaining in Army barracks, the Admiralty are of opinion that it is not desirable to sanction the establishment of fully licensed bars. It has, however, been decided to establish bars for the sale of-malt liquors only in chief petty officers' and petty officers' messes at the depots, and provision for these bars is being made as part of the scheme of improvements which is being proceeded with as rapidly as financial considerations admit.

    S.S. "O. B. JENNINGS" (SALVAGE AWARD).
    Sir T. BRAMSDONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when it is expected that the award made on the 17th May, 1920, for salvage of the s.s. "O. B. Jennings," Hull, between the 24th March and the 26th April, 1918, will be ready for payment?
    Mr. AMERY: This award is waiting the result of arbitration proceedings in the United States, and it is not yet known when they will be completed.

    OFFICERS' REDUCTION (COMPENSATION).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if any scheme of compensation for those officers who are to be put out of the Service, voluntarily or compulsorily, has been evolved; and when such scheme will be made public or communicated to the officers?
    Mr. AMERY: The whole matter is under consideration, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.
    Sir B. FALLE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest a date when he will be prepared to answer my question if I put it down again?
    Mr. AMERY: It depends on other Departments, but I intend to make a statement as soon as possible.

    1914–15 STAR.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the 1914–15 star has been refused to men who served during the War in His Majesty's repair ships; and, in view of the fact that ships like H.M.S. "Cyclops" were armed and able to fulfil all the requirements of a sea-going ship, he can see his way to reconsider the matter and grant to these men the star, and so remove what is regarded by them as a grievance?
    Mr. AMERY: The naval award of the 1914–15 star for service in His Majesty's ships is limited to service in those ships which actually went to sea, and as H.M.S. "Cyclops" had no sea service during the qualifying period, it has been definitely decided that members of her crew are ineligible for the star.

    RAILWAY FACILITIES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement that the railway companies have under consideration the question of the reintroduction of cheap facilities for officers and ratings of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines; and can he now say what reply the Admiralty have received to their representations to the railway companies in this matter?
    Mr. AMERY: In December last the railway companies were requested by the Army Council on behalf of the three Departments concerned to consider favourably the question of the reintroduction of cheap travelling facilities for officers and men of the Navy, Army, and Air Force. A reply has now been received from the railway clearing house to the effect that after careful consideration of the whole matter the railway companies regret that they cannot see their way to accede to this request.

    BIRCHINGS AND CANINGS.
    Mr. L. MALONEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of birchings inflicted during 1921 in the Royal Navy, the number of canings, and the maximum number of strokes now allowed for a birching sentence; if it is carried out in the presence of other persons; and whether naval cadets are subject to the same punishment?
    Mr. AMERY: The conditions and restrictions under which birching is now permitted in the Royal Navy were given in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 15th June last. The punishment was inflicted on three offenders only in 1921, by the ship's police of a naval establishment, in the presence of the executive officer and a medical officer only. The maximum number of strokes is 24. As regards caning, this punishment may be ordered summarily by the Captain, up to a maximum of 12 strokes, for certain serious offences by boy ratings. Caning is not carried out publicly. It is regretted it is not possible to say how often it was carried out in 1921. Caning (but not birching) is also an authorised punishment for naval cadets.

  HOUSING.

    ROSYTH DISTRICT.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what number of houses has been erected at Rosyth and district since the Armistice; whether any land has been feued during the past few months for building purposes; whether such land is to be utilised; and what was the cost and area of land recently acquired?
    Mr. PRATT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to reply to this question. The number of houses erected at Rosyth and district since the Armistice is 212, inclusive of 152 houses completed under contracts then running. Since 1920, negotiations have been in progress for the acquisition of 100 additional acres of land for houses. The transaction was virtually completed last year although the exact terms of feu have not been finally adjusted. Consequent upon the reduction of staff at Rosyth, the question of building further houses is being reconsidered, and meantime it is not possible to say to what use the land will be put.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this land amounting to 100 acres has been definitely leased or feued by the Government?
    Mr. PRATT: Yee, sir.

    SUBSIDISED HOUSES.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the total cost of houses finished to date erected by local authorities under the Government's housing scheme and eligible for State assistance in excess of the local penny rate; the total number of houses so erected; and the average cost of the same?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The actual total cost of the 91,864 houses which had been finished on 1st March cannot yet be stated as most of these houses are included in contracts which have not yet been completed. As I stated in the Debate last week, the average all-in cost is estimated at £1,100.
    Mr. THOMSON: How can the right hon. Gentleman give the figure if he has not got the actual cost of the 91,000?
    438
    How can he estimate the cost of 168,000, of which 50,000 are not yet built?
    Sir A. MOND: I gave the average all-in cost of the 91,000, making the best estimate we could that worked out at £1,100.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Minister of Health the number of houses, the builders of which have received grants from the State, built since the 1st January, 1919, or now under construction?
    Sir A. MOND: The Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, which authorised the grants to persons constructing houses in accordance with schemes made by the Minister, became law on the 23rd December, 1919. Houses commenced before that date are not eligible for the grant. Up to the present time grants have been paid in respect of 28,816 completed houses. According to the certificates received from local authorities, the number of houses commenced but not yet completed is 13,000.
    Major STEELasked the Minister of Health why it is that the housing subsidy for new houses has been discontinued as regards England and Wales, but has been retained in Scotland, and will be granted for new houses built in that country until the year 1924; and will he consider the continuance of the subsidy in the case of rural areas where it can be proved that there were exceptional difficulties in the preparation and advancement of housing schemes?
    Sir A. MOND: I have on numerous occasions given the quite definite assurance that where work is undertaken by local authorities in England and Wales with the approval of my Department, and for reasons outside the control of the authority, the work cannot be completed within the period fixed by the original Regulations, the time for completion will be extended as may be necessary.

    LOCAL LOANS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health the separate total amounts of money raised for housing purposes by local authorities by means of housing bonds, local loans stock, mortgage deeds, Public Works Loan Commissioners, and from other sources, to-

    439
    gether with the average rate of interest paid in each class of borrowing and the average periods for which the money has been borrowed without the option of a break, in each of the above cases?

    STATEMENT showing the approximate Capital Moneys borrowed for Housing purposes, the average Rate of Interest payable, and the Period for which the Money has been borrowed.

    Form of borrowing.

    Approximate not cash proceeds.

    Average effective rate of interest allowing for discount and expenses.

    Periods for which money has been borrowed without option of repayment.

    £

    £

    s.

    d.

    Local Housing Bonds

    20,000,000

    6

    5

    0

    Chiefly 5 years.

    Issue of Stock

    36,000,000

    6

    13

    6

    Chiefly 20 years.

    Mortgage Loans from Public Works Loans Commissioners.

    74,000,000

    6

    6

    6

    Full authorised period of the loan (from 20 to 80 years according to the nature of the work).

    Other Mortgage Loans

    22,000,000

    6

    5

    0

    It is estimated that £12,000,000 of the amount is for periods less than 10 years, the remainder for periods of 10 to 60 years.

    (Approx.)

    Total

    £152,000,000

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. LYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any suggestions that domestic servants should be placed under the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act; and whether, since there is no unemployment among domestic servants and the need for them is almost as great as ever, he will say what was the answer made to these representations?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Representations in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend have been made to me. On consideration I am not prepared to amend the existing law as suggested.

    FOUNDRY LABOURERS.
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Labour whether labourers in foundries who have lost their employment by reason of the engineering lock-out are not to receive unemployment benefit; if so, whether he is aware that, during the moulders' dispute, these labourers were refused benefit, but engineers who lost their employment in consequence of the moulders' dispute were paid benefit; and whether he will explain the reason why
    Sir A. MOND: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the particulars which the hon. Member desires.
    The following is the statement issued:
    engineers should have received the benefit in the one case and the labourers in foundries refused the benefit in the ether?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The rules in this respect are laid down by Section 8 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Broadly speaking, the following are disqualified for benefit:

    All men actually locked out, and

    All those working in the same Establishment (whether skilled or unskilled) who become unemployed on account of the lock-out.

    In the case of a foundry forming part of an engineering works, but carried on in a separate department from the engineering shop, the men employed in the foundry would not ordinarily be disqualified for benefit on account of a lock-out confined to the engineering shop. If any doubt arises as to the application of Section 8 (1) in any case, an appeal may be lodged to the Court of Referees, and, if necessary, to the Umpire, whose decision is final and conclusive.
    Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that very many people who are being locked out are being given their unemployment cards, which is

    441
    virtually an act of dismissal? How will he view that with regard to claims for unemployment benefit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That fact, of which I have no knowledge, would not affect the claim at all. It all depends on Section 8, Sub-section (1). The question can be raised, of course.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BLAINA.
    Mr. G. BARKERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists among the unemployed of Nantyglo and Blaina at the way they are dealt with at the Employment Exchange; that on Wednesdays and Fridays they have to stand in queues from one to two hours in the street, sometimes in pouring rain, waiting for their unemployment pay; that there is only one Exchange for Nantyglo and Blaina to deal with 3,000 men; and that this means that aged and destitute men have to make a journey of three miles to and from the Exchange twice every week; and whether, with a view to remedying these grievances, he will take steps to have the unemployed living at Nantyglo paid in that area so as to avoid the danger to health arising out of the present arrangements?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that there has been some congestion at the Blaina sub-office in the past, but this has now been remedied. My information is that none of these men live further than two miles away from the nearest office, and attendance is required only twice a week. In these circumstances I should not be justified in incurring the expense of another office.
    Mr. BARKER: When was the congestion removed? I have very recent information as to its existence.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say how recently the change has been made, but it has been remedied.

    WOMEN, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Labour the total number of women on the unemployment register for London at the present time, and what are the principal trades in which such women are registered; is he aware that there is great difficulty in obtaining female labour, either for indoor domestic service or for daily work in London; and can
    442
    he suggest to Employment Exchanges the desirability of pointing out to women unemployed the demands for such domestic labour?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of women registered as unemployed in the Metropolitan area at 13th March was 51,869, belonging principally to the hotel, restaurant, and boarding-house service, the clothing trades, and manufacture of food and drink. I am aware of the shortage of women domestic servants. It is a standing instruction to Exchange officers to direct the attention of unemployed women to the opportunities of work in domestic service, and large numbers have been placed in employment in this way. As a matter of fact, the number, of women placed in employment by the Exchanges during the last 12 months was 218,000, of whom 124,000 were placed in domestic service—residential and daily.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are women who are offered employment as domestic servants and refuse it allowed to draw the unemployment benefit?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is a matter for the local Committee whether they are competent to receive it, and in case of doubt it goes to the Board of Referees.
    Mr. MILLS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received many complaints from women such as accountants, typists and dressmakers, who object to domestic service as such, but are quite willing to accept work as ward maids and similar work, which is all lumped together under the title of domestic work, and therefore leads to much misapprehension?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say that I have. The point is a perfectly simple one. If a woman with children dependent on her asks for benefit her attention is drawn to vacancies which are posted in the office—I wish we had more of them—and if she refuses to take such a vacancy, then a question may arise and, if necessary, it is referred to the Board of Referees.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to grant a return showing the amounts spent by boards of guardians in relieving unemployed persons; and whether he is aware

    443
    that boards of guardians are anxious to furnish him with the necessary information for such a return?
    Sir A. MOND: I will give this matter careful consideration; perhaps the hon. Member will put down a further question at a later date.
    Mr. RENDALL: A fortnight hence.

    BUILDING TRADE (WAGES AND HOURS).
    Mr. MALONEasked the Minister of Labour, seeing that there is a dispute in progress in the building industry, that wages in this industry are already regulated under a sliding scale which varies with the cost of living, that the employers are demanding a super-cut, that in the matter of hours the employers propose that there shall be an extension to from 49 to 54 in summer, whether he will take steps to prevent this dispute from developing into a lock-out of the building employés?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am glad to say that the National Wages and Conditions Council for the Building Industry on the 17th March reached an agreement with regard to the alteration of wages and the question of working hours for the building industry.

    HEALTH INSURANCE ACTS.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Minister of Health whether any statistics exist showing the percentage of persons who, making payments under the Health Insurance Acts and registering with a panel doctor, yet never make any recourse to his services even in case of illness, but choose and pay another practitioner?
    Sir A. MOND: No statistics on this point are available, but there is nothing to indicate that the percentage of such persons is considerable.
    Mr. LYLE: In view of the unsatisfactory working of the Act and of the fact that patients do not desire to fill in the cards, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in an amending Bill?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not know what kind of amending Bill the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    MILK.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the pressing urgency of making better provision for securing a pure supply of milk for human consumption; and how soon will he be in a position to introduce legislation dealing with this question?
    Sir A. MOND: I fully appreciate the importance of securing purer milk, but it is in my judgment equally important to avoid action tending to decrease the production of milk and add to the price to the consumer. The matter continues to occupy my attention, but I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.
    Mr. HURD: Can we at least be assured that the Act of 1915, which is on the Statute Book, but it not yet in operation, will not be brought into force until certain amendments have been made in it?
    Sir A. MOND: I am considering now how to alter the Act of 1915.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: When bringing in legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the producer—the farmer—gets a fair return?
    Sir A. MOND: I should like him to do that.
    Mr. FORDasked the Minister of Health if it has been represented to him that the Regulation governing the production and sale of grade A and grade A (certified) milk, which requires receptacles to be labelled with the name of the farm of origin or the name of the farmer, act in restraint of sales of these high-grade milks, because buyers are thereby led to connect the purity of the milk with particular farms instead of with the Government Regulations under which these milks are produced, so that if for any reason the output of milk from any particular farm diminishes buyers refuse similar milk from some other farm when offered to them in lieu; and will he consider the advisability of amending the Regulations, so that the number of the Government licence shall be substituted

    445
    for the name of the farm or farmer, with a view to assuring the public in an unmistakable manner that their confidence may be placed impartially on any milk bearing the Government guarantee, and that they are not dependent on any particular farm?
    Sir A. MOND: Representations have been made to me on the point, and I will consider it in connection with amending milk legislation.
    Mr. A. HERBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the prices given to the producer of milk is to be 3d. to 4d. per gallon for the months of May and June; and whether he can give approximate information as to what the retail prices are likely to be to the consumer?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Frome Division of Somerset.

    ELECTORAL REFORM.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Health what is the substance of the Report on electoral reform he has prepared for submission to the Government?
    Sir A. MOND: I am much surprised that the hon. Baronet, who has been a distinguished member of the Indian Government, should press for the publication of a confidential Cabinet document.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman engage there shall be no tinkering with Proportional Representation?
    Sir A. MOND: I do not think that that arises out of the question.

    LUNACY ACT (CERTIFICATION).
    Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Section 49 of the Lunacy Act constitutes (in default of action by the commissioners or the medical superintendent) the sole safeguard against detention at the hands of an unjust petitioner, he will take steps to see that the intention of the above Section is not annulled by the substitution (in the case of a lady con-
    446
    fined for 13 years in Camberwell Asylum) of the names of two doctors nominated by the husband for the names of the two independent medical practitioners submitted in the application for her examination under the statute, with a view to her discharge?
    Sir A. MOND: On the general question I would refer to my answers of the 6th March and 13th February. In the particular case mentioned the Board of Control had two applications under Section 49 before them at the same time—one from persons who were not relatives and the other from the husband who asked to be allowed to send two specialists in mental diseases. There is no reason to think that the husband is not sincerely interested in the wife's welfare and the Board accordingly consented to his application.

    RATES, WILLESDEN (NONPAYMENT).
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the case of a man summoned at Willesden for non-payment of rates who pleaded inability, but who, it transpired, was buying his house through a building society and paying the instalments with Poor Law relief obtained from the guardians; and whether any steps will be taken to recover the ratepayers' money invested for his personal advantage?
    Sir A. MOND: I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of a Report which I have obtained in regard to this case. It will be seen from the Report that the statements which have been published about this case are quite inaccurate, and that accordingly the latter part of the question does not arise.

    DEATHS FROM PRIVATION (RETURNS).
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the request to the coroners from the Local Government Board always contained a caution that the Return should include only cases where the jury find that death was brought about by starva-

    447
    tion or privation due to destitution, or in which a death, primarily due to disease, was accelerated by lack of food, shelter, or medical attention arising from poverty, and that the Returns show that, in all the cases except about 5 per cent. of the whole, this principle was complied with; will he say how the inspectors can always obtain information that a death on which a jury has found such a verdict has taken place unless it is reported to them by the coroner; whether there are now a very large number of deaths from privation which do not appear on the lists; and whether he will reconsider the subject from a health point of view and maintain the lists, with the improvement that the coroners shall be asked to send in a Report after each inquest has been held, and that it be made clear that cases where a coroner sits without a jury shall be included?
    Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I cannot say in what percentage of of cases the instruction mentioned was complied with. The inspectors obtain their information from the Poor Law officers and the local Press, and I have no reason to suppose that any cases of deaths from privation upon which inquests are held escape the inspectors' notice. I will certainly consider whether the present system can be improved.

    MARRIED WOMEN (PRESUMPTION OF COERCION).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Attorney-General whether it is now proposed to take steps to repeal the law by which wives charged jointly with their husbands with certain criminal offences are presumed to have acted under the coercion of their husbands, and by which juries are compelled to find a verdict of not guilty?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): The question whether any, and if so what, alteration in the law is desirable deserves and will receive careful consideration. The Lord Chancellor proposes, after consultation with me, to set up a small but highly expert Committee to make a Report to him on the subject as a whole. The decision as
    448
    to whether any alteration should be made will not be taken until such a Report has been received.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' RETURNS (FEES).
    Mr. MYERSasked the Minister of Health whether any representation has been made to him in respect of the recommendation of the Geddes Committee relating to a suggested charge being made for registering the Returns of friendly societies; and what action he proposes to take in connection with the matter?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to the questions put by the hon. Member for West Houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Alfred Davies) on the 9th instant.

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS, UGANDA.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the Contagious Diseases Acts now operating in Uganda, which compel chiefs, none of whom has had a medical examination, to report to the authorities anyone of whom he has reasonable suspicion that he or she has venereal disease; is he aware that numbers of men and women are obliged by British Government officials, and native chiefs acting under their orders, to come up at intervals for a particular form of medical inspection, and that the Colonial Office induces white women, both doctors and nurses, to leave England, where Contagious Diseases Acts are not law, to carry out measures of a similar nature in a British Protectorate, and this without pointing out to them the element of compulsion in the work they are expected to do; and will he take steps to put an end to these objectionable practices?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): There is no analogy between the Contagious Diseases Acts formerly in force in this country, which were directed to the compulsory examination of prostitutes, and the

    449
    measures which have been in force in Uganda since 1913 for preserving a population ravaged by venereal disease. The questions whether the procedure in Uganda can be improved in detail, and whether special reference to prostitutes can be deleted from the legislation without relieving that class from the liability to examination which is considered essential in the case of the general population, will be referred to the Governor. But I am satisfied, as was Lord Harcourt in 1913, of the necessity of drastic action in dealing with the matter. The main legislation on the subject is a native law of the Kingdom of Buganda, passed by and at the instance of the native Government, and the administration of the law is a matter for the native chiefs and not for British officials, though the Government medical officers give their services in examining the suspected cases sent to them by the chiefs. Corresponding legislation exists to cover the case of those not subject to the native law. There has been no complaint from the medical staff as to the execution of these measures except from a woman doctor who was selected for employment in Uganda because of her special knowledge of venereal diseases. Her protest appears to be attributable in part to her conclusion, as a result of her five months' experience, that not more than 5 per cent. of the persons she examined were infected, a view which is not shared by medical men, official and missionary, of many years' standing. It is a fact that her attention had not been drawn before her selection to the special measures regarding venereal disease. They were communicated to her very shortly after her arrival, and it appears that she took part in many examinations before making any complaint. Care is now taken to bring these measures to the notice of any persons engaged primarily for the duty of carrying them into effect.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is that woman doctor now in the employ of the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will ask.

  IRELAND.

    PRISONERS' BELEASE, GREAT BRITAIN.
    Colonel Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the order issued by him for the
    450
    release of the prisoners convicted of shooting, arson, and other offences committed in Great Britain, and who were sentenced and confined in Great Britain, on the plea that these offences were committed from Irish political motives, were issued on his own individual initiative?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question addressed to me on the 13th February last by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne), in which I made it clear that the advice tendered to His Majesty on the occasion referred to was tendered as the result of a Cabinet decision.
    Sir C. YATE: What have offences committed in England to do with rebellion in Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We went into all that, and I pointed out that the Irish Government accept responsibility for the damage done in England, which will be included in the bill which is due from them.

    REPRISALS (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that many Sinn Feiners in the South of Ireland, their houses having been destroyed as reprisals, received charitable contributions from the White Cross or similar funds; that these contributions were augmented by compulsory levies from the neighbouring loyalist population; that the houses were in many instances rebuilt on a better scale than before their destruction; and that, in spite of these facts, full claims are being put in for the complete rebuilding of these houses; and is he prepared to disallow such claims?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no information regarding the matters mentioned in the first four parts of the question. In reply to the last part, as I informed the House in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates on February 24th, a Commission will shortly be set up with power to hear all outstanding claims with respect to damage to property arising between 21st January, 1919, and 11th July last, and to revise all existing decrees with respect to such damage. The matters referred to by the hon. and

    451
    gallant Member are obviously germane to the Commission's inquiry, and will, I have no doubt, be taken into consideration by them.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with facts, will he take the necessary steps?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Commission will be appointed in a few days, and it is the business of the Commission to go into this matter, which is entirely a relevant matter for them.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: How is the Commission to obtain unintimidated evidence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot think of any novel departure.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: How will the Commission protect witnesses who give evidence?

    DERBY PRISONERS (RELEASE).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as representing the Crown, has no Constitutional right to release before trial prisoners who are in custody; whether, in releasing the Derry prisoners, the Lord Lieutenant acted on the advice of British Ministers; and whether, before giving such advice, the British Ministers consulted the Law Officers of the Crown in England?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 20th instant, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland gave directions that these prisoners were not to be prosecuted. That statement was correct. I regret, however, to find that, in reply to a supplementary question by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) I inadvertently gave the House an erroneous impression in regard to the grounds of the Attorney-General's action in the matter. I said that he had taken his decision on a calculation of the evidence and on general grounds. I understand that, in fact, the course taken by the Northern Attorney-General was the result of a decision for which the Northern Government, as a whole, was responsible, and was prompted by a desire to ease a difficult situation. It has frequently been
    452
    the practice in Ireland, in cases where the Attorney-General has decided not to proceed further with the case against the prisoner awaiting trial, for the Lord Lieutenant to release the prisoner, and it was in accordance with this precedent that the Lord Lieutenant acted on the present occasion. In the communication from Sir James Craig, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on the 20th instant, he expressly left the responsibility for further action in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, and, in placing the facts before the Lord Lieutenant, after receipt of that communication, I advised him that it was within his power and would be in accordance with practice to act as he did.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any recent instance of the Royal Prerogative being exercised in the case of men who are awaiting trial?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that there is.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not obvious that these men were released owing to presure brought to bear by His Majesty's Government upon the Government of Northern Ireland, and that they were released against the judgment of that Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In all this difficult business it is quite true that the action of His Majesty's Government, as far as it can be effective, is directed towards endeavouring to calm and quiet down passions which are, unhappily, aroused between these two sections of Irishmen. If everyone acted in the same spirit, things would be very much brighter than they are now.

    CONSTABULARY BARRACKS, MARYBOROUGH (THEFTS).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the officials of the Provisional Government who looted the boxes and kit-bags containing the personal property of a convoy of the Royal Irish Constabulary en route from Cork to Gormanston camp, while halted for the night of 25th February at barracks at Maryborough, recently taken over by the forces of the Provisional Government have been arrested and punished; whether the per-

    453
    sonal property stolen from the men has been recovered and returned to them; and, if not, whether compensation has been paid by the Provisional Government to policemen, many of whom have lost the whole of their personal belongings while resting for the night in barracks under the control and in the occupation of the Provisional Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed by the Provisional Government that their inquiry into this matter is still proceeding, but that they are satisfied as a result of the investigations already made that these thefts were committed by some persons not members of the garrison, and that no members of the garrison were implicated. A thorough search has been made for the missing property, and some of it has already been recovered and restored to the police. It is hoped that the remainder will shortly be recovered and restored, and that the thieves will be traced and brought to justice.

    BORDER RAIDS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the. Colonies whether he is in a position to give any further information to the House as to the situation on the border between Northern and Southern Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I received a telegram yesterday from the Northern Government. It reached me after question time, and as I read a summary of the statement which I had received before that time from the Government of Southern Ireland I think that I ought to summarise this statement also. From the statement received from Sir James Craig I gather that a Crossley tender with armed I.R.A. men which had come from Donegal was found inside the Derry border on the 36th instant. About the same time 20 rifles and 3,000 rounds of ammunition were captured on members of the I.R.A. in the same locality. Pomeroy Royal Irish Constabulary barracks in the County Tyrone were raided on the 19th instant by about 20 men who commandeered a motor-car in the district in the name of the I.R.A. Maghera barracks in the County Derry were raided on the 19th inst by about 30 men while wires, bridges, and roads were cut by members of the I.R.A. The view of the Northern Government is that these raids
    454
    were organised from Southern Ireland, the local members of the I.R.A. may have taken part in them. Sir James Craig adds that four members of the B special constabulary have been murdered and their homes have been burned within the last few days. Firing is opened constantly on special constables and civilians from the Southern side of the border, but in no case has that firing been replied to. The Government have ordered the destruction of bridges in certain cases to prevent incursions from Southern Ireland into Northern Ireland. The Senior Officer of the Northern B order Commission reports that the situation around Caledon is tense and he fears trouble unless the Provisional Government appoint someone with sufficient authority to restrain insubordinate elements from the Southern Irish border.
    I transmitted that part of the telegram which I got to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, and I received a communication from them, which I will also summarise to the House. The Provisional Government say, with reference to the Crossley tender, that it was seized about 100 yards inside the County Derry border. They are informed that the rifles and ammunition which were discovered near Limavady barracks were about 12 or 15 miles away, and that there was no connection between the Crossley tender which strayed across the border—the boundary is a very tortuous boundary—and the capture of these rifles 15 miles away. They further say that there is no connection between these two episodes and the raids in Maghera and Pomeroy. These places are respectively about 25 and 12 miles from the County Derry boundary. These raids were entirely planned and carried out by people resident in Tyrone and Derry with the desire—so it is alleged—to get some protection for themselves against the terror from which they allege they are suffering.
    If I give one side I must give the other. I am summarising, but not bringing in needlessly provocative statements on the one side or the other. It is said by the South that it is incorrect to state that fire is opened constantly from the South side of the border, and that the very reverse is the fact. There is a tense situation in Caledon due to firing into Monaghan. The Catholic families in the Caledon district have received threaten-

    455
    ing notices, and have had to fly to Monaghan for protection. Directly they have gone their houses were burned. I am giving the two sides, and take no responsibility for the statements one way or the other, but I do take responsibility for nakedly disclosing the facts of a detestable situation. The Provisional Government add that some of their people have been wounded.
    They also say that the blowing up of the bridges is indefensible and unnecessary, and some of these are County Monaghan property, and they hold those responsible accountable for the loss. They finish by offering that the British Liaison Commissioner should examine the whole position and report. I have received two other telegrams, one from the North and one from the South, which in similar strain make violent accusations and counter-accusations. No doubt the whole situation on the boundary is very lamentable and disquieting. I can only say that I trust that everyone who has any influence will use it in the direction of quietening the situation. It appears to me that the whole question of the measures to be taken to control the border must be reviewed at a very early date by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: There are two questions I wish to ask. I did not gather whether the right hon. Gentleman said that the Provisional Government give any reason for their statement that the raids at Maghera and Pomeroy were carried out by men inside the Northern boundary. I would be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any information confirming that statement.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I said yesterday that General Macready was of opinion that these raids had not originated from across the border. I suppose, no doubt, he meant that parties had not got into motor cars and gone across to carry out the raids. As to whether individuals have percolated through at earlier stages and had joined with local elements to cause the raids, I cannot say, but I do not believe that was the case, and my information is entirely contrary to the view that definite military raids have been perpetrated from the Southern side of the border into the Northern part within the last few days. May I say that
    456
    there is nothing more important in the whole situation than that a meeting should take place between the heads of the Northern and Southern Governments. Such a meeting is definitely asked for by the leaders of the Southern Government, and considering the way things are going from bad to worse on this frontier a very great responsibility is assumed by everyone who puts obstacles in the way of such a meeting.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Having regard to the fact that this state of affairs, which the right hon. Gentleman describes, is mainly owing to the boundary question which the Government have raised, will the Government take any steps to expedite a decision on that question, because until it is finished, there can be no end to this state of affairs?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A very good position was reached a few months ago, when an agreement was signed between Sir James Craig and Mr. Michael Collins. Unhappily, events occurred which led to a partial breakdown of that agreement, but the interest of all concerned in this matter is to review that discussion with the intention of bringing to an end a state of affairs which is disgraceful in the highest degree to Ireland and to all connected with it.
    Mr. GWYNNE: In view of the delicacy of these negotiations, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of going over there himself?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be delighted.
    Mr. McNEILL: In the event of no other meeting taking place, such as the right hon. Gentleman desires, will the Government expedite the decision on this question, which they have hung up for months and which is causing the present situation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government would in no circumstances depart from the Treaty. Convenient or inconvenient we shall adhere to that. Whatever else breaks down that must not.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Docs the right hon. Gentleman realise that a state of civil war now exists in Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not consider that it is as bad as that. There is a great deal of tension, but not many lives have

    457
    been lost in the last few weeks, and the greater part of the loss has taken place in the slums of Belfast.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arising out of the last statement of the original answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask whether, now that the Treaty has been signed and when the Bill is through both Houses, His Majesty's Government is still to be responsible for law and order in Southern Ireland?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. When the present Bill establishing the Irish Free State has been passed, the Northern Government will be responsible, as at present, for what takes place in Northern Ireland, subject to certain qualifications which it would take too long to describe now, and the Southern Government will be entirely responsible for Southern Ireland. The kind of action I had in mind was that the Government might have to consider whether it would not be possible to draw some cordon of Imperial troops between these warring factions in the same way as has been done recently with such success in Silesia.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that when the Bill has been passed by Parliament and the Southern Government is in power, we have any power to set a cordon of troops between the two countries?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly. The frontiers of Ulster, under the 1920 Act, are as much our responsibility as the boundaries of Kent.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: If that is so, why did the right hon. Gentleman give it away in the Bill now before the other House?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I would ask whether, with a view to decreasing or shortening the period of tension, the Government cannot, in agreement with the Southern Government, arrange to hold the Boundary Commission within a month after the passing of the present Bill, which ho told us originally was the desire of the Southern Government?
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the highest legal authorities in the land have held that that Boundary Commission is "off" according to the interpretation of the Treaty after the passing of the Bill?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting now a long way from the original question.

    BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY (LAND GRANTS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British South Africa Company has disposed of 2,298,000 acres of land in Southern Rhodesia, for which no payment has yet been received; whether the inquiries promised on 28th June of last year included the value of such lands; and if he can now state the value, and also what steps will be taken to recover either the value or the ownership of the land?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The figure referred to represents approximately the area which at the 31st March, 1918, had been granted by the company under permit of occupation, and the purchase price of which had not yet been paid at that date. Receipts from land held under permit of occupation are credited to land sales account as and when they accrue, and all such receipts since 31st March, 1918, have been so credited. As regards the estimated value of the outstanding revenue on account of land sales, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Spoor) on the 28th June last.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether the inquiries promised on the 28th June included the value of such lands?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the question and answer of the 28th June, he will find that that point is covered.

    GERMAN IRISH SOCIETY.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to recent reports in the Press as to the activities in Berlin of the German Irish Society, and the openly expressed policy of Count Reventlow to organise disruptive propaganda in India, Egypt, and Palestine; and whether representations have been made to the German Government that such warlike declara-

    459
    tions are of an unfriendly character and, if persisted in, call for stern diplomatic action?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir. I have no information of the nature suggested.

    RIVER MERSEY BANKS.
    Major HAMILTONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the question of the repairs to the Mersey banks was taken up with his predecessor and with the Minister of Health as long ago as early in 1920; whether he realises that the condition that the work must be completed by the 1st June will prevent any action being now taken; why this condition has been put into the agreement; whether he will use his influence to have it immediately removed, in view of the fact that it is impossible for any contractor to say when the work can be started on or how long it will take, as it is entirely dependent upon the river being low for some weeks on end; is he aware that the cost of the repairs will now be more than double what it would have been if action had been taken in the summer of 1920; and can he say who was responsible for this delay?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, Sir, and as I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his earlier question, there was no effective means of dealing with the case at that time under the Land Drainage Acts. Moreover, no public funds were available to deal with the situation, until the present unemployment drainage schemes were instituted. The extension of the time limit laid down by His Majesty's Government in the case of any individual scheme would raise difficult questions of policy with regard to unemployment, but I will consider the question further in consultation with the other Departments concerned, and will communicate the result to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

    PACIFIC TREATY (SIR A. GEDDES' SPEECH).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by His
    460
    Majesty's Ambassador in America in California, which has given rise to a charge of interference in American politics in order to assist the passing of the Pacific Four-Power Treaty; and whether he will make it clear that His Majesty's Government have no desire whatever to influence the American Government or people in a matter which, now that the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is at an end, does not greatly concern this country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): I have noticed in the Press a reference to a speech alleged to have been made by the Ambassador, but I have also seen a statement that Sir Auckland Geddes has categorically denied that he used the words attributed to him. I should have thought that no statement of mine was necessary to make it clear to the United States Government that His Majesty's Government have no desire to interfere in the internal politics of the United States of America.

    MR. MONTAGU'S RESIGNATION.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the rule or usage still holds good which requires a Minister of the Crown on resigning office to obtain the sanction of the Sovereign before making any statement involving a reference to proceedings in the Cabinet; whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire obtained such sanction before making his recent speech at Cambridge; and, if so, whether he obtained permission to make his statement elsewhere than in Parliament?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, Sir. His Majesty's permission is required before an outgoing Minister can state the reasons for his resignation, and the usual course is to ask the Prime Minister to obtain that permission. This course was followed by my right hon. Friend before the publication of his letter in which, rather than by a statement in this House, he preferred to give the reasons for his resignation.
    Mr. McNEILL: Was permission given to make the statement outside the House of Commons, and, if so, is there any precedent for that?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know that permission has ever been sought as to the place in which the statement is to be made. I saw my right hon. Friend late on Thursday and he informed me he was anxious for the publication of the letter which passed between himself and the Prime Minister, because that would give the reasons for his resignation and dispense him from making a statement in this House.

    ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a special Committee, or Commission, to investigate into and report upon the State trading monopoly carried on by the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes against which protests have been made by chambers of commerce and trade throughout the country; and whether, if such Committee or Commission is set up, he will include in it an adequate representation of trading and commercial interests in the country with an independent chairman?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): I have been asked to answer this question. I can add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 21st ultimo to my hon. Friend the Member for South Wilts.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to proceed with the projected Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, market, and store at Tidworth?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I understand that the board of management has erected a central store at Tidworth, but has no intention of opening a market there.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for War how much money has been advanced for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes from the ex-service men's fund?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No money has been advanced for the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes from any ex-service men's fund. If, as I presume, my Noble Friend refers to the
    462
    working capital of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, I would refer him to the reply which I gave on the 13th February to my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen and the Drake Division of Plymouth.
    Viscount WOLMER: Cannot my right hon. Friend tell the House the amount that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have borrowed from this source in order to finance themselves?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have already told the hon. Member that the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have not borrowed any money from ex-service men's funds, and I have referred him to an answer which shows exactly how they are financed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is the object of these institutes?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member surely knows that the Navy, Army and Air Force derive great benefit from these institutes.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these institutes sell ladies' underclothing and grand pianos?

    GENOA CONFERENCE.
    Sir W. JOYNSON HICKSasked the Lord Privy Seal upon what grounds the International Labour Conference has offered to attend the Economic Conference at Genoa; and whether it is open to any other conference or body to claim attendance at Genoa and by whom invitations are or will be sent out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation resolved at its meeting in January last to place at the disposal of the Genoa Conference such information as it possessed as to labour and economic conditions in Europe, and also appointed a deputation of six of its members (two Government representatives, two employers' and two workers' representatives) and the Director of the Office to attend the Conference, it invited to do so. Invitations are issued by the Italian Government and the acceptance or not of the offer of the International Labour Organisation will presumably rest with them.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Have the Government any information as to whether the Italian Government intend to ask this self-appointed delegation to join the Conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have no information on that subject. I must not be taken as accepting the implication, which seems to underlie the question, that the International Labour Organisation at Geneva can be classed with any voluntary body which might think it could add to the counsels of the nation by being present.
    Mr. G. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the International Labour Office has decided to make an inquiry of its own and that, in order to avoid implications, this offer was made to the Genoa authorities?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Does it rest entirely with the Italian Government to say who is or who is not to be present at the Conference?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there any limit at all to the sphere of action of the International Labour Conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not prepared to define the functions or sphere of activity of the International Labour Organisation without notice of the question. I have been asked about an international gathering for which I have not the direct Ministerial responsibility which attaches to a home Department or to a meeting summoned by our own Government, and I cannot say what will be the procedure here. The Italian Government has, of course, acted on the invitation of the Supreme Council at Cannes. Whether the ultimate determination as to the invitations will rest with the Italian Government, or with the Supreme Council, or with the Conference, I am really not in a position to say.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, having regard to the fact that America is not sending representatives to Genoa, and that the French Prime Minister, apparently, will be unable to attend, the Cabinet will reconsider the question of
    464
    the attendance of the Prime Minister of Great Britain while his presence is so urgently needed in this country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. It was agreed at the meeting of the Supreme Council at Cannes that the Prime Ministers of every nation should, if possible, attend the Genoa Conference in person, and His Majesty's Government intend to act in conformity with that agreement.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does not my right hon. Friend think that as so many others are not going, our valuable Premier might be more usefully employed here?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I need not say no one has greater reason to desire the continued presence of the Prime Minister in this country than the unfortunate individual who has to act as his deputy when he is absent, but at the same time this is a matter of such consequence, and the part which the Prime Minister has played, and the influence he yields, at these Councils is so great, that it would be a misfortunate not for us alone if he were prevented from going.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did the French Prime Minister indicate to our Prime Minister at their recent Conference at Boulogne that he would not be able to attend the Genoa Conference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of a question of that kind.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the Prime Minister's great influence going to be used in the direction of recognizing the Bolshevist Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will postpone his inquiries on that subject till the Debate which the Government will initiate on Monday week.
    Sir C. YATE: Can we have any information before that date as to what is to be the policy at Genoa?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I think the Debate is the proper occasion to give the information.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his intention to give notice of a vote of confidence in the Government before the Genoa Conference?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull.
    Mr. HOGGE: This is a different question. The question is whether there will be notice of a Vote of Confidence in the Government before the Genoa Conference and not about the Genoa Conference.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I see no occasion for it.
    Mr. HOGGE: On this occasion will the Prime Minister himself move this Vote of Confidence in himself?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is very characteristic of the form in which the hon. Gentleman chooses to put his questions. I reply to it simply. We have not yet decided whether my right hon. Friend will himself move the Resolution or whether one of his colleagues will move it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will this be a Resolution approving the policy to be pursued at Genoa or approving the policy of holding a conference at all, or simply confidence in the Government?

    EAST AFRICA (PRO-INDIAN AGITATORS).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. C. F. Andrews, one of the pro-Indian agitators in East Africa, is reported to have been recently consulting Mr. Gandhi and obtaining his advice upon the East African situation; whether he will give instructions that methods of agitation of this nature shall not be permitted in East Africa; and whether he will refuse permission to land to those persons trying to introduce them?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received no information of communications between the Reverend C. F. Andrews and Mr. Gandhi of the kind referred to by the hon. Baronet. If he can furnish me with evidence of the organisation of agitation in East Africa by persons outside I shall give careful consideration to it.
    Sir C. YATE: Is it the case that our difficulties in East Africa are caused by the Gandhi agitation in India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, but I suppose they have been accentuated by it.
    Sir C. YATE: Will the agitators be treated there the same as Gandhi has been treated in India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the authorities on the spot have taken the necessary action.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to compare the Indian agitation for equal rights in Kenya with the agitation of the non-co-operative movement in India?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There would certainly be no excuse for the hon. and gallant Gentleman understanding me to do that. Nothing in the words which have fallen from my lips justifies that. It is a total misapprehension of the facts.

    BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. FORDasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the alleged discovery by the Pasteur. Institute, of Lille, of a vaccine for conferring immunity from tuberculosis on bovine animals; and, in view of the fact that the Pasteur Institute is so largely supported by the French Government as to be almost an official Department, will he consider the advisability of requesting his colleague at the Foreign Office to institute suitable inquiries of the French Government with a view of enabling the treatment to be introduced into this country as soon as possible?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand, however, that the investigation is still in an experimental stage, and the action suggested by my hon. Friend would be premature at the moment. The progress of the investigation is, however, being carefully watched by the Ministry.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (WAGES AND HOURS).
    Mr. HALLSasked the Minister of Agriculture how many agreements have been arrived at concerning wages and hours of agricultural labourers under

    467
    the new scheme of conciliation; and in how many cases the farmers' side have agreed to the same being registered?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The number of areas in England and Wales in which the agricultural conciliation committees have made agreements is 50, and in five areas agreements have been submitted to me for confirmation. The number of agreements in operation at present is 44, of which three are confirmed agreements.
    Mr. HALLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the last few weeks in Lancashire hundreds of labourers have been locked out for refusing to accept the 54 hours' week, and does he not see that if he had continued the Wages Board he would have prevented the possibility of that happening?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

    BROOMHILL COLLIERY.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the Broom-hill Colliery owners, after having made an arrangement with the owner of the land on one side of the river Coquet to pump water for colliery purposes out of that river, are threatened with an injunction by the landlord on the other side of the Coquet; and can he take any steps to enable this coal company to get such water from the river, seeing that 1,700 yards of 6-inch main have been laid down for that purpose at a cost of £2,000?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I am aware of the circumstances and I am in communication with the landowner in question, but I have no powers under the existing law to compel him to waive any legal rights, even if it is found that the exercise of them militates against the efficient production of coal.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is it a fact that this landlord refused to grant leave to the Broomhill Coal Company to take water from the river Coquet, and is it a fact that he, as a coalowner, took water from the river Wansbeck for his own Ashington pits?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I understand that he has refused the application referred to
    468
    in the question. Apparently the work was done before his permission was asked for. I do not quite know what steps are being taken now, but I have been in communication with him and at present he maintains his objection.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Can the Minister blame the miners for decreasing output here when it is the landlord who is doing it?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I never thought of blaming the miners. I do not know whether anything else can be done. I should be very glad if I could do anything.
    Mr. SPENCER: Can the hon. Gentleman make representations to the Government to give statutory powers to compel a landowner who refuses to give permission to carry out an act of this description as early as possible?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not a question for me to decide.

    LETTERS (SUNDAY COLLECTION).
    Captain HOTCHKINasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the interests of the business community and the public as a whole, it would be possible to shortly re-establish a Sunday collection of letters?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Kellaway): As I stated in reply to previous questions on this subject, I am not yet in a position to make an announcement as to the resumption of Sunday collections of letters, but I shall do so as soon as a decision is arrived at by the Government.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORTS, UNITED KINGDOM.
    Colonel GRETTONasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the United Kingdom exports of manufactured goods to Russia, Germany, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, and Canada in the year 1913, and the purchases per head of the population of those countries of such manufactured goods?
    Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The answer involves a statistical table, which, with the permission of the House, I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the table:
    The following statement shows the total value of articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured which were exported from the United Kingdom to the undermentioned countries in 1913, and the estimated value per head of the population in each country:

    Country.

    Total Value.

    Estimated Value per head of population.

    £

    £

    s.

    d.

    Russia (including Finland).

    10,255,028

    0

    1

    2

    Germany

    26,887,653

    0

    8

    0

    United States

    23,071,391

    0

    4

    9

    Commonwealth of Australia.

    31,301,204

    6

    10

    4

    Dominion of New Zealand.

    9,617,361

    9

    0

    0

    Union of South Africa.

    19,650,161

    3

    2

    9

    Dominion of Canada.

    20,031,002

    2

    13

    2

    FOREIGN EGGS.
    Major COLFOXasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to eggs from foreign countries being allowed into Great Britain without being marked, large proportions of these eggs are mixed with new-laid British eggs and sold as such, thus perpetrating a gross fraud on the consuming public; and whether he will be prepared, under the Merchandise Marks Act, to take steps to make it compulsory for all eggs imported into this country to be stamped with indelible ink with the name of the country of origin?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any definite evidence that foreign eggs are, in fact, being sold as new-laid British eggs, I should be glad if he would submit it to me. As regards the second part of the question, the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, does not confer on His Majesty's Government any power such as he suggests, but I would refer him to the answer which I gave on 7th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke.
    Major COLFOXasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dried eggs, which are brought from China without any guarantee as to the conditions in respect to sanitation under which they are produced, are being advertised in such a manner as to suggest that these are of home production, thus misleading consumers; and whether he is prepared to take such steps as may be necessary in order to compel the vendors to state upon the carton in which these dried eggs are sold the name of the country of origin, as provided by the Merchandise Marks Act?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My attention has been drawn to the importation of these dried eggs from China, and to their sale in this country. My hon. and gallant Friend is, however, mistaken in his assumption that His Majesty's Government can take any such steps under the Merchandise Marks Act as he suggests in the second part of his question.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chinese think the egg is much better if it is five or six years old?

    EDUCATION (SECOND CLASS DEGREES).
    Mr. MYERSasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in respect of paragraph 3 of Circular 1,253 recently issued to local authorities upon the question of the recognition of second-class degrees, he will regard the refusal to recognise any such degree of modern universities and the recognition of all second-class degrees of Oxford and Cambridge a case in which no attempt has been made to discover the relevant circumstances; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take in order to ensure that local authorities and governing bodies adopt the proper interpretation of the honours clause in these cases?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The question which the Board have to consider is whether an excessively liberal use is being made by local education authorities of their discretion to make extra payments in respect of good honours degrees below those of the first

    471
    class, that is whether they can recognise for the calculation of grant the expenditure involved by such payments. The Board are not in a position to press local education authorities to make payments which they do not desire to make or penalise them if they do not make them. The Board have not committed themselves to the permanent recognition for grant of additional payments made to all holders of Oxford and Cambridge second-class degrees without discrimination, but as regards the financial year 1921–22 I do not think that occasion for reduction of grant arises in the circumstances stated.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DESERTERS.
    Major COHENasked the Secretary of State for War whether there are still cases of desertion from the Army of men who were serving on duration-of-war attestations; and, if so, how such men are dealt with when they surrender themselves or bring their whereabouts to notice?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There are still some men unaccounted for who were serving on duration-of-war attestations. These men are not necessarily in a state of desertion, but they cannot be traced. Therefore, they have not been discharged from the Army. When such men surrender themselves or bring their whereabouts to notice as being in a state of desertion, their cases are immediately investigated and dealt with on their merits. The soldier is not withdrawn from his civil occupation except in abnormal circumstances sufficiently serious to necessitate trial by court martial. The usual procedure if the man voluntarily signs a confession of desertion is to dispense with his trial and carry out his discharge, which is done without the man leaving his civil occupation. It is only where there have been previous offences of desertion, or other serious offences, that any departure is made from the normal custom. Extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration in dealing with all cases. If the facts show that a man was irregularly released instead of being demobilised, then the only formality necessary is to effect his discharge forth-
    472
    with. Men, therefore, who have not been released from their duration-of-war attestations by the issue of proper discharge or demobilisation papers should communicate by letter with the officer i/c records of the unit with which they served, giving their regimental numbers, names and particulars of service, in order that their cases may be dealt with in the manner described.

    BACON (PURCHASES).
    Major COHENasked the Secretary of State for War if, seeing that as from the 1st September, 1921, down to the present date every man is compelled to purchase ¾ lb. of bacon weekly out of his ration money, and that officers commanding have been instructed that under no conditions may this bacon be purchased except from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, he will state the approximate monthly tonnage and value represented by this compulsory purchase from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on the 14th instant to the hon. Member for Portsmouth Central.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Is not this compulsory purchase of bacon an obvious breach of the Truck Act?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think not.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Why not? Are not they compelled to purchase at a certain price? Is not that a breach of the Truck Act? Perhaps the Attorney-General will reply?

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (DISMISSALS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many ex-service men, how many non-service men, and how many women have been discharged from Government Departments during the month of February?
    Mr. YOUNG: Information is, I regret, not available showing the actual number of employés discharged from Government Departments during the month of February. The net reduction in the

    473
    number of persons employed in the three categories during the period in question was as follows:
    Permanent and temporary staff together.
    Ex-service men, 435, or 0·3 per cent. of the number of ex-service men employed.
    Non-service men, 792, or 0·7 per cent. of the number of non-service men employed.
    Women, 1,577, or 1·7 per cent. of the number of women employed.
    Temporary staff alone.
    Ex-service men, 1,116, or 2·2 per cent. of the number of ex-service men temporarily employed.
    Non-service men, 370, or 6·8 per cent. of the number of non-service men temporarily employed.
    Women, 1,736, or 5·4 per cent. of the number of women temporarily employed.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    CLERICAL CLASS APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. RAPERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will waive the proposed examination in July next for the clerical class (male) and make appointments by a central board under the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, in order to obtain the best class of temporary clerk for permanent appointments, the majority of temporary clerks (ex-service) having given efficient service as such for over two years?
    Mr. YOUNG: The Lytton Committee in their third Interim Report recommended the holding of a further limited competition for the clerical class, open to ex-service men temporarily employed in Government Departments. I regret that I am unable to agree to the proposal in the latter part of the question.
    Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that within the last 12 months a number of appointments have been made under that old Order in Council?
    Mr. YOUNG: For a certain period they were made, but the time has now come according to the recommendations, or it will have come at some future time, for a further examination limited as I have described.

    TUBE RAILWAYS, LONDON (TREASURY GUARANTEE).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state what are the terms of the agreement entered into with the London Underground Railway Company for the extension and improvement of the tube railways in London and district; whether it means a capital payment to the company or the guarante only of the interest on certain loans; and can ho state what is the total financial responsibility involved to the Government?
    Mr. YOUNG: The agreement between the Treasury and the London Underground Railway Company is not yet finally completed, and full details cannot therefore yet be published. In substance and subject to various conditions, the Treasury guarantees principal and interest of issues of debentures to be made by the London Electric Railway Company and the City and South London Railway Company up to a combined total amount of £5,000,000. There is no question of a capital advance by His Majesty's Government, which would be outside the terms of the Trade Facilities Act.
    Mr. GILBERT: Is it the intention of the Underground Railway Company to provide a sinking fund in order to pay off the capital?
    Mr. YOUNG: That is the sort of thing about which I am not to-day able to make any detailed statement.

    PUBLIC TRUSTEE.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the remarks recently made by Mr. Justice McCardie on the tardy and extravagant administration of an estate by the Public Trustee, the cost having amounted to nearly 50 per cent. of its total value; and whether it is proposed to make any inquiry into the working of the Department?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I have been asked to reply. As to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Belper on the 16th instant. I am unaware that Mr. Justice McCardie made any such suggestion. If he had

    475
    done so it would have been wholly unfounded. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The administration of the Department has been inquired into very recently by a Committee presided over by Sir George Murray, and comprising eminent members of the business world.
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Did that Committee consider that economies had not been effected and were very necessary?
    Sir E. POLLOCK: I have no doubt that the Department at present is conducted on the most economical basis. The figures which I have already given will show that a great deal of misconception has arisen as to the report.

    INDIAN PRESS ACTS.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, before the Bill for the repeal of the Indian Press Acts, the assent to the introduction of which has already been given, is finally sanctioned, he will consider the inadvisability of permitting any weakening of the powers of the Government in this respect?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I gather that by "finally sanctioned" my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the possibility of disallowing the Act, under Section 69 of the Government of India Act, after it is passed. My Noble Friend will, of course, when that time arrives, give full consideration to all the circumstances, and to the terms of the Measure as passed in deciding what course he should adopt.
    Sir C. YATE: In view of the vilification of the Government of India that, hitherto has been permitted in the Indian Press, will the Noble Lord see that the Government of India and its servants, both British and Indian, have full powers to suppress it?
    Earl WINTERTON: This Bill has not yet passed through its penultimate stage in the Indian Assembly. Obviously it would be improper to make any comment on the action that the Indian Government may take after the Bill has passed.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the Noble Lord aware that those whose duty it has been to watch the Indian Press think that a retention of these powers is very necessary, and will he make representations to that effect?
    Earl WINTERTON: I will make no representations which—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir John Hope.

    TRAMWAY TRACTION, EDINBURGH.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, in the event of the Edinburgh Town Council deciding to erect span wires for electric tramcars in Princess Street, he would consider the proposed inquiry by his Department unnecessary?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): As I stated on Monday, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Kincardine and Western Division, the consent and approval of the Minister of Transport to the use of any system of mechanical power on the tramways is a statutory requirement. Having regard to the acute local differences of opinion, I think the inquiry should proceed in any event.
    Sir J. HOPE: Has the Ministry of Transport power to interfere with the erection of centre poles?
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the objection is considerably greater?
    Mr. NEAL: The whole matter, I think, should be inquired into.

    VEHICLES (REAR LIGHTS).
    Captain HOTCHKINasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the interests of the public and the greater safety of all users of the roads, he can see his way to promote legislation to make it compulsory for all vehicles to carry a rear light?
    Mr. NEAL: I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer

    477
    given on 15th February to the hon. Member for Finchley, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the safety of pedestrians and whether they have to carry rear lights to protect them against motorists?

    WEST HAM RATE LEVY.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNE(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians have postponed the declaration of their rate for the six months ending September next on two occasions in consequence of the Government not definitely deciding as to whether they intend to loan to the guardians the sum of £300,000; that the guardians are compelled to declare their rate on Thursday, 23rd March; if he is aware that unless the loan is at once granted to the guardians, it will mean that the poor law rate of the union will be increased by 1s. 7d., which will make their total rate 6s. 1d. in the £; and if he can state what rate of interest will be charged on the loan if granted?
    Sir A. MOND: The application of the guardians for a loan, and the terms upon which it should be granted, including the rate of interest to be charged, will be considered this afternoon by the Committee presided over by Sir Harry Goschen, and a decision will be given forthwith.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the decision be in the hands of the board of guardians to-morrow before they make their rate?
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, it will.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Army Excess Vote, 1920–21, and Army (Ordnance Factories) Excess Vote, 1920–21, may be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
Mr. HOGGE: As this is a very unusual Motion, would my right hon. Friend mind telling us what is its exact purpose?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This authorises us to take on a Supply day, without converting it into a non-Supply day, Excess Votes in regard to two Services relating, not to the expenditure of the current year but to the expenditure of the year before the current year. These Votes have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, and they have received the sanction of that Committee. They have passed the scrutiny of that Committee. I ought in frankness to say that it has been the practice to include these Excess Votes in the Consolidated Fund Bill at the end of the year, and it is in order to comply with that practice that I have put down and moved this Motion.
Mr. MILLS: Should I be in order in drawing attention to a question on the Army (Ordnance Factories) Excess Vote before the vote on this Motion is taken?
Mr. SPEAKER: No, not on this Motion. The hon. Member must wait until the House gets into Committee on the Vote.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered,
"That on this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Army Excess Vote, 1920–21, and Army (Ordnance Factories) Excess Vote, 1920–21, may be considered in Committee of Supply."

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  GOVERNMENT POSITION.
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the position of the Government, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of Workmen's Compensation, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. S. Walsh.]
  RETAIL MILK PRICE.
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the question of the retail price of milk, and to move a Resolution.—[Sir W. Lane Mitchell.]
  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.
  On this day two weeks, to call attention to the importance of research to agriculture, and to move a Resolution.—[Commander Bellairs.]
  STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the time in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man being in advance of Greenwich mean time during a certain period of the year." [Summer Time Bill [Lords.]
  SUMMER TIME BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [THIRD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

    NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 215,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923."
    Colonel MILDMAY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by five men.
    I am fully conscious that I have not the technical and departmental knowledge entitling me to speak with any authority as to military requirements, but, equally, do I realise that we Members of the House of Commons, as representing our constituents, have to balance carefully the military and the financial requirements of the moment. A little time ago there was much senseless complaint that the Government did not, as soon as the Geddes Committee's Report was published, instantaneously announce their intention of carrying into effect every recommendation which the Committee had made. By whom were such complaints made? By individuals and by newspapers who were manœuvring for position at a possible General Election. I will not labour the point; I will only say that great is the temptation to strain the truth in the unwholesome atmosphere of a by-election. The self-appointed critics knew well enough, as all of us know, that these reductions could not be effected by a stroke of the pen and without that detailed consideration connected with their adjustment to world-wide policy which was their due. Obviously, the balance between those world-wide responsibilities and our ability to discharge the same must be most carefully considered, and to grudge the time necessary for that process is to invite disaster.
    Under these circumstances, private Members, who, although they may have
    504
    served in the War, are lacking in the experience of professional soldiers, ask, first, what is the view entertained with regard to these Estimates by those in high command at the War Office. Of course, to a certain extent their lips are sealed; and, this being so, should they be regarded as approving these Estimates? That inquiry brings us at once up against a question of perennial difficulty at the Admiralty and the War Office, and the Admiralty especially, for long years past. Ought the Sea Lords, and ought the members of the General Staff, to resign if, in their view, the Estimates will fail to provide adequate forces for the defence of our national interests? That is not an easy question to answer. There is the consideration that officers so resigning will be committing hara-kiri, and that they will be putting an end to their careers. Let us put it on higher ground than that, because British officers are never likely to allow such considerations to influence their sense of duty. It is a very delicate question; but the principle which seems to have found general acceptance in this connection is that it is the duty of the naval and military advisers of the Government, after pointing out plainly and bluntly the possible dangers which may result from excessive reductions, to devote all their energies, to ensuring that the sum of money available in their own particular Department shall be so spent as to conduce to the greatest national advantage.
    All the same it is only to be expected that many of us, who may be described as unwise in such matters, should wish to know what is in the mind of those in high position at the War Office. I am not in the confidence of the Chief of General Staff, but although I have not been told, I have derived the impression that the General Staff is of opinion that, in view of the responsibilities that they have to guard, our present military forces are no more than adequate, but, assured by the Secretary of State for War that financial considerations are paramount, and that the financial risk of continuing expenditure at its present height is greater than the military risk of reductions, they have no option but to bow their heads, on the distinct understanding that the responsibility for running military risks is not theirs, but is assumed by the Government. This being so, it is for us Members of Parliament, while we recognise that in

    505
    these times of great pecuniary stress economies in the Navy, Army, and Air Force are absolutely essential, to insist, in the words of the Resolution passed by the ex-service Members of the House last week—
    "That the extent and nature of the economies must be measured by the liabilities incidental to the foreign policy of the Government, and that any reductions in Establishment and Services must imply corresponding diminutions of naval and military commitments overseas."
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Some ex-service Members.
    Colonel MILDMAY: Some ex-service Members were absent. I must confess that investigation on these lines has been most disquieting, and the important speech made by the gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down (Field-Marshal Sir H. Wilson) on the Army Estimates the other day did not allay our fears. The responsibilities which our dwindling forces are called upon to defend are so indefinite, perhaps so indefinable, and so immeasurable, that one cannot but be uncomfortable. We have Pacts with France and Belgium involving obligations which are at present most vague and nebulous. Still more disquieting are the possibilities further overseas. To mention only one, there is India. If things went wrong in India, and if the disquietude which is at present localised became general and there was a general upheaval, the demands upon our military forces only for the elementary duty of protecting suffering British families throughout that great Empire might easily become impossible to satisfy. I will not pursue that subject, but, with such thoughts springing to our minds, we who are inexperienced in military policy ask ourselves: Is the Government, in proposing to cut down our fighting strength, prejudicing the possibility of expanding our small forces in an emergency, in preference to effecting their economies in another direction, in preference, for instance, to drastic reductions in staffs and administrative services?
    I frankly confess that it is such fears most conscientiously felt that have led mc to put down this Motion for reduction. As to alternative reductions, I am not going into particulars, except to mention two points, merely as illustrations. The London Command is to go. Is there any reason why the Western Command should
    506
    continue? I know it is said that it is desirable it should be continued for the reason that the General Officer Commanding there is entrusted with the disposition of troops in the case of labour unrest in South Wales. He has no troops, and, if he wished to gather troops for that purpose, he would have to collect them from another Command. I maintain that reason is not sufficient to justify the continuance of that Command. The General Officer residing in the Command from which the troops are to be taken, in view of his knowledge of the officers, would be the best man to have control of them in any such emergency. I think I am right in saying, further, that when last there was a prospect of disturbance in the coalfields of South Wales a special General Officer was brought in to handle and dispose of the troops, and the General Officer of the Western Command was ignored. From all I can hear from those who really are able to talk with authority on the subject, and who have served in very high places in that Command, the services required of the General Officer Commanding hardly justify the continuance of that Command. Is any serious cut really contemplated in the establishment at the War Office? Soldiers will tolerate reductions in rifles, in sabres, and in guns far more kindly if they see that, simultaneously, proportionate reductions are being made in Whitehall and in officialdom as well. We all know that this kind of reduction is very difficult for the Secretary of State to undertake. It is the most invidious task. You might as well ask a man to saw off the branch on which ho is sitting as ask him to reduce his own office on his own initiative. If it is known that he has a free hand in the duty of making reductions by several millions: if it is known that, under the terms of a broad and general instruction, he is going to cut down particular offices, his position becomes too difficult, and he incurs a deadly unpopularity. He is called on to injure his own immediate associates, who work hard and most irreproachably, in order to please him. It is almost impossible for him to do so in the case of the Headquarters Staff of the Army at Whitehall.
    It seems to me it has become necessary to apply a far sharper and more specific form of pressure, and that the only effective way to do it is by saying, "It is greatly regretted that the House of Com-

    507
    mons insists upon cutting down the Army and the staff of the War Office in Whitehall by, say, a quarter or a half, and six months hence only a corresponding sum of money will be available." I am quite sure the Secretary of State will agree with me that such a peremptory injunction would ease his position, and lighten his task and his responsibility. He could then go to the heads of the various Departments and say that this was being done by order of these something, something, politicians. I know the kind of expletives which would be used, because I was familiar with messes on the Western Front. He could say, "These politicians absolutely insist that six months hence and thenceforward your Department shall only get three-quarters or one half, as the case may be, of the money it has hitherto drawn, and you must make your own arrangements." That means there would be no personal odium against him, and things would go on in future, after the reductions were made, just as well as they did in the past.
    I am not going to argue as to the necessity of this or that branch of the War Office. I frankly confess I have not got the knowledge entitling me to do so. Admittedly, those who are working at all these branches are conscientious men, working very hard indeed and firmly persuaded that the work they are doing is absolutely essential to the public safety; but am I quite wrong in thinking—and I have taken some trouble to ascertain the position of affairs—that this is not so, and that fully half of what they do is unconsciously manufactured between themselves, but that it needs some detachment from the office to be able to see that this is the case? Here is a bold suggestion from one who, perhaps, ought to describe himself as an ignoramus. Scrap half the civilians in the War Office, not on the accounting side, but on the so-called financial side. That is a very bold suggestion, for, without doubt, the Treasury would join with the War Office in loudly objecting. None the less, I believe the thing has to be done, and the doing of it would oblige military administrative officers to acquire proficiency in the financial side of their work, and to undertake responsibilities which should be theirs; and incidentally we would save half a million of money.
    508
    I give these two points as instances of many other reductions, comparatively small in themselves, which might be made and which, in the aggregate, would amount to a considerable sum. Obviously, educational establishments, such as the Staff College, Hythe and others, must be kept going at all costs, but with regard to Sandhurst, I should like, tentatively and most deferentially, to make a bold suggestion. Abolish Sandhurst as it is; convert it into a senior officers' and junior officers' school, and, instead of Sandhurst as it is, introduce military degrees and military triposes at the universities. The trouble about Sandhurst is that it leads to specialisation at too early an age. We all know that university life broadens outlook, and such a change would, I am quite certain, admit of very considerable advantage. I am not going to speak at greater length, because I understand many are anxious to speak, and it is desirable the Committee should hear representative opinions from all quarters of the House. I have just one more plea to make; Back up the Territorial Force for all you are worth. We all know how splendidly they proved themselves in warfare, and I think there is hardly a military authority in England but will agree that a very great mistake was made in establishing the new Army on an independent basis. It should have been built up on the basis of the Territorial organisation. At all costs, keep in being the Territorial cadres. I know many people are of opinion that in 20 or 30 years' time the Territorial Force is all that will be remaining to us. As to that, I am not a prophet, but, considering the reaction and the War weariness, I think the response which has been made to appeals for recruits to the Territorial Force has been quite amazing.
    Warfare in the future, if we are to have war, which may God forfend, will be national war. Get the Army inside, and not apart from, the nation. I feel I owe an apology to the Committee, and that I can perhaps be justifiably regarded as a type of the presumptuous politician who is a cockshy for British officers all over the world, but I return in all seriousness to my original theme and my main theme. The Secretary of State for War will acquit me of any desire to embarrass the Government. Honestly, there is no one in the House who would do so with greater reluctance, but it is only right to

    509
    say that ex-service members are gravely disquieted lest, in view of our serious commitments, we are unjustifiably cutting down our fighting strength in preference to effecting desirable economies elsewhere, and I am moving this reduction in the hope that the Government will be able to allay the fears which I know are very widely felt.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not propose to attempt to follow my right hon. Friend in the very interesting detailed criticisms which he has made. The difficulty which he felt, I recognise I should feel even more acutely. My technical knowledge is far less than his, but with all respect to him, I rather doubt whether anything is to be gained by any attempt to deal in detail with the proposals of the Government. I am one of those who think that the vice of the Geddes Committee policy was that people outside the Government were instructed to make detailed proposals as to economies inside Departments. Although I should be the last to decry the great skill and ability with which the Committee carried out their work, I think it would have been preferable not to have begun at that end at all. The Government should have first made up their minds, if necessary with the aid of some expert Committee, as to how much the country could afford for these services—very much as my right hon. Friend suggested should be done in reference to a particular branch, I think the Headquarters Staff. Having made up their minds that if the country was to pay its way, it could not spend more than a certain amount on the Army, then they should have left it entirely to the expert military advisers to say how the Army was to be brought down to that figure.
    I believe that would have been a sounder plan, and one which would have produced, on the whole, better results and less unpopularity in the Army itself. I recognise that considerable reductions have been made. The House must be grateful to the Government for having done even as much as they have done. My only regret is that it was not done earlier, and that the tremendous expenditure in such places as Iraq—it is not included here, but I take it as an illustration—was not cut down earlier. These expenses might quite as easily have been cut down in 1919, and that would have
    510
    given us many millions which might have been available for reduction of taxation, or in order, if it was thought necessary, to improve the fighting strength of the Army. The reason I have ventured to intrude upon the Committee is not, however, because I wish to discuss that aspect of the matter. I was very much struck by the warning given at the end of the speech of the Secretary of State for War as to the military danger which his advisers thought we were running by making these reductions. It was a courageous statement to make from the Treasury Bench. I agree that it is for the Government to take responsibility for a policy of that kind and not to attempt to push it off on their military advisers.
    The warning was greatly emphasised from a wholly different point of view by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Field-Marshal Sir H. Wilson) in one' of the most interesting maiden speeches ever made in this House. His case is one which really merits very close attention from the Committee and raises questions of the very greatest importance, going right down to the safety of this country, and even further than that. He says that at this moment there are as many armed men in Europe as there wore in 1913, although the German army has been reduced from 800,000 to 100,000 and the Austrian army from 400,000 to 30,000. In other words, there has been an increase of more than a million men in the countries of Europe, other than Germany and Austria. That is a terrible comment on the results of the policy which we have pursued since the Armistice. I am bound to say that I do not feel sure that that policy, which has been in some respects a policy of adventure, has been altogether abandoned. My hon. and gallant Friend gave, with perfect accuracy, a very formidable list of the increased commitments which we now have, compared to our pre-War commitments. He pointed to the perennial commitments that we have with reference to this country and Ireland, India, and Egypt, and he added Hong Kong, the Rhine, Silesia, Constantinople, Palestine, Iraq, and the two pacts with France and Belgium. I think that is a very formidable fact for the whole of the country to consider. I do not deny that some of those commitments—I do not think all of them—were inevitable, but I do think

    511
    it is a great pity that, having taken these commitments, having taken upon us burdens which really greatly add to our difficulties, and in a sense weaken the strength of the Empire, we should at the same time have contrived to convey the impression in all foreign countries that we have grabbed everything we desire and that we alone have come out of the Conferences at Paris with greatly increased power and prestige. It seems a deplorable result of our diplomacy that we should have, in fact, weakened ourselves and at the same time achieved a reputation for national greed unequalled in the annals of this country.
    Now we are not apparently satisfied with that, and, though we are not allowed to know very much about it, we are apparently negotiating pacts with both France and Belgium, which my hon. and gallant Friend says will add to our commitments and liabilities. We are not told exactly what those pacts are. If we inquire, we are told that we are hampering the negotiations of the Government and that we must wait until the Government has completed the pacts before the House of Commons is to express any opinion on the policy which underlies those pacts. We all know that by that time it will be-perfectly useless for the House of Commons to express any opinion, for, if it does so, it will be said that the House of Commons is seeking to go behind the honourable engagements which have been made on behalf of this country, and therefore I must venture, very respectfully, to say that the policy of entering into any separate military engagement with any individual Power is, in the circumstances, of the highest degree of unwisdom. I hope that any engagement which we may undertake will be of a most restricted character. If we make any such engagement to an individual Power of that kind, apart from other objections which I shall have to touch upon in a moment, we are, as it seems to me, giving a right to that Power with whom we have made that engagement to press us to maintain armies sufficient to make the engagement that we have entered into a real one and not a mere pretence. I agree with the argument that my hon. and gallant Friend presented—though I am afraid the conclusions I draw from it are different—that military retrenchment depends on military policy.
    512
    You cannot have a policy of military adventure and a policy of military retrenchment at one and the same time
    I am afraid that I have now reached the limit of my agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. What, if I understood him rightly, does he propose I He does not criticise the policy; he accepts it, and he says—which, if you accept it, is perhaps true—you must have an increased Army in order to fulfil the engagements and commitments that you have undertaken. I listened very attentively to his speech, and when he came to the concluding passage, where he put forward what he actually proposed, what his suggested policy, was, he said that you ought to have an Army sufficiently large to prevent war. That is a version of our old friend that we used to hear so much about, namely, If you wish for peace you must be prepared for war, the maxim on which all Europe acted up to 1914, and the year 1914 seems to me the final condemnation of that policy. Just let us examine what my hon. and gallant Friend proposed. He recited to the Committee, quoting the Secretary of State, what the present proposals would give us—one division in 15 days and a cavalry division, a second division in from 15 days to six weeks, and a third or fourth division in four months. My hon. and gallant Friend said that is what we should have then, but not what we have now, and he compared with that what we had in 1914, which was six divisions, but the six divisions were not sufficient to prevent war. Therefore, if you are to prevent war, you must have more than six divisions.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: They saved the Channel ports.
    Lord R. CECIL: That may be, but I am dealing with the policy of my hon. and gallant Friend, which is to prevent war by having a large army. I do not wish, of course, to be at all discourteous to my hon. and gallant Friend who interrupts. Therefore, six divisions are not enough to prevent war, and if my hon. and gallant Friend's speech means anything it means that he advocates an army larger than six divisions. He said more than that; he said that the present condition of Europe is more dangerous than it was in 1914, and he gave a number of reasons, which, at any rate, have some validity, for saying that that was so. Therefore,

    513
    if six divisions were insufficient in 1914 to prevent war, you would have to have, I do not know, how many, but a great many more than the six divisions now. He did not indicate—perhaps he would say that it was improper for him to do so—the cost of this policy of having an army large enough to prevent war, but I wish to be quite fair to him. He had an alternative, an alternative which he did not at all recommend, which was that if you cannot have an army large enough to prevent war, you should have, at any rate, an army large enough to secure victory. There, again, I feel great difficulty, because he said that we had six divisions at the beginning of the war, but that in order to obtain victory we had to have 80 divisions. I do not know that my hon. and gallant Friend contemplates an army of 80 divisions, or even an army which could be readily expanded to 80 divisions. I cannot help feeling that this examination—I hope it has not been an unfair examination—of what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, leads one to two conclusions, namely, that if his policy is to be pursued we should certainly have to have conscription—indeed, there was a phrase in his speech which evidently indicated his want of reliance on a voluntary system—and also that the cost would be terrific. I have no quarrel with his argument as an argument. I have already expressed my humble admiration of it. It proceeded with irresistible force from his premises to his conclusions, but to my thinking the proper reply is that his premises are wrong.
    If you are going to adopt a military policy, as some aspects of the Government's policy have been, and perhaps still are, my hon. and gallant Friend's conclusion is inevitable. There is only one alternative, and that is resolutely to adopt a policy based on general disarmament and the substitution of some other means for the settlement of international disputes than war. I most fully agree with those who say that disarmament by one country, by this country alone, is an impracticable proposal. No one admires the work that was done at Washington more than I do, no one welcomes the proceedings at Washington more than I do, but it is absurd to suppose that naval disarmament by itself is going to diminish the chances of war in Europe. It is not going to do so. I can
    514
    imagine some people who would say that, if that is the only thing we are going to do, we are actually increasing the chances of war, because a navy is necessarily, inevitably much more of a defensive force than an army. No one in his senses believes that either our Navy or the American Navy is a serious danger to the peace of Europe, and, for other reasons perhaps, neither is the Japanese Navy. Therefore, it is madness to stop there. We must have general disarmament if we are to avoid the conclusions which my hon. and gallant Friend so well pointed out, and if we are to avoid the policy, which is the only other policy, which he recommended.
    May I say that I think the plan of the Government, if it be part of their plan, to have separate pacts with different countries—I am anxious to avoid names as far as I can—is a mistake? As far as we know, there is no provision for disarmament proposed in those pacts at all. That is not the proposal. It is merely proposed to have a defensive alliance. I most fully agree that if you are to get general disarmament in Europe, you have got to make some provision for giving security to those countries which you are asking to reduce their armaments, but not by special, individual agreements. I am sure that that is going to do a very poor service. It is not true that the only danger to the peace of Europe is on the eastern frontier of France. That may be one spot of danger, but it is not the only one. Anyone who knows anything, anyone who reads the papers, knows quite well that there are dangers, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, in many other quarters of Europe. No one who has the recollection of how the last War began will say that a conflagration once set alight can be limited wherever it occurs to any part of Europe. A mere pact between this country and that country is not sufficient security for the peaco of Europe, nor are you going to get it without disarmament, and such measure of security given by Treaty as will enable the countries of Europe generally to limit their armaments.
    I am bound to point out that all this is foreseen and provided for in the Covenant of the League of Nations. There is nothing new about the situation. Anyone who considered the cause of peace in 1918, 1919, or any other year

    515
    must have known perfectly well that you cannot secure peace without general reduction of armaments, and that that is the only real security you have got. And it must be done by a general reduction, and not by a specific reduction in this or that country. Let us be quite frank. Would the peace of Europe be really secured if the Western Powers were to disarm altogether, and leave the Powers of Central Europe armed to the teeth? I am inclined to think the cause of peace would be even then no greater. We must have general disarmament. My hon. and gallant Friend made a reference to the League of Nations, perhaps not altogether of a friendly kind. I know his views in his own profession, and elsewhere. I know that his views have done much to make progress with the idea of the League difficult in his own profession. I regret it. I am sure he will allow me to have my own opinion, as he has his. But, after all, what is his alternative? What is it he really proposes? Is it merely a return to pre-War conditions? Is that really what he wants? Does he really think we are to have alliances and counter-alliances, and competitive armaments and, ultimately, because the whole world is tired and weary of them, another desolating war? I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London saying to me across the Floor of the House that, for his part, he was a believer in the text that, "When a strong man armed keepeth his house, his goods are in peace." It is a dangerous thing to quote the Bible, unless you have read it carefully. If he had done so, he would have remembered that the strong man represents the forces of evil, and it is pointed out that, sooner or later, however strong he makes himself, he will be overcome by a stronger than he, who will take from him the armour in which he trusted, and divide his spoils.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The quotation is correct; the deduction is quite wrong.
    Lord R. CECIL: My hon. and gallant Friend would do well to read the passage as carefully as I have done since my right hon. Friend quoted it in this House, before he contradicts me.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I say I have read it very carefully?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not wish to get into an unseemly controversy about the meaning of a passage of Scripture. I only put it in because it had been quoted to me. I say with great confidence that that is the real reply to my right hon. Friend. Let them make their armies as strong as they will, they will never be secure. They will merely incite their enemies to build armies and armaments against them. In the end, as Napoleon himself pointed out, material forces are infinitely weaker than the forces which are not material, and, if you are going to have peace, you have got to rely, as a mere matter of business, on the immaterial, the spiritual forces of mankind. It is your only chance. If you do not do that, there is DO hope for the peace of the world, and there is no hope for the safety of the country. The only hope of peace and economy, although that is a lesser matter, lies in the resolute pursuance of a real policy of peace, based on some such plan as the League of Nations, for if not, unquestionably, whether it happens in our lifetime or the lifetime of-those who come after us, a much more desolating war will overtake the country, and Europe as a whole will be reduced to the condition in which Russia and other parts of the world now find themselves.
    Viscount EDNAM: The hon. and gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), at the beginning of his speech last Wednesday, appealed to the Speaker and this House for that indulgence which is, I understand, by custom accorded an hon. Member making his maiden speech. If the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal, with his wide experience, his seniority and his great eloquence, had a claim to such an indulgence, how much greater must be my claim and my appeal. In forming an opinion on the question of the future size of the Army, one must look at it from an Imperial aspect as well as from an economic aspect. I am fully sensible of the great dangers which beset our Empire at the present time, but I am the representative in this House of a middle-class constituency, the electors of which, as a whole, are, perhaps, harder hit by the present high rate of taxation than those of almost any other constituency in Great Britain. On the one hand, no Member of this House, whatever his views, whatever his opinions, could

    517
    possibly have listened unmoved to the grave warning delivered last Wednesday by the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal, for who is better suited to judge of the situation than he? He told us then that the Estimates for 1922–23 now before the Committee were not sufficient for the defence of our Empire, that we were going to maintain an Army which was just large enough to lose a war, and that we were going to take a strategic risk which we have no right to take, even when faced with the alternative risk of financial bankruptcy.
    On the other hand, I realise that unless the War Office can effect economies, as all Government Departments must do, the burden of all taxpayers, and of my constituents, many of them men and women with email fixed incomes which have remained stationary since 1914, while the cost of living and taxation has risen to impossible heights, will be no longer possible to bear. It appears to me, therefore, that we have no alternative but to maintain a fighting force sufficient for our home defence, sufficient also for the maintenance of our overseas liabilities, until such times as those liabilities become more quiescent. and until such times as some of them, such as the Rhine, Palestine, and Iraq, are automatically written oft so far as the Army is concerned; sufficient also in the opinion of the general staff, our expert advisers, for any unforeseen contingencies which might arise within the next few years, or for any expeditions upon which they consider it is possible we might have to embark. So it appears to me that this Army will have to be at least as strong, every whit as formidable, every whit as efficient as that "contemptible" little Army of 1914, although, as I pointed out, it is for the General Staff to advise its actual size. But we must count the cost; we must try every means of finding a method of maintaining such a fighting force, and still be able to effect economies in our military expenditure, and I do not believe such a thing is impossible.
    It is in this spirit that I would like to make a few criticisms of the Estimates before us. I was until quite recently a regimental soldier. I was a regimental soldier the greater part of my service, and I am afraid, like many regimental soldiers, I would like to see the establishment of all staffs, and the ancillary and auxiliary services very much reduced,
    518
    and the establishment of the fighting forces—the man who fires the rifle, and the man who fires the gun—increased. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War told us last Wednesday that these Services were incapable of further reduction. I am not inclined to accept that statement. I submit to the Committee that it is not apparent why the establishment of these Services and of the staffs at the War Office and of Commands should have been so greatly increased as compared with 1914. In 1914 the ratio which the ancillary Services, miscellaneous Services and staff bore to the fighting Services, including the engineers, was roughly 20 to 152. It is in the establishments before us 32 to 120, although you include the Tank Corps within the fighting Services. The right hon. Gentleman said on Wednesday that cuts were being made from the ancillary and auxiliary Services and not from the fighting forces. In the reduction of 33½ thousand all ranks, which the right hon. Gentleman proposes as a result of the Geddes Committee Report, 28½ thousand have been taken from the fighting forces.
    5.0 P.M.
    I submit that by a reduction of these Services and of the staffs to the 1914 ratio, many of those battalions, batteries, and cavalry regiments which now stand condemned could be reprieved. Take one example. Perhaps it is an example I should not take, but it seems to me that it is a difficult one for the right hon. Gentleman to explain away. If in 1914, 117 chaplains were thought sufficient for an Army of 172½ thousand, why on earth should 175 chaplains, an increase of 58, be required for an Army of only 152½ thousand? It seems to me that the work of many of these reverend gentlemen might well be done by civilian clergy at a smaller salary and a reduced cost to the taxpayer.' Then, again, in the case of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, our cavalry establishment has been halved, and our horse-drawn artillery and transport, presumably, are very much reduced, as compared with 1914, and yet in these establishments there is an increase in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps. Again, take the case of the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountants. In 1914 the whole of the pay and accounts of the Army were dealt with by 744 men. Yet it appears that in future it will take

    519
    1,890 men to do this work, although the Army is smaller by 20,000. It is hard to believe that this increase is entirely due to correspondence with regard to War accounts. In any case, my humble experience of Army forms dealing with accounts is that they continue for ever, gathering unto themselves vast accumulations of paper inscribed "Passed to you, please," unless strong measures are taken and they are placed in the waste-paper basket, or at least at the bottom of a deep file. I will not weary the House with any more examples. Comparing the proposed establishment of these Services with the establishments of 1914, hon. Members can see for themselves that there is not, I think, a single instance where they have not been increased, although the fighting Services have been considerably reduced. Before leaving the subject of the fighting Services I should like to remark that I cannot help thinking that such a large reduction of the cavalry is most unwise.
    Four cavalry regiments have recently been disbanded, and it is now proposed to disband five more, or their equivalent. There are two arguments put forward, I know, by ignorant people against the cavalry. The first is that the European War proved that as a fighting force they were out of date. The second argument is that the aeroplane has taken over the functions of the cavalry. Both these arguments are false. As regards the first one, it is not likely that we shall fight another war where the enemy is able to hold a continuous trench line from sea to sea, or from frontier to frontier. Where-ever the enemy has exposed flanks or a weak spot in his line of defence you will require cavalry in future wars just as you required them in past wars. Four years ago to-day on the Western Front we were standing with our backs to the wall facing the last determined effort by the Germans to secure victory. If the Germans had had their cavalry available on that occasion they would have secured it. If we had had our cavalry available on that occasion we would have stopped the flow of their advance very much sooner than we did. That, I think, is generally recognised and generally admitted by most of the eminent strategists who have studied these operations.
    As regards the second argument, the Royal Air Force cannot at present take
    520
    over in toto the reconnaissance duties of the cavalry. They can never partly take over their night reconnaissance duties. They cannot be compared with the cavalry as a mobile fighting force capable of shock action which, in spite of modern inventions, remains to-day the most deadly and the most demoralising form of attack. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in spite of the conclusions arrived at by the Geddes Committee that the increased proportion of officers to men was most striking, yet the establishments before the House provide for 600 more officers than in the 1914 establishment, although the Army has been reduced below that of 1914 by a total of 20,000 of all ranks. I do not agree that one of the lessons we learned in the War was that we should increase our proportion of officers to men. On the contrary, we learned from bitter experience of vast officer casualties that it was necessary to send into action a much smaller proportion of officers to men than was ever for a moment contemplated before the War. Therefore, I maintain that we should reduce our peace-time establishment, of officers to below even the 1914 ratio. We have in this country a large reserve of trained officers which can be drawn upon, if required, to replace casualties amongst the regular officers. I will even suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the re-establishment of the old Special Reserve of officers to consist of those officers on the reserve of officers who would be able and willing to do a period of training each year with their old unit. I myself—and I know there are others—would welcome such an opportunity of keeping in touch with my old regiment and of keeping up to date in military training. This Special Reserve would then be the first Reserve to be drawn upon if required to replace casualties amongst the regular officers. Although I realise the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman will experience in compulsorily retiring officers to meet the present reduction in the establishments, yet I would urge upon him, in the interests of economy, the necessity for still further reductions.
    One more point before I sit down. I would like to refer very briefly to the Army education scheme. There are few regimental soldiers who do not consider

    521
    that the Army education scheme which has been adopted since the War is ambitious, extravagant, and entirely unworkable. Nobody would oppose the very best system of education which the country can afford in our State-aided schools, but the education of the soldier should be completed before he joins the Army. You cannot get a man out of bed at 5 o'clock reveille, drill him all the morning, drill him or make him clean his kit all the afternoon, and then in the evening expect him to absorb Greek prepositions. I myself have the memory of too many weary afternoons spent in vainly teaching my squadron vulgar fractions, having myself a very imperfect knowledge of vulgar fractions, to be a great believer in the Army education scheme. As a result of the Geddes Committee's recommendations, the Army Education Department has been considerably reduced, but it is still bigger than it was in 1914. I do hope that the War Office will confine its ambition, for the present at any rate, to the pre-War standards of education in the Army, and the education of boys and illiterates. In conclusion, I would like to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War does not consider me over-presumptions in putting forward these humble suggestions. I am sure that all hon. Members in this House who have had the honour of serving in the Regular Army are in full sympathy with his difficulties, and have the utmost confidence in him in dealing with them. The final paragraph in the Geddes Report on the Army Estimates says:
    "We are convinced from our survey of the War Office Estimates that there is great room for economy in men and money without in any way endangering the defence of the Empire."
    That statement, applied as it was to the sketch Estimates placed before the Committee, was in my humble opinion perfectly true. I have not attempted to argue that economies cannot be effected, but I believe that some of the economies proposed, especially such a large reduction in our fighting forces, are economies in the wrong direction, and that they will, if carried into effect, endanger the safety of our Empire, and, it is possible, on some future occasion they may lead to the defeat of an Army which hitherto has never known the meaning of the word.
    Sir CHARLES TOWNSHEND: First of all, may I congratulate, on behalf of other members of the same profession, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Viscount Ednam) on his excellent speech? Turning to the subject of the Debate, I should, first of all, like to say, in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) who spoke about the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson), that I read the meaning of the gallant Field Marshal in a very different way from the Noble Lord. I should like to associate myself entirely with what the gallant Field Marshal said in his warning to the House against reducing our forces in this—I will say—preposterous manner. The gallant Field Marshal meant to say this: that the best safeguard for the preservation of peace can only be found in a sound military organisation, for the strong is less easily attacked than the weak. Secondly, with respect to arbitration, I do not see why practical men, or at all events students of history, have not a right to look upon arbitration as never having yet been successful, because there has been no power behind it to enforce the agreement come to. Therefore arbitration never can and never will be successful until—in the dreams of the Noble Lord—it may be 50 years or it may be 100 years hence—you have an army belonging alone to the League of Nations, and likewise a Navy alone belonging to the League of Nations, and you permit no other nation to have an army or a navy; then you will get your decrees carried out. Until then arbitration docs not seem feasible. I should like to remind the House, while on the subject, that Napoleon Bonaparte in 1799, when he kicked Austria out of Northern Italy, wrote to the Emperor of Austria and said: "Why do you not disarm: France is quite ready and Europe will follow certainly?" The Austrians wrote back and said: "We should be delighted to do so, but Prussia would not agree."
    We all remember the Hague Conference and what happened there. Hardly had the curtain rung down, amid derisive laughter, when Russia and Japan were at each other's throats. I would remind hon. Members also that the Washington Conference is not yet ratified. Up till now the Cardwell scheme

    523
    has answered the needs of the British Army reasonably well. It will be remembered that the Cardwell scheme was brought in by Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet in 1872 following the downfall of France. France was overthrown by the short service well-trained German army. France had a long service army and it was looked upon as the best army in Europe. Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet was very much alarmed at the absolute un-preparedness of England, and Mr. Card-well, the Minister for War, was asked to bring in a scheme. He brought one in by which he created an effective army reserve by a short service army, that is to say, we gave up enlisting men for 20 years and we enlisted men for seven years with the colours and five years with the reserve. In that way he got a reserve of 60,000 seasoned reservists when war broke out. We saw those reserves brought out for every kind of war. We had to bring out the Army Reserves for the Zulu War, for the South African War, and in the late War, but at any rate the system answered the strategic needs of the nation.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Colonel Mildmay) asked what are these stragetic needs of the Empire. If I may give an explanation I should say they are quite simple, and are well known not only to the military experts of the War Office, but to all thinking soldiers of the Army. For every problem we have to face in that direction of Imperial defence we must have sea and land power, and you must start on that basis. No nation can be supreme both on land and sea, and if they try to be they will ruin themselves in the attempt. No nation could be rich enough to do that. As we have decided, for a very good reason, to be supreme on the sea, we want a reasonably sized Army, not like a Continental Power, but at any rate a reasonable Army, say, of six division plus one, that is seven divisions, as we used to have. That Army had to be ready to embark immediately as an auxiliary to the Fleet, to proceed overseas if necessary. There was also the other principle that the Dominions should be able to defend themselves in the first instance until we could come to their assistance. We had nine divisions from India and 15 from the Dominions. We had to have a complete second-line Territorial Army at home
    524
    adapted to the civil population to defend our shores when the Regular Army was embarked. We also had to have a Fleet strong enough to keep the seas open so as to be able to combine the Armies of the Dominions and the Mother Country. Those were our strategic needs.
    The second-line Army at home was not to be ready until war broke out. They were not to be mobilised until war was declared and therefore they could not be used for some months. Had those Territorial troops been ready when the last war broke out, I doubt whether there would have been that retirement to the Marne. I have gone through the figures, and I have put a blue pencil through all troops which are not fighting troops, and I find that we have 125,000 fighting men. Out of that I find the infantry number 76,000 bayonets of all ranks. Can that number answer the needs of this nation? I say it is grotesque and it is not worth while arguing. That does not include India, but I think we ought to have 80,000 as the bed-rock number in time of peace.
    I find that you have reduced the number in India to 73,000 whites. That I unhesitatingly say is wrong, very wrong, and I venture to say that had I been in the position of the Commander-in-Chief of India when that proposal was made I would have resigned, and I would not have put my name to a Measure which might bring disaster on the country. I would like to remind the Committee that 26 years ago, when I came back from the defence of Chitral, I asked Sir George White, "How many men do you want to go to Kabul?" and he said, "We want 80,000, because we shall require 20,000 in the Kyber Pass to keep it open." That was 26 years ago. When we went to Tirah we took 67,000 very fine troops to fight the Waziris, and we had to keep three brigades in order to keep open the roads. Hon. Members will not require any further examples to see whether 73,000 men is sufficient or not.
    I apologise for all these anecdotes, but I should like a word or two about this fighting force. I am not out so much to criticise because I know there is a great deal of difference between criticism and execution and that is well known to Ministers and to any practical soldier in the field. I will, however, offer a little constructive criticism. Do hon. Members

    525
    think that one cavalry division and one infantry division sufficient to send overseas? Such a proposal needs no further comment. We are told that a second infantry division is to be ready as soon as the technical personnel has been taken from somebody else, and there is no comment needed on such a proposal. We are told that in four months number 3 and number 4 divisions will be ready as soon as special enlistment permits, but that seems to me to be making war in homoeopathic doses. This striking force reminds me of the Carabiniers of Offenbach who were always a little bit late.
    I want to conclude by offering a constructive and alternative plan which is very simple. It was a favourite scheme with the late Sir Redvers Buller, (with whom I have discussed it, and I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Major-General Seely) himself brought it before this House some years ago. I ask the Minister of War to give it consideration because you will effect great economies by it, and at the same time retain your striking force, and not break up the Regular Army if this plan should be approved of, and I earnestly hope that some consideration may be given to it. You keep your Regular Army and you send it overseas. They remain overseas and never come home. You have only the depots at home, and it is on the same principle as the Honourable East India Company service before the Indian Mutiny with their European regiments, and those regiments never came home. The Regular Army would be quartered in the Mediterranean, Egypt, Palestine, India and other places overseas. That would mean an enormous saving, without the expense of reliefs of regiments, batteries and battalions. The quartering of troops in the Mediterranean zone would give you striking force in a central position. That was the scheme put forward by Sir Redvers Buller and my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and it was also suggested that the Royal Marines should be taken away from the Navy and made into Colonial infantry, as has been done by the French. In the same way Marines are not required, I take it, on board ship in the twentieth century. We know that they were wanted in this way in the eighteenth century when detachments of infantry were put on board to keep discipline amongst the
    526
    crews. That is the plan in its broad aspect. No doubt it can be cut up, but I think it is worthy of consideration considering the character of the man in whose brain it was produced. He was a man who served England well, and for this reason I hope some consideration will be given to my suggestion. It may be said that it is hitting at the Cardwell System. All I can say is that I have given much thought to the matter, and I ask, is the Cardwell System the Ark of the Covenant in this business?
    Captain GEE: I intervene in this Debate because, although I realise that economies have to be effected, I am rather under the impression that the authorities responsible for the proposed economies are taking the line of least resistance in proposing to do away with something like 2,500 officers in the various units. In the first place, I think they have started at the wrong end of the stick, because we have so many young officers who have had practical experience of war, and whose experienced service would be useful to us for many years to come. Amongst the senior ranks no doubt we have many who are possibly too old to take part in active service again, and have already qualified for a reasonable pension. My intention is to suggest a loophole where big economics might be effected without any reduction in the fighting force or any diminution of the efficiency of that force—I refer especially to that much-belauded Army Education Scheme.
    I quite understand that I am laying myself out as an opponent of education. I think there is no one in this House more entitled to say that he believes in education for education's sake more than I do myself, but if the result of the "Army Education Scheme is what is put in front of me as education, then I am bitterly opposed to it. I would like to say that under this new education scheme in the Army we are having the old Army schoolmasters grouped and augmented in the Army Education Corps, and a special section of the War Office has been brought into being for this purpose.
    I respectfully suggest that if my plan is adopted a saving to the extent of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year could be effected. I would immediately abolish S. D. 8, with the exception of that particular small section

    527
    of it which looks after the vocational training to fit a man for a job when he goes back into civil life. I believe I am right, as a result of something like 30 years' service in the Army, 23 of which were spent in the ranks—therefore I am speaking from the point of view of the rank and file man—I believe I am right in the impression that the supervision of most of the educational duties could be very effectively carried out by the Army Chaplain. I have never met an Army Chaplain who would not welcome such a duty. It would give him the opportunity of getting into touch with the men in the barracks, and he would thus be able to carry out his work better. The same policy has been adopted for many years in the Navy. Why therefore cannot we adopt it in the Army?
    The haphazard way in which the educational scheme is being carried out is really beyond comprehension. I will only quote cases with which I am conversant. I know of one case where the educational adviser to a brigade was a young officer, a very good fellow, who was a bank clerk in civil life, and his only qualification for the post of educational adviser was to be found in the fact that he was a very good tennis player. His chief assistant was a noncommissioned officer, whose only qualification for the educational staff was that he had a bad knee and could not march. It is called a voluntary education scheme. I do not think there is much that is voluntary about it. Men are expected to go to school for 1¼ hours on four days of the week during ordinary parade time, and to make them good boys they are offered as an inducement 6d. per day extra duty pay when they had obtained a second-class certificate, a certificate which, in view of the millions we are to-day spending on elementary education, 50 per cent. of the boys ought to be able to get before they leave the Board school.
    We have got Army schools. I can quite understand many hon. Members who have not had the honour and privilege of serving in the Army being unable to follow me in this matter, but I am sure that those who have served will bear me out when I say that in the old days when we wanted to go in for higher education in order to get promotion we had to sacrifice something; we had to
    528
    give up sport, for we were only too eager to go to school and receive education at the hands of the regimental schoolmaster. But that is now practically done away with, and certain Army schools have been brought into existence. What is usual is that an order goes round to submit the names of so many men for a course of study in the schools. The man who is a loafer, in many cases—I speak from experience—the man who wants to dodge regimental duties, will put his name down and the company officer will back him up because he wants to get rid of him. Really the man wants no education at all. I would stop that. I have a personal friend who won high decorations during the War and who, against the wish of his commanding officer, was sent to one of these wonderful Army schools. At the end of two months' training he came out thoroughly qualified as a maker of magic lantern slides!
    I want to deal with the more expensive side of this Army scheme, and if it is not wearying hon. Members too much I would like to point out how the money is spent and how it has been and is being wasted. I find that huge libraries are being sent out to each battalion of infantry, to each regiment of cavalry, and to each brigade of artillery. When I speak of libraries under the education scheme, I do not want to mix up with them the ordinary regimental lending library. These are special libraries of educational value sent to the various units I have mentioned under this wonderful educational scheme. May I read one or two of the items? I believe if I do so hon. Members will agree with me that it is a case of education gone mad. I find that under the heading of "Art" we have got no fewer than eight works. I venture to think that the men for whom they are supplied will never read them, because 50 per cent. of those men do not possess a third class certificate in education, which is only the equivalent of the fourth standard certificate in the elementary school. Under the heading of "Art" we have eight works, including the Royal Academy lectures on Painting. Under the heading "Astronomy" we have no fewer than 13 works, including "In the High Heavens" and "In Starry Realms." And I think the Noble Lord who evolved this education scheme must have been in the starry realms when he brought it into being. Under "Biology" we have four works;

    529
    under "Building Construction" 22; under "Chemistry" 22, including "Applied Bacteriology"; under "Civics" nine; under "Commerce" 52; under "Economics" 36; under "Education" seven; under "Electricity and Magnetism" 28; and also nine works on "Electrical Engineering," including "Alternating Currents in Theory and Practice." In view of the engineering dispute which shows the wisdom of the people who selected these books, I find we have for the benefit of the ordinary private soldier got 60 different works including books on the designing of steel bridges, on water purification, and on sewage disposal. Under the heading of "History," we have 73 different works including, as one would expect, some on the British Empire. We have also got Cicero and Euripedes, and all these are for men who do not possess the fourth standard certificate. We have other various forms of literature including "Rubaiyat of Omar," "Confession of an Opium Eater," "The Compleat Angler" and "Vanity Fair," and inasmuch as there may be a prospect of war in Greece we are supplied with Greek literature—14 different works, including "The Greek: Anthology" Sepulchral Epigrams and the New Testament in Greek. I cannot help referring to the wonderful science of mathematics. I find we have no fewer than 49 different works on mathematics, including volumes on the slide rule, "The Differential Calculus," and one wonders that the Lewis Carrols and that monumental work "The Evaluation of p" have not been included. Then, to crown it all, I find that for the ordinary Tommy Atkins we have, under the heading of "Naval Works," the text-book on "Theoretical Naval Architecture." In conclusion, I would remind hon. Members that it was the old army schoolmaster who produced the Army that fought at Mons. The main function of an army is to keep fit and to fight. Let us do away with all these educational fads. Let us leave educational faddists like the Noble Lord who evolved this scheme to stew in the starry realms of theoretical education, and let us get back to hard facts, and realise that the Army of yesterday and the Army of to-day never did, and never will, consist of Greek scholars and 'Varsity M.A.s. It was, and is, composed of matter-of-fact
    530
    working men. It is our duty to see that they are kept fit for service, and while we do that we can effect big economies in the way I have suggested.
    Major-General Sir CECIL LOWTHER: I desire to associate myself with all that the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee). has said about the waste of money on education in the Army. I know a little about the present Army education scheme. It is more or less the illegitimate offspring of something I was partly responsible for during the War. We wanted at that time to help young soldiers in the Army, and we started all over the country a series of classes, mainly of the nature of technical training, in order to enable the lad who had broken his apprenticeship to carry on his work, and thus help young fellows who had a turn for any particular business to learn something about it. It was not an ambitious scheme. It cost the country nothing at all, because we got so much help from the local education authorities and from schools and private firms all over the country. I should say, by way of explanation, that I was in charge of the training of the Army at home during the latter part of the War, tinder the instructions of Lord French. As time went on, this scheme of technical education was taken up very much by the War Office and by the Army overseas, but I think it outgrew its strength. A large body of university men, journalists, and others, invaded the War Office, and our devoted heads were snowed under by Army Council Instructions, which were extremely long and very hard to understand; and we had a sort of hybrid university education foisted on to these young fellows in the Army who, as the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich has said, were lads who could just about get third-class certificates and no more. I have heard constant complaints from people in the Army about the amount of time and money that is wasted on Army education as it is at present, and it is my very firm conviction that, with the improvement of the general education scheme of the country, this special and very expensive education of a mobile body of troops in the country should be gradually given up, and the national education scheme allowed to do its proper work in the proper way, without our wasting the time of tired men by endeavouring to teach them things which

    531
    they really do not want to learn. I am an enthusiast for education in its proper place and at its proper time, but I think the education in the Army ought to be confined to enabling men to get their second and first-class certificates of education, and to continuing that trade and technical education which will be of material value to them in after life.
    Earlier in the Debate the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took us for a journey in the clouds when he carried us into the realm of general disarmament. No one would welcome general disarmament more than I should, but we are dealing to-day with what is happening to-day, what will happen tomorrow, what our needs are, and what money we are able to pay. Let us hope for disarmament. If we get it, so much the better. Then we can scrap our armies and need no longer pay money for maintaining troops. Human nature will have so changed that we need not pay any further money for the keeping of police; we shall be able to leave our property on our front doorsteps without any danger from depredators. I think it is very general—I do not say in the House of Commons, but in the country—to assume that the Army Members of the House are opposed to reductions in the cost of armaments and in matters pertaining to the Army- That is not altogether a just charge. The military Members are just as kaen as any others on the making of proper economies. They are in favour of heavy reductions in military expenditure, but they are not in favour of reductions which will jeopardise the position of the Empire. Large naval reductions have already been assented to. The Navy, however, is still in a position to do its work. If the reductions in the Army are assented to, will the Army be in a position to do its work? I very much doubt it. I should like to remind the Committee that our Army never was organised for a great European war. The part which it was contemplated that our Army would play in any hostilities that might arise on the Continent was always a very modest one. In fact, some years ago—some time before the War—a distinguished French General, talking on the subject of British help in a war, said, "All that we want is that you should have one British soldier killed in France. That is all we want in the way
    532
    of help from you." He had his wish, and more than that, but what he meant was that all that they wanted was our moral support, the support of our Fleet; they did not really expect material support of the nature of that which we gave them.
    Our Army was not organised for a European war. We fought the War with an Army specially organised ad hoc. That Army has gone now, and does not enter in any way into our present calculations. All that enters into our calculations is what we may call the police work of the Empire. I am not going to trouble the Committee with details about that, for they have been given already from better inspired sources than myself, but I should just like to describe the police work of the Empire. We have no thought of aggression whatever; our sole idea—and I speak for most of the Army Members of the House with whom I come in contact—is to maintain peace. But the temporary chaos induced by the War—I am not going to enter into questions of policy, or attacks on the Government or the late Government on the question of policy—the temporary chaos induced by the War has very much enhanced our dangers and our necessary commitments, which are very much greater than they were before the War. We soldiers have seen too much fighting during our lives to wish anyone to see any more. We want to avoid it, although some people seem to think we regard it as a pleasant pastime. That desire to avoid fighting, however, gives us what I consider to be a very legitimate apprehension, and makes us strongly oppose the reduction of our British fighting forces—I am speaking of the actual fighting troops—by some 28,000, or roughly 20 per cent. of what they were before the War. Our troops are fewer and our dangers are greater. Although I honestly believe that they are passing dangers, yet, until those passing dangers are over, we have no right to jeopardise our possessions in the Empire throughout the world.
    Major CLIFTON BROWN: I should like to remind the Committee that those of us who belong to the Army Committee upstairs passed a Resolution to the effect that we regard with great dismay the disbandment of these battalions, and we think that these 10 Irish battalions represent the limit of reduction without

    533
    gravely endangering the safety of the Empire. Only this afternoon the Colonial Secretary, replying to a question with regard to Ireland, referred to the possibility of his drawing a cordon all round the boundary of Ulster. As the Army consists of one division—and a division is only 10,000 rifles—how far will that go along the 200 miles of the Ulster border? I agree with, the greater part of the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, and particularly with what he said as to the policy of the Government and our commitments. One of these is a source of tremendous danger to our Empire at the present moment. We are spending £3,000,000 for keeping troops in Constantinople, for antagonising the Turk for ever against us, when he and ourselves have been traditional friends in the past, for antagonising all the Mahommedans in India and adding further to our dangers at the present moment, and we have one division of 10,000 to 12,000 rifles. This comes at a moment when India is in a state of great unrest, and when, in March, the white European is feeling the sun growing stronger, the days and nights growing hotter, and his strength weakening, while the native rebel feels with the sun's rays that his strength is increasing and his opportunity is coming, as it came in the Mutiny, to make in the summer a desperate attack on us. This is not the moment at which to announce drastic reductions in our forces.
    Will the Committee forgive me if, having attacked the reductions, I turn for a moment to a few details? All of my hon. Friends who have spoken before have agreed that we want to economise and to spend no more money than is necessary upon such troops as we consider we require. Looking through the Estimates presented to us, I notice that, while one soldier in the Army in 1914 cost £150 a year, a soldier nowadays costs £400 a year.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans)indicated dissent.
    Major BROWN: I have worked out the figures, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can prove that I am wrong. I think, however, that I can anticipate his answer. The right hon. Gentleman is deducting the £7,000,000 of terminal charges from his Estimates, and if that
    534
    be so it makes a difference, but I would ask him—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And the non-effective Vote.
    6.0 P.M.
    Major BROWN: I would ask him, what happens to the £15,000,000 of Appropriations-in-Aid? Surely they, too, still represent money spent on the soldier, and so my figure remains the same. Then we are spending, in comparison, a similar amount of money, allowing for the change in money values, in the present year to that which we spent in 1914, namely, £52,000,000 now as against £27,000,000 then. I think it is a fair estimate that we are spending roughly the same amount in money value, and what are we getting? In 1914 we got six divisions ready within ten days; in 1922 we are getting one division in 15 days, another within six weeks, and perhaps two others later on. We are bound to ask, where have we lost those divisions, and for what are we paying all this money? I have been trying to discover where the money is going, and in digging out these matters I have discovered that our proportion of officers is one to every 14 men this year, while in 1914 it was one to every 17 men. That in itself, as the Geddes Committee points out, means an extra cost of £1,000,000 a year. On looking further into that matter, I discovered that this extra number of officers is probably caused by such corps as have to be heavily officered, such as the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Accountants, in which the proportions of officers to men are one to four and one to six respectively. It cannot be due to the fighting forces, where there is only one officer to every 30 men. That led me to go a little further. The Noble Lord mentioned the figure by which the fighting troops themselves are being reduced, namely, 28,000 men, but I do not think he gave the figure for the rest of the Army—the non-fighting troops. We have, as a matter of fact, a reduction of 18 per cent. in our fighting troops, but we have an increase in non-fighting troops of 8,302, or a percentage increase of 52½ per cent. You decrease your fighting troops by 18 per cent., and increase your non-fighting troops by 52½ per cent. I have tried to impress upon the Committee that it is fighting troops we want to look after, especially in times of need. Those are the men who cannot be replaced. Last year, in order to try to find out

    535
    what was in the mind of those at the head of the Army, I asked how many new corps had been formed since 1914. I found there had been six. Three of them—the Welsh Guards, Tanks, and Signals—were fighting corps. The other three were a corps of dentists, a corps of accountants, and an education corps. I am almost sorry to say this, but it seems to me that when you put six new corps on to an Army, three of which have no great fighting value and three of which have very great use in a political sense, for they afford great perorations on election platforms to show how well you are looking after the soldier, it seems to me you are not directing the whole administration in the way you should. If I may follow that up with the number of schools which have since been started I find there are 14, five of which have a connection with the fighting services and nine of which, as far as I know, have very little direct concern at all with fighting. They are, sanitation, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Royal Army Service Corps, a College of Pharmacy, two schools of training instructors for the educational corps, military administration and a central trade school for boys. I can find no very direct relation between fighting and these particular schools. I would remind the Committee again that with our dangers abroad, our dangers in Egypt, and perhaps our dangers near home, it is fighting men and fighting troops that we want to look after at present. There was in the year A.D. 9 a Roman Emperor who on his dying bed cried to one of his Generals, who had also been killed, "Varus, Varus, give me back my legions." I am afraid if the British nation this summer perhaps in India, or in the near future, makes that same request upon the Government, they cannot, at all events, like Varus, say, "I lost my men fighting." The representatives of the Government will have to say, "We squandered your money on semi-philanthropic enterprises in the Army, we have lost sight of first principles at the War Office, namely, the production of fighting troops and fighting men."
    Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: I have only just returned from a visit to Iraq and India and am appalled at the
    536
    proposed reductions which are contained in this Vote. I have been wondering since I saw them whether hon. Members and Ministers are aware that we still have the British Empire, and that it will rapidly crumple up at our feet if the action of the Government which has been going on for the past three years is continued much longer. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of the conditions in places like Iraq and India. In Iraq there is still considerable unrest. It is on the cards that there may be another rebellion this year. There is no certainty that it will not take place. The garrison in that country is being reduced until it will eventually consist of four battalions, of which three will probably be in Bagdad, and one in Basra. If there were any serious trouble, the Bagdad Garrison might be gravely endangered, and it might conceivably be necessary to despatch a large force from India to relieve it. This is only one possible, and even a probable, situation in which troops would be required. We all know the position of affairs in India. There are schemes now being prepared for the Indianisation of the native army, police and Civil Service, and to my mind this is not the moment to reduce the British forces in India. While the reforms are taking place, and during this process we ought rather to strengthen the British troops there and see that law and order are enforced. I am as much impressed with the necessity for economy as anyone, but there are ways of effecting economy. One way is to put your head down like a bull and go for it without using your brains at all, simply cutting out 24 battalions of infantry.
    The other way is to use one's brains and to go in for some scientific method and study the whole problem very carefully in consideration of your commitments and responsibilities. Our commitments and responsibilities are greater and the clangers more insidious now than they were before the War, and yet we find these very large reductions being carried out. I have on many occasions drawn attention to a certain way in which one could carry out considerable economies—nearly every Member of the Government and a large number of hon. Members have agreed that it is necessary to do something in that direction—and that is in connection with the co-ordination of the fighting services. What

    537
    has the Government done? Absolutely nothing—nothing for three years since the War. They have not used the knowledge which has been gained to effect any economies in that direction, and so long as they do nothing in that way I shall most certainly go into the Division Lobby against the Government on every single reductions they put down. I did not wish to address the House at all, but I did not wish to vote against the Government on this occasion without expressing my views. It is an appalling thing that with the forces of unrest and lawlessness throughout the world and throughout the British Empire we should find, not only that the troops are being cut down, but that a policy of sabotage is being supported in every direction. I shall take every opportunity throughout the Session of voting against the Government whenever any reduction of British troops takes place beyond the 10 South Irish Battalions.
    Major COLFOX: The Noble Lord a little while ago said it was an old saying that if you want peace you must prepare for war and that that saying has been proved false in the year 1914. Of course it has been proved false as far as Europe is concerned, but that is not quite the point, because everyone must realise that the British Army has never been organised having regard to the danger of a European war. The British Army exists to reinforce our troops in other parts of the Empire and generally for police duty within the Empire. It seems to me that the pith of the whole case for Army reduction was contained in one of the concluding sentences of the speech of the Secretary of State for War last Wednesday when he said:
    "The fact is that the Government have had to make a choice between a maximum of safety, which it is the business of the General Staff to advise upon, and the equilibrium between financial and military risks, which it is the duty of the Government to determine."
    He suggests that the equilibrium between financial and military risks has been achieved in the proposal which the Government is offering to the House tonight, but I suggest that when he talks about financial risks he really means that the Government is considering the risk of losing votes, and the military risks are absolutely unspecified in his speech. He tells us—and we all agree of course—that the British Army was never organised
    538
    for a European war. He also said its size is going to be regulated by its overseas commitments and by the necessity of maintaining units at home so as to provide drafts and reliefs for the units abroad and to maintain order at home.
    I should like to try to show something of what the military risks are and I should like to show, if I can, that the Army, as contemplated, is totally inadequate for our overseas commitments as they stand at present. In 1914 our Army was organised, as we are told it will be in the future, having regard to our overseas commitments, and it was then not more than large enough for our liabilities. We have been told repeatedly in the course of this Debate and in last Wednesday's Debate how much our liabilities have been increased since those days. We have garrisons in a number of places which we used not to garrison and also many of the places which were then on our hands are now in a much more dangerous state than they were then. But yet the Army is to be reduced. Even the active Army is to be reduced, in spite of the fact that our reserves available on mobilisation to-day are very much less than the available reserves in 1914. Apropos of that, in passing, one might be allowed to suggest that even if these-reductions are considered to be absolutely essential and cannot be avoided, why not enlist a large number of men direct into the Army Reserve. We have many men to-day who have war experience. Why not enlist them straight into the Army Reserve and so have something on which we can fall back I The Secretary of State admits that the General Staff have given him and the Government warning that the Army, as it is contemplated to be reduced, will not be adequate. I should like to quote a couple of sentences from what he said.
    "The Army may be called upon to reinforce the forces of the Crown in India should the native Army and the British troops there prove insufficient. The General Staff have pointed out that in certain eventualities reinforcements much in excess of our future establishment may be required."
    What the General Staff has, in effect, said to the right hon. Gentleman is, that if a native rising were to occur in India, coupled with trouble on the Afghan frontier, and trouble in Ireland, we have no hope of reinforcing India sufficiently to cope with the trouble. What the General Staff have said is that this sort

    539
    of trouble is not only, possible, but extremely probable. There is ample evidence to show that the same forces are stirring up trouble in these and many other places. The Commander-in-Chief in India recently made a very significant speech.
    Most hon. Members, and certainly most hon. and gallant Members will agree that we shall be faced in the very near future by concerted action on many fronts, and yet the Secretary of State for War says that the size of the Army is being regulated by our overseas commitments. I respectfully suggest that this is by no means the case. The size of the Army should be regulated, obviously, by the policy of the Government. So the Government has a choice between two lines of action, either it can fix a definite foreign policy and then arrange the strength of the Army to correspond, or it can submit to pressure from the electorate at home and fix the size of the Army which it considers it can afford to keep, and then arrange its foreign policy to correspond with that. It must do one or other of those two things, and I suggest that the first is the right course. At present, neither of these courses has been adopted. Both the strength of the Army and the foreign policy is being determined entirely independently one of the other. Surely it is better to face the facts as they are rather than the facts as they may be.
    We must alter one of two things, either our military liabilities or the strength of our military forces as proposed in these Estimates. Every sane man admits that it is imperatively necessary that national spending should be reduced, and also that it is the duty of the Government to advise in what direction national spending can best be economised; but the Government have, in fact, told us that they mean to retain their spending at, more or less, the rate to which we have grown accustomed on certain services, incidentally the building of locomotives at Woolwich Arsenal, which they charge to the Army Vote, and they are going to make all their most necessary economies at the expense of the fighting forces. The Government admit that they are running enormous risks, but in order not to lose the votes of the more clamorous and less informed sections of the people, they are prepared to risk the safety of India and
    540
    the Empire. One is tempted to ask what profit will it be to us or the country if we do succeed in saving £20,000,000 of money this year and retain the votes of the National Union of School Teachers and other powerfully organised sections of the people, and at the same time incur the liability of hundreds, and possibly thousands, of millions next year or the year after, and even then very likely lose large portions of the Empire. The Government owe a duty to the nation bigger than that of retaining the nation's votes, and that is, truthfully to state the position and face the facts.
    So far as one can make out, from what one presumes to have been the advice of the General Staff—of course, we have not first-hand information—the facts of the military situation are that in the event of trouble in the East and elsewhere—and that event is extremely probable—we have either to abandon the Indian Empire or spend vast sums of money to recover it. Surely it would have been1 better for the Government to tell the country the actual facts of the position, and then only make those economies in the fighting services—and they are many—as will not affect the fighting efficiency of the Army. Then they must look for the other necessary economies elsewhere, even at the expense of the votes of powerful sections of people at home. There is another possible course which they might pursue, but I do not recommend it. Yesterday, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) in a speech on the Air Force Vote said that in any future war all the combatants would lose. I have no doubt he is right.
    His inference from that was that it was useless, and worse than useless, to make warlike preparations for European war. That is a perfectly reasonable atti-ture to adopt, and the only logical answer to it is, why have any Army at all? It is only reasonable, when one is considering the possibility of a European war. The Noble Lord has a much stronger and a much more vital faith than most of us, but even he will admit that his argument falls to the ground when considered in relation to preparations for reinforcing India and other parts of the Empire. In that case, there is no likelihood of a struggle on the lines of the recent European war, where the combatants were intellectually and scientifically equal.

    541
    Therefore I earnestly appeal to the Government, in the interests of what I conceive to be real economy, and in no sense as a preparation for another European war, but rather with regard to our Imperial liabilities, to make all possible reductions in the administration of the Army, but not to countenance the reduction of its fighting efficiency below the safety limit.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: Two years ago my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson) gave a grave warning to this House and to the nation, and that has been emphasised to-day by the speech of my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham (Major-General Sir J. Davidson), who has just come back from our Eastern Empire. It reminds me very much of the warning which was given by another gallant Field-Marshal, one of our greatest fighting soldiers, and the greatest patriot that it has ever been my fortune to know. I refer to the late Lord Roberts, who spent all the later years of his life going North, South, East and West, warning the country of the danger that was before us in regard to the possibility of war with Germany. It is interesting now to know in what way his warnings were received by His Majesty's Government of that day. They wore received in the same way that I suppose the warnings of the gallant Field-Marshal the Member for North Down will be received by the Government. A Cabinet Minister, Mr. Runciman, said:
    "I do not believe that war between England and Germany is inevitable. I believe a statement like that of Lord Roberts is not only deplorable, but pernicious and dangerous, and if in Germany it is resented, I would like the Germans to know that it is resented no less in England."
    Another Member of the Government in the same year said:
    "Because a man is a very great General, lie need not be a very great statesman."
    Lord Roberts proved himself not only a very great General, but a very great statesman as well. My Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) said this afternoon that he thought he had made a very fair analysis of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend a few days ago. I think he did up to a point, and then it became extremely unfair. What Lord Roberts preached in the pre-War days my hon. and gallant Friend preaches to-day, and that is exactly what
    542
    the Noble Lord scoffs at, namely, that if you wish for peace you must prepare for war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] I am glad to hear cheers from the benches opposite, and I only hope that the hon. Member will support us in the Lobby, as he so strongly approves of our policy. The Noble Lord went on to twit my hon. and gallant Friend with the fact that, although we had six divisions before the War, that was not sufficient to stop the War. Of course it was not. Had Lord Roberts been listened to we should have had an Army that would have prevented the War, but Lord Roberts was not listened to, with the result that we only had six divisions, and that terrible War took place.
    History repeats itself The other day, I do not know whether hon. Members read it, a very interesting article appeared in the Press, pointing out that after the Napoleonic Wars the position of this country was precisely the same as it is to-day, the whole country was howling for reduction in taxation, unemployment was rife, trade was bad, and the parallel even went further, for there was a demand £or a reduction in the numbers of the Army. In answer to the clamour, the Government in those days, as has been the case to-day, turned to the Army and reduced the Army to a very small number, with the result that in a very few years, as will be the case to-day, that Army had to be very largely increased in order to meet the dangers that came before the country. One word to the Secretary of State for War. He thought fit to announce the other day that we had only one division fit to go abroad. In view of the disturbed state of the world is it not simply asking for trouble to confess the existence of such a lamentable state of affairs?
    It is worse than that. It is dangerous. Our weakness is more than dangerous. One of my hon. and gallant Friends said that 10 battalions had to be reduced, and that beyond that it was dangerous to go. I agree entirely. You can reduce 10 battalions, with their equivalent, if you like in artillery and ancillary troops. They must go automatically, but I do, even at this last moment, beg the Government to consider what they are gambling with. The hon. and gallant Member for Northern Dorset (Major Golf ox) has pointed out that the Government weighed military expenditure as against national

    543
    expenditure, and decided against the advice of the General Staff. The Geddes Committee have made many recommendations for cuts in other directions, which have been ignored. I believe that those recommendations have been ignored, because when they came to weigh up the political dangers versus the financial dangers, the Government came to the conclusion that the political risks were not good enough to take.
    Nearly everyone in this House realises that it is impossible there should not be very large reductions, and we are prepared to face reductions provided that in our opinion none of these reductions endanger the safety of our Empire I would ask the Secretary of State what would be available now for spending on the Army if, for example, we gave up Constantinople, if we came out of Iraq and out of Silesia, in fact if we came out of that new Empire and went back to look after our old Empire, I will also ask him what he estimates, and this is an important point, will be the amount of the non-effective Vote which is incurred by these reductions? I am very sorry for my right hon. Friend, because I know that he realises the dangers that are in front of us, and also realises what may happen to him in the big position which he holds. But he is powerless. His Majesty's Government have instructed him and the General Staff to make these reductions, and he can but carry them out
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I can go.
    Sir S. SCOTT: I agree that my right hon. Friend can resign, I only wish that, on this particular point, he had resigned. Is it right to gamble with our Empire? Is it right to sit silent and acquiescent in this House while we see the Government gambling with our Empire sooner than gamble with votes?
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The admirable speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir S. Scott) has covered the ground so well that I shall not detain the Committee at any great length, but there are a few points to which I wish to refer. I believe that there is not a single member of the Army or this Committee, or, indeed, anyone who is interested in this question, who will not agree that we have got to reduce
    544
    our national expenses enormously, and that every Service of the State has got to take its share of the reduction. We realise also not only that there are risks to be considered at the present time, but that the risks are of such a nature that the British Empire is involved by the action which it is proposed to take. I believe I am speaking for all those who have very strong feelings on this subject when I say that we believe we can still save the money, and save much more money by adopting a different policy, and that even within the Army itself there are better ways of economising than by scrapping your righting soldiers.
    Therefore my purpose is to show, first of all, that our organised man power in military formation under these new cuts is far less than it was in our peace time defence establishments before the War, or that it had been for 100 years. Second, that the available mobilisable reserves are enormously decreased. Third, that our liabilities for the protection of the Empire are greater than they have ever been in our history. The Regular Army under the cut at present proposed would actually have 20,000 fewer serving soldiers than in the 1914 peace establishments. But the Militia, better known recently as the Special Reserve, of 70 battalions is non-existent at the present time. They numbered before the War 55,000 soldiers who, as the Committee knows, could be mobilised at the first possible danger. That force at present does not exist, but it was available for overseas and also for civil protection. Then the establishment of the Territorial Army has been reduced by 110,000, and the present strength of the Territorial Army is 60,000 short of establishment. If we take these totals with the actually organised and equipped men in the various forces of the Army at present, we have 210,000 fewer equipped men available in these forces than we had in our previous peace time Army. These outstanding facts were ignored by the five men of good will who came along with their axe and said, "Here is the Army, it is very expensive. It does not involve many Votes. We will make a tremendous chop at that." They ignored that fact, and they did not treat the country fairly by ignoring this extraordinary decrease in the fighting power of the organised manhood of the British Empire.

    545
    The Geddes Committee even went further in what I am sure was an innocent deception, but it was a complete deception, of the British public, when they made no mention whatever of the reserves of the Army. In 1913 we had 149,000 men in the reserves.? In 1914 we had 146,000. To-day we have 65,000 as members of the reserve of the British Army, and of that number I calculate that only some 17,000 are actual infantry soldiers, who could be mobilised in order to take the field in fighting units of infantry, if needed, at short notice. When therefore we consider our policy and our commitments, I would ask the Committee to face the fact that in fighting men equipped or mobilisable by telegram—that is the test—the grand total to-day is down by 280,000 as compared with 1914 peacetime establishments, and that it is false for the Geddes Committee to try to persuade the country to believe that in fighting men we have to-day, in personnel, a fighting value equal to that which we had before the War. In face of these reductions you have this restless world, and this volcanic Empire with 280,000 fewer men available to deal with a great crisis. I am sorry to see so few non-service Members here, because it is their interest which we desire to secure. When I remind you that the total expeditionary force is something like 112,000, the Committee will realise what the figures which I have given mean in terms of your whole Army.
    Then there is another point. Lord Roberts, whose honoured name has been referred to, told us five years before the War that our Army of that day was only sufficient to protect the British Empire as it was then. Compare the Empire of 1914 with the Empire of to-day. In 1914 Egypt was quiet. India was peaceful. The Crown Colonies and Protectorates were all quiet; there was no trouble there at all. Ireland was free from crime and law-abiding, and was still a part of the British Empire under our control. To-day Egypt, we will all agree, could not possibly be denuded of troops, and this must be so for some time. India is seething with unrest from one end of the country to the other, having lost its pathetic political contentment, and in Ireland a section of the population, at any rate, appears to be bent on exploiting the generous gift of a Free State in the direction of civil war. On
    546
    these facts it must be recognised that the position of the Empire, compared with that which Lord Roberts referred to before the War, is dangerous. You have halved your available lighting men in the case of serious trouble. If that were the end of the story, even then we could sleep quietly in our beds at night, but, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) has told us, we have these colossal additional) burdens to our restless Empire—Iraq, Constantinople, Palestine, Silesia and the Rhine, and I am sorry to say, still, Ireland. The wisdom of the policy of the Government in scattering our forces from this attenuated army in affairs which have no permanent concern for the British Empire is a matter with which we cannot deal to-day. But if it is a question of deciding whether we are to cut down the fighting men of the Army or to jeopardise our financial position, I, for one, say: "For Heaven's sake let us come out of those places at once rather than run the risk of losing the Empire. Let us get back to the old frontiers of the Empire and round them off rather than have the claws of an Empire octopus streaching out with their vast communications to be threatened in distant parts where we have no permanent concern." With the countries and territories I have mentioned you have increased the military liabilities of the Empire by something like 50 per cent., you have stirred up the pathetic contentment of the Empire by probably 100 per cent., and you are decreasing the organised fighting men of the Empire by 50 per cent.
    The Secretary of State admitted the other day that we were taking risks. There are many men in this House who do not regard it as a risk at all. It is not a gamble; it is a certainty. The right hon. Gentleman is withdrawing the insurance on a house when the cellars of' that house are flooded with petrol. We have all the inflammable material there. There are warnings from the greatest, soldiers in the Empire, and yet the Government is to cut down the number of our fighting men. In view of the situation, I suggest that he would be a brave man who would disband any of the fighting units. There is no one in this Committee who does not agree that the ten Irish battalions have to go, with their quota of artillery and cavalry and ancil-

    547
    lary forces, but in the existing circumstances of the Empire, unless we are told by the Secretary of State that he intends definitely to give up these commitments, we cannot agree that over and above those ten battalions further units should be destroyed. There may be some hon. Members here who are very anxious. Not knowing when a General Election may come, they may say, "I have pledged myself to economies in every direction." It would be a very proper question to ask, "How could you still decrease the expenditure of the country and at the same time preserve the fighting men, to whose disbandment you object?" I put it to the Committee that the effect of keeping 14 battalions, which I might call English battalions, with their complement of artillery and cavalry, would cost something like £3,000,000 sterling, or not more than £4,000,000.
    How are you to raise that £3,000,000. I say, "Come out of Constantinople, and save £3,000,000 at once. Keep your fighting men and make friends with the Turks and by so doing you will immediately decrease enormously your dangers throughout the whole of the Eastern Empire." The Committee may say that that only just balances things. Then I say, "Come out of Mesopotamia and save £9,000,000, and come out of Palestine and save £3,000,000." There you have a further saving of £12,000,000. Against that you have still to house and clothe and maintain the soldiers coming out of those theatres; but I put it to the Secretary of State that that would cost him about £3,000,000 and there would therefore be a net saving of £9,000,000 in the British Army as a whole. Suppose that figure is not absolutely agreed to by the Secretary of State. I ask him to go further. Sooner than get rid of fighting men why not almost immediately, say, in June, cut down by 20 per cent. the pay of officers and men recruited from that date. I do not think you can break a contract. The Government might have said that every single man in the service of the State, from the Prime Minister down to the Tommy, is to have a 10 per cent. reduction in pay. I think you could have done that, but I am not sure you can do it now. Where there is no contract made you could cut down by 20 per cent. Very soon, say, in a couple of years, you would
    548
    save the £3,000,000 for the fighting troops.
    There is the situation in India. I suppose there is not a soldier who does not admit that if you had a reasonably sized army in India you could walk right through the country with modern appliances. Suppose there is widespread unrest in India on the lines of the rebellion in Ireland, where 70,000 soldiers were unable to prevent disturbances. Suppose, also, that you cannot get more than one division to India in six weeks at the earliest, and no further divisions for five or six months. Surely you are running a risk with the small white population in India, and with the white women there in particular. Surely, it is not our duty to cut down our fighting men at this time. I regret the appalling lack of interest which has been taken in this Debate by Members of the Labour party and the Free Liberal party. It is an astonishing fact that though this is the greatest cut ever proposed in the Army, yet so little interest is shown in it. I am afraid I cannot appeal to them to support us. Theirs is a peculiar kind of creed. They revel in unpreparedness. If we dropped a Mills' bomb at their feet they would hope it was a cricket ball. If a Minenwerfer were thrown they would say that it was a football, I am sure. They are prepared to run any risks. But to those who have been associated with the old traditional Conservative party, to those Liberals who stood by their country so magnificently throughout the War I say, Is it wise or real statesmanship to agree with these cuts now I After all, who is the greatest expert in the British Empire? The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Field-Marshal Sir H. Wilson). Can we neglect the words he has told us? Can we neglect the words of the Army Committee, an important body which unanimously carried a resolution yesterday. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that not a single fighting man over and above the Southern Irish Regiments shall be disbanded from the Army until the Government have drawn in their horns and altered their policy, and until the Empire once more safe.
    Major-General SEELY: There are many people like myself who are wondering very much in which way it is their duty to vote, if there be a vote on this ques-

    549
    tion. We shall listen with great care to what the Secretary of State says, because it clearly is the case that he has been compelled by reasons of economy to run things very fine. Having been responsible for three years of military affairs in this House—as Under-Secretary for one year and as Secretary of State for two years—I say that you cannot make reductions in expenditure of any size without reducing your fighting forces. I listened with interest to a speech in which an hon. Member pointed out that there were too many parsons in the Army and too many dentists. There may be too many parsons, but I have my doubts about the dentists who are very useful people in time of war. If you swept them all away, the experience of three years at the War Office has shown me conclusively that you do not make any really big reduction. I go further and say—I can say it impartially because while I was at the War Office, I regret to tell my economy friends, the Estimates continually increased and we were pressed to make reductions by people on both sides of the House, irrespective of party—you cannot make big reductions without reducing units. It is not possible. If the Secretary of State tells us that we shall be in danger of bankruptcy unless we make reductions of the size suggested I agree that we must reduce units.
    I understand that an hon. and gallant Member opposite intends to plead on one small matter, as well as on a very big matter. He intends to plead for the retention of certain North of Ireland regiments. I think that is a sound plea, and I shall support him. I say to the Secretary of State that while I agree that if you are to make big reductions you must reduce units, I do not think it would be wise to go further than the proposed reduction of 20 battalions by taking away the third and fourth battalions from regiments which have four battalions. To destroy a county unit, whether in the North of Ireland or in England, would be so disastrous that I plead with my right hon. Friend to find some means of avoiding so great a disaster to our military system. We are faced with a terrible dilemma. We are running big risks, we are told on the highest authority, from the point of view of the safety of the Empire if we do not make these big financial economies. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he will not get
    550
    much support from the War Office, but he will have some support, and from very important quarters. Let him institute an inquiry forthwith as to whether he cannot get greater security for our possessions abroad if he goes again into the whole question of the Cardwell System. It would not be wise to go now into all the arguments. If you do not stick to your Car dwell System you automatically effect enormous economies. The drawback is that you have not got so large a reserve. The Secretary of State, no doubt, will tell us that we have an exceptionally large potential reserve of trained men, noncommissioned officers, and officers, but let him institute that inquiry and ascertain how far he can give us greater security in Egypt, in Mesopotamia, in Palestine, and in Ireland, by some other method of administering our military forces. On the whole, I await with anxiety what the Secretary of State has to say, but I cannot bring myself to believe that it will not be possible for him slightly to abate the reductions he proposes to make at least by saving some of these battalions, the destruction of which would blow the whole of our military system out of gear.
    7.0 P.M.
    Field-Marshal Sir HENRY WILSON: The ground has been so well covered by previous speakers that I will not take up the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) took me to task for something that I said a few days ago. He said he thought it was now proved that to be ready for war was not a guarantee that there should be no war. He said that Europe was ready for war in 1914, and yet there was a war. I am afraid I am one of those who think that it was because Great Britain was not ready for war that there was a war. The Noble Lord also said that he gathered from my speech that it was in my mind, when I said that it was cheaper to prevent war than to win war, that it would be necessary to have 80 divisions, and therefore conscription. Nothing was further from my mind. It depends upon what war you wish to avoid how many troops you require. In olden days, with large Empires and large forces, you would require a large number of troops. In these days with small States—many of them, certainly—and with much smaller forces, although the totals are the same,

    551
    you can have your guarantees with much smaller forces. My mind was not really at that moment thinking of a great European war. It was thinking more of avoiding war inside the Empire, and if I may state two cases where a modicum of troops would have avoided war, I think I may be able to prove my case.
    I will take the case of Iraq last summer year. Owing to the fact that we were in Iraq, and that we had not enough troops in Mesopotamia, we had at great expense to draft into Iraq two divisions from India. Had we had more troops in Iraq we never would have had to draft in any, or in any case anything like as many from India, I would take the other case, which is the case we had last summer at home. Had we more troops in England of our own—and I will try to show in a minute how we could easily have had them—we should not have been put to the enormous expense of calling out the whole of the Reserve in making an ad hoc army. If the policy of the Government takes no regard at all for the forces which it has at its disposal, we are quite certain to get into trouble. It is said that if we reduce by 22 or 24 battalions, five or nine cavalry regiments, 47 batteries of artillery, and a great number of Army Service Corps and other units, we will save some £16,000,000. That is so, but there is another way of reducing, of saving that money, which to my mind is much better, and that is—I have been advocating it ever since the Armistice—to come out of those places which do not belong to us, and to hold on to those places that do. The greatest Chancellor of the Exchequer that I ever read of was Mr. Micawber, and hon. Members will remember what he said, "Income £20, expenditure £19 19s. 6d., result—Happiness; income £20, expenditure £20 0s. 6d., result—Misery." It is the £20 0s. 6d. policy which the Government have pursued for the last few years. We can make economies, we can make large economies in the Army, but I think it is not only unwise, but very, very dangerous to make economies in the fighting troops. With the condition of the world such as it is, and supposing that His Majesty's Governmen decline absolutely—as they appear to be going to do—to change their policy, if they decline absolutely to come out of those places that do not belong to us, and to hold on to those places that do,
    552
    then to reduce the number of your fighting troops is, in my judgment, absolute madness. We are told that we must take risks. I confess that the profession to which I belong is never slow to take risks, but when, as the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) said just now, the risk amounts practically to a certainty, then a man must be mad to take such risk.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Although this Debate deals with economies, I have not noticed any vigorous support in the course of it from some of the hon. Members who have been returned to this House as "anti-wasters." I have to reply to a very serious Debate conducted in a serious spirit by hon. and gallant Members who are quite clearly disturbed at the extent of the risk they are asked to participate in, and who have earnestly put before the House their feelings—not unnatural feelings—in the matter. I make no complaint whatever of a single statement that has been made. I realise as well as they do how serious the question is that the House has to decide. I am going to ask hon. and gallant Gentlemen to allow me to pass over some of the relatively minor details which have been raised in the course of the Debate. I will try to deal, in passing, with some of them, but there are some which I will leave for a later reply if the Debate goes on.
    Practically speaking, the case as put by all the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken has been this: "First of all, you ought to make no reductions in your fighting forces. We agree that if you can make reductions in the general expenditure of the Army by curtailing ancillary or auxiliary services, or by pruning off extravagances, then you should make these reductions, and we will support you in them. But the moment you come to the fighting forces, except so far as relates to the 10 Southern Irish battalions, we object to any reduction, on the ground that the amount of strength you have is no greater than—indeed, is not great enough for—the needs of the Empire." I believe that is broadly the case that I have to endeavour to answer. Let me first deal with the question of administration expenses, which it is claimed have not been properly reduced in these new Estimates. I do not want, of course, to repeat what I said on the first occasion on which these Estimates were before the Committee, but I took

    553
    some trouble to go with some detail into the various administrative Services which were being cut down in order to effect economy. It is perfectly true that cutting down a minor administrative Service by even 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. brings out very little economy in money compared with the millions we have to save. It is not so small that we are not trying to do it. Far from it, because if we can get £10,000 anywhere without damaging the fighting forces, I will get it. It is not that it is too small, but that it is a fact that if you knock off 20 per cent. you do not save £20,000 or £30,000, while if you are going to try to save when you come to millions, it is no use blinking the fact that it means a cut in the fighting forces.
    The Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Viscount Ednam), who is a new recruit to the Committee, which I am sure will welcome him not only for his own sake but for his most excellent maiden effort this afternoon, told us that there were more chaplains than before the War, and he wanted to know why that should be so. The troops are at this moment much more scattered than they ever were in 1914. We have chaplains in every place where troops are stationed, and where units or parts of units are left at depots of home stations chaplains are there also. The distribution of troops abroad does account for the additional number of chaplains. As a matter of fact, there is a Committee now sitting, and I believe as a result of their inquiries into chaplains we shall cut down to pre-War numbers. The same hon. Member referred to the Veterinary Service, and said, again, that there are more veterinary officers now than before the War. That is perfectly true. The two general reasons of that are that the boarding-out scheme for horses of the Territorial Army is quite considerably expensive in veterinary personnel. This Estimate provides that that goes by the board, and the personnel of the Veterinary Corps connected with it will be retrenched. The second main cause is that there are more theatres of war in which their services are required.
    Again, the hon. Member dealt with the pay and accounts branch of the War Office, and with the Accountants Corps. He hardly did justice to us in his remarks in that connection, because he failed to realise that these Estimates provide for a reduction of £800,000—not a bad slice
    554
    from one administrative Service—bringing the Estimate down from £1,900,000 to £1,100,000. As I pointed out when the Estimate was last before us, I am not satisfied with that. I am having an inquiry made into it now, and I promise the Committee that it is not a class on which I intend to have money spent that can be saved in any way. One other criticism which he made was with regard to the number of officers. He pointed out that there are 600 more officers now than before the War. There have been four officers added to each infantry battalion and one to each battery of artillery, and, broadly speaking, that accounts for the bulk of the increase in officers. That has been done as a definite and deliberate part of policy, and I believe rightly done. It is much harder to train an officer, and it takes much longer to train an officer, than it does to train men, and if the expansion of the Army at any time, or in any emergency, was required, it would be necessary to have additional officers. In addition to that, there is another reason. A good many of the units are being mechanicalised and the reduction in the numbers of men is considerable, and so you have got from this cause several cases of increased numbers of officers. I do not think myself there is any substantial economy to be got in that direction.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Captain Gee) made a most amusing speech about the books in some library. These books, I understand, are probably part of the large number of books with which the public supplied the Army during the War. There was a collection of every sort, and after the War these were distributed among various units, and I do not think any public funds have been used in connection with that miscellaneous collection. I am not quite certain on that point, because they may also include some books which are intended not merely for the men, but also for officers and non-commissioned officers in connection with their higher education. From the list given by the hon. and gallant Member I am not sure I can identify the class to which they 'belong. Then the hon. and gallant Member talked about the educational scheme, and said a great deal of money was being wasted in that respect. As I explained to the House the other day, we are about to reduce the Educational Corps by 166 officers and 180

    555
    other ranks. I am going to go into that still further, because here, again, if there is money to be saved without doing injury to the fighting forces, I am out to save that money. On the other hand, I do not want to destroy vocational training in the Army. I feel certain, from what I have heard, that it is good for the men that in the last few months of their military career they should be given vocational training which will help them to reasonable employment on their leaving military life. If they get that, they will be more ready to come into the Army, and it would be a bad thing, in my judgment, if the Educational Corps were reduced to an extent which would hurt this scheme.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Major Brown) pointed out that there have been six new corps established since the War, three of these, according to him, having military value, and three being without military value. He pointed to the case of the dentists. The Dentists Corps is a new corps and a very small corps. I do not know whether the men's teeth have become very much worse since the War, but it is quite clearly an advantage to the Army when they have a recruit on their hands, to have his teeth looked to and his health maintained. We have found that corps to be of real value, and to make its existence a ground of complaint, unless in itself it is extravagantly run, is not in my judgment fair criticism. If it is extravagantly run, that is another matter. The hon. and gallant Member also talked about the Corps of Accountants and seemed to suggest that this corps is there because it provides a good peroration for election speeches on the platform. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member's experience of electioneering has been, but I cannot conceive myself making any appeal to the electors by describing the work of the Corps of Military Accountants.
    There was one criticism made by the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Sir C. Townshend) to which I should like to refer. He suggested that the Cardwell system should be looked into again, with a view to providing an Army of long service rather than an Army of short service. This question of a long service Army has been gone into over and over again. There was an inquiry in 1907. Hitherto it has been found to be of no
    556
    advantage and the matter has been gone into thoroughly. I do not wish to argue it in detail, but I would point out that under such a system there would be practically no expeditionary force; there would be no supply of reinforcements abroad in a very short time; and there would be, I believe, considerable difficulty in getting recruits for a service which was entirely foreign, and long foreign service at that.
    I propose to deal next with two matters about which I hope the House will be glad to hear what I have to say. I am going to deal first with a question which was raised about the Irish battalions. The scheme which I put before the House the other day called for a reduction of 24 battalions. I pointed out how I was going to get 22 of those battalions, and I was in a difficulty with regard to the other two. I realise as well as anyone that while it is inevitable, in my judgment, to disband the 10 Southern Irish battalions and, if the cut is to take place, to disband also the 3rd and 4th battalions of the English regiments, yet to get these last two battalions would mean either cutting into the English county system or a reduction of the Ulster battalions below four. I have had the figures in my Estimate very carefully gone over, and I find that by squeezing here and squeezing there, and making some other economies, I am not bound, for this year at any rate, to go above the 22 battalions. That is to say, the two battalions which I think I mentioned the other day need not be disbanded for this year at any rate.
    Captain CRAIG: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is not going to disband any of the battalions of what we call the three Ulster regiments?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. What I said was that I could not do six battalions, but I can do four. I can leave four, but I cannot leave six. The plan of 24 battalions would have meant leaving two only. But if only 22 are disbanded, then that plan leaves two more battalions, or four altogether, which can be represented by Ulster battalions. That will have this effect. No regiment except the Southern Irish regiments will be destroyed. It is quite true that four-battalion regiments will be reduced to two battalions, but they can expand again

    557
    should it ever be necessary. At any rate, the regiment is there, and the regiment is safe, and so of the real North Irish and the English regiments, no regiment will be destroyed.
    With regard to cavalry, I have been very anxious, if it were at all possible, to find some method of being able to say the same thing, namely, that no cavalry regiment would be destroyed. I think now I can announce a plan whereby even the four regiments which were disbanded last year, can come back again as one squadron units to represent the old regiments. This is the method which it is proposed to follow. Take the Life Guards first. The 1st Life Guards will become two squadrons and headquarters and the 2nd Life Guards will become two squadrons, and these four squadrons will be amalgamated in one regiment—the Life Guards. Practically the same plan will be adopted in regard to the cavalry line regiments. If I take the Dragoon Guards and the Dragoons as an example, the Committee will see what I mean. The four seniors, namely, the Royals, the Greys, the King's Dragoon Guards, and the Queen's Bays, will remain exactly as they are, untouched. As regards the remaining six regiments, the three seniors will become two-squadron regiments, and the three juniors will become one-squadron regiments. One of the seniors and one of the juniors will be amalgamated, and will become a three-squadron regiment, first and second squadrons of which will have been derived from the senior regiment, and the third squadron of which will have been derived from the junior regiment. In that way we propose to avoid altogether destroying these regiments. I do not pretend to suggest that this proposal is likely to be palatable, but I think it is better than disbanding the regiments altogether. It does give the regiments a chance to expand if at any future time it may be necessary to do so.
    Let me deal with the main point made, that in view of our responsibilities no more reduction of the Army should be made, other than the disbanding of the 10 Southern Irish batallions.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: And their complements of artillery and cavalry.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: And their complements of artillery and cavalry. No hon. and gallant Gentle-
    558
    man, speaking to-day, has indicated what that would mean in money. It would mean, possibly, £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 added to the Estimates as they are now presented. It would mean not only the additional battalions themselves, but, of course, artillery and cavalry, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, and, as well, Royal Engineers and all auxiliary and ancillary services. That would mean something like £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, at any rate, added to the Estimate.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what then is the cost of an infantry battalion? Does it exceed £150,000?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, £150,000 for an infantry battalion is a very fair figure. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, it is not very easy to say the exact cost. It depends on how much of headquarter charges and overhead charges you are going to attribute to a particular unit. By abolishing a unit, you save a corresponding amount in overhead charges. As a round figure, the figure he has mentioned is fair. Let me refer to some of the statements made in support of the suggestion that our responsibilities are such that we can make no further reduction in the Army. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Major Colfox) said what we were really doing was, proposing to abandon the Indian Empire and then to spend large sums in recovering it. Surely, that is a grotesque exaggeration of the position with regard to India. I think it would probably be unwise to examine in detail the position with regard to India, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that for internal order purposes you do not have to consider India in terms of Expeditionary Force conditions. It is quite conceivable that in certain circumstances you might have to reinforce the white troops in India. It is possible, but I do not say it is likely, and if you did want to reinforce them you would not require an Expeditionary Force division, with infantry, artillery, and so forth. You might want extra infantry battalions, and they are there, and they could be sent, and there would be no difficulty in sending them. Conceivably, you might want some extra artillery, and it is there and could be sent, and there would be no delay or difficulty in sending it, but,

    559
    surely, it is the grossest exaggeration to say that this policy is a policy of abandoning the Indian Empire.
    Sir J. D. REES: That does not imply, does it, any departure from the relative standard of Indian and European troops which was settled after the Mutiny?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It does not imply any alteration from any standard which exists now. It implies simply this. I am challenged that there are not troops to reinforce India, that in the event of disorder we should have to abandon India and at some later date reconquer it. I say that that is a gross exaggeration. There are troops here, if they should be needed, to reinforce India in case of internal trouble.
    Major COLFOX: Do we gather that the General Staff has expressed the opinion which has just been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. I think it would be unfair and improper that I should quote the General Staff. It would be very easy for me to do it, but they are not here, they are not capable of speaking for themselves, and I take full responsibility for that statement, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at it he will see it is a mere statement that any man of reasonable common sense would be able to make with a fair certainty that he was right. Now look at India from the external point of view. There has been a tendency to compare our to-day's strength and our to-day's position with our strength before the War and with our position in India before the War. What was the position with regard to India before the War? There was a real Russian menace, active, which we always had at the back of our minds, and which undoubtedly influenced the number of troops in India.
    Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Not after the Russo-Japanese War.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: At any rate to-day that Russian menace has gone. [HON. MEMBERS:"NO, no."] It has gone to-day. I do not say that it will not arise. I am not a prophet, and I do not want to belittle the position. I have been very frank with the Committee, and some hon. Members think I have been too frank, but I do not want
    560
    to belittle the danger that may arise. I want to look at what there is to-day, and again, if you look at the position with regard to Afghanistan, it is better than it was. There is a Treaty with Afghanistan which I hope may be carried out on both sides in such a way that our friendship will continue and any menace from that quarter will be removed.
    Colonel Sir C. YATE: The right hon. Gentleman will not forget that it took 340,000 men to quell the last Afghan invasion in 1919, and that may occur again?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal with possible things that may occur fairly and frankly, but I want to run through some of those difficulties which have, obviously, impressed hon. and gallant Friends of mine, and I think it is only fair that they should hear what my view is upon the subject. In Egypt we are, I hope, in the presence of a settlement, or approaching a settlement, which will relieve a great anxiety and which will make the relations between the Egyptians and ourselves more friendly. That is an asset to us, a better position which has arisen relatively recently, and it is quite conceivable—indeed, there are indications already—that the garrison there, or the troops kept there, may be able to be reduced. I do not propose to deal with Iraq or Palestine, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies dealt with them so recently, but let me say a word about Constantinople. It is suggested that we should come out of Constantinople, and that by so doing large sums might be saved which could go to the Army in lieu of some of these present reductions. Why are we in Constantinople, what are we doing there, and when are we coming out, are the kind of questions that have been put to me. My hon. and gallant Friends know very well that at this moment a Conference is sitting in Paris—I think it is actually sitting to-day or to-morrow—at which the Allies are represented, we being represented by our Foreign Secretary, and there an endeavour is being made to come to terms which will be accepted by the Greeks and the Turks, in order to bring to a close their war. As soon as that agreement is made, I hope that it will be possible for the troops to come away from

    561
    Constantinople. We are not there in an aggressive spirit. We are not there in order to spend money, but we are there because we believe it is one of the obligations of the peace that we should take our share there. As soon as ever we can get out, however, that is our intention and that is our desire. As to the suggestion that any large sum of money can be saved by getting out at once, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who said that must have forgotten that these troops have got to be paid, fed, clothed, and housed wherever they arc, unless, indeed, it is intended to disband them on their return home, and, of course, it is not the intention to disband them, because it was to bring them home in order to save the money to keep them that the suggestion was made. The additional cost of keeping troops in Constantinople or Silesia over keeping them at home is relatively small. There is an additional cost, but it is relatively small; it is very little.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: What is the figure?
    Sir L. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: I can tell the Silesian figure, and I will try and give my hon. and gallant Friend an estimate of the actual figure for Constantinople in the course of the evening.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: What is the cost of the staff in Constantinople?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That I can find out.
    Sir H. WILSON: Is it not true that in Constantinople there are two British battalions and four native battalions, and is it not true that if we came out, the four native battalions would be disbanded?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not sure whether it was in my hon. and gallant Friend's time, or whether it was later that a decision was arrived at to relieve the four Indian battalions there by three British battalions, and the three British battalions are going to take the place of the four Indian battalions, with the result that there will be a decrease of the cost in Constantinople, and it has been done for that purpose, because these British battalions have got to be paid, fed, clothed, and housed wherever they are, and putting them in Constantinople will relieve four Indian battalions and so save a good deal of expense.
    Sir H. WILSON: What is the figure?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I know what the cost on Silesia and the Rhine is, but I have not in my mind at the present moment the cost in Constantinople. For Silesia and the Rhine the total cost is £2,500,000, and of that £1,000,000 is paid by the Germans in marks, and the other £1,500,000 is paid and is now going to be appropriated for the first time to Army Votes. I explained the other day that for the first time we shall have got an Appropriation-in-Aid of £1,500,000, and that is the balance of the cost of Silesian troops and Rhine troops, which are paid for by the Germans.
    Lord R. CECIL: Is that the extra cost?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not quite sure, but I think it is the total cost. It is eight battalions, and therefore I think it must be the total cost. The whole Committee has been impressed by the speech the other day of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson). He pointed out that with all the liabilities abroad we were reducing our Army below the pre-War strength. In making that comparison, however, he forgot to mention the Air Force. The Air Force is now an additional force, and if you take the numbers of the Army and the Air Force, you will find that the actual numbers are not reduced below pre-War strength.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Including Reserve and Militia?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was obviously talking about the actual men with the Colours. I told the House the other day that the Reserve is 65,000 men, and the Militia does not at present exist, but these Estimates include a sum for starting the Militia, more especially in key men who are necessary for the striking force, and those are included in the Estimate. My hon. and gallant Friend put it to the House that we were weaker, that we had an Army which answered no war purpose before the War, that it was dependent on voluntary recruiting, that if the recruits came in there might be a bigger Army, but if the recruits did not come in, there might be a smaller Army, quite regardless of the purposes for which it was wanted,

    563
    and quite irrespective of the policy that was being pursued or the liabilities which were being incurred. Of course, that is true, but in order to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's point, it means that you have to abandon the Voluntary system altogether; it means that in order to match your instrument with your policy you have got to have the power to call men into the Army; and it means that you have got to adopt some form of compulsory service.
    Sir H. WILSON: Could you not do the opposite, and adopt your policy to your force?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid that will not avail my hon. and gallant Friend. It is quite possible that you might not get an actual equilibrium, because your policy does not depend upon yourself. No nation's policy depends entirely upon itself. It may depend upon Allies, or it may depend in part upon potential enemies, and so it is quite impossible actually, and it never has been done at any time, that the Army matched the policy or that the policy matched the Army. That, however, was not the point that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was making the other day. What he was saying the other day was that owing to the voluntary Army we might get an inrush of troops, or we might not get them, because it was voluntary, and what he was claiming was not a voluntary Army, but a conscript Army; and I do not wonder, because he was putting before the House the absolute inadequacy of the pre-War Army of six divisions. He said the position now was worse than it was, that there were more risks everywhere than there were before the War, and that the six or seven division Army before the War was not sufficient then, and, therefore, it could not be sufficient for the greater risks today. He did not say how many divisions he thought were safe. Did he mean 10 or 12? Because the Committee must bear this in mind, that it does mean the abandonment of the voluntary system if you are going to maintain anything like that number of divisions.
    Sir H. WILSON: I never dreamt of a conscript Army, for the very simple reason that you cannot order conscripts to serve abroad in time of peace. As our Army in time of peace is a police Army,
    564
    a conscript Army would be of no use to us.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That, of course, I realise, but when the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal says that he did not contemplate a conscript Army, he was pointing out the weakness of the voluntary system, and the only cure for that weakness is a conscript Army. It is the only cure for the weakness he was pointing out, and, as we stand to-day, we have had more recruits this last year than we ever had before the War. [An HON. MBMBBER: "Bad trade!"] No doubt it is partly that, but even now we are 15,000 men short of the Establishment, and you would be face to face with a problem of the first magnitude if you attempted to shape your Army to-day upon a basis which the hon. and gallant Field-Marshal would consider equal to the risks that we have got to run. You would be faced with these two problems You would not be able to get recruits on voluntary basis, except, perhaps, on conditions much enhanced over the pre sent terms of pay and benefits, or upon a conscript basis. It is not possible for any nation exactly to fit its policy to a voluntary Army. It is quite true that you must, in shaping your policy, see what instruments you have got, and what force you have behind those instruments to carry it out. That is perfectly true, but to suggest that you can ever get an equilibrium between policy and Army is really not a practical thing. It never has been so. The British Empire was not built that way. It was built by taking certain risks in many directions, and, unfortunately, to-day we are actually faced with a position in which we are bound to take risks. We can economise those risks by policy, and I am certain I am right in saying the Government is doing, and will do, that. What the Committee has to ask itself is this. Which is the greater risk? Which is going to put us in the best position in case of some sudden emergency? Are we going to be in a better position with our finances destroyed, our powers of recuperation fatally injured; or are we going to be in a better position with every single regiment of infantry still in existence, with a power to expand, if necessary, and now with every cavalry regiment—also on a very small basis, it is true—
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Hear, hear!
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I admit that; I am not hiding the fact. Why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman jeer?
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman is not saving, I understand, a single cavalry soldier of the British Army.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has got a point, and I thought he had none. I am not destroying a single regiment of infantry or a
    single regiment of cavalry. Should it be necessary at any time to expand, the Army is there to expand, and I suggest that it is better to expand in an atmosphere of financial strength, rather than to expand in the consequences of an over-expenditure, whether it be upon the Army, Navy, or any other Force.
    Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 214,995, be maintained for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 54 Noes, 243.

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES.

    [7.55 p.m.

    Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.

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

    Marriott, John Arthur Ransome

    Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.

    Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempsteau,

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Ednam, Viscount

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

    Pennefather, De Fonbianque

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

    Glyn, Major Ralph

    Pickering, Colonel Emil W.

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

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Remnant, Sir James

    Blair, Sir Reginald

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

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

    Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

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

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

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Kidd, James

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

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

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Maddocks, Henry

    Sir S. Scott and Field Marshal Sir

    Henry Wilson.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)

    Green, Albert (Derby)

    Amery, Leopold C. M. S.

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Armltage, Robert

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Atkey, A. R.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Greig, Colonel Sir James William

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Dalzlei, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Davies, David (Montgomery)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

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

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Barnston, Major Harry

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

    Hancock, John George

    Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

    Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Dockrell, Sir Maurice

    Haslam, Lewis

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Hayward, Evan

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

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

    Birchall, J. Dearman

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Hinds, John

    Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-

    Evans, Ernest

    Hirst, G. H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Fildes, Henry

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Bruton, Sir James

    Finney, Samuel

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Flannery, Sir James Fortescue

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Burdon, Colonel Rowland

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Hudson, R. M.

    Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Cairns, John

    Forrest, Walter

    Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.

    Campbell, J. D. G.

    Fraser. Major Sir Keith

    Irving, Dan

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Galbraith, Samuel

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

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Gardiner, James

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Jesson, C.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

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

    Gillis, William

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Churc</ob>ill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianeily)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Sutton, John Edward

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Pratt, John William

    Taylor, J.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Preston, Sir W. R.

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

    Larmor, Sir Joseph

    Purchase, H. G.

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

    Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Raeburn, Sir William H.

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

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

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Lcrt-Williams, J.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)

    Turton, Edmund

    M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Waddington, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Renwick, Sir George

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring

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

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

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

    Rodger, A. K.

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

    Manville, Edward

    Royds, Lieut.-Colonel E.

    Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

    Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

    Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

    Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Mills, John Edmund

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Wignall, James

    Mitchell, Sir William Lane

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Morrison, Hugh

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

    Murchison, C. K.

    Seddon, J. A.

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Myers, Thomas

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Wilson, James (Dudley)

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

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

    Neal, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Windsor, Viscount

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)

    Winterton, Earl

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Wise, Frederick

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Spencer, George A.

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

    Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Yeo, Sir Alfred William

    Parker, James

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Younger, Sir George

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Stevens, Marshall

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Stewart, Gershom

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Sugden, W. H.

    Dudley Ward.

    Original Question put, and agreed to

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £28,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for defraying the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, namely:—

    Heads of Cost.

    Amount required.

    —

    —

    £

    Head I.—Maintenance of Standing Army

    15,500,000

    Head II.—Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

    2,500,000

    Head III.—Educational, etc., Establishments and Working Expenses of Hospitals, Depôts, etc.

    2,750,000

    Head IV.—War Office, Staff of Commands etc.

    500,000

    Head V.—Capital Accounts

    750,000

    Head VI.—Terminal and Miscellaneous Charges, etc.

    4,000,000

    Head VII.—Half-pay, Retired pay, Pensions, etc.

    2,000,000

    To be voted

    28,000,000"

    Captain C. CRAIG: I desire to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War as to the statement he made in his speech just before the Division. I understood him to say in reference to the Ulster regiments, which are supposed to be involved in the reductions to be made in the Army, that of the six battalions making up the three regiments in question, four battalions would be retained. Did I hear aright? Secondly, can he give the House any information as to how these four battalions are to be distributed between the three existing regiments? May I point out to the Committee that there are three regiments, the Royal Ulster Fusiliers, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, and we understood as a result of the negotiations with the War Office that at least a part of a battalion of the Royal Ulster Rifles, and a battalion of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers would be retained, but we were left in doubt as to what would be the fate of the Royal Irish Fusiliers. I want particularly to know what is going to be the fate of the Royal Irish Fusiliers? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to retain four battalions out of the six

    569
    composing these three regiments, and will he be able to retain at least one battalion of the Royal Irish Fusiliers? That regiment, I need hardly point out to military Members of the House, is one of the most distinguished regiments in His Majesty's Service. One has only to look at the Army List to see that its list of battle honours is second to none in the British Army. It has served King and Country for 200 years in a way which no regiment need be ashamed. I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to re-assure the officers and men of that regiment, who are anxiously awaiting to know what their fate is to be, that at least one battalion of the regiment will be retained in the Service.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. and gallant Friend was right in thinking that four out of the six battalions are to be retained, at any rate for this year, and as the Estimates are for one year that is all I can say. Whether the Irish Fusiliers should have one battalion left, in which case it will be necessary for the Inniskillings to lose one of their own battalions, or whether some other combination should be made so as to produce the four battalions out of the three regiments, I am not in a position at this moment definitely to say; and for this reason: that I am going to confer with those connected with the regiments, and I hope that the final arrangements I make will be done by agreement. It is better to at least retain one battalion of two regiments than to have a regiment having two battalions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000.
    I do not want to follow the right hon. Gentleman and comment on what he has just said, except to say that I quite agree with the policy that the War Office has announced of trying to keep the traditions of the regiments enshrined in their names, and to keep up the esprit de corps, which everyone knows is fundamental; I fully agree that the identity of these regiments should be preserved. Up till about eight o'clock to-night what I may call the military party in this House had a very fine innings. They complain that the Army is too small and too weak, that the Empire is going to be lost, and all the rest of it. I must say that the
    570
    Unionist party showed up very much better than its traditional policy suggests on the Army Debates than on the Naval Debates. It may not be apparent in my proposed reductions of £1,000,000 that much good will be done, and it may be thought that it is very small, but if the proposals I suggest are carried out we shall, without any loss of security in relation to our legitimate interests or our own home, achieve something fairly considerable. I am going to content myself with £1,000,000, and if the House will support me at any rate will be something done.
    The reason I am moving this reduction is that we cannot afford to spend £28,000,000 a year on the Army. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Every hon. Member is getting resolutions from all over the country, from trade societies and association, and so on, saying that they cannot endure the present scale of taxation, and that it is ruining industry. The poor man has to pay this out of his loaves, his sugar, his tea, his beer, and then there is the Income Tax. My hon. Friend near mo (Dr. Murray) points out that the amount is not £28,000,000 but £62,000,000, and I am obliged to him for it. The Government, as I say, is contemplating reductions in educational services and health services, and it is perfectly iniquitous for them to come to this House and ask for £62,000,000 for the armed forces.
    These reductions can be made, but how? They can only be made by a change of policy. I do not want to go into policy at length, but I must touch upon it, because it is policy which controls the land armaments. The case of the Navy is somewhat different. There are our sea communications and our commitments overseas, and we must always have certain naval forces, but our land forces are absolutely dependent upon policy. We must have a sufficient force for keeping internal order in the country and supporting the civil power, and we must have certain garrisons abroad. Outside those comparatively small forces, the rest of the Army depends entirely upon policy. Our present expeditionary force is quite insufficient to be used on the Continent of Europe, and therefore, presumably, it is to be supported in the future by naval force and the latent strength and resources which our Empire contains.

    571
    First of all, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Cabinet he should urge in season and out of season and on every possible occasion a change of policy in regard to the Army of Occupation in enemy countries? In respect to the Rhine Army we have had some admirable articles in the "Times" lately which describe some of the conditions there, and these give, I think, a very fair picture judging from what I myself have observed of our Armies. Our troops in the occupied territory are popular with the local inhabitants. The English soldier is generally so. There is a great contrast between the behaviour of our Armies and certain others. I have seen at close quarters the very fine regiments that were sent to Silesia. They were Highland regiments, and apparently they were sent out there because it was thought to be a mountainous country, because the name is, in German, Ober-Schlesien, or "Higher Silesia"! The real fighting troops in the Rhine gave a splendid impression. They are, as I say, very popular with the local people, but—and I say this with great diffidence, though I know I will carry with me military opinion—that service in these Armies of Occupation is bad for the troops. They are not doing real soldiering. They are accommodated in billets, and they find themselves, owing to the rate of exchange, very well off indeed. The English private soldier gets as much pay as a German Cabinet Minister to-day. When they come back to leaner days at home, or are ordered off to India, or some other part of our legitimate Empire, they get discontented with the change.
    Another thing which may be a minor matter, but which certainly is not unimportant. Our soldiers are marrying the girls of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, it may be very well in the cause of peace, but in view of the surplus of women and girls in our own country it is a serious matter. I know it means better relations with the country. Our soldiers are treated very nicely, and finally they come back with German wives. That is not good. It is not as if the parties met naturally and in the course of travel. They have only married because they happened to be stationed in the country. These armies of occupation
    572
    are not being paid for and they are a direct loss to the Treasury. The payments made so far, including the 31,000,000 gold marks we receive for ten days, the ships, the coal, the dyes and everything we have received, do not anything like pay for the Army of Occupation. Now that the Americans have asked for £50,000,000 for their Army of Occupation there is no chance of the other armies being paid for many a long year. I think that is a serious reason why our Army-should be withdrawn. The reparations are not going to relieve home burdens or provide compensation for the people who have sustained damage in the War, and that is another reason why the Army of Occupation should be withdrawn.
    There is an additional reason why the Army in Silesia should be withdrawn. There will be perpetual intrigue and a stirring up of trouble while there is an Allied force there for obvious reasons. Apart from financial and military reasons, these isolated troops should be withdrawn for purely political reasons. I have visited that country myself, and I am in close touch with people there, and everyone will agree that there is no chance of the award of the League of Nations in Upper Silesia working until the Allied troops have been removed. In addition to that there is the constant irritation of having an Army of Occupation, however well behaved, planted in your country. The object of statesmanship after a war should have been to have healed the wounds and get rid of irritation. What I have suggested would be a great economy, and I think British policy should be directed to that end. The Armies of Occupation in Northern Europe ought to have been withdrawn.
    My second economy would be the removal of the garrison from Constantinople. This is a subject which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), and both of them agree that this occupation is unproductive, and it is only a sign of the vacillating and unsuccessful and, I am afraid, altogether objectionable policy pursued by our Government. That would be a great saving and it would strengthen our general military position. This matter has been so threshed out that I need not go into it again. We have no business to have this great force with its barracks

    573
    and special transport arrangements garrisoning Iraq. I will not go into the policy because it would take too long, and it is certainly well understood in the country. We have no business there at all. If we cannot afford to clear our slums in London and Glasgow, which are the worst in Europe, if we cannot afford to build houses for the men who fought and won the War, or give a decent education and a University opportunity to our young people, if we have to cut down the milk supply to nursing mothers, it is ridiculous to ask us to vote £62,000,000, part of which is spent in keeping up a useless garrison in a part of the country where we ought not to be at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has referred to Iraq, but that is in the Colonial Vote.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know it has been transferred. We are not going to have another war for ten years, at least that is what we have been told. I admit that we need a certain force in this country. We have a certain garrison abroad which has to be kept up, but if we could put down our commitments on the Rhine, in Upper Silesia, and in Constantinople, we could save many millions of pounds which would help to bring peace and contentment to a sorely tried world, and we should also be able, through better trade and increased revenue, to afford money for many other things. I think we should be lacking in our duty on the Opposition Benches if we did not make a protest against this expenditure of £62,000,000 on the Army three-and-a-half years after the Armistice. I am sorry that I have to make these protests. The fact remains that we cannot afford this money. It is expenditure on a mistaken policy, and our only way, apparently, of doing anything to prevent it is to vote against the Government. It is with that object that I move this reduction of £1,000,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel D. WHITE: I only rise in consequence of what was said by the Secretary for War in the concluding part of his speech. I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), who alluded to the speech made last week by the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Sir H. Wilson) with regard to what is necessary to guard us in the event of a European war. I think
    574
    it necessary to make these observations because there may be some misconception in the Committee and in the country in reference to this matter. Those of us who acted and voted with the hon. and gallant Member for North Down, and opposed the Government on this matter, were in no way wishful to provide against the chances of a European war, but we had simply in mind our commitments for the Empire and for the defence of its frontiers. Every member of the Army Committee agrees that economies are absolutely necessary, and that therefore a reduction of military expenditure is inevitable. Immediately after the Geddes Committee reported, I happened to be in my constituency, and I told my constituents that I was prepared to take large risks with regard to reductions in the Army provided that other Departments were reduced pro rata, as recommended by the Geddes Committee. We have seen that practically the whole of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee with regard to the reductions in the Army have been accepted by the Government.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.
    Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Four-fifths of them have, at any rate, while in the case of other Departments, and certainly in one particular case, less than one-third of the recommendations were adopted. It should, therefore, I think, be made quite clear that those of us who felt it our duty to oppose the Government on this matter did not desire, although we were prepared to take risks, to court disaster to our Empire. The whole thing hangs on the matter of our commitments and our policy, especially in the Near East. Even if we were to withdraw from Constantinople and Palestine, we should be still taking risks in a military sense. Of course, the really important matter we have to decide is to try to conciliate Moslem opinion throughout the world. If we do that, we shall diminish our risks in Egypt, in India and elsewhere. The late Secretary for India made a speech the other day. I did not often find myself in agreement with him in his management of Indian affairs, nor am I in agreement with him on his action in regard to his retirement, but I do agree with him in deploring what he called the calamitous pro-Greek policy

    575
    of the Government. I am sure that until we do try to conciliate Moslem opinion in this matter, we are, by the reductions in the Army, running very great risks for the Empire. There is one minor point on which I should like to say a few words. The Secretary for War alluded to the reduction of cavalry regiments, and I understood him to say that two squadrons are to be taken from both the First and Second Life Guards. I wanted to know if the Horse Guards were also to be reduced.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): No.
    Colonel WHITE: I am glad to be told that they are not to be affected.
    Viscount WOLMER: I rise to raise a question on a Government scandal that can only be discussed on a Vote in which the salary of the Secretary for War is involved, because it does not directly figure in the Estimates. I allude to the question of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes—a great Government trading monopoly which has been set up and which is now operating on a vast scale throughout the British Empire. I should like to give the Committee a short account of the genesis of this very peculiar body whose operations have not previously come under the searchlight of Debate in this House, although there have been many questions put and answered about it recently. The Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes are the successors of the Navy and Army Canteen Board which was started during the War, and which took over the Expeditionary Force Canteens on the 1st May, 1919. The first point I desire to make is that the present organisation with which we are dealing, and which I am about to criticise, is a purely peace organisation. It has nothing to do with our policy during the War. Whether the Expeditionary Force Canteen constituted a right organisation for the War I do not propose now to discuss. Personally I think it did. But these Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes have been deliberately established by the Government as a peace canteen policy for the British Army, Navy, and Air Force. This body is controlled by a Board of Control appointed by the three Departments concerned. It was originally
    576
    floated with an advance from the Treasury which has since been repaid, and it enjoys a complete monopoly in all our camps throughout the British Empire. To show the Committee the magnitude of the scale on which this organisation works, I may mention that for the year ending in 1918 its turnover was no less that £40,000,000. No doubt since the Armistice, the figures have been on a very much smaller scale, but we are unable to state what they are because the Government have refused to publish any balance sheets in connection with the undertaking since that date. The balance sheets for 1919, 1920, and 1921 have not been published, and later on I propose to make a few remarks on that point.
    One further point of explanation I should like to give the Committee is this: That this body does not confine its operations to the usual activities of the canteen, but, on the contrary, deals in every conceivable object under the sun. I hold in my hand one of their price lists, and I will just read to the Committee a few of the items that are offered for sale by this Government organisation, which possesses a complete monopoly throughout the Army. It contains the following: Women's outfitting, blouses, blouse collars, ladies' bodices, camisoles, combinations. Every conceivable article of female underclothing is offered for sale by the Government through this organisation of the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes, sometimes at artificially cheap prices, and sometimes not. I will deal with that point later on. Then, if anyone wants to get a motor car, motorcars, and all accessories for motor cars, can be obtained from these institutes. The most expensive brands of champagne can be obtained, and, as an hon. Member says, grand pianos. In fact, there is not a single article that is sold by Messrs. Selfridge that cannot be obtained from this State trading department.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) on the front Opposition Bench remarks that this is a cooperative society, but I will point out to him, if I may, where he is mistaken. In the first place, a co-operative society is a democratically-managed body, and that, I venture to say, is a vital factor in the nature of a co-operative society. There is no democracy in the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes, and there cannot be, by the nature of the case, until you have

    577
    a democracy established in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force themselves. The institutes are controlled by a Board which is not elected by the troops, but which is appointed by the Government. That is the first distinction between them and a co-operative society. The second is that co-operative societies claim to operate on an equality with all other traders, but this organisation does not wish to accept that condition at all. It claims a monopoly in all our camps, and all sort of privileges which co-operative societies do not claim. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where do the profits go?"] There have not been any profits yet, and it may be that the losses will have to be borne by the taxpayer. I am coming to that point in a few moments. I wish the Committee in the first place to realise the magnitude of the scale on which this organisation operates, and the diversity of the articles which it sells.
    When the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes—or rather, their predecessor, the Navy and Army Canteen Board—took over the affairs of the Expeditionary Force Canteens, the Government intended that this organisation should be the new peace canteen organisation of the country. I should like to remind the Committee that before the War every regiment managed its own canteen, and the profits of that canteen went to a benevolent fund, over which the colonel of the regiment presided, and which gave help to soldiers on their return to civil life. I am afraid there is no prospect of help of that sort coming from the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes, at any rate for a long time to come, for reasons which I propose shortly to give to the Committee. I should like to point out, therefore, that by the abolition of the old system the soldier has lost a valuable friend. When the new institution took over the Expeditionary Force canteens, it was laid down by the Government that when the accounts of the Expeditionary Force canteens were drawn up some reserve should be made in the final balance-sheet for the possible relief of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, that is to say, if it- made a loss. I am quoting now from the Report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Eccleshall (Sir S. Roberts), to which the Secretary of State referred in the course of his answer to a question this afternoon, and
    578
    of which I do not think he gave a perfectly accurate summary. I should like to remind the Committee that the Expeditionary Force canteens, which did all the canteen business for our troops abroad during the War, made a profit of about £10,000,000 up to the Armistice, and it was intended—in fact, it was promised—that this money should be handed over to Lord Byng's Fund, officially known as the United Services Fund. This £10,000,000 was to go for the benefit of the men who fought in the War. But here we see that, when the Navy and Army Canteen Board was set up, the Government said that part of the £10,000,000 made by the Expeditionary Force Canteens should be set aside for the possible relief of the Navy and Army Canteen Board. That is the next point against which I desire to protest. I do not think the Government had any right to take, for the purpose of floating their new State trading monopoly, a single penny of this money which was due to the men who fought in the War, and which was promised to them. The final liquidation of the Expeditionary Force Canteens was completed on the 31st August, 1920, and full balance sheets were then furnished to the Government by the auditors.
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Where is that?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am quoting from page 4 of the Report, where it is stated that
    "The liquidation of the Expeditionary Force Canteens was to a large extent completed by 31st August, 1920, and an interim statement of account up to that date was presented to the Army Council in October, 1920, together with certain Resolutions of the Expeditionary Force Canteens Committee."
    It was subsequently stated in the House of Commons that no balance sheet was then furnished, but the auditors, Messrs. Maxwell Hicks and Company, wrote a letter to "Truth" on the 7th January, 1921, in which they said:
    "Our attention has been drawn to a written reply to a question in the House of Commons. … We therefore ask you to be good enough to give publicity to the following facts:—

    1. The 'statement of accounts' referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office is, in fact, a balance sheet of Expeditionary Force Canteens made up to 31st August, 1920, and certified by us.

    579

    2. In the preparation of such balance sheet specific reserves have been made to the extent of over 50 per cent. of the cost price of all the Expeditionary Force Canteens stock belonging to the Organisation, and general reserves have been made sufficient, in our opinion, to cover any further losses on such stock which could possibly arise."

    The point which I desire to make in that connection is that the Government have persistently refused to publish this balance sheet which was drawn up to 31st August, 1920. If that document were published it would show the public what the profit of the Expeditionary Force Canteens was and how much money is due to Lord Byng's Fund from that source. I want to ask my hon. and gallant Friend why the Government have refused to publish that balance sheet that Messrs. Maxwell Hicks & Company drew up and presented on behalf of the Expeditionary Force Canteens on 20th August. If that is published it will show how much money is due to the ex-service men. But it has not been published, and I will tell the Committee why. The Committee which the Government appointed last year to inquire into this matter said in their Report:
    "We understand that it was anticipated that, should the overseas business continue for an appreciable time, the Navy and Army Canteen Board would probably make a sufficient profit to enable them to wind up without calling upon the Expeditionary Force Canteens' past profits, but these anticipations were falsified by unexpectedly rapid demobilisation. In any case there appears to be no doubt that considerable losses have been incurred."
    So what really happened is this. You had during the War the Expeditionary Force Canteens. They made about £10,000,000 profit, which was to be distributed to the ex-service men, but instead of distributing that money to the ex-service men, the Government started this Navy and Army Canteen Board on a peace basis and kept back part of the money of the Expeditionary Force Canteens in order to finance this Navy and Army Canteen Board. And what happened? The Navy and Army Canteen Board proceeded to make colossal losses.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Everyone made losses.
    Viscount WOLMER: The Government made bigger losses than most people; and
    580
    if you get a trading organisation which is controlled by gentlemen appointed by the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Force, three Departments which are not noted for their business efficiency or their success in business transactions, I do not think it is a matter for surprise that the losses of the Navy and Army Canteen Board were enormous.
    Mr. WISE: One was a loan to the Prudential Insurance Company.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not know about that, but the losses were enormous according to all reports. Of course we are not able to quote the exact figures because the Government have refused to publish them and there are no figures since 1918. Again quoting from the Report of the Committee appointed to investigate:
    "On 17th December, 1919, the Army Council addressed a letter to the United Services Fund stating that all funds formed of the accumulated profits of canteen trading during the War and up to 31st December, 1919, as far as they were derived from the Army and the Air Force"—
    Why not from the Admiralty I do not know—
    "would be placed at the disposal of the fund."
    It was thought that the profits made by the Navy and Army Canteen Board up to 31st December, 1919, would finance the business on a peace footing and would be regarded as a permanent loan from the United Services Fund. Therefore the War Office informed Lord Byng's Fund that this great portion of their money which the Navy and Army Canteen Board had temporarily got hold of would be retained as a permanent loan from the United Services Fund. I want to know, what right has the Government to take this money, which was promised to the ex-service men and the beneficiaries of Lord Byng's Fund, and lend it permanently to this great State trading monopoly in order to finance it? This Committee, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) presided, say in their report:
    "We consider that it would be far preferable that the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes should not be financed from money derived from the pockets of ex-service men even if this money is regarded us being a loan at interest."
    That is a very strong statement from a Committee and I protest, on behalf of the

    581
    ex-service men, against the money that is due to them being used to finance this organisation. The Committee which was appointed to inquire into the matter consider that steps should be taken to get this money away from the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes as soon as possible by fixing a date and that the money, as soon as practicable, should be handed over to Lord Byng's Fund. They here speak of £7,000,000 as all that is likely to accrue to Lord Byng's Fund and I want to ask what has happened to the remaining £3,000,000. Are we to take it that £3,000,000 is the sum which the Navy and Army Canteen Board, now called the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes, has lost during their trading operations of the last two years, because if that is so it is a scandal of the first magnitude. I am sure the ex-service men will have something to say about the matter.
    Then the Committee go on to discuss the possibility of what is to happen if the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes continue to make losses, and I should like to read the passage in which they deal with this matter at the end of their Report.
    "At the same time we realise that in special cases, or in special circumstances, canteen facilities have to be provided for the forces under conditions which render loss inevitable, if reasonable prices are to be charged, and although we agree that, generally speaking, the rough must be taken with the smooth, we see no alternative to recommending that where, under abnormal conditions, the organisation is unable to make both ends meet it should be indemnified from public funds. We understand that this principle has already been accepted in the case of the forces in Ireland."
    May I ask whether that is the case. Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell the Committee whether the Government have in fact paid money to make up the losses of this organisation in Ireland, as is apparently stated by this Committee. I should like to ask also whether the Government endorses the general recommendation of the Committee and whether they are prepared to stand behind the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes and make good, out of the Estimates, any losses which these institutes are themselves unable to meet. Then this Committee go on to say:
    "As regards Ireland, not only is canteen trading at a profit impossible in that country at present, but the concentration of troops
    582
    there has its reflection in the reduction of the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes trade in the larger garrisons in England."
    That is perfectly true. Owing to the depletion of the English garrison towns it appears from the Report of the Committee that the Navy Army, and Air Force institutes are not only making losses in Ireland, where the troops are, but they have been making losses in England also, where the troops are not. Therefore, there is a double loss which is falling on somebody. On whose shoulders is this loss going to fall? Is it going to fall upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country, or upon the shoulders of the ex-service men? It must fall on the shoulders of one or the other. In so much as the Government have refused to publish the figures, we are completely in the dark in regard to the matter.
    There is another side to the question. I have tried to show that this is a State-controlled organisation, that it owes its original financing from the State, that it is now being financed partly from funds that ought to be given to the ex-service men under Lord Byng's fund, that it enjoys a complete monopoly in our camps and enjoys privileges that no other trader enjoys, and that in itself constitutes a very unfair competition against the private trader. This is a point which, naturally, the private traders feel acutely. This organisation, which is a monopoly, does not pay rent for its premises in the camp, it does not pay rates, it does not pay Income Tax, it does not pay Corporation Profits Tax, and yet it has managed to make a loss. I think that is a very remarkable performance. In the course of doing so, it has also damaged the trade of the private trader to a very large extent. Although I do not think that is a question of first magnitude, yet it is a matter of great injustice that in places such as the constituency which I represent, and also on Salisbury Plain, where whole communities have been called into being by the action of the Government in dumping a camp down on a perfectly barren spot, the Government should then come and hit the trading community by action of this sort, and leave them in great financial distress.
    9.0 P.M.
    This organisation is not operating for the benefit of the troops. I can illustrate that point by taking up a remark which

    583
    was made by an hon. Member sitting on the Labour Benches and explaining how it works. He asked whether it was selling at a cheaper rate than private traders can? and the answer to that question is, that in regard to some articles, that is to say, articles in which they are in competition with the shops outside the camp, they are able to offer terms with which the private trader cannot compete, but in regard to those articles for which they have a compulsory monopoly, they give very bad terms. Let me take the case of rations. The Committee knows that in respect of the rations an allowance is made for groceries by the Government, which is valued at 8 7/10d. per man per diem, and that comes to about £13 5s. per man per year. If you take the number of soldiers, sailors, and airmen at 200,000—I think that is a great underestimate, but I have not more accurate figures by me—it means an annual sale of £2,750,000. An organisation which has a monopoly in supplying these groceries, supplies them to the individual men at retail prices, and is making a 20 per cent. profit on every transaction with the individual soldier. That is really a scandal. These goods ought to be supplied to the troops at bed-rock prices. Instead of that, the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes treat the groceries as though they were part of their retail trade, and make a big profit out of every transaction. The result is that they are bound to make a very big profit out of the grocery rations of the troops, which they ought not to make, and which is, in that sense, taken from the pockets of the soldiers.
    I will give an incident which arose in the police court at Andover quite recently. On the 17th November a prosecution was heard at the instance of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, in which the chief witness for the Institutes gave evidence on oath that the price charged to the Institutes by the brewery for a barrel of beer was 100s., and that they were selling it to the men at 144s. In addition to that, the barmen had to make what was called an unaccountable profit of between 5 and 10 per cent. Therefore, the Institutes are apparently making a gross profit of over 50 per cent. on their beer, which is sold as a monopoly to the unfortunate troops. When you have a monopoly that
    584
    is an excessive sum, and it shows that these Institutes are not being operated to the advantage of the soldiers. Never in the history of the world has a monopoly been found to be to the advantage of the consumer, and in this case the troops are the consumer. The Government have maintained that this organisation is for the benefit of the troops, and that the profits that will accrue will go for the benefit of the troops, but there have not been any profits, and it does not look as if there was likely to be any profits for a great number of years. Just in the same way as the Government have mismanaged every other business transaction which they have undertaken, they have mismanaged this, and made tremendous losses upon it, and how those losses are going to be met is a question which I ask to-night, and which I hope will be cleared up. These losses have been made in spite of the fact that this organisation enjoys a monopoly and uses that power as I have shown in some cases to obtain very high prices from the troops, although it undercuts in regard to a great many other articles. Finally it deals with a sphere of articles out of all comparison with anything which the Government have ever attempted to do before. As I have said to the Committee, there is nothing that you can purchase at Sel-fridge's or the Army and Navy Stores that you cannot get from this organisation, and the extent to which they are selling is collossal.
    Mr. MORRISON: As one who is a silent Member, may I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a few minutes. This matter is of great interest to my constituents and I wish to join in the protest which has been made by the Noble Lord who represents Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). I have received a lengthy communication this morning from a body representing trade and commerce, including men of every shade of polities of my constituents. Private traders are having a very trying time. They have to bear a heavy burden of rates and taxes and they object to having to compete with State trading competitors who pay no rates and no rents and, I believe, up till recently paid no Income Tax. The Noble Lord has explained the points so fully that there are only one or two things to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. It is well known there are many religious

    585
    and philanthropic institutions doing very good work round our military camps, especially on Salisbury Plain, and the operations of these bodies are considerably hampered by restrictions, which they think unfair, in favour of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute. It seems hardly credible that these traders are unable to suppy Tommy Atkins with some simple articles of diet unless those articles are first purchased from the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institute.
    Another matter which was brought to my notice only this morning is the case of a certain number of cinemas on Salisbury Plain in my constituency. Up to recently these cinemas paid no Entertainment Tax, but I understand that, probably because of this Debate, the tax has been imposed, beginning last Monday. Then there is another point to which I wish to refer. A number of traders in my Division put up expensive buildings at a cost of £2,000, pro-War prices. They expected to be able to trade for a reasonable time. The hours of trading are subject to military regulations of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and they are also subject to the Shop Hours Act. I understand that the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute are not subject to these regulations anywhere. I wish to protest against this system of trading by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute. The lot of back-benchers who support the Government is sometimes a hard one. I heard with great interest the speech made by the Leader of the House, who stated that one of the principles of our party was that they believed in private trading and private enterprise. It is difficult to reconcile those principles, which were laid down so admirably, with the attitude which has been taken by the War Office and others on this question.
    Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSON: I think that the question before the Committee is a wider one than should be considered upon the various small points that have been made by the Noble Lord. The question is whether we, as a nation and as people interested in the welfare of our soldiers, should provide these canteens, as they used to be called, for the benefit of the troops, or should revert—that is the end of the argument of the Noble Lord—to the pre-War conditions, a condition which I think this House and the country re-
    586
    pudiated as not suitable and not beneficial to the soldiers who served in our Army. Short of reverting to that, what is the meaning of the Noble Lord? I would ask him to remember the various deputations which have been to the War Office on the subject, and when they have been asked "what limit are you going to place upon what you are going to supply to the troops?" no definite answer has yet been received from any of these trading bodies beyond this vague statement, "You should supply the necessaries." What are the necessaries? We begin by supplying a club. After all, remember that these institutes are not only shops. They are clubs. They are social institutions. They keep the soldier out of trouble and out of public-houses. That is what they are there for primarily, and it is natural that the soldier wants some sort of refreshment.
    If he wants a cup of coffee, he may then want lemonade, or a sandwich, or a bun, or some cigarettes and matches. Then it goes to soap and so on. No one in this Committee can begin to lay down the line and say where the necessities of the soldier and his family begin and end. After all, we are trying to improve the life and lot of the soldier and keep him out of temptation. That is really the long and the short of it. There is no use in these traders at Aldershot and other places coming here through the Noble Lord or other people and standing between the benefit of the soldier and the House of Commons. I have gone into this matter carefully and very deeply, and I feel strongly that this Committee ought to support the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Force in making the lot of the soldier better, in improving his condition, in giving him all we can in the way of helping him to amuse himself when he is not working, and in also providing him with the necessaries of life at reasonable cost. The Noble Lord talks about 20 per cent. profit. Has he ever considered the percentage on these things? Is he taking the margin between cost and what you get for an article and taking that as profit? The Noble Lord would make a bad business man if that is the way he conducted operations. You have to consider the cost of distribution, and what is the cost of keeping up these institutes in places where there is only a handful of men, and if you can make a margin of 20 per cent.

    587
    at Aldershot, what about the margin in Ireland, or in the North of Scotland, or in other places?
    There is no use talking about the difference between what goods cost and the amount which you get for them in one particular place. We have got to consider the broad question. I ask the Committee not to be led away by statements on small points which are prejudiced or ex parte. Every one of them has been investigated by the War Office. The Noble Lord has come to the War Office several times on these deputations. He has been listened to. Every argument which he has put forward has been weighed not only by the War Office, which might be fallable, I admit, but also by the Navy and the Air Force, and all these bodies have come deliberately to the conclusion that it is for the advantage of the Service that we should encourage the continuance of these canteens, as they used to be called, or institutes, as I prefer to call them. My argument is based also largely upon the social side of the work which is conducted at these institutes. Do not let the Committee think that the margin between what goods cost and what is paid for them by the soldiers is profit which goes into some shareholders' pocket. If there is such a profit, where does it go? It belongs not to ex-soldiers, but to the serving soldier of to-day. It goes to supply him with various games and entertainments, and things which prevent his life from being, perhaps, injured by the conditions in which he has to live. It is for the benefit of the soldier and of the country. We are the custodians of those interests here, and we must not primarily regard the interests of private traders, but first and foremost the interests of our soldiers.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I challenge entirely the last words uttered by my right hon. Friend. I think it is an extraordinary proposition to lay down, as if it were a general truth, that we have to disregard the interests of traders and look after the interests of soldiers. Why? I say exactly the opposite. Certainly I have no wish to be behind anyone in the desire to do everything that is legitimate and proper in the interests of our soldiers, but, after all, it is really raising them into rather a privileged class to represent that they are above the inter-
    588
    ests of the trade of the country and that here our first and only consideration is what is to be considered for the advantage of the soldiers. To begin with, I doubt whether it is to the advantage of the soldiers. I certainly do not think the last speaker went any way at all to meet the very strong case put by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). My Noble Friend appeared to me to make an extraordinarily strong case against the management of these institutes. He showed conclusively that they are not for the advantage of the soldier. By reference to the actual prices he showed that the soldiers alone, without taking any wider view, do not get from these institutes the advantages to which they are entitled if the institutes were properly managed. The case made appeared to be unanswerable with regard to the diversion of the profits that accrued during the War and with regard to the concealment of the accounts.
    A most extraordinary procedure was revealed by my Noble Friend. If any other business except the Government conducted its affairs on the same lines, very damaging epithets would be applied to it. I know that the last speaker is a business man. What sort of language would he apply to a business which concealed its balance sheet in order that the amount of profits and the use made of those profits might be hidden from the public? That is what has taken place. My Noble Friend pointed out inferentially that probably a profit of £3,000,000 has been lost, and that it is part of the £10,000,000 made during the War. He alleged that it had been frittered away, although the actual facts have been so concealed that we cannot speak with certainty. £3,000,000 has been frittered away in losses. It appears to me that the Government have a very strong case to meet.
    On one point I wish to lay stress. If you are to have no regard for the interests of the trader, and if you could prove that by doing so you were benefiting the soldier, I could imagine certain friends of soldiers, who have no regard for trade, taking up that attitude. But it is not the attitude that the House ought to take. It seems to be extremely-unfair and damaging to the trade of the country that these privileged institutes

    589
    should be able to carry on trade side by side with the ordinary trader, but on privileged terms, and with exemption from taxation and rating. There is nothing that is causing a greater amount of discontent and trouble in the country to-day than the terrible burden of rates. What can be thought of the sentiments of an ordinary trader in a country town where there is one of these institutes? He is probably having a great struggle to make any profit. He is heavily rated on his premises, and finds great difficulty in paying his rates. He knows that a large part of the custom on which he might naturally depend is being lost to him because that custom is going practically next door to some building which is not paying rates or taxes, and is supported by Government finance to enable it to undersell the ordinary trader in many classes of commodities. The Government ought to consider this matter very seriously. It is a matter which is causing a great of feeling throughout the country. As the case made is so strong, and till now has received no answer from the Government, I shall certainly support my Noble Friend in the Lobby.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: As one who experienced considerable benefit when in the ranks overseas from the presence of the canteens, I sincerely hope that the Government will not go back to the customs that were prevalent in pre-War days. Anyone who served must know that the canteens supplied a very real need of the soldier. [HON. MEMBERS: "That was during the War."] We still have soldiers. With all respect to the arguments of the last speaker, I say that the first charge on the War Office is surely the welfare of those who are serving under it. I hope, therefore, that the War Office will not be debarred by criticism from supplying what is a real need to those who are least able to help themselves and will hold that the interests of the British trader, great as they may be, should be subservient to the welfare of the larger number of those to whom the traders look to protect them in the hour of need. At the same time I must say that I do not think the right hon. Member for Moray (Sir A. Williamson) met one of the points of criticism, namely, as to the balance of £10,000,000 which was left as a profit of the Canteen Boards overseas and which has not been handed
    590
    over to Lord Byng's Fund as was promised. That profit should go to the benefit of ex-service men, for it was made out of the ex-service men.
    There, I support the Noble Lord, much as I differ from him on other points. The Government have only themselves to blame for the secrecy which attaches to this particular fund. Questions have been asked time and time again, and no satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. I hope that to-day a representative of the War Office will tell the Committee what has become of the £10,000,000. If he suggests that he has to carry forward a balance to finance the new institutes, I submit with all respect that the financing of the now institutes should be a charge on the Army Vote and should not be taken out of the profits which were made overseas from ex-service men. That was a fund entirely separate, or should have been, and if a profit was made under these abnormal conditions it should have been expended on the ex-service men, as was, indeed, promised. I see that the loss has been greater than was anticipated and that the fall in values over an extended period is considerable. The correct thing would have been to strike a balance at the time, to strike out the loss, and not to carry forward a loss which has increased as the years have gone on. If that loss had been dealt with at the time of the Armistice it would have been considerably less than it is to-day.
    I support the reduction of the Vote moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and I submit that the reduction he has moved is really well within the mark when you take the findings of the Geddes Committee. I consider that when the Geddes Committee tell us that without sacrificing efficiency in any way, and realising our present liabilities, there could have been a reduction from £75,000,000 to £55,000,000 and yet we find to-day that we are asked to vote £62,000,000, without including Iraq, there is good cause for this reduction. At a time when we are groaning with the burden of taxation and are sacrificing some of the Services which many think go to the upbuilding of the nation—such as in housing, health and education—for Services which do not produce that result, and which the Geddes Committee say can be efficiently carried out on a much smaller scale, it

    591
    is only right that a protest should be made. If we look back, we find that in 1913–14, £28,000,000 sufficed for this purpose, and to-day we are asked to spend over £62,000,000. Surely, allowing for the difference in the cost of things, that is far too much. After we have fought a war which was to put an end to war, the irony of the thing is that we are asked to pay more than twice what we paid before when Europe was an armed camp. I think we should show we are in favour of a pacific policy by setting an example to Europe, and by leading, as we did before the War. We led the nations to victory; let us lead now in peace, and let us set an example, so that when the Prime Minister goes to Genoa he will be able to show that we are really anxious to have a pacific policy and to have economy that will be for the well-being of the world as well as of ourselves.
    I should like to refer to a much minor matter, but one in which considerable, interest is felt outside, namely, the policy of the Government in refusing to give those men who only saw home service any recognition whatsoever. I know this matter has been before the House and the Government before, but I submit there is an entirely new factor in the situation, inasmuch as the Government, by issuing to special constables a medal for war service, have created a sense of grievance and injury amongst those many men who, through no fault of their own, gave much greater service, and yet have received no recognition whatsoever. In answer to a question the other day the Minister for War said that the medal which had been given to the special constables was not an Army medal. That is perfectly true, but it is a medal for war service issued under Royal Warrant, and described in that Royal Warrant as being in recognition of devoted service rendered by members of the Special Constabulary during the War, and the medal has a clasp On which is inscribed "The Great War, 1914–18." I hold that if the special constables—who did excellent service, but under very different conditions from those who served at home, or the Territorials, or pre-War Army men who, over age, came up and spent many years and long days as drill instructors and drill sergeants licking our
    592
    new Army into shape—are to have these medals it is a serious reflection on those men that they should have no recognition. Do not give them necessarily the same medal as is given to men who served overseas, but do give them some recognition. Hon. Members must have seen many, many cases which have involved particular hardship. You have a Territorial Force which mobilised immediately that war was declared in 1914, and containing men who volunteered for overseas service, and who, through no fault of their own, were detained at home, some because of their excellence as drill or musketry instructors, men who were willing to go overseas but were not allowed to do so. These men, who have many years' service behind them, some over 4¼ years, have been denied any recognition whatsoever, because an unkind fate kept them here.
    I am quite certain those of us who served overseas, and who get the medals for that service, would not in any way grudge the home service men having some recognition, and surely at a time when you are anxious to increase your Territorial Force and to make it attractive you are doing a bad turn to the officers who are raising the Territorials by giving this obvious slight to those who have done that service. I had a letter the other day from a Territorial who had put in 35 years for his country, and who was not able to go overseas through ill-health. He enlisted in 1914, and his division was not called for overseas till July, 1916. In the meantime he had been in Ireland in troublous times; when the Territorials were mobilised ho was an A1 man, but when he was called before the doctor for service overseas he was turned down on account of strained heart due to his service in the Territorials. He gets no recognition whatever. I have another case showing another anomalous position. A British subject in the Western States of America as soon as War was declared travelled the 5,000 miles to come here, enlisted, although he was over age, and, although he was unable to go overseas, served for 4½ years, and received no recognition whatsoever. The irony of the thing is that he goes back to America, and the United States authorities issue to him a medal for service with an Allied Army.

    593
    That is to say, the United States authorities give to a British subject that which the War Office here refuses to allow him to have. In this manner you can go through a large number of cases.
    I have a case of an ex-Guardsman who has done great services. He was over age, volunteered, and spent the whole of the four years on the drill square licking into shape the raw recruits who came along. As a drill sergeant he had over 16,000 men through his hands. His younger son had gone abroad just before the Armistice, landed in France, and, being in the Signal Service of the Post Office, he was called home, and only saw a few months' service. He gets his medal, and then he says to his father, "What did you do in the Great War?" His father replies, "I did this," and the son answers, "Where are your medals?" This lad, a mere stripling, has his medals, but the father, an ex-Guardsman, four years on the drill square, training thousands of men, gets nothing. If you are to have medals at all, and if you are to have the same medals for men who were in the firing line as for those who were on some cushy job at the base, who never saw the end of a gun, you are not stretching the point considerably if you grant a medal to the men who saw home service. I do urge that the War Office and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should realise that outside there is a very sore feeling on the question, and having given the medal—whether you call it an Army or a War medal—to the special constables, it does give a reason for the whole matter to be reopened and to be considered again in order that these men who did grand service, and especially the Territorials, shall not be deterred in the future by what so far appears to be unfair treatment at the hands of the Government.
    Colonel BURN: I should like to say one word on the question of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, and I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said on that subject. I think the private trader is unfairly handicapped in competition with these institutes. The staff of the institutes are paid differently, they have particular advantages in buying all their stores, and the system hits the private trader uncommonly hard. In my own constituency there is a case in
    594
    point, and that is the canteen of the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth. They purchase stores under exceptional conditions and the staff is employed under special conditions.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that he is now dealing with a matter which does not arise on this particular Estimate.
    Colonel BURN: I was only quoting that as a case which is exactly on all fours with that of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. The private traders of the towns are being very hard hit, and it is especially severe on them in these days when business is so slack. I will not, however, pursue the matter if it be not in order to do so, although I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that these institutes are very unfair on the private trading system. I wish to take the opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the statement he has made about the cavalry regiments. Naturally, I am pleased that my own old regiment remains as it was. I congratulate him on having listened to the appeal which I made when the subject was under discussion at the end of last year, and when it was first proposed that these four cavalry regiments should be disbanded. From what the right hon. Gentleman paid to-day, I understand the cadres of these regiments will remain, so that the regiments will really retain their traditions and prestige, and it will be a very simple matter, should the necessity arise, to fill up the vacancies and place them as they were before, in a state of efficiency and ready to go on service. It is satisfactory to know that these distinguished regiments will retain their titles and will practically remain in being.
    I suggest that, as regards the infantry regiments which it is proposed to disband, consideration should also be had for distinguished regiments which have rendered admirable service to their country. I fully realise the necessity for economy. Economy comes before everything, in those days when from the house-tops, everybody is crying out about the burdens of taxation they have to bear. A reduction of expenditure is necessary now, more than ever, but I claim that these regiments should not be allowed to disappear altogether. In their case also the

    595
    cadres should be allowed to remain. All that is required is a cadre, one or two officers and a nucleus of men, and the expense which that would involve could very easily be met, in the first instance, by putting more regiments on very low establishments. If you have the nucleus of a regiment, vacancies can be filled up very quickly when the necessity arises, and provided an efficient reserve is kept, you will have there the material with which to make up these regiments when they are required. I feel convinced that such a course would give great satisfaction throughout the Army. I also agree with hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate and who are satisfied that if the evacuation of certain places were carried out, the money saved by that evacuation would more than pay for the retention of these regiments in the Service. The British Army, small as it is, has always been the most efficient army of any country in Europe, or, indeed, in the world, and efficiency counts for a great deal. Once the spirit of efficiency is infused in an army, however small the beginning may be, you always have the right spirit continuing to imbue the men as the regiments are increased to war strength. We had an example of that in the early days of the War, when the "contemptible little Army," small as it was, proved its real value by stemming the advance of the Germans on Paris.
    I should like to know exactly how we stand as regards France. What is the understanding between this country and France? In my belief, a compact between France and Great Britain would make for the peace of Europe more than anything else, and while it may not be thought wise to enter into a real alliance, at the same time we should be able in the quickest possible time to put a force in the field in the event of necessity arising and be in a position to assist our friends. We have heard a great deal about our overseas Dominions. Some of us know-that there was a section in this House who looked on our overseas Dominions as an incubus to this country, to be got rid of at the first possible opportunity. I think that view ought to have been dispelled by this time. Anyone who served in the War and knows what the overseas Dominions did for us must realise fully that without the forces which they sent to our assistance we should
    596
    have been in a very bad way. These are a few points which I claim to be worthy of consideration, and I trust the powers that be, will give them that full consideration which they deserve, and will always remember that what we have to stand by is the prestige of our country and Empire.
    Sir CHARLES BARRIE: I have listened to this Debate with great interest and to the remarks of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) with considerable amusement. He may not be aware of the fact that, although I am a Member of this House, I am, unfortunately or fortunately, as the case may be, chairman of the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes, which have been so much maligned to-night. The Noble Lord talks of these institutes as not being democratic. As chairman, I consider myself a democrat in every sense of the word, and after the Noble Lord has heard the few remarks I intend to make I hope he will change his mind as far as the merits of the canteens are concerned. I take it the basis of the Noble Lord's attack is nothing more nor less than that certain traders in his constituency do not find it convenient that the soldier should trade with himself. Has my Noble Lord ever heard of the co-operative system? I do not know what his vote was when we were dealing with co-operative matters here some time ago, but I certainly have a very lively recollection of those Debates, and the Labour party, I should think, from the attitude which they then adopted, would support en masse any such co-operative system as the soldiers, sailors and airmen have chosen to inaugurate among themselves. Why, if any body of men choose to trade—
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member did not hear my speech.
    Sir C. BARRIE: I did. I sat throughout it, unfortunately.
    Viscount WOLMER: But I dealt with that point.
    Sir C. BARRIE: The Noble Lord dealt at random with so many points that I do not think the Committee was really able to pick out what he really intended to say.
    Dr. MURRAY: Yes, the Committee was.
    Sir C. BARRIE: The canteen system is no new one. I understand, from information which I have had, that for about a hundred years the forces in this country had endeavoured to institute some such system as we have to-day. It only became acute, however, in 1899, when a Committee of the various Departments endeavoured to grapple with this matter. The time was evidently not ripe at that moment, and nothing succeeded, but what was the consequence? The South African War took place, and Sir Redvers Buller, immediately he got to the front, had to institute nothing more or less than the field canteen force system. At the end of the South African War a Committee was set up, presided over by Lord Grey, and their reference was as follows:

    "(1) Whether it is advisable to alter (canteen) conditions with a view of obtaining for soldiers similar benefits to those now gained by co-operative societies for their members.

    (2) If the above is considered advisable, by what method it should be carried out."

    This Committee at that time made certain recommendations, but unfortunately, for some reason or other, they were not given effect to. What followed? In 1914 a well-known firm of canteen contractors and certain military personnel were prosecuted, and in a leading article which I have by me I find the following:
    "We shall draw but one conclusion from the case. The time has manifestly come when the whole of the present canteen system, under which abuses … of the kind disclosed in this trial have grown up and flourished, should become the subject of scorching investigation on behalf of the Government … We trust that out of evil good may come."
    As a result of the canteen scandals of that date, Lord Rotherham's Committee was appointed, and in 1914 it came to the conclusion that the canteen system must stop. What has all this resulted in? Simply this, that when the Great War broke out it became absolutely essential that some sort of canteen system should be adopted. The contractors' system by that time had broken down, and something had to take its place. Before the arrival of the Expeditionary Force canteens in France, the prices to the soldier had gone up by 50 per cent., but immediately the canteen system arrived prices, of course, were very much reduced, so far as the soldier was concerned, and he got his articles at what
    598
    was then the proper price. To continue, the end of the War came, and a Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) came to the following conclusion:
    "From the evidence that we have heard, we are convinced that the maintenance of a permanent organisation of the kind is most desirable as a matter of policy, both because of the amenities which it affords to members of the forces, and more particularly because it provides the nucleus of a service capable of immediate expension on mobilisation."
    I think, from what I have said, that the Committee will see that this is not a matter that has been entered into lightly. No fewer than five Committees have sat on this subject. They have all recommended that a canteen system should be adopted, and, surely, if the soldier, the sailor, and the airman choose to trade amongst themselves, to keep the profits amongst themselves—
    Viscount WOLMER: They have never been asked.
    Sir C. BARRIE:—and to use such profits as they may make in order to further their own systems of amusement and relieve one another, is there any reason why they should not? What is the option? To go back to the old canteen system, which has been condemned? I think the Committee will agree with me that, after all the Committees that have sat and examined these matters, and after the experiences of the South African War and the late War, this is not the time of day to go back to an old system which has been condemned and whose transactions will hardly bear the light of day. These are the only general matters I should like to touch upon with regard to the maintenance of the canteen system, for the main reply to the questions put by the Noble Lord will come from the Front Bench. Suffice it to say, that during the time I have been Chairman of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, we have had nothing but praise from the whole of the Services with regard to the maintenance of the system, and expressions of goodwill from them all that it may long continue.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is not my intention to follow in the discussion relative to the merits of either State socialism or private capitalism. The discussion of that subject so far reminds me

    599
    of a meeting of shop assistants where they had been quarrelling about the respective merits of voluntary co-operation and private trading. I hope the Debate will rise to a higher standard than that. The Amendment before the Committee is to the effect that the Vote on Account should be reduced by the sum of £1,000,000, and I desire to support that Amendment. It is customary on the Government's side, I notice, to use an argument like this when they are dealing with economy in connection with any of the public Services. They say, in effect, that they spent last year £100,000,000, and this year they propose to spend only £62,000,000, and they draw the conclusion that they are making a saving to the National Exchequer of about £40,000,000. I think the basis of their argument is wrong. They ought to correspond the expenditure, not with what happened last year, but with the expenditure, say, in 1914. That, I think, is the proper method of making comparisons in this connection. Let us turn to the figures for a moment. The figure of the total expenditure on the Army for 1914–15 was £28,845,000. It is now proposed to spend £62,300,000, in spite of the fact that the War was supposed to end in 1918.
    That was not exactly the point to which I rose to draw the attention of the Committee. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the War Office one or two very pertinent questions. I understand that there is in existence, in connection with the War Office, what is termed a Chemical War Committee. This Committee has concealed its operations very much from the public, but I happen to be a member of an authority to which this Committee made application some time ago to use a very large municipal college of technology in order to conduct research into poison gas, and I do not think it would be right if I did not express the abhorrence of the people of that city—the best of them—against the promotion of this part of research work by the War Office. I think that hon. Members ought to know exactly what is transpiring in connection with chemical warfare. We have been told here this week that some time ago the Navy was regarded as our first line of defence. The military Gentlemen in this House have combated that view, and argued that the soldier was the most im-
    600
    portant unit in our forces. Then the Gentlemen connected with the Air Service came along and said that the airmen were the people to defend our shores in the near future.
    I venture to suggest that the man who will count most in warfare in the future will not be the sailor, will not be the soldier, will not be the airman, but will be the scientist, and I want to ask, with due respect, that, instead of spending more money in trying to find out a formula to secure a gas that will poison thousands of people, the Government will spend their energies in something better. Towards the end of the War the War Office sent a mission to that part of the Continent that was conquered by our Armies, and they visited several chemical factories that were left intact by the Germans on their retreat. I was astonished to read the report of that mission. They say:
    "In the future, it is clear that every chemical factory must be regarded as a potential arsenal."
    10.0 P.M.
    I rose in this Debate, not because I understand military manœuvres, not because I am interested so much in military adventures, not because I am so much concerned with the growth of this Empire, and the policing of the Empire by airships, bombs, and so forth, but I want to raise my protest—and I think I have a considerable number of people behind mo in this connection—against, the diabolical idea that the next war, as we have heard from some of those benches, when it comes will be more infernal than ever. I think Members on this side of the Committee, at any rate, are not prepared to accept, in the cool fashion it has been mentioned on the other side, that we are to have a great war within the next five or 10 years. I trust the nations of the earth will come to the conclusion that wars do not settle anything in the end. They settle nothing. You have had the biggest war in the history of the world. The people of this country are poorer today than ever they were, and I want to raise my voice, at any rate, against the idea that Gentlemen on that Bench are now prosecuting their researches in order to find out how they can poison thousands of people—probably people who are not connected with the Army at all. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) yesterday pictured what

    601
    might happen to Paris or London, and let me remind the Committee that in the past, when nations were fighting each other with navies and armies, Gentlemen in this House probably felt quite comfortable at home in their mansions, but if war were to be conducted, as has been hinted in this House already, by dropping bombs containing these chemicals, then I feel sure it behoves some hon. Gentlemen opposite to think what might happen to their own homes if a great war in future occurred on these lines. I trust that the Secretary of State for War will regard this protest, at any rate, as being made with all the sincerity I can offer, and I trust he will withdraw that little staff he has in the Manchester College of Technology, where they are now conducting research in order to find out a formula that will help in the next war. I want to raise my protest against the whole infernal and diabolical business that nations are making researches to conduct war with poison gas.
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into the matter he has raised, except to say that it may, perhaps, occur to him that it is worth our while to pursue chemical research in order that, if we are attacked by poison gas, we may have some resources with which to defend ourselves. Perhaps he does not realise that we were not the first to use poison gas. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) moved a reduction of £1,000,000, and remarked that I seemed surprised. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman I am never surprised at anything he does. He then went on to discourse about that on which we have already had a long discussion, which was entirely answered, I think, by the Secretary of State when he made his speech. The hon. and gallant Member for Southport (Lieut.-Colonel White) only asked one question, which, I think, I answered at the time. Then we come to the subject about which most of the discussion has taken place.
    The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer) raised the question of the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes. I have heard the Noble Lord on several occasions on this matter. He speaks with considerable feeling—I might almost say with considerable vehemence—
    602
    about it. I know he feels very strongly on the matter, but the unfortunate thing is that he makes certain assumptions, and then states them as facts—a rather dangerous thing to do, I think. He talks about this as a scandal. I quite expected him to say that. I have heard him say that before. He talked about a Government trading monopoly. I have also heard about that before. He also spoke about the genesis of it. He was a little wrong in his facts, but nothing to speak of. They were fairly accurate. And then he said that out of that arose this peace organisation, and he wanted to know whether the War Office intended to carry on this peace organisation. I may as well tell him at once that we do this for the benefit of the Navy, Army and Air Force, and that we do propose to continue it. I rather want to deal with some of the definite charges that the Noble Lord made about these institutes. He said that we had absolutely refused to publish any balance-sheet.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry if I gave the Committee the impression that in 1918 a balance-sheet was not published. I do not think I could have done so, because I quoted the turnover of £40,000,000 from the 1918 balance-sheet.
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I apologise to the Noble Lord. I thought he said it had not been published. I took his words down and I understood him to-say we have refused to publish any balance sheets since 1918.
    Viscount WOLMER: Hear, hear!
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is not so. We are doing all we can to get these balance sheets out. I have spent many, many hours myself with various people, including the liquidators, endeavouring to get the whole of these matters settled up, so that we can produce balance sheets, and I tell the Noble Lord that we are doing the best we can. When the Noble Lord says we are not doing the best we can then he is talking about something he does not know anything about.
    Viscount WOLMER: When will they be published?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have already told the Noble Lord we are doing the best we can to get them out as soon

    603
    as possible, and when we do get them out the Noble Lord will not have so much to talk about. The Noble Lord told us several other very interesting things. He said that every regiment managed its own canteen and that there were some nice little funds derived by the regiments in consequence. Is the Noble Lord quite sure about that—that every regiment manages its own canteen?
    Viscount WOLMER: I was reading the second paragraph of the Report of the Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I was only asking the Noble Lord as to whether or not he is perfectly certain? If he had gone into the history of some of the times when the tenant system was in vogue, he would possibly agree that it would not be a very pleasant system to go back to. He will possibly remember some of the scandals in 1914 and some of the people who were implicated, and I do not think he would be particularly anxious to go back to the state of affairs we had then. The Noble Lord drew some funny assumptions—I will not say that—but he said there were 10 millions of the money left over when the Expeditionary Force came home again. He quoted certain paragraphs from the Report presided over by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) which said it was anticipated that the Army and the Navy Board would possibly make sufficient profit to enable them to wind up.… Does the Noble Lord think that the men who were demobilised because the War had apparently ended—the men of the Expeditionary Force—went straight home and were not provided with anything as well as the men that were left out? These men had to be provided for just as much as during the War. Then the Noble Lord told us that there were £10,000,000, and he said that the statement had been made that £7,000,000 would be handed over to the United Services Fund; then he went on to say that that meant that we would lose £3,000,000. Why does he think that? That is the sort of assumption that the Noble Lord makes, and puts it forward as a fact. He does not realise that certain commodities and comforts were given to the troops during the War, nor does he realise what was done for the Colonial Forces, who were treated much the same
    604
    as the Expeditionary Force had been, and just the same as our own troops. This sort of assumption put forward as fact makes it impossible to deal with the Noble Lord in this matter.
    Viscount WOLMER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman state where that money has gone to?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Where it goes to? The Noble Lord states that there will be no profits. I agree. Yes, but does he know why? We give an 8 per cent. rebate on the gross turnover, and we do not intend to make any profit. If any profits are made, they will be set aside for a definite fund. Up to date there have been no profits. The Noble Lord said nothing about the 8 per cent. rebate. He talks about the tremendous advantages of the arrangement. The canteens have had no more advantages than the tenants had under the old tenant system of canteens. What we have been doing is to put up decent places where the men can go and spend their time of recreation. Any hon. and gallant Member who served before the War will, I am sure, bear me out when I say that the places the men had to go to were perfectly horrible. The only place was the canteen bar, and the canteens were really run to make a profit on the sale of beer. I think it is a matter of congratulation all round that the sale of beer has decreased since pre-War days to a remarkable extent, and that the coffee sales are most remunerative. This alone, in my opinion, would be sufficient to justify the experiment—if we may term it an experiment. It is rather a system we are carrying out in our canteens at the present time. The Noble Lord said that these canteens were State-aided. That is not so, nor do they get any more privileges than did the tenant of the canteen under the old system, except as arranged by the Roberts Committee that where under normal conditions the organisation is unable to make ends meet it should be indemnified out of public funds. That is the only case in which that is done. They are receiving no privileges that the tenant could not have had under the old system. We have referred to the Law Officers for their opinion as to under what conditions we could pay over the money to the United Services Fund. I am not sure that we have actually received their verdict, but

    605
    I ask the Noble Lord to take this as a statement of fact, that they are under the impression that we will have to do this by Vote of the House or by Act of Parliament.
    Viscount WOLMER: This surplus remaining above the Expeditionary Force Canteens' expenditure can only be transferred by Act of Parliament or Vote to the United Services Fund?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I said by Act of Parliament or Vote, and I ask the Noble Lord not to press the matter beyond that point. But do not let the Noble Lord run away with the idea that it is not going to be paid. Now let me turn to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson). He talks about the home service medal.
    Viscount WOLMER: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves the former subject, may I remind him of a question he has not answered? Can he explain why the balance sheet of the Expeditionary Force Canteen of August, 1920, has not been published, and whether it does not show that there was £10,000,000?
    Lieut-Colonel STANLEY: I am not sure about that, but I will try and find out. There were all sorts of different plans by various authorities, and I have spent hours trying to get them settled up, and to give a complete balance sheet and pay out the money as soon as we can to the United Services Fund.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not want to be discourteous, but I wish to say that I pointed out that in the report of the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) they dealt with the balance-sheet of 31st August, 1920. I read out a letter from the auditors to the newspaper "Truth" in which they said that this balance-sheet was a complete statement up to that date. I asked why that balance-sheet could not be published, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me a full reply, although it is not the first time the question has been asked.
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I was not there at the time, but I will find out and let the Noble Lord know. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) spoke about home service medals. Has the hon. Member ever con-
    606
    sidered that once you embark upon such a policy as that, you cannot possibly limit it, and no one begrudges the money after having decided to do it. I think, however, it is rather a commentary on the action of the hon. Member that he should now join with the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in support of an Amendment reducing this Vote by £1,000,000 when the hon. Member himself is perfectly ready to spend a large sum of money on a matter which is dear to his heart.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: We have now the Army Estimates before us, but I think we have far too little time given us to consider the details of this great expenditure. Personally I support the Vote before the House because I think we ought to maintain our fighting forces. I think, however, there should be strict economy in administration. One reason why I am in favour of maintaining the fighting forces of our Army at the present time is because I think that the turning out of the Army of such a large number of men is only going to add to the number of the unemployed. When I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Chester-le-Street talking on this question, I felt largely at one with him when he said he was anxious for economy in all these directions. He told us he believed that every penny saved in this way could be spent in bettering the conditions of the people. But I felt inclined to question whether in making these economies we were not going to do ill to rather than benefit the people who are at present without houses. If these suggestions are carried out we are going to turn out of the Army, which they joined voluntarily, 20,000 men, who will have to find houses. Will not that be a hindrance to rather than a betterment of trade and employment?
    I wish to pass on from the point that we want to maintain our fighting forces to a point where I believe economies can be effected. I very much regret the statement made in the paper circulated to-day in regard to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. By the way, I do not agree with their recommendation for cutting down the forces. I think they might have gone far further in other directions in their recommendations for economy. The statement to

    607
    which I refer is one to the effect that the consideration of the Cardwell scheme is not necessarily involved. The Secretary for War, in his speech to-night, warned us that there were many arguments against doing away with the Cardwell system, and that one of them was that if he had a long-service Army abroad we would have no reserves at home. But surely you can have home service battalions in lesser numbers. You could get men to come in and train when employment is bad in the country. We are going to start our Militia again. That was a very fine force. It was one of which we were all proud. I was a member of it myself. We are going to restart it. Why should we not form a reserve in times of unemployment and enable men to come into the force and have a chance of acquiring knowledge which can be used in defence of their country if necessary? A small sum would have to be set aside for the purpose of forming a reserve upon which we could call. Personally, I should be ready to go further than some hon. Members, perhaps, would, and to allow, in times of bad employment, men who were ready to come and learn the elements of what is necessary for the defence of their country to do so without any obligation. I would suggest that, when the unmarried men of this country were out of employment, and were ready to show their patriotism by learning how to defend their country, they might be taken, say, for six months, and, if they found a job might be allowed to go when it came along. I feel sure that men allowed to serve with that amount of freedom would be ready, should a time of necessity come, to serve in defence of their country. I feel that we have now reached a time when it is necessary somewhat to moderate the system which obtained in the Army during the days when I first joined. It is absolutely necessary now to explain to men why you wish them to do things. Steps of that kind are now being taken, and I believe that, if the men who are now in the Army thoroughly understand why certain restrictions are put upon them, and why they are required to do things, they will do them. The education of the men in that way will improve the efficiency of our Army. I believe that its efficiency is being improved now, but this should be carried further,
    608
    and I feel sure that we should be able, at small expense, to get a reserve of men ready to serve if during certain months we opened recruiting to our militia on these lines.
    I should like to point out certain methods by which I believe economies could be effected, and, in the first place, I desire to refer to the question of education. On the last occasion on which the Army Estimates were before the House, I pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman several reductions, but did not get much satisfaction. He said he was going to look into everything this year. I cannot help bringing a certain reproach against the War Office, against the Financial Secretary, and against the Minister himself, for not looking into these things a little sooner, and bringing in these economies before they were absolutely forced upon them by the Geddes Committee. I think it would have been well if they had paid a little more attention to the speeches which we have heard from all quarters of the House, and had tried to bring in these economies without waiting for the Geddes Committee to come along and say what economies should be effected. As regards education, I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that the School of Education is done away with. It is an absolute waste of money, and to waste money simply for some fad is ridiculous. I am certain that if you were to ask any officer who commands a battalion, and who knows his business, or any non-commissioned officer, he would tell you the same thing. It is no use, however, listening to the people who have to administer these theories.
    Then the School of Administration ought certainly to be done away with. Why should you teach soldiers political economy? If they want to learn it, they can go to civilian schools and pay the fees. It is no part of the business of the Army to teach political economy, and if army officers have to learn it there are plenty of schools for them. There are various other directions in which economies might be effected. Overhead charges ought to be reduced in the Army, and I will at once take a point which has been mentioned by the Geddes Committee, namely, the construction of depots. We have heard nothing about depots being reduced. They ought to be

    609
    combined, as I believe has been proposed by an hon. Member to-day. We are now going in for economies. What is being done? We are doing away with battalions. You can keep one depot with the same staff which trains two battalions. It is ridiculous to keep the fixed staff of these depots only training troops for two battalions. These depots could be combined and it would certainly reduce the staff. At present we have two captains and two subalterns teaching the recruits of two battalions. It is too many. These points want dealing with. I apologise for going into details, although the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord K. Cecil) says details ought to be dealt with in the House. It seems to me the big questions are dealt with, but these smaller details are points on which great economies could be effected, and they are not brought to the notice, I believe, of the Secretary of State by the War Office because all the interest of the War Office is to keep up the establishment. Soldiers who have been through company and regimental commands know that many of these economies could be effected, and it is in the House of Commons only that these facts are brought to the notice of the Minister.
    Having dealt with the depots, hoping the Secretary of State will look into the matter and do something, I should like to pass to the question of the schools. No one who was in the Army before the War will deny that we had in Hythe one of the most excellent schools, which brought musketry to a high state of efficiency. Anyone who went overseas with the Expeditionary Force knows that the control of musketry was absolutely amazing. Why on earth should a school of musketry now have an unusually increased staff? We have now far fewer men to be trained in England, and the school of musketry has a far bigger staff than it had before the War. These things ought not to be. Hon. Members opposite believe in their Empire, though our methods are different, and I am certain they will agree that you must not have excrescencies of this sort while at the same time you are cutting down battalions and batteries of artillery. The school of musketry was very effective before the War, and it ought to have the
    610
    same staff now. The school of musketry before the War was also a machine-gun school. Why are these things going on I It is simply to employ people. It is not right that jobs should be found for everyone who is employed on the staff. The straffs in the War were very much too big. We can not afford in times of peace to keep the same staff. I know the War Office will tell me it is not possible to reduce it, but let the right hon. Gentleman take his courage in both hands. If he brings the machine gun school to Hythe and has an added course, so that a certain number of officers can be kept on for the machine gun course and the Lewis gun and ordinary musketry is still taught, he will cut down a great many overhead charges and reduce the staff of the two colleges by a considerable number. I am willing to admit that the machine gun school has done very good work, but the battalions have their own machine gun sections and a sufficient number of officers and men have been trained to do their training in the battalions, and it is now absolutely unnecessary to keep a separate machine gun school. I shall probably have the War Office against me when I refer to the question of Sandhurst. We are told that the Government is going to make an economy, but what is that economy to be? It is to be effected by making the man who sends his son to serve his country pay more for his education. The man who sends his son into the Army is often not rich, and if we are going to save the taxpayer £100 by making the man who sends his boy into the Army to pay an extra £100, I am not sure that that is altogether fair and equitable. The man who sends his son into the Army to defend his country has no more right to be taxed an extra £100 than the man who keeps his son at home and puts him into business in which he makes £1,000 a year. I question whether it is good policy to put an extra burden upon the men who send their sons either into the Army as officers or into the ranks as private soldiers. There is a great doubt in my mind as to whether it is necessary to keep a boy at Sandhurst for two years. I was not at Sandhurst myself, but I know that the course there has been continually changed. At a time like this, when we require economies, the duration of the course at Sandhurst should be cut down. It should only be

    611
    for the duration of a year. I know that I could put up many arguments on the other side.
    Sir L. WORTH1NGTON - EVANS: Hear, hear!
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLOUGHBY: That is so, but you have to come to the facts, and if you are going to save money you must give a little less education. This is not the best method for training an officer for his military duties before he has been to his regiment. Let the boys go to Sandhurst for a year. I am told that the drill at Sandhurst is the best drill in the world, better than the drill in the brigade of Guards. I do not deny that. If you take some of the best educated men from our public schools, and put them through a high course of training and drill, and they are very keen and willing, if they drill better than a body of men who enter the Army without education, and perhaps some of them without that quickness which education is able to give, it is not surprising that it should be so. It is far better for a boy to go and learn the command of men than to drill smartly in a battalion. The boy goes through all this drill at Sandhurst, and when he goes to his regiment he has to go through it all again. It is a waste of time. What we require is that a boy should be taught his military duties, and it is of far more value, to him to learn his drill in command of men, and learn how to lead others, than to spend his time in drill under a drill-sergeant at Sandhurst or at Woolwich. If you cut down the course to one year you could combine the courses at Sandhurst and Woolwich. Why keep there two big establishments? In Sandhurst you can have 700 cadets. If you have only one year's course you only want 350, and it would be a great advantage to the infantry and the artillery to start their life together, so that in future they may be friends, and whenever the opportunity occurs they may work together in the close cooperation which we all desire. These are all points that affect the regimental officer. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that old-fashioned infantry officers were against the Air Force. Though I may be old-fashioned, there is nothing more untrue as regards a person
    612
    like myself. The infantry soldier formerly had to do all the dirty work, but things have been changed greatly of late. Infantry officers at the beginning of the War were often left in the trenches for 21 days. When it comes to the pinch, the infantry soldier is the man who has to bear the brunt of these things, and I would press the right hon. Gentleman not to cut down the number of men who are going to defend the country in case of need, but to look for those economies which can be effected with other branches of the Service.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I under stand that the Secretary of State for War wants to get a couple of votes this evening and therefore I will be very brief. Everybody will agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Rutland that we did not cut down the expenditure on the fighting men necessary for the defence of the Empire. What we really complain of is the increase of expenditure on the body of subsidiary Services which have very little relation to the fighting men proper at all. We have got a smaller force by 20,000 than we had before the War and yet we find that there are 845 military accountants where before the War there were none. Then we have got 175 chaplains as against 115 before the War, an increase of 50 per cent., though there are 20,000 fewer men. We have got a provost staff of 245 as against 173 before the War. For Army education we have 435 as against 286, and for miscellaneous establishments 3,745 against 967. I do not understand why in what you may call these entirely subordinate services you should have such an enormous increase in personnel and expenditure as compared with before the War, seeing that you now have 20,000 fewer men. If you look at the cavalry figures you will find that before the War you had 14,500 and that now you have a little over 7,000. That is to say, you have half what you had before the War; but in spite of that fact the veterinary establishment has gone up from 348 to 392. Why on earth should you now have a larger veterinary establishment than you had before the War? I have here a couple of pages of instances in which the personnel and the expenditure have increased with these entirely subsidiary services, although we have a smaller Army than we had before the War. This matter calls for investigation.

    613
    No one complains about spending money on necessary fighting units, but we have every right to complain of what seems to be grossly extravagant expenditure on services that are not required at all.
    Mr. MILLS: The last speaker has brought forward certain matters as to which the House will agree with his demand for information. Probably the Secretary of State for War will have an answer regarding the sky pilots that was not available before the War, because he can point to the Air Force, which was net in existence before the War. I wish to refer to a more parochial question—the policy of the Government regarding Woolwich Arsenal. Before the War it was the custom of the Government to allocate a certain percentage of orders annually to Woolwich, and, as usual, a far greater proportion to the various armament firms. Seeing the possibility of the sword being turned into ploughshares some of the workshops of the armaments trust were turned into shops for the making of locomotives and sewing machines, in anticipation of an Eastern European trade which so far has not developed. The people of Woolwich Arsenal, the Woolwich Chamber of Commerce, and the Woolwich Employment Committee successfully appealed to the Prime Minister in the days following the Armistice. Speaking of the future of the Arsenal, the Prime Minister then said that, having regard to the service that had been rendered by the workpeople at Woolwich during the War, he could do no other than promise that in future all war work that might be required would be given to this national factory. I do not come here to plead for extra orders to be given for men who might be employed. I do merely suggest that if you have a huge area such as Woolwich is, with a vast mass of population entirely dependent on the Government for its employment, its local business men willing and anxious to develop the land which the Government, apparently, will not use or will not make up its mind about, then the local Chamber of Commerce and the people dependent on the Government for employment have a right to know what is the Government's policy.
    Mention has been made of the Geddes Committee, and that is apparently to be the peg upon which the excuse to reduce Woolwich still further is to be hung. I
    614
    only want to say in connection with that that the same people who speak about a so-called loss on commercial work are the very Committee whose Chairman, when Minister of Transport, successfully pleaded to this House and outside that the cost of production of a railway wagon inside Woolwich was £100 less than the quotation of the wagon trust in the Midlands. I suggest that if when he was Minister of Transport one article of production was costing less than the cost of production outside, there must be some very greatly altered circumstances which converts the other items of production into a loss. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for War, if, in the future, he will not condescend to give the business people of Woolwich some consideration in the matter of the future of the town, will he at least take into consideration that since the Armistice postal carts, railway wagons, locomotives, milk churns, and many other things have been manufactured at Woolwich, and that if chemical research, gun research, the Ordnance Committee, and the one-hundred-and-one essentials to the carrying on of the nucleus of war in times of peace were brought forward as a so-called war measure, then I venture to say the cost of production in Woolwich would not be so heavy as to make it appear necessary to distribute the work all over the land. At the present moment works for the Army and Navy on a peace basis take £9,000,000, and if they are to be allocated to firms up and down the country and at the same time you will not use your workshops or part with the land, then we in Woolwich have a grievance against the Government.
    After all, you claim the whole of the foreshore for a matter of seven miles. The community depends solely on the Government for its means of livelihood, and the business people depend on the workpeople in that way. If it is not the intention of the Government to utilise that land that stretches right down to the division I represent, it is high time that the Government made up its mind what it is going to do and that it stated in no uncertain terms what is its policy. The Secretary of State for War will be interested to know that this so-called deficit of £900,000 in the matter of locomotives is a deficit actually entered upon and can be explained by the amount that it costs to dismantle shop after shop that

    615
    had been in existence for generations for gun-making, breaking up machinery, then laying down pits for the construction of locomotives, and putting into the various workshops all the necessary impedimenta for the production of locomotives. I venture to say that the cost of the transition of these shops from ordinary gun-producing shops to the putting in of machinery and the alteration to the work of peace-time would more than absorb the £900,000 which is spoken of as a deficit on the manufacture of locomotives. At the time the order for locomotives was placed the Prime? Minister, speaking, I presume, on behalf of the Government, stated that during the years of War they had visualised their duty to agriculture and because of their duty to agriculture they proposed to alter the gun shops of Woolwich for the production of railway material—their duty to agriculture having imposed on them the necessity of building locomotives and railway material, heavy and light, to link up the countryside with the various great cities.
    We know that policy has been abandoned and the Government might at least take into account this presumed promise of the Prime Minister and not attempt to ride off on the pretence that the scheme is being cancelled because of the utter worthlessness of the men employed in Woolwich. Men are there who have spent a lifetime in the production of munitions. Whether that is good for the nation or bad, I submit, if you are going to get rid of men who have spent 30 and 40 and in some cases 45 years in the service of the State, the manly thing to do is to say to these people, "There is no future for you. We thank you for your services, but we have no alternative but to give you notice of discharge." The Committee has been bringing in young men of no pre-War experience or even War experience of the working of the ordnance factories, and paying them salaries five
    times in excess of the ordinary post-War salaries, in order that they may insult men who have given a lifetime to the State. These men are having the miser able amount which they get as bonus for services rendered, reduced week after week, and are being insulted, instead of getting an honest, straightforward notice of discharge.
    This matter of Woolwich should be taken up by every Service Member, because anyone who refers to the War period will find that alone of our workshops producing munitions during the War, Woolwich was the only one, from August, 1914, to 11th November, 1918, which put out its contracts ahead of time and not five, seven, or 11 months after the stipulated time. There is the nucleus there, but only the nucleus, but they are at less than pre-War strength now, and the idea is still further to reduce the staff by 2,000, while the rates due to unemployment arising out of the policy of the Government are 29s. 8d. in the £. A constituency which was dependent on the Government for so many years has a right to be treated with a little more consideration. If the Government have no future for Woolwich, let them part with the land and allow people who are willing to develop the land to have access to it and give employment to those who must have work of some kind. I hope the Secretary of State for War will do his best to meet that case.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall)The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Edwin Cornwall) rose to put the Question—
    Mr. MILLS: I made way for the Secretary of State for War, and I hoped a reply would be made.
    Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 56.

    Division No. 55.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Amery, Leopold C. M.S.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

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

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Calvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Brown, Major D. C.

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Bruton, Sir James

    Cory, Sir I. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Buckley, Lieut-Colonel A.

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

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

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pratt, John William

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

    Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

    Preston, Sir W. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kollaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Purchase, H. G.

    Edge, Captain Sir William

    Kidd, James

    Rae, H. Norman

    Ednam, Viscount

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Ramsden, G. T.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Evans, Ernest

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

    Renwick, Sir George

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Falcon, Captain Michael

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

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Fildes, Henry

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Forestler-Walker, L.

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Forrest, Walter

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

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham

    Mailalleu, Frederick William

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

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

    Sugden, W. H.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Manville, Edward

    Sutherland, Sir William

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Taylor, J.

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Mond, Rt. Hon, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Grelg, Colonel Sir James William

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon Frederick E.

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

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Waddington, R.

    Hallwood, Augustine

    Morris, Richard

    Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

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

    Morrison, Hugh

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Munro, Rt. Hon, Robert

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Hancock, John George

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nail, Major Joseph

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Haslam, Lewis

    Neal, Arthur

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

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

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

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    Windsor, Viscount

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Hinds, John

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Wise, Frederick

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Parker, James

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

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Inskip, Thomas Nalker H.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Perring, William George

    Dudley Ward.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Halls, Walter

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Spencer, George A.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Sutton, John Edward

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Swan, J. E.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

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

    Bramsdon. Sir Thomas

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawson, John James

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

    Cairns, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham. Mansfield)

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Myers, Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Wilson. James (Dudley)

    Finney, Samuel

    Rendall, Athelstan

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

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gillis, William

    Rose, Frank H.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Royco, William Stapleton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Major Entwistle and Mr. Mills.

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

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,000,000, be granted for the said Service."
    The committee division: Ayes, 58; Noes, 162.

    Division No. 56.]

    AYES.

    [11.10 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Cairns, John

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Barton, Sir William (Oldham)

    Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

    Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

    Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Finney, Samuel

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

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

    Gillis, William

    Myers, Thomas

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Naylor, Thomas Ellis

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

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

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Tillett, Benjamin

    Halls, Walter

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

    Hancock, John George

    Rose, Frank H.

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

    Hartshorn, Vernon

    Royce, William Stapleton

    White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Johnstone, Joseph

    Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Spencer, George A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, John Edward

    Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Swan, J. E.

    Mr. James Wilson.

    Mills, John Edmund

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Hailwood, Augustine

    Parker, James

    Amery, Leopold C. M.S.

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

    Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Hamilton, Major C. G. C.

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike

    Baird, Sir John Lawrence

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Haslam, Lewis

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Perring, William George

    Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

    Barker, Major Robert H.

    Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Barlow, Sir Montague

    Hinds, John

    Pratt, John William

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

    Preston, Sir W. R.

    Barnston, Major Harry

    Hopkins, John W. W.

    Purchase, H. G.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Rae, H. Norman

    Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert

    Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere

    Ramsden, G. T.

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

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Randies, Sir John Scurrah

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Inskip, Thomas Walker H.

    Rankin, Captain James Stuart

    Bcwyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Jameson, John Gordon

    Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)

    Breese, Major Charles E.

    Johnson, Sir Stanley

    Renwick, Sir George

    Brown, Captain D. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Samuel (Herelord, Hereford)

    Bruton, Sir James

    Jones. J. T. (Carmarthen. Llanelly)

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Kidd, James

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Carew, Charles Robert S.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

    Carr, W. Theodore

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

    Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

    Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

    Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

    Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

    Lort-Williams, J.

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)

    Coote, William (Tyrone, South)

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

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)

    Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

    Strauss, Edward Anthony

    Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)

    Lunn, William

    Sugden, W. H.

    Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard

    Sutherland, Sir William

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

    McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

    Taylor, J.

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

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Dawson, Sir Philin

    McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)

    Edge, Captain Sir William

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

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Waddington, R.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

    Evans, Ernest

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

    Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

    Manville, Edward

    Watson, Captain John Bertrand

    Falcon, Captain Michael

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

    White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

    Fildes, Henry

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

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

    Williams, C. (Tavistock)

    Ford, Patrick Johnston

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Willoughby. Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Morris, Richard

    Windsor, Viscount

    Forrest, Walter

    Morrison, Hugh

    Winterton, Earl

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wise, Frederick

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Murchison, C. K.

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

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

    Neal, Arthur

    Young, E. H. (Norwich)

    Goff, Sir R. Park

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

    Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

    Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

    Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

    Greenwood, William (Stockport)

    Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Grelg, Colonel Sir James William

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

    Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.

    Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

    Dudley Ward.

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND AND WALES (RULES).
Major BARNETT: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Rules of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, laid before Parliament on the 6th day of March, 1922, in pursuance of Section 3 (4) of the Nurses' Registration Act, 1919, and numbered 9a and 43 (2) respectively, may be annulled."
This arises under the Nurses Registration Act passed at the end of 1919. I want to economise the time of the House as much as possible and I am going to take a preliminary point of law which, I think, the Minister of 'Health will admit is fatal to the two Rules to which we are objecting this evening. If the right hon. Gentleman makes that concession, it will not be necessary for me and my friends to discuss the merits of the Rules. The Act of 1919 first set up the General Nursing Council, and the second Clause provided for the registration of the nurses. The third Clause provided that the Council should make Rules for various purposes, including Rules for regulating the conditions of admission to the register. When these Rules are made by the General Nursing Council they are submitted to the Minister of Health, and if they receive his approval they at once, subject to a memorial presented to His Majesty within 21 days after the Rules are laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, have the force of law. No one will deny that it is the province of the General Nursing Council to make Rules with regard to the admission of nurses to the register. The first Rule to which I am taking exception is Rule 9a, which says:
"Notwithstanding anything in these Rules the Council may accept in place of a certificate a copy of a certificate certified by a Justice of the Peace, a barrister or a solicitor to be a true copy thereof, or where the applicant is a member of any organised body of nurses recognised for this purpose by the Council, a declaration signed by the Secretary or other responsible officer of that body that on the admission of the applicant to membership a certificate or a certified copy thereof was produced and was verified by that body."
I am not going to deal with the merits of that, but I am going to draw the attention of the House to a subsequent Section of the Nurses Registra-
622
tion Act, Section 6 (3), which provides that,
"In the event of provision being hereafter made for the establishment of a register of nurses in Scotland or Ireland,"
there shall be reciprocity, as it is very desirable that nurses registered in one country shall be able to join the register in another country. The Sub-section goes on, therefore:
"The Council shall make rules under this Act enabling persons registered as nurses in Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be, to obtain admission to the register of nurses established under this Act—"
Now I ask particular attention to these words—
"and with a view to securing a uniform standard of qualification in all parts of the United Kingdom the Council shall, before making any rules under this Act with respect to the conditions of admission to the register, consult with any Nursing Councils which may be established by Parliament for Scotland and Ireland respectively."
That has not been done. These Rules, which now lie on the Table of this House, were not submitted by my right hon. Friend to the General Nursing Council for Scotland, or to the General Nursing Council for Ireland, and that fact, by a fortunate use of the procedure of this House, I was able to elicit from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland yesterday. I asked him the following question:
"Whether he is aware that the new Rule (9a) passed by the General Nursing Council; for England and Wales, approved by the Minister of Health and now laid upon the Table of the House, permits the names of nurses to be placed on the State Register of Nurses without direct documentary evidence of their credentials and character, as provided for under the existing rule; whether, as is required by the Nurses Registration Act for England and Wales, Section 6 (3), the General Nursing Council for Scotland has been consulted as to this rule; whether it approves of the compilation of the State Register of Nurses upon indirect information supplied by the secretaries of organised bodies of nurses instead of upon documentary evidence supplied direct to the Council; and whether the General Nursing Council for Scotland will be prepared to admit to its register, under the reciprocity agreement between the two countries, nurses who have obtained admission to the register for England and Wales without furnishing such evidence?"
This was his answer:
"The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I understand that the General Nursing Council for Scotland has not been consulted in regard

623
to the proposed rule, and does not approve of it. In answer to the fourth part of the question, my information is that, pending the adjustment of this matter, the General Nursing Council for Scotland has not passed any rule providing for the registration on the Council's register of nurses already on the register of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales."
I then asked:
"Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the General Nursing Council for Scotland has asked for this rule to be withdrawn?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1922; col. 226, Vol. 152.]
and the Secretary for Scotland replied that representations in that sense had reached him. As a matter of fact, the General Nursing Council for Scotland has asked that this rule might be withdrawn.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): When?
Major BARNETT: They asked the General Nursing Council of England in a letter which they wrote to them on the 4th March, and of which I have seen a copy. I am naturally anxious to save the time of the House, and am not arguing the merits of these rules, though I am prepared to do so; but I should like at this stage, if I may, to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that they are plainly ultra vires, and would be so held by any court in the country, he proposes to persist in them? I would ask him to answer that before I sit down.
Sir A. MOND: On a point of Order. If I deal with that point, shall I be able to deal with the full case later?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member had better move his Motion, so that it may be before the House.
Major BARNETT: I was endeavouring to elicit from my right hon. Friend a reply on the point of law, because a discussion of the merits will obviously take a considerable time. I beg to move.
Mr. JAMES WILSON: I beg to second the Motion.
Sir A. MOND: I will deal with the legal point first. This is, of course, the greatest mare's nest that has ever been produced in this House. It is not likely that I should sanction rules unless I had legal advice as to the competence of the action I was taking and the
624
powers which I had under the Act in question. My legal adviser, in a written opinion, states:
"There is no doubt at all on this point. Section 6 (3) of the Act requires the General Nursing Council, with a view to securing a uniform standard of qualification in all parts of the United Kingdom, to consult with the Scottish and Irish Nursing Councils before making any Rules under the Act with respect to conditions of admission. It is abundantly plain that the conditions of admission to the register have reference to the qualifications of nurses which the Council may prescribe. They cannot refer to the procedure or machinery by which the names of nurses who possess the necessary qualifications actually become inscribed upon the register."
Rule 9a has nothing whatever to do with the qualification of nurses. It is purely a machinery rule, which does no more than prescribe the evidence which nurses are to adduce of their qualifications. The new rule neither raises nor lowers the standard of qualifications, which are prescribed by other rules, and remain precisely the same as before the new rule was made. The legal point is absolutely clear, and even if it was challenged I would point out that Parliament never passed an Act of such an absurd nature as to put the English Nursing Council, and the Minister responsible for it, in the position of being incapable of carrying out the Act in England except by the consent of the Scotch Nursing Council. I have consulted the Scotch Nursing Council on several occasions, and if the necessity arises I am quite ready to consult them again, but it is a different thing to say you ought to consult someone, and to say the rule is ultra vires because you have not consulted them. The law is clear on that point. The provision regarding consultation is directory, and if it is not done it does not legally invalidate the rule. So much for the legal argument. Now I ought to pass to the merits of the case.
Major BARNETT: On a point of Order. I asked the right hon. Baronet to give an answer before I concluded my remarks on the legal point to save the time of the House, and I ought to be allowed to deal with the merits.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded his speech by moving. He cannot speak a second time.
Major BARNETT: I specially asked the right hon. Baronet to answer while I was speaking.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet could not speak until there was some question before the House. It was necessary, therefore, to have the Motion moved and seconded, before the Minister could speak.
Sir A. MOND: I thought that would be the position. I feel I must deal with the whole facts fully. This is really a very old standing squabble, which really ought not to trouble the House. Anyone, who knows the history of the story, knows what a long feud there was between two different nursing associations, one championed by the hon. Member who is asking the House to reject the rules, the other by another body of people. So long did the feud go on, that no rules came into existence at all. My predecessor in office got a Bill passed, a council has been set up, and I have been doing my best to get it to work. On the council, unfortunately, the old feud has been pursued by a very small minority, which is now trying to destroy the rules which I have sanctioned, because they are the only way in which nurses in this country, numbering some 50,000, will ever get on the register in their lifetime. What is the position in which I have been placed? A crisis in the Nursing Council, resignation of the chairman, resignation of 16 out of 21 members of the committee. I have now an able chairman and I have got the bulk of the committee to go back on the understanding that I would support them. They have introduced a rule. The purpose is two-fold. One is that, instead of a nurse having to send her original nursing certificate to London to be certified, she can get a certified copy and send it up under proper conditions and have it entered. That is done because we have found from experience that nurses have the greatest objection to part with their original papers. They are afraid they may get lost or mislaid. They are the one vital document in their possession, and they would sooner not be registered at all. The second point is that there are two big organisations which have been in existence for many years before this Act came into force, the College of Nurses and the Royal British Nursing Association. Out of 50,000 nurses, over 19,000 are registered in the College of Nurses register. Their qualification is more severe than required by the rules. They require three years' training instead of
626
one. What are we doing under these rules? We are enabling the registrar of the Nursing Council to go and examine copies of the certificates of the Royal College of Nurses, who have the roll, whenever an application is made, to satisfy herself. The same will be done with the other nursing associations. There is no favour shown to anybody.
I will tell the House why I have been anxious to take this action, and why it is essential to speak this evening. In the four months since the date when the Register came into existence in November, 3,235 actual cases were received and only 984 were completed. Applications were coming in at the rate of 800 a month, and less than one-third had been finally passed by the Council. The present Council must, according to the Act, come to an end not later than the 23rd December next. Out of 50,000 nurses you have only 1,500 on the Register, and unless between now and the 23rd December next you get a large number of qualified nurses on the Register, you will be in the absurd position of having the Council for the next three years elected by quite a small number of the 50,000 nurses. Therefore it is important and necessary to have a speeding up of the machinery which will put nurses on the Register as rapidly as possible. That will do away with the meticulous and ridiculous manner in which this matter has been treated up to now. It is impossible for the Chairman of the Registration Committee to go into long details of every one of these certificates, and to start a cross-examination in every case. If she did so many of the nurses would be dead and buried before they got on the register. These are the reasons why I have sanctioned this procedure. It is machinery. The Nursing Council, which ought to understand its business, has passed it by a majority of 16 to 6. The Matrons' Association of Great Britain, representing the matrons of the leading London and provincial hospitals, are entirely in favour of the Rules, and I can only say that if the Rules were rejected there would be no other course left open for me than to move the repeal of the Act, do away with the register altogether, and the whole thing would become a farce.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I speak for neither of the two associations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but for the nurses who are members of a trade

627
union, and who are entirely opposed to the action taken by the Nursing Council. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the constitution of that council. What we said when the Bill was in Committee upstairs has come to pass. We said that it would be an unworkable council. Twenty-one of the people on the Council belong to the employing side, leaving five or six for the rest of the nursing profession. Those people for whom the Act was passed, the nurses who were to be protected by the Act, are loft with only four representatives to see that their rights are protected.
Sir A. MOND: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means by the employing side?
Mr. RICHARDSON: The medical profession and the matrons.
Sir A. MOND: Matrons are nurses as much as anybody else.
Mr. RICHARDSON: I claim to have had as much experience of municipal hospital work as most people, and I know the iron hand of the matron. I know that often if a nurse claims to have a soul of her own she has to leave practically the next day. She is thrown on the street without a penny. I put my experience against the advice offered to the Minister of Health. The continuation of this Council is entirely wrong. We had a strike in the district. Because these people did not get all they were insisting on being done they went on strike. I have had something to do with strikes and lock-outs, but this is the very first strike I have ever known in which the strikers drew their pay while they were on strike, and they helped themselves to £500 during the ten weeks. These are the people who are in power on the Nurses Council. There were no salaries deducted. These things are happening, and the nurses are claiming that they have some right to say that the money which they are subscribing should be distributed for the work which they are doing in an efficient manner.
Sir A. MOND: No members of the Council get any payment whatsoever.
Mr. RICHARDSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries he will find that what I am saying is correct,
628
that they were paid in salaries to the staff without the Council being working.
Sir A. MOND: The hon. Member said that the Council drew pay while on strike. That is not correct.
Mr. RICHARDSON: I submit that that does not alter the position one bit if there is no work to be done, and the Act has been annulled by their action and cannot be worked for the staff inside that hospital. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that immediately they came back they set about driving the others off every committee and leaving them with no power whatever. They drove off one committee a woman who has had more experience than any other woman on that Council and put on another woman who would act according to their dictates, thus taking away the only friend on that committee which the working nurses had. Again they drove off a committee a matron who was the only matron who knew anything of the training and another lady was put in her place, and so they have gone on. Some protection ought to be given to these people. Their livelihood depends on it. This Act was passed for the sake of safeguarding the nurses and the general public. What will happen if this thing is allowed to continue is that anybody who can gain the confidence of the matron may have her name added to the list of nurses without any training at all. I know that this may not happen, but it is possible, and young women who have given three years of their lives to training ought to have some protection. Therefore we are claiming that this thing is not on right lines, and that if justice is to be done both sides ought to have sufficient members on the Council. They might prevent a strike if working nurses had a sufficient number on the Council to form a quorum, for there would then be no use in these people refusing to come and act and to get these nurses on the register which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be compiled with which I am in entire agreement. I would as soon as possible have every nurse in this country who is thoroughly trained placed on the list, for the sake of the suffering public. I beg the Minister of Health to take up the matter, and to see whether something cannot be done to bring about peace and harmony in the profession. We want these people to have

629
a real say in the working out of their own salvation. Surely the time has passed when women should have to work 12 hours a day for £30 a year. It is a shame. The very best women we have in the country should be able to take up the nursing profession. It is in some ways of vastly more importance than the medical profession, for the nurse is continually with the patient, and must know what is best to be done at any moment to save human life.
Mr. LYLE: I have never heard so many misstatements made in five minutes as have been made by the last speaker. He spoke Very sincerely, and no doubt what he said he meant, but, as very often happens, in this case various statements have been made from the Labour benches without the knowledge whatever of the subject. [Interruption.] The statement has been made that the object of the General Nursing Council is to do some damage to nurses. My hon. Friend has waxed eloquent about the nurses managing their own affairs, but he has missed the whole point. This Council is only a temporary Council, nominated to carry on until sufficient nurses have registered.
Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the hon. Member say that the whole of the registration is to be done before the nurses get a register at all?
Mr. LYLE: The nurses are not registering as had been expected. The object of these Rules, passed by a large majority of the temporary council and approved by the Minister of Health, is to enable nurses to register, and when sufficient nurses have registered they can manage their own affairs. It is precisely with that object that the Rules are placed on the Table. Just now nurses are not registering because there is so much difficulty in sending up their certificates. Under the present scheme the certificate of a nurse has to be verified and to be sent to the Registrar. There is no question of a nurse getting through without proper qualifications. The scheme is designed merely to enable a nurse more easily to have her certificates sent and approved.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Major Barnett) was accused by the Minister of Health of having started a mare's nest,
630
but I think he went on a point of law, and was consequently unable to make his case from the point of view of the facts. I think, however, he did get mixed up with the question of law and the question of ladies, and when one gets mixed up with those two questions it becomes rather awkward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that a joke?".] Members of the Labour party do not often see a joke, but they can take that as one if they like. I do not want the House to have a wrong impression as to the merits of this case, nor to think that this is merely a question of a statement on the one side by my hon. and gallant Friend as representing the nurses of the whole of this country and the Minister of Health and other unscrupulous people who are trying to get the better of the nurses. I do not want them to think that, because there are other bodies, infinitely greater numbers of nurses than any of the societies that have been petitioning hon. Members and have so successfully taken in some—not all—of my friends on the Labour benches. It is by no means the unanimous wish of the nurses that these Rules now lying on the Table should not come in as part of the law of the Registration Act. That is a statement that can be proved. As the Minister of Health has stated, there are other bodies quite prepared to show the nurses on their registers and their qualifications. The Association of Hospital Matrons has passed a resolution at their quarterly meeting at which they
"express their entire approval of the recent steps taken by the General Nursing Council in amending the existing Rules for the purpose of speeding up the compilation of the State Register.
They further desire to thank the Minister of Health for having signed these Rules, and also to express their confidence in those members of the General Nursing Council who have supported these measures."
I do resent very much on behalf of matrons I have worked with and on behalf of the great body of nurses in the country the statement that matrons as a whole and as a class are people who are driving nurses for all they are worth, and are simply representing the so-called employers. The Labour party try to make a great point of the use of the word "employer" as something to be laughed at and sneered at, but I venture to remind them that after all there is no such thing as "employers" in the sense that they are using the term. The hospitals

631
are run for the benefit of the poor of this country without any hope of reward, and it is mean and cowardly, and is not in the interests of this House, that such statements should be made against matrons, who are a splendid and noble body of women who on the whole are beloved by their nurses. I only rise to show the absurdity of that. My hon. and gallant Friend wants the nurses to run their own profession, and the only way to do that is to get on the Register as soon as possible. They are not getting on it. There are only 1,500 on the Register, and the object of these Rules is to enable them to get on the Register without all the formalities they have to go through now. As I have said, I do not want people to think it is nurses on one side and the Minister of Health on the other. I am convinced that the majority of the nurses of the country want things speeded up and that they want these facilities, and it would be a great mistake if the House thought it was a case of the nurses on the one side and the wicked Minister of Health on the other opposing the poor nurses of the country. It is not so at all.
Captain ELLIOT: We are indebted to the last speaker for having reduced the heat which unfortunately was imparted to this Debate. In some respects, I have not so much right to speak, because this is a question of the registration of English nurses, but I intervene on behalf of Scottish nurses, since they also are vitally concerned in the question. The question of law raised at the beginning of the Debate seems to have received very perfunctory attention from the Minister of Health. The Minister is a man of strong personality who has, so far, received very little opposition in any of the vigorous steps which he has taken in remodelling the health services of the country, and he is, perhaps, a little inclined to brush aside opinions which do not exactly coincide with his own. It seems to me, even if we take it on the simplest point of all, that he is availing himself of a legal technicality to escape from the dilemna, in which—it seems to me as an ordinary layman—he is placed by the words of the Act. The words are mandatory—
"The Council shall, before making any rules under this Act with respect to the conditions of admission to the register, con-
632
sult with any Nursing Councils which may be established by Parliament for Scotland and Ireland respectively."
That is with a view to a subsequent establishment of reciprocity. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the supplying of evidence is not part of the conditions of admission to the register, but it is considered by the General Nursing Council of Scotland as being so germane to the subject under discussion that they say they cannot allow for reciprocity as long as Rule 9a is permitted to stand on the English register. Where lawyers differ, it is not for mere laymen to intrude, but it is impossible to suppose that the General Nursing Council for Scotland has not the interests of the nurses at heart. When it says it cannot give reciprocity on the conditions and the rules approved by the Ministry of Health, I submit to the Minister that even though he may be in order, on the technical legal question involved, he is not so on the broader question as to what was intended by Parliament when it passed the Act. We debated the question at some length, as I well remember, and the general intention was that in order to provide reciprocity between the Councils in England and Scotland respectively, these Councils should consult each other and make sure that admission to the one register would, ipso facto, mean admission, with a few technical changes, to the other register.
12 M.
Even if the Minister be correct on the narrow legal point, that the provision of evidence of qualification is not a condition of admission to the register—regarding which, not having legal training I am not qualified to speak—I claim that the broad object of this Section of the Act is not being fulfilled by the rules at present laid on the Table of the House, because the prime governing consideration, namely that the two registers should be similar and parallel in all respects, is not being fulfilled. Therefore I do beg of the Minister to reconsider the matter, not from the merely legal point of view of those who are, no doubt, eminently qualified to speak, and have given a perfectly correct legal ruling, but to take the broader view of what was intended by this House when it placed the Act on the Statute Book, namely, that the Scottish and the English Councils should consult with each other before passing rules about the admission of

633
nurses, so that this unfortunate contretemps which has occurred might be avoided. The very purpose of the Act is being defeated by this ruling, and I do beg of the Minister, even although he has a strong legal position, to reconsider the matter on the broader ground. I do claim that the Scottish nurses are very closely concerned in this matter. The protest has come, not from any party or one section of nurses or another section of nurses, but from the body legally set up under an Act passed by this House. Can a protest of that nature be brushed aside in the perfunctory manner in which the Minister of Health has attempted to dismiss it? I protest against a reasoned letter from the Registrar of the Scottish Council being dismissed as a mare's nest.
Sir A. MOND: I have received no communication whatsoever from the Scottish Nursing Council.
Captain ELLIOT: It may be so. I do think that goes to prove the fact that this consultation, which was desired by the House, when it passed this parallel Act, has not been carried out. The fact that there is such a protest is not in dispute. Everybody admits it. Many other Scottish Members have received protests. The very lack of co-ordination which this Section in the Act is intended to prevent—
Sir A. MOND: It is the fault of the Scottish Council.
Captain ELLIOT: I do claim that, in passing a new rule, the onus of proof lies on the man who wishes to change the law. I am not claiming any position of superiority for the Scottish Council, for if the position had been reversed, and the Scottish Council had passed a new rule, or laid on the Table of this House a new rule without previous consultation, then I think all of us Scottish Members would have admitted that in that action it had committed a fault. I forget what exact official position the Minister holds on the Nursing Council, or in relation to that Council, but he holds an official position in virtue of his office, and the Registrar of the Scottish Council has surely acted very rightly in indicating the decision of his Council to the corresponding body in England. At any rate, that that dispute has arisen and that that protest has been
634
communicated to the English Council are not in dispute, and we do beg the Minister, at any rate, to meet us in this matter, or else, with the greatest reluctance in the world, we may be forced to divide the House on this very important matter, because it brings up the question of principle. I am sorry to detain the House, but it is a matter of great importance both to the medical profession and the nursing profession, and I have spent many years of my life in that service, and have its interests very keenly at heart. We have here this problem again of this nationalistic business of setting up two boards, one in England and one in Scotland. It leads in this case, as it will lead in every other case, to confusion, and I beg of Scottish Members, particularly the Member for West Fife, to observe this point, that when we get a dispute such as this the economic power drags us by the heels. Scotland in such a cast: can take what action it will and the English Minister can come down here, and bring the weight of England to bear. I protested against these split-up and subordinate bodies when the rule was going through the House, and I do point out to the hon. Member, who is so keen to get everything cut up and subordinated, and drawn into Edinburgh instead of London, that whenever we do get these things carried through we have trouble in this House.
Mr. SPEAKER: Surely that is in the Act, is it not? The discussion now is only as to these particular regulations made under the Act.
Captain ELLIOT: I am merely saying that the attempt at co-ordination in this Act to remedy these evils is not satisfactorily working on this occasion, but I bow to your ruling. I do not wish to argue the merits of the case, except to say that for any State body to accept entrants at second hand, unless laid down by Act of Parliament, is surely a rather unusual innovation in the compiling of the State registers, and that any register which takes such entrants is weakening its position in the eyes of the nursing profession and of the public. Therefore, I do beg of the Minister to reconsider the position which he has announced to the House.
Mr. SPENCER: I want to lodge a protest against the absence from this House

635
of a legal representative of the Government when we are dealing with an important question in which a legal issue is raised. I distinctly remember that, when we were dealing with this question upstairs, a very great deal of apprehension was expressed with regard to the Councils we are discussing to night, and I am thoroughly convinced that, so far as the legal aspect of the question is concerned, the legal opinion which has been expressed by the Minister who is defending his action to-night, is an opinion that, to put it most mildly and moderately, can be questioned by this House. I had some previous experience with regard to opinion which has been given by the legal representative of His Majesty's Government when questions have been either before this House or Committee.
May I give one instance to show how great is the difference between the legal opinion just laid down by the Minister and the actual practice; and, after all, the Minister gave his legal decision, and then said it could not be enforced! When we were discussing upstairs the words "may" and "shall," the Minister said that "may" in law had the same meaning as "shall." This referred to the Poor Law officials and their pensions. When it comes to the interpretation of "may" as "shall"—the matter being brought before this House—the Minister in charge to-night has more than once stated that he has no power of enforcement. When to-night we come to deal with another aspect of the law, we are informed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"]. It will not hasten the proceedings one iota by hon. Members shouting "Divide." Those who shout, had we been discussing Ireland, would have been ready to sit up all night. I want to make this point, so far as the word "shall" is concerned. I understand the position of the Minister is this: that this word "shall" is purely an instruction—that is the intention of the word, an instruction that the English Council "shall" consult, and if they do not consult, when the Minister has done so and so, it does not invalidate anything that has been done by the Council. However he can place such an interpretation upon the law passes the comprehension of the English lay mind.
636
I want to say just a word or two in regard to the position of nurses in this country and in Scotland. Nothing should be done in this House which will make it more difficult to interchange, or accept and recognise the validity of registration and the certificate on the other side of the border, or to encourage a system under which the nurses of this country may be registered, then perhaps go over into Scotland and find that their English registration is not accepted as valid. If we refuse to accept the humble petition we are setting up a state of affairs in which we are going to have, not only a dual authority, but a dual form of registration, in which on one side of the border it will, and on the other side it will not, be recognised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Any system of that character, in my opinion, will be most detrimental to the nurses of the country.
Major BARNETT: By leave of the House I should like to make one point in reply to the right hon. Baronet. He says that Rule 9 A deals, not with qualification, but with the conditions of admission to the register. I agree: but according to Section 6 (3) of the Act, the General Nursing Council for England and Wales must consult with the Scottish and Irish Councils before making rules "with respect to the conditions of admission to the register." My right hon. Friend says that 9 A is "merely a machinery rule." Surely the question of what evidence of nurses' qualifications shall be required is vital! There have been cases of nurses in this country with forged certificates who have carried on practice. If the Scottish Council insists upon seeing certain certificates, or certified copies of them, is not that a material point of admission to the register? The Scottish Council declines to accept hearsay evidence and insists upon the production of the original training certificate, or at least a certified copy of such certificate? A majority of the English Council now, apparently, take a different view, and are satisfied with a declaration that the training certificate, or a certified copy of it, was produced at some earlier date to other people. How can there be reciprocity under such conditions? A nurse who failed to register in Scotland under the prudent rules imposed by the Scottish Council might come to England, register under the looser provisions of the English

637
Council, and then claim to register in Scotland under the reciprocity rule. I say the right hon. Gentleman's law is bad law, and that Rule 9 A is ultra vires. If my right hon. Friend does not see his way
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr.
to drop these rules I propose to take the opinion of the House.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 64.

Division No. 57.]

AYES.

[12.15 a.m.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Ammon, Charles George

Halls, Walter

Sitch, Charles H.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)

Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayday, Arthur

Spencer, George A.

Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)

Hirst, G. H.

Sutton, John Edward

Bcwyer, Captain G. W. E.

Hopkins, John W. W.

Swan, J. E.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)

Lawson, John James

Tillett, Benjamin

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Davies. Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Naylor, Thomas Ellis

Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

O'Grady, Captain James

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Gillis, William

Rose, Frank H.

Major Barnett and Mr. James

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Royce, William Stapleton

Wilson.

Grundy, T. W.

Shaw, William T. (Forfar)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

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

Parker, James

Barker, Major Robert H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)

Barlow, Sir Montague

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Perkins, Walter Frank

Barnston, Major Harry

Hinds, John

Perring, William George

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

Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)

Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Jameson, John Gordon

Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

Breese, Major Charles E.

Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)

Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur

Brown, Major D. C.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Seddon, J. A.

Bruton, Sir James

Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.

Steel, Major S. Strang

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Lort-Williams, J.

Sugden, W. H.

Edge, Captain Sir William

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

Sutherland, Sir William

Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)

Evans, Ernest

Lyle, C. E. Leonard

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

Fildes, Henry

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Manville, Edward

Williams, C. (Tavistock)

Forrest, Walter

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Morltz

Windsor, Viscount

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Wise, Frederick

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)

Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

Nail, Major Joseph

Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John

Neal, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-

Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)

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

Colonel Leslie Wilson nad Mr.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Dudley Ward.

Hallwood, Augustine

Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)

SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF WORK (WAGES).
  RELIEF WORK (WAGES).
  DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
  DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
  COAL MINES (HOURS OF WORK).
  COAL MINES (HOURS OF WORK).
TRANSPORT.
  TOERINGTON-HALWILL LIGHT RAILWAY.
  TOERINGTON-HALWILL LIGHT RAILWAY.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
  OMNIBUSES AND TEAMS (OVERCROWDING).
  OMNIBUSES AND TEAMS (OVERCROWDING).
  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL.
  GENERAL NURSING COUNCIL.
  BACTERIAL VACCINES.
  BACTERIAL VACCINES.
  HOUSING (CLERK'S REMUNERATION, MAIDSTONE).
  HOUSING (CLERK'S REMUNERATION, MAIDSTONE).
EDUCATION.
  ACCOUNTS (NEW FORM).
  ACCOUNTS (NEW FORM).
  SCHOOL SITE, BATTERSEA.
  SCHOOL SITE, BATTERSEA.
  LEEDS UNIVERSITY (KING'S SCHOLARS).
  LEEDS UNIVERSITY (KING'S SCHOLARS).
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN, KENT.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN, KENT.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT AMMUNITION.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT AMMUNITION.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS (ACCOUNTS).
  EXPEDITIONARY FORCE CANTEENS (ACCOUNTS).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  UNITED SERVICES FUND.
  UNITED SERVICES FUND.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  AIR MINISTRY.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WOMEN).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (WOMEN).
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  SPIRIT DUTY.
  BUDGET STATEMENT.
  BUDGET STATEMENT.
  GENOA CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION).
  GENOA CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION).
  PLAIN SPIRITS (COLLECTIONS, SCOTLAND).
  PLAIN SPIRITS (COLLECTIONS, SCOTLAND).
  GERMAN MARKS.
  GERMAN MARKS.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
IRELAND.
  PRISON OFFICERS (RE-GRADING).
  PRISON OFFICERS (RE-GRADING).
  PRISONERS (RELEASE).
  PRISONERS (RELEASE).
  FINANCIAL RELATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  FINANCIAL RELATIONS, GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  PUBLIC SERVICES, SOUTHERN IRELAND (FINANCIAL PROVISION).
  PUBLIC SERVICES, SOUTHERN IRELAND (FINANCIAL PROVISION).
  DAIL EIREANN (RESOLUTION).
  DAIL EIREANN (RESOLUTION).
  ENGLISH-MADE GOOES (BOYCOTT).
  ENGLISH-MADE GOOES (BOYCOTT).
ROYAL NAVY.
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (DEDUCTIONS).
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (DEDUCTIONS).
  ADMIRALTY FLEET ORDER.
  ADMIRALTY FLEET ORDER.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS (MISS EDWARDS).
  DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS (MISS EDWARDS).
  NEW CLAIMS.
  NEW CLAIMS.
  WOMAN PRISONER'S TREATMENT, KENNINGTON.
  WOMAN PRISONER'S TREATMENT, KENNINGTON.
  REFORMATORY SCHOOL, MIRFIELD.
  REFORMATORY SCHOOL, MIRFIELD.
  LETTERS (CENSORSHIP).
  LETTERS (CENSORSHIP).
  ALIENS (DEPORTATION).
  ALIENS (DEPORTATION).
  IRAQ (BRITISH OFFICIALS).
  IRAQ (BRITISH OFFICIALS).
  RUSSIA (FAMINE RELIEF).
  RUSSIA (FAMINE RELIEF).
  WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY.
  WASHINGTON NAVAL TREATY.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BABINGTON'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 92 be considered in order to its being dispensed with with regard to a Petition of the owners and occupiers of property and consumers of gas in the Urban District of Urmston. I have been into the case, and I can advise your Lordships that this is not an unreasonable thing to do in the circumstances.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, with the leave of the House it may be convenient for me to make a statement about business. Yesterday, Lord Buck-master entered a caution against putting down the Motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Committees about a Petition for Writ of Summons. I accordingly propose that Lord Buckmaster should retain the place he has held for some days upon the Notice Paper for his Order dealing with the question of Peace Treaties, and that the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, should keep his Notice about Peeresses on the Paper for Thursday of next week, March 30, and I would gladly give him an assurance that in the event of Bills being put down which otherwise would take precedence of it, the Government would place a Motion on the Paper to secure that the Lord Chairman's Motion should have precedence on that day, this being a subject which I think interests and concerns the House as a whole.
I am afraid I cannot answer the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford,

709
yesterday as to the date of the Electricity (Supply) Bill, but I think it would be impossible, to take that Bill on Tuesday, March 28. It will be put down for a day later in that week, but I cannot, for the moment, say what day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Probably it would be convenient not to take the Electricity (Supply) Bill—I do not want to pry into secrets not open to the public—until some appointment is made of a Minister of Transport, in whose Department it lies.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If I had any secrets I would gladly reveal them but I imagine, at least I hope, that Lond Peel, who has been in charge of the Bill up to now, may be able to continue to be in charge on its later stages. That will be borne in mind. As regards to-day's business, I suggest that, if convenient to the House generally, we should adjourn for an interval as nearly as possible at eight o'clock and reassemble an hour and a quarter later.

SUMMER TIME BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª(according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions for giving the force of law to and carrying into effect Irish Agreement.
1.—(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 respon-
710
sible, 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. 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.
(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.
Debate resumed on the Amendment proposed by Lord CARSON—namely, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided that as respects the Commission to be appointed under Article 12 of the said Agreement, if either the Government of the Irish Free State or the Government of Northern Ireland is aggrieved by any decision of the Commission as to the interpretation and meaning of the said Article the Government aggrieved may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I ventured last night to ask your Lordships to continue the consideration of this Amendment, because there were certain considerations that some of us, whose views have not been presented yet, would like to put forward, and also because a suggestion was made by Lord Salisbury that the Government, having given their fiat against this particular Amendment, had not indicated in what way, if in any, they proposed to deal with the very serious view taken by noble Lords representing Ulster upon this question of boundaries. Sonic of us, who represent a good deal of feeling in the South, would like to put forward rather a different aspect of the whole of this question, and to suggest a compromise, if such a compromise be possible. I must say at the outset that we are quite unable to accept the position which various speakers have taken in this debate, as regards the effect of the Treaty. My noble and learned friend behind me said with regard to the Treaty, last night, that it was a matter of perfect indifference to the South and West whether the Treaty passed or not, because the result would be the same. We feel that what was said by Lord Lansdowne a few nights ago represents the fact—that bad as conditions are, the failure of the Treaty would remove the last glimmer of hope or light which there is in

711
the Irish situation, and we cannot associate ourselves with the view that it is a matter of indifference to the South whether the Treaty passes or not.
I confess, too, that I should like to enter a protest against the suggestion made by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. He said, on the Second Reading, that the Constitution was not a question which concerned Englishmen, but it was one for Irishmen alone. I challenge that view. I say that to declare now that the Constitution to be established in Ireland is of no account to this country would be a violation of all the pledges which His Majesty's Government have given. Again, the Lord Chancellor used language which I regretted to hear, because I was sure it would be misinterpreted. It was put before us, from the noble and learned Viscount last night, that it was not a question which much concerned this country, whether Irishmen were killing each other. Before I sit down I shall make an appeal to the Government that they cannot settle this question of boundaries and frontiers, and will never get an opportunity of settling it, unless they are prepared to fulfil their first duty of keeping order on the frontier. Your Lordships will recollect that those of us who represent Southern opinion are in extreme difficulty, because we have always protested that the partition of Ireland would create most serious difficulties between North and South—difficulties which, at present, are only beginning. Our warnings were disregarded. The Government, as I believe, instead of attempting to find some machinery by which the North could co-operate with the South have put their money on the wrong horse, and already we are seeing results. We have now, somehow or other, to deal with the situation, and I do not think that the proposals of the Government as they stand will enable them to do so.
May I say for a moment that I am afraid I cannot follow my noble and learned friend the whole distance in the position he has taken up. He has spoken with great force on the suggestion that this Commission might be used for something more than a readjustment of boundaries. We have now before us the fact that every high authority, the Lord Chancellor tells us, has laid it down that as the reference is phrased it can only deal with the adjustment of boundaries and not with the transfer of territory. Therefore, I
712
think we may dismiss that major fear, so earnestly felt by our Ulster friends, from our minds. The point where I cannot quite follow my noble and learned friend is in his statement that anything in the Act of 1920 which was given to Ulster as part of a Parliamentary bargain must be left—that it is unbelievable, to use his words, that such an act of treachery could now take place as the reconsidering of that bargain. Let us look the facts in the face. I agree that if the sanctity of an Act of Parliament has to be considered then the Act of 1920 has got to be fulfilled to the letter.
But is the bargain with Ulster the only bargain made by the Act of 1920? What about the bargain made with the South? What about the repeated pledges of Ministers on the Second Reading of this Act, which has only been on the Statute Book fifteen months? On the Second Reading, speaker after speaker rose on this side of the House to say that he would abstain from voting against the Bill on the Second Reading, only on the clear understanding that safeguards were inserted. What were those safeguards? They were in some cases supported by the Government They were in all cases conceded, and in consequence of them the Bill was read a third time. They were as much a Parliamentary pledge as any that has ever been given. What were they? In the first place, that there should be representation of minorities, and a Second Chamber, as there is in every one of the Dominions of the King. Secondly, there was a provision as to taxation. Thirdly, there was the safeguarding of education and Trinity College; and, fourthly, amongst other things, specifically omitted from the Treaty, the question of marriage.
On every one of those questions the Treaty has left us in the South, 350,000 Protestants, to the good will and expressed good intentions of those who are to rule over us in the future. So far as the Treaty is concerned, to-morrow there may be passed a law for a single Chamber in which not one of those 350,000 persons would get a seat. To-morrow, Trinity College can be disestablished, the laws of marriage may be altered, financial legislation may be laid down which may utterly impoverish all those to whom the past development of the country is due. I do not say that any one of those things will take place, but I do say that, so far as the Parliamen-

713
tary bargain on which my noble and learned friend now relies for Ulster is concerned, we in the South have as big a claim to make, and indeed a bigger, because in every respect except that of the frontier, which is to be submitted to an impartial Commission, Ulster is amply safeguarded by the Treaty.
That being so, what is the course which it seems fair to ask should be taken at this moment? The Lord Chancellor has said that if the Amendment now under discussion is passed referring any doubtful point with regard to the boundary to the Privy Council, it will break the Treaty. My noble and learned friend (Lord Carson) has made three eloquent speeches, any one of which might have been the prelude to a Motion to break the Treaty, but he has not put down that Motion, and he has not asked your Lordships to divide upon it; and I am confident on the basis of that conduct on his part that, if he can find a way out without breaking the Treaty, he is willing to do so.
The suggestion I make is this. It is conceded on all hands that a readjustment of boundaries is to take place. The noble Marquess, Lord Dufferin and Ava, has on the Paper an Amendment proposing that the name of the Chairman of that Commission should come before this House in a draft before the appointment is made. We have pressed on the Government, in previous speeches, the absolute necessity that Orders in Council made under this Bill should be laid in draft upon the Table, for however brief a period, so that the House of Commons and your Lordships may have a chance of delivering their opinion upon them. If the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Sumner is conceded by the Government, and if Lord Dufferin's Amendment, which proposes that the name of the Chairman, as a guarantee of his impartiality and standing, should be laid before this House is also conceded, I think we might ask my noble and learned friend whether he does not think, in the circumstances, that some fair degree of protection will have been given to Ulster interests.
There is high precedent for the laying of the name on the Table in such a case. I well remember in the Land Act of 1881 that it was held that the names of the Commissioners who were to carry out the Act were, above all things, vital to the Bill. And the Government, under pressure, con-
714
sented, before parting with the Committee stage of the Bill, to give the names of the Commissioners whom they proposed to appoint in the event of the Bill passing through your Lordships' House. In this case all we ask is that after the Bill has become law, and under the Act, your Lordships and the House of Commons shall have the opportunity of seeing the name before the appointment is actually made. I cannot see how a concession of that kind could in any way be held to invalidate the Treaty. The Government have never ventured to say that outside the Treaty they have an understanding of that kind with those with whom they negotiated. I rose to assure your Lordships that we who speak for a considerable population in the South are not desirous of giving any vote which can in any way shake the Treaty, for the reasons that I have mentioned. But at the same time, I should not be acting fairly with the Government if I said that we were wholly satisfied with the manner in which the treatment of the question, as between Ulster and the South, has been carried out.
What was the position a month ago? A new Government had come into power in Ireland. They had no precedents; they had no legal existence. At this moment they are wanting and waiting for this Bill to have the legal right to take the steps which they have already taken. They have no police force; they say they need an Army, and they have no Army. In these circumstances I believe there is not one member of your Lordships' House who will not agree with me when I say that it was the duty of the Government to have ascertained from the men who have taken over this great charge, in each individual case, whether they were prepared to take over the effective control of it before they, the British Government, withdrew the British forces which alone could preserve order. If the Lord Lieutenant had been entrusted with that duty I believe the scenes we have seen and heard of in Southern Ireland would not have taken place. It may be too late to restore the troops to other parts of Ireland, but I wonder whether your Lordships will be right in parting with this Bill, unless and until His Majesty's Government give the House a pledge that, until the border is finally settled and delimited, they will hold themselves responsible with British troops for holding the scales even on the border.

715
Recollect what the position is. The Northern Government have not the troops. If they had the troops they could not go beyond the border to keep order. The Southern Government are in the same position, and the one Government which has control in both areas has abdicated. The state of the frontier between Ulster and the South is becoming not only a serious danger in Irish politics, but a scandal throughout the world. I feel that, while we are most desirous of helping the Government in the course of this discussion to get the Treaty through, it ought to be accompanied on their side by some undertaking to meet what I believe is the universal wish of this House—that when we are making great sacrifices in the interests of peace those sacrifices should really produce a peaceful condition as between the North and South of Ireland. I hope my noble and learned friend may not find it necessary to divide on this Amendment, and I earnestly ask him to consider whether it is not possible, by the adoption of Lord Dufferin's Amendment and that which stands in the name of Lord Sumner, that, we might secure for Ulster practical immunity from the dangers we apprehend.
VISCOUNT PEEL: To which Amendment of Lord Sumner's is the noble Earl referring?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: The Amendment at the bottom of page 3 of the Amendment Paper. And Lord Dufferin's Amendment is the last on the Paper.
LORD PHILLIMORE: This matter has taken a somewhat wide range, and I wish to bring your Lordships back to the subject of the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord who has moved it has disclaimed any intention of altering the bargain—I will not call it a Treaty; that is too magniloquent a word, which gives rise to megalomania—between the Government on the one side and the forces of disorder, which we hope will become the forces of order, on the other side. I have always understood that while it takes two to make a bargain it also takes two to unmake or to undo that bargain, and that you cannot add a fresh term to a bargain without the consent of all the parties to it. If one of your Lordships and I were to agree that any point of difference should be submitted to three gentlemen, and one of us, said:
716
"I am not satisfied, I want an appeal from those three gentlemen," he would be asking to alter the terms of the bargain, and he would be none the less asking to alter the terms of that bargain if he said: "I am also content that you should have an appeal if you do not like it." We may not like it. I do not like, none of your Lordships likes, or hardly any of you, this settlement or bargain. But we have made it, and we must stick to it and carry it a through.
After all, nothing can be worse than the policy of vacillation which has distinguished the Government of Ireland for the last seventy years. If we have made a bargain of any kind let us stick to it and, without altering the bargain, we cannot carry the noble Lord's Amendment however much we may sympathise with it. Anyhow, I think it is an unfortunate Amendment because he has made an unfortunate choice, as it, happens, of the body which is to be his Court of Appeal. We all know the noble and learned Lords whose names have been referred to in the course of this debate. We know their high character; we know their scrupulous honour; we know their judicial conscience—that which the French: have so well expressed by la religion du magistrat. We know quite well that they as Judges would decide these matters perfectly fairly. But can you expect a peasant either in the North or the South of Ireland who has never seen London, who has never been in a British Court of Justice, to understand that these gentlemen are of this high and trustworthy character and can be trusted, notwithstanding their political predilections, to decide fairly? We always know that in the matter of judicial impartiality two things have to be done. Impartiality has to be secured, and the public has to be convinced that it has been secured. I submit that those two considerations are fatal to this Amendment.
Having said that, I want to say something, not about the Amendment but the debate. I cannot help thinking that in the course of the debate a certain tendency was exhibited by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, to muzzle the Lords of Appeal. I rise to protest against that, and I am able to do it quite impartially, because I am not a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I sit in your Lordships' House as an ordinary unsalaried Peer of hereditary rank. The only difference between myself and any

717
one of the noble Lords whom I am addressing is that nineteen years of judicial service have qualified me to be one of the quorum sitting to consider judicial matters in your Lordships' House and, being also a Privy Councillor, to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I stand outside the position of the noble and learned Lords who have been referred to, and I want to say that I see no reason for putting the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and, still less, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, on any pedestal above the other Law Lords.
I am old enough to remember many schemes for affecting the exercise by your Lordships of final judicature. I think it was as far back as the 'fifties that an attempt was made to recast the procedure of this House in that respect. I remember the Judicature Act of 1873 which took from your Lordships all appeal jurisdiction. I remember also the Judicature Act of 1875 which restored it, and I remember a period of doubt and difficulty that was finally ended, I think, in 1876 by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the first provision of salaried Law Lords, who might or might not have peerages for life only. When that was dose, the noble and learned Lords who were introduced into your Lordships' House were not intended to be shams as Peers. It was not intended that your Lordships should, so to speak, play about with your jurisdiction and pretend to be exercising the jurisdiction of this House while it was really done for you by people in sonic inferior capacity. They were made as much the Peers and equals of you and of me as any other member of your Lordships' House, and I conceive that we get great benefit from their assistance. I always welcome their speaking. Before I was a member of this House, when I had to consider the matter, I always trusted and hoped that the Law Lords would assert their right to be Peers, and I think your Lordships get, as I have said, great benefit from their assistance.
LORD SUMNER: What fell from the noble and learned Viscount and from my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, lest night made it seem to me to be my duty to say a few words in answer to the arguments that I understood, though I may have been mistaken, they were then putting forward. Much of the necessity, for that
718
has been removed by what has just been said by my noble and learned friend, Lord Phillimore, who has stated what I conceive to be an uncontested and incontestable doctrine. Two points have been made upon this Amendment. One I understand to be that there is nothing upon the Treaty in connection with the Boundary Commission that requires any interpretation by any tribunal whatsoever; that the Treaty is self-contained and self-sufficient. The other point is that the proposed tribunal—namely the Privy Council—is, for a variety of reasons, an unsuitable tribunal altogether.
As I have said, I do not think there is any doubt at all that the constitutional doctrine which the noble and learned Lord has just stated is perfectly clear and correct. Before 1876 there were no Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. A Statute had to be passed in order that Peerages might be created without remainder—Peers for life. That, and the mere detail of a salary, was the subject matter of the Act of 1876. But before the passing of that Act there had been numbers of instances of active Judges who were members of your Lordships' House, and the uniform tradition was that, as and when those noble Lords thought fit to do so, they took part in the ordinary duties and debates of your, Lordships' House.
Lord Ellenborough, a little more than one hundred years ago, was a member of the Cabinet of the day, and took part for the rest of his life in all the debates in your Lordships' House, sometimes with acrimony and constantly with a vivacity which drew down upon him a certain amount of criticism; but there was never the slightest doubt that he was within his right in taking that part in debate. Lord Denman, as Lord Chief Justice, was for many years a member of your Lordships' House, and took part in important political questions, such, for example, as the action of Sir James Graham in opening Mazzim's correspondence and, what was then an exceedingly polemical subject, the Abolition of the Slave Trade. When one comes to the period just before 1876, Lord Cairns, then a Judge of the Court of Appeal, received a Peerage before he became Lord Chancellor for the express purpose that he might sit in your Lordships' House and take part, on behalf of the Government of the day, in the piloting of the Reform Bill through Parliament, in the Course of which, I think, he made between twenty and

719
thirty important speeches, and showed himself, what everybody knew him to be, an accomplished political advocate. He afterwards became Lord Chancellor, and passed into a category with which I have nothing to do.
Since 1876—though this is by no means an exhaustive category—I made it my business to ascertain this morning, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Robertson, Lord Alverstone, and Lord Parker of Waddington, to name only the dead, took part, when they thought fit, in your Lordships' debates, not on subjects connected with Summer Time or divorce, but real controversial topics, and nobody said them nay. Subject to the toleration of your Lordships, which must always be the rule that guides any speaker in this Assembly, I conceive that the only constitutional rule is this, that a Peer has the right to address your Lordships upon any subject upon which you are pleased to listen to him, and that upon any legal question, particularly if he has special legal knowledge, he has not the right to withhold from your Lordships any assistance that he conceives himself able to render. The way in which he does it, the occasions which he selects, the length of time he occupies, the language he uses, are all subject to the unspoken censure of your Lordships. I know that your Lordships, on the one hand, are always most indulgent to those who endeavour to speak with sincerity; and, on the other hand, I think every Peer is always sensitive to the feeling of your Lordships' Chamber.
That being so, I think that the position was stated, if I may say so, with extreme accuracy by the Lord Chancellor when he pointed out that what he had to do was to answer arguments that were adduced, and not to offer, nor did he offer, the slightest comment upon the propriety of those arguments being advanced by the persons who advanced them. My noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, in whose presence I might have said more than I am able to say in his absence, appeared to draw a distinction between Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Ex-Lord Chancellors. I do not for a moment dispute that the latter are, entitled to be a class apart, but I do not think that any noble Lord will recognise that there is any doctrine which enables the rule to be laid down, which I rather think my noble and learned friend seemed to lay down, that as the freedom of debate was to be enjoyed without stint by them there must be a corresponding
720
economy of speech on the part of their salaried colleagues—a detail which appeared to me to be slightly personal and wholly irrelevant—in order that the work may be carried on.
My noble and learned friend, Lord Cave, pointed out yesterday what is done in practice when there are questions, as there constantly must be questions, which raise matters touching public affairs. It is the most ordinary thing in the world, and what any sensible tribunal does, internally to arrange that the tribunal shall be made up of those who have dissociated themselves entirely from the matters in question. Let me give an instance. All through the war, ever since, I think, the end of 1915, it has been necessary in the Privy Council to deal with appeals from the Prize Court, and during those years those members of the Judicial Committee who have been members of the Government at any time during the war, whether they had anything to do with maritime operations or not, felt, and very naturally felt, that it would be more proper that they should take no part in the discussion of those appeals. Accordingly they have been uniformly discussed and decided by a board consisting of noble Lords and other Privy Councillors who have had no connection with the Government at all. This is a kind of arrangement made without any difficulty, and nobody who has any practical knowledge of the matter would conceive that, except for purposes of controversial ridicule, one would compose or conceive the possibility of composing a board in the way in which it was suggested last night, by including every noble and learned Lord who had spoken in the course of this debate, and nobody else.
The real difficulty about the tribunal is one which I recognise. It is not any difficulty that has been alluded to so far. The real difficulty is that Southern Ireland does not want any English tribunal, and it will be impossible to compound a tribunal of persons qualified to decide a legal question in England that would not, I have no doubt, be unsatisfactory, at any rate to the more ardent spirits in Southern Ireland. But that is not a difficulty that arises now for the first time, and it is not a difficulty which makes it wise or prudent to refuse to have any tribunal of appeal, if a tribunal of appeal is necessary.
When the Act of 1920 was passed the state of Ireland had been the subject of controversy long enough, and the

721
opinions of those who at that time were interested in the matter were no secret. Yet I find in Section 51 of the Act of 1920 that it was expressly provided that if it appealed to the Lord Lieutenant or Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps should be taken for the speedy determination of questions as to the powers of the Parliaments then created, they should be represented to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directed, such questions should be referred to, heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Although you may say that matters are rather more acute now, still at that moment, in working out that clause (which remains the law of the land) controversial questions from Ireland were to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and a few months after this Act received the Royal Assent, which it did, I think, on December 3, 1920, there was added to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council my noble and learned friend, Lord Carson. If the difficulty be such as was represented last night the difficulty was one which was faced in the early part of 1921.
I do not dispute for a moment that such a tribunal would not be popular, but I venture to assert that if a tribunal of that kind is necessary the Judicial Committee is the right tribunal, and for this very reason. When the Irish Free State receives its Constitution it will receive its Constitution upon the Canadian model. It is bound by the type of the Canadian model, and it may not adopt a Constitution that does not conform to that model. One essential feature of the Canadian model is that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, advising His Majesty in Council, is the constitutional tribunal to which there will come from the Dominion in question, as from all the other Dominions, such appeals as His Majesty may be pleased to allow, unless they have been taken away by an Act of the Imperial Parliament.
Is it necessary to have a tribunal of this sort? It is said the clause needs no alteration, and that it is as plain as it can be on its face. May I ask attention to two or three questions as showing, from my point of view, that it is by no means clear, and by no means complete. The Boundary Commission is to consist of three persons. Is the Commission competent to function if there are only two persons? Supposing
722
one of the parties concerned does not appoint any one at all, are the other two competent to be the Commission which, it is said, is to determine the boundary, or would the boundary determined by two not be determined by such Commission? Again, is the decision to be unanimous? Is the decision to be two against one? Is the decision to be that of one acting as Chairman or as umpire? In the not at all impossible event of one party claiming one line and another party claiming another line, and the Chairman drawing the line somewhere between the two, who is to decide as to whose line is to become the determined line? And by what processes is the Commission to inform itself of the wishes of the inhabitants of the border districts?
Is it to be left to them? The answer of the Government, I suppose, is that it is; that the Commission must interpret the Article for themselves. But you get the same difficulty over again. Suppose they do interpret the Article and all three take different views—and three different views would be nothing excessive—which of the three views is to prevail, and which of the three is to be the interpretation of the Article? In every arbitration there is, by Statute, power to state a case for the High Court, so that on any question which is puzzling there may be recourse to the Courts. In every case in which a Commission is established their terms of reference and powers are defined not by themselves but by the body which appoints them. There is nothing of that here. The clause contains no power to take advice from any one; no provision as to terms of reference, and it does not say, there are to be terms of reference, who is to lay them down.
In these circumstances I submit that if this Article is to work and not to be a failure, if the Article is to be carried out, someone should give an answer to these questions. Is it breaking the Treaty, or completing the Treaty, to provide by the only power there is—namely, by the Legislature of this country—for these indispensable matters, without which the Article becomes unworkable? If I thought that the effect of this Amendment would be really to violate the Treaty I should not support it. But I conceive that it is a sound statement to make that you are not violating a Treaty which says such and such things are to be done, but does not say how they are to be done. You are

723
rather implementing it by providing the necessary machinery for enabling those things to be done which it is the intention of the Article should be done. I submit, therefore, that far from this being a violation of the Treaty it is really complementary to it, and is just as necessary a provision to give it effect as the passing of this Bill is necessary to give it the force of law.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I did not contemplate saying anything on this Amendment, but the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has said more than one thing which has astounded me, and I must ask your Lordships to listen to me for a moment. First of all, dealing with the point to which he last referred, the Article in the Treaty. It may be, as he says, that the matters referred under that Article should be left to the decision of three people, who, it is contemplated, would be found acting unanimously. That may be a sanguine expectation. But whether it is or not that is the final decision prescribed by the Treaty. It may be that it has to be read that a majority can determine the matter, or it may be that they must all agree. But whatever it is, that is the form of procedure which was agreed to, and to propose that this is to be reviewed not only on questions of law but on questions of fact is surely very astonishing.
The noble and learned Lord put the case of a difference which might arise on a question of fact, and in all probability that is far more likely to arise than on any question of law. It is proposed that it should come to the Privy Council—not an appeal from a technical Court of Law but from a special tribunal set up by the Treaty. Lord Sumner said we should be following the analogy of the Constitution of Canada. I know something about the Constitution of Canada, and I differ from him. In Canada one of the things that was done was to set up a tribunal, somewhat of this kind, for the trial of Election Petitions. They brought an appeal to the Privy Council and said that the King, acting in Council, has jurisdiction to dispense justice to all his subjects. It was brought before the most eminent lawyers of the day, and the decision was clear and sharp. They said that this was not an ordinary tribunal of justice; the prerogative of the King to review justice does not extend to a body of this kind and they scouted the idea that there should be an appeal to the Privy Council, as a right, or
724
at all, from a body which was not a Court of Law in a technical sense, but a special tribunal set up by the Canadian Parliament.
But Lord Sumner put another matter before your Lordships. It is quite true that if you go back to the days of Lord Ellenborough you will find that he sat in the Cabinet, and if the noble and learned Lord had extended his researches he would have found that there was sharp public criticism of that fact; so sharp that no Lord Chief Justice will ever sit in the Cabinet again. Lord Denman's is another case. It is true that in his days there was much greater latitude. Members of your Lordships' House who were laymen could take part in decisions, until there came a sharp conflict and the Resolution in the great Irish case in which it was laid down that your Lordships who were laymen should not take part in judicial matters. There is no restriction upon any of your Lordships giving a vote on an appeal in the House of Lords. You have a perfect right to do it; you are perfectly free. There are statutory restrictions, but they do not touch that.
What has grown up has been one of those subtle conventions of law and custom of Parliament which has become binding only in response to public opinion and in response to the sense of the House. I am within your Lordships' recollection when I speak of the delicacy which has been shown in this matter by well-known Law Lords who have sat in this House. Lord Macnaghten, it is said, took part in debates, and I dare say that Lord Watson did also. But these eminent men made it perfectly clear that although they claimed the right as Peers they never spoke on great partisan questions. They felt that if they did it would be disastrous to the prestige and confidence enjoyed by your Lordships' House as a judicial body. It is difficult to combine the functions of a Judge and a politician.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You do it.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I am coining to that. I did it when I was Secretary of State for War by the desire of the House of Commons. I was then in a perfectly independent position; as free as my noble friend, Lord Phillimore. I was not in receipt of any salary as a Minister. But really the rule that has been introduced as a convention of the Constitution, which I trust the noble Marquess will never try to

725
destroy, is that the six Judges, who have been introduced into your Lordships' House as Judges, made Peers in order to enable them to be judges, should be most sparing in the exercise of their freedom as legislators. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. We should all be sorry to lose the contributions of the Law Lords on questions of law ant on such questions as they can take part in without destroying their position and reputation with the public as Judges.
I have in my memory one great case in which this House slightly departed from its usual care and gave a judgment which was the cause of an immense popular outcry, followed by legislation practically reversing the decision. These things show how careful it is necessary to be. It is true that anybody who becomes a Peer of this House becomes a Peer possessing all the rights of a Peer. It is equally true that there are conventions of the Constitution and constitutional practices which impose restraints on individual liberties and freedom to Which it is well that noble Lords should pay attention. If they do not pay attention to them, the consequences are disastrous. I know that normally my noble and learned friends very well realise that, and I bring the point up now only because in the speech of the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down I noticed the proposition that the Law Lords, who are brought here, and brought here primarily, to be Judges and not to take part in Party debate, are to be as free as anybody else to take part in them, are to be put under no restraint.
Lord Chancellors and ex-Lord Chancellors are, of course, in a different position. The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Government, and ex-Lord Chancellors, by the terms of their patents, are put expressly in that position of freedom. I do not say that it is an easy thing to explain, any more than many parts of our unwritten Constitution are easy to explain. But when you get Judges appointed as Judges, a very different set of considerations comes into play and constitutional principles become very important. What, otherwise, would be the result? Whenever a new Law Lord is to be appointed, instead of getting the man at the top of the profession of the law, and therefore the best man to get in the public interest, the Government will be compelled to ask: "Is this man our supporter, or is he going to be our antagonist?" We have been
726
free from that in the past; we have been free from it in my time and in the time of the present Government; and I trust we shall continue to be free from it. But we can only be free if we observe this tradition, which has grown up, indeed, only within recent years, because it is only recently that the system of appointing paid Judges in your Lordships' House has been adopted.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I have not risen to continue the controversy that has been indulged in by the noble and learned Viscount who has just addressed us. After all, I am satisfied to take the same line of conduct as did Lord Cairns, Lord Macnaghten and Lord Robertson, and if the noble Viscount thinks that I have a lower standard of honour than he in trying cases I when he goes in from his political meetings, I must leave it for the House to judge whether I am competent or not to hold my present office. I would only say that if, as the Lord Chancellor knows, I had thought for one moment that I should be restricted in any way in the course I should take on this Bill, having regard to the obligations into which I have solemnly entered in relation to Ulster, I would not for one moment have continued to hold my present office, whatever might be the sacrifice I should have to make.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD): I think it is right that I should say, in answer to what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, that he did me the honour of consulting me upon Iris present position. I took the view then which I stated last night in the debate in this House, that the position of the noble and learned Lord was, for a variety of reasons, a singular and individual one. I took the view that for many years he had played a part in this controversy which placed him in a position which was, and which would be recognised by every member of your Lordships' House to be, a distinct one; and in giving that advice to the noble and learned Lord when he consulted me I deeply considered the general situation. I have nothing to withdraw from the other observations which I made last night. It is due, however, to the noble and learned Lord that it should be made most plain that he indicated to me that, if a different view were taken by those in authority, he would at once reclaim his freedom and address your Lordships as an absolutely independent Peer.
LORD CARSON: I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor for making that statement. I was anxious, of course, to make the position clear. As regards the Amendment which I moved, I desire to state the course which I propose to ask your Lordships to take. I consider this an extremely moderate Amendment; in fact, it is as moderate as could be suggested if there were to be any Amendment at all. I am not at all impressed, if I may say so, by any of the reasons that were put forward against it, nor do I think they were real reasons. The noble Viscount who has just addressed us talked about Canada, and about some case that came from Canada. I wish he had addressed a little more attention to my argument that, as regards Canada and the other self-governing Colonies, there is an Act of this Imperial Parliament providing that you cannot touch a single boundary without their consent. That is exactly what you refused to Northern Ireland. But this Amendment and the next Amendment equally raise the question whether your Lordships are going to allow Ulster to be driven to civil war—because that is what it really comes to—or whether you are going to leave matters as they are.
We now have it clearly laid down that the Government have no power to accept Amendments without the concurrence of their masters in Ireland, Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith, with whom they are apparently in communication about these Amendments. We also must deduce from their conduct in relation to this very trifling Amendment—though it effects some improvement—that they have no desire to press such an Amendment, or anything that would be fair to Ulster. They also give the go-by to another fact which I commend to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillimore, who talked of two parties to a bargain, because his judicial mind will at once grasp the fact that you are setting up the arbitration as regards a third party who has never been heard and who has never had an opportunity of saying one word either as to the Constitution or in relation to any of these proceedings that are to be taken. Lastly, it has been demonstrably shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, that the terms of the so-called Treaty, or bargain, are such that they are really and absolutely unworkable. They are open to so many constructions and they have so little machinery, or power of machinery, for
728
setting up any proper tribunal that I do not think I should be justified in asking the House to have repeated Divisions upon the subject.
I propose, therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, to withdraw this Amendment and to ask your Lordships to take the Division on the Amendment which will be proposed immediately this discussion is over by my noble friend, the Marquess of Londonderry. I do desire, however, to say once more that I wish that, instead of going through this discussion, we were putting our minds into a frame to deal with realities. I would wish that instead of going through a performance the Government were really telling us the truth of what was happening on the borders, and how they were dealing with it. It is a terrible state of affairs. The war has begun. Whether you care about it or do not, that is a fact. The day before yesterday, in one small district in one of the border counties of Ulster, £40,000 worth of property, including a mill which employed a large number of hands, was wantonly destroyed, in order to try to terrorise the Ulster people into giving up their territory. In addition, two police barracks were stormed and the police beaten out, and all the armaments taken away; and many other raids, more or less serious, took place. To my mind, the question of how that is to be dealt with is much more important than anything connected with this Amendment, but I fear the Government have made up their minds that the thing is to go on to the bitter end, and that nothing is to be done. Well, they must have the responsibility of it, and for the moment all I can ask is that your Lordships will allow me to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before your Lordships give or withhold leave I must ask permission to say a word upon the very serious matter, unrelated to the Amendment, which has just been dealt with by the noble and learned Lord. I agree with him that a grave state of affairs exists on the frontier. I am of opinion that the one menace at this moment to the conclusion of this Agreement, and to its translation into successful and effective practice, is to be found in the state of affairs that exists at the frontier. Certainly we, as a Government, have not been lacking in proper exertions to protect the interests of Ulster. There are at this moment in Ulster thirteen battalions, not indeed at

729
full strength, of British troops who are there for that purpose, and there are some 15,000 men in the various police forces in Ulster, who have been equipped with rifles by the British Government in order that they may be effective for protective purposes should intervention become necessary, and we are constantly giving pecuniary subventions and assistance to Ulster.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: And to the South, too.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And to the South too. We are impartial in this matter. Does not the noble Marquess understand that?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble and learned Viscount did not say so.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say so because the case was not made against me by representatives of Southern Ireland. If such a case had been made against me, I would have stated what we were doing for Southern Ireland, although it does not amount to one-tenth part of what we are doing for Northern Ireland. I can only express the profound hope that the Premier of Northern Ireland will consent to do what he has been asked to do, and that is to meet the representatives of Southern Ireland, in order that they may arrive at an agreement as to the best steps that may be taken, jointly, for the pacification of this dangerous area. It is along those lines, and those lines only, that this grave and dangerous plague-spot can be purged and cured, and I am absolutely certain that if the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland will consent to meet the representatives of the South, and discuss with them how the dangerous situation can be regularised, it can be done.
Failing such an agreement, it is right that I should indicate the plans now under consideration by the Government. There is a debatable land. There are many troops there. It may be possible—I do not know—to make a zone between the two competing forces, which may be occupied by Imperial troops until such time as a settlement can be attained. I do not know whether it is practicable or not. It is being considered. But I am certain of this, that the best hope would be if that reasonable and experienced man, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland,
730
would consent to meet the representatives of Southern Ireland for their joint and mutual interest, because it is no more the interest of Southern Ireland, which hopes to win its Election and to carry this matter through—it is no more in their interest to provoke a conflagration than it is in the interests of the North. It is only in the interests of extreme factions on both sides, and it is to the co-operation of moderate men on both sides that we must look for the defeat of the extremists on both sides.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I cannot allow the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount to pass without some reply from myself. I fully appreciate the very grave manner in which he mentioned the situation on the boundary at the present moment, and it is not my habit on these occasions to recriminate, or to say what I feel, as to the reason why we are going through these difficulties at the present moment. The point is that we are faced with a situation with which we have to deal, and I sincerely hope that it will ameliorate at no very distant date. I have before me a copy of the telegram which I asked for and received from the Home Office in Belfast. I will not read it, but it contains details of the outrages occurring on the boundary, of which your Lordships may not be fully aware. I have on many occasions referred to the entirely different atmosphere which prevails in this country from that which prevails in Ireland, and I have endeavoured to stimulate your Lordships into realising what we are going through in Ireland while you are practically playing with the situation here.
There is one suggestion to which I should like to refer, and which was made by the Lord Chancellor, and that is the desirability of a meeting between Sir James Craig and the representatives of Southern Ireland. What is our experience of those meetings? You will remember with what hope you read in the papers that a meeting had occurred between Sir James Craig and Mr. Michael Collins, and I have no doubt that many of you thought that the difficulties of the situation were removed. What is the result? We have every one of us been able to see that there was no agreement reached, although we were led to believe that there was, because Mr. Michael Collins in a very short time gave out a totally different impression of the meeting, and gave out to the public

731
that his idea of the boundary was that so many counties should be annexed to Southern Ireland. It is impossible for Sir James Craig to go into a meeting with a man who does not know his own mind from one day to another.
I am ready to recognise the difficulties in which Mr. Collins is placed, but I do not believe that any good can come from a meeting in which there is no semblance of stability on the part of Mr. Michael Collins. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is in a position to say that Mr. Michael Collins, to use a colloquial expression, is capable of "delivering the goods." Until he is in a position to give us that assurance, that Mr. Collins is in a position to carry into effect what he says, no good can possibly come from a meeting of that kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided that if an Address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement there shall be written terms of reference to the Commission for determining the boundaries of Northern Ireland, which shall be submitted for approval to both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Marquess said: I have made an alteration in the form of the Amendment as it appeared on the Paper. It is an Amendment which I sincerely hope your Lordships will be able to accept. I am fully aware of the difficulties which attend this so-called Treaty and of the desire of His Majesty's Government that no alteration of any material description should be made in it. But this boundary question is by far the most serious question at the moment, and anything that can be done by way of a definition or of a clear explanation in the form of an Amendment may do something to mitigate the situation which, we realise, exists at the present moment. It is a matter of deep regret to me that this question of the boundary was ever raised. I wish it had been possible for the Government to realise that the 1920 Act was an Act which it was their duty to conserve, and on all precedents to realise that when a Parliament is set up within the British Dominions that Parliament is consecrated unless by its own desire it wishes the provisions to be altered.
Yesterday's debate on a previous Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend was a very interesting
732
debate in more ways than one. The Lord Chancellor gave us a piece of information which I am sure will do a certain amount of good. It is true that he may say that we should have realised it, and should have recognised that such was the position of the Government, and such were their intentions. But I do not think that that position was realised, nor has any one been really convinced of what the intentions of the Government were on this point. I refer to the statement of the Lord Chancellor that a Boundary Commission meant a Boundary Commission, and that it was really a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the alteration of the boundary line by the inclusion of counties in the South of Ireland was contemplated.
The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that it was practically impossible to amend, or alter, or modify, or even to explain the measure. That seemed to me a strange statement, coming from a member of a responsible Government, and I regretted what he said. I went even further, and I was inclined to question what he said on that point. But the Amendment which was moved yesterday by my noble friend who sits below the gangway (Lord Sumner) served as a contradiction of what the noble Viscount told us. A letter was sent by Mr. Griffith, the terms of which clearly explained that he was quite willing to consent to an alteration, and the most amazing situation was set up that, whereas we in the North of Ireland held the opinion that it would be desirable that the "Ulster month" should be brought about as soon as possible, and Mr. Griffith in his letter said very clearly that it was immaterial to him whether the "Ulster month" followed the passing of this Bill, or began later on the passing of another Bill, yet, notwithstanding all that, the Government go contrary to the wishes of the people of Ulster, which I think they might have respected.
This proves clearly that the Government have been wrong. I was certainly under the impression, from the words used by the noble Viscount, that there was some particular necessity that there should be no amendment, or alteration, or modification, or even explanation, for some reason which he did not define. But I have no doubt your Lordships guessed the reason, namely, that the Government were—I should not like to say frightened, but were anxious

733
lest any action of theirs should irritate Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith, They need not adopt that timorous attitude. I believe Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith desire to be very reasonable, and I am sure that they would take no exception to the noble Viscount's action, if he should, perhaps not amend, perhaps not modify or alter, but if he should explain what the British Government mean by the ambiguous provisions contained in this Bill.
I do not think that your Lordships will say that the Amendment that I move is in any sense a wrecking Amendment. It is a request for a definition, a request that the provisions of the Bill should be made clearer than they are at present. I do not believe that anyone will accuse me of endeavouring to wreck this Bill, but, if anyone should have an idea that I have any such intention, I should like to contradict the suggestion. I fully realise that we are in a situation in which I hope this country and this Empire will never be again, and that it is necessary for us to seek for a palliative, for something which can, by united efforts, constitute a platform from which law and order can be once more established in Ireland. That is why I am endeavouring to assist your Lordships to go forward in the direction which you have chosen—not because I believed at the outset that it would be the best direction in which to move, but because I believe we have no alternative now. That is the reason why I say that my desire now is to fashion this measure, suck as it is, into so clear and easily understood a document that there can be no misunderstanding afterwards which would bring about difficulties and disturbance of which it is impossible for us to prophesy at this moment the outcome.
There are really two different points of view. There is the British point of view in regard to this Treaty, into which I should not think of going at length to-day; and there is also the point of view of the Government of Northern Ireland, of which I have the honour to be a member. Your Lordships will remember that the attitude of Northern Ireland has been consistent from the beginning of the negotiations between the British Government and Sinn Fein. We have affirmed on more than one occasion that we were willing that the British Government should make what terms they wished with Sinn Fein, so long as the position of Northern Ireland, defined by the Act of 1920, was left intact. We
734
have always said that Northern Ireland would maintain a helpful and friendly attitude if there were no invasion of her prerogatives, already guaranteed by the British Government, and that is the reason why I am particularly anxious that you should go as far as you can in this measure in defining the terms of reference which are to be given to the Boundary Commission you are proposing to set up at such time as Ulster decides not to come under the Parliament of Southern Ireland.
I should not think at this moment of going through the negotiations which have gone on all this time, nor of making any reference to the meeting between Sir James Craig and Mr. Michael Collins, because I have already said a few words on that subject to your Lordships. I would only say in that connection that those conferences subsequently revealed that there was a fundamental disagreement between Sir James Craig's view of the opinion of the British Government and the view held by Mr. Michael Collins. The British Government have refused to recognise the urgency of defining what is meant by "the definition of the boundary," and I would venture to quote to your Lordships words which were tittered by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on February 7 of this year—
"All I would say is, let us have more patience and proceed more deliberately. The question of boundaries is not to be settled yet. The first question to be settled is the setting up of the Provisional Government. That does not involve the question of boundaries. The boundary question would only come after the Constitution has been framed, and has been incorporated in an Act of Parliament. … When there is so much to quarrel about … why should you pick a quarrel about something which does net arise?"
That declaration on the part of the Prime Minister that the Boundary Question is a quarrel which does not arise at present, shows plainly that he does not understand the Irish situation.
In reality, as things are to-day, the only question arising between Northern and Southern Ireland is this all-important one of boundaries. The Free State, or rather the Provisional Government, as well as the out-and-out Republicans under Mr. de Valera, are seeking constantly to extend their sway over Ireland. All these encroachments and inroads which we see at the present moment are for the purpose of intimidating the North of Ireland. There is no question about it. The success of the Southern Government, if I may use

735
the expression, has been secured by intimidation. They have received all that they have got now by using the method of intimidation, which has been apparent and obvious to all. Having accomplished that, they can then establish thereby any form of government they will—complete severance from Great Britain and the Empire, or whatever they like.
What I desire to direct the attention of your Lordships to is the fact that these encroachments are merely for the purpose of intimidating the North of Ireland. The immediate answer to those words of the Prime Minister was given the very next day, when the Northern boundaries were invaded and peaceful inhabitants of the North were kidnapped and held prisoner by forces from over the border. The massacre at Clones followed on February 11. I would suggest that the British Government have shown, on more occasions than one, that they do not, and will not, realise that a great deal of the importance of this question centres round the definition of the boundary. That is why I ask your Lordships to incorporate in the Bill the words I have put before you. I do not think I need detain your Lordships any longer. I have expressed to your Lordships all the matters about which I feel most strongly, and I earnestly hope that the noble Viscount will see his way to include this Amendment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): I did not know until this moment that the Amendment was to be presented in this altered form. I understood that the noble Marquess was really addressing himself to the Amendment on the Paper.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is no difference.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say that there was any difference; I was only saying that there was no notice of it until this moment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: There is nothing in it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: In moving his Amendment the noble Marquess made some com-
736
plaint about some words I had used as to alterations, changes, modifications, explanations and so on in the terms of the Agreement. It has been laid down, I think, in another place and here, that the Government considers itself bound by those Articles of Agreement, and those Articles of Agreement have been sanctioned and given assent to by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament. Further than that, the noble Marquess brought up against me an Amendment, or suggested Amendment, that I was prepared to move yesterday, and he said: "In that case you were prepared anyhow to make an explanation of one of the terms in the Agreement." That particular suggestion rested, of course, on a totally different basis from that stated by the noble Marquess, because that one was agreed. It was agreed between the two sides to the Agreement—between those who signed the Agreement on behalf of His Majesty's Government and those who signed it on behalf of the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland. In that case obviously there would be less objection to making such an Amendment, not in the Treaty but in the Bill, as made that point clear.
Much criticism was passed in previous discussions upon that point in the Agreement. It was suggested that there was a great deal of ambiguity; that Ulster would be placed in a very difficult and awkward position; that it was uncertain whether or not the "Ulster month" began to run from the date when this Bill became an Act or from the date when the later Bill becomes an Act, and that they would be compelled, therefore, to do that which I understood at the time they did not want to do—I was wrong, I suppose, in that—namely, to move an Address within a month of the passing of this Bill into an Act saying that they contracted out of the Ireland Parliament. I certainly suggested that in good faith hoping that it would meet the ambiguity. But I was told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, that it was an insult to Ulster.
LORD CARSON: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It certainly was not intended in any sense as an insult to Ulster; it was intended to remove an ambiguity, and I hoped that I was trying to do so. The noble Marquess also said that the Government voted against the

737
Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner. On that occasion I also pointed out that his Amendment, besides making the rest of the Treaty very difficult to construe and raising further difficulties, would also have no effect whatever as regards the Boundary Commission; because the Boundary Commission could not be set up until the Free State was set up. Therefore, from that point of view, the Amendment was entirely and wholly nugatory.
The noble Marquess has now moved another Amendment which proposes that the terms of reference to the Boundary Commission shall be written down and that those terms shall be submitted, I understand, to both Houses of Parliament before they become effective. The contention of the Government is that the terms of reference are already set out in the Treaty, and, following from other statements, it will be quite obvious to your Lordships that any variation of the terms of the Treaty would be a breach of the Treaty, and would raise all those difficulties and troubles of which we have already spoken, and might, perhaps, break up the whole arrangement. Any variation of the terms of the Treaty in that way would, of course, not be possible. If, then, the change in the terms of reference already set out would bring about the loss of the Treaty, it would surely be rather a nugatory proposal to place this before both Houses of Parliament in order that they might approve of it.
It would really be placing before your Lordships' House and another place the Treaty over again for fresh discussion on practically the same point. It would be removing, or keeping back till later for further discussion before both Houses of Parliament, this particular provision of the Treaty; it would render uncertain the acceptance of the Treaty; because of that particular uncertainty, it would make the situation far more dangerous, and would suggest that it might be possible to undo the assent already solemnly given to this Treaty by both Houses of Parliament. It would mean delay, cause disturbance, and raise doubts, and, in effect, would not have any result, provided the Treaty was adhered to. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will not agree to it. It is in the nature of a dilatory Motion, asking your Lordships to try the whole question over again. I must, therefore, oppose it on behalf of the Government.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Will your Lordships allow me a few moments in which to state my own position regarding most of these Amendments? As has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, in the Articles of Agreement what is practically an instruction is laid down to the Commission to inquire into the boundary, or to make possible alterations in the boundary in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, "so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions." That surely amounts, practically, to a reference, and if this Amendment is agreed to it means an amendment of one of the Articles of the Agreement. I sincerely trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
I would like, if I may, to say a word or two as to the difficulties in which I find myself. I do not pretend—I do not suppose any of your Lordships will pretend—that this Bill is a perfect instrument. It has many anomalies, and a good deal of confusion exists concerning its meanings, but, so far as I have heard the debate last night and to-day, and so far as my non-legal mind enables me to form an opinion upon the Amendments that are to be moved, and the efforts intended to remove ambiguities, which certainly exist, they have the result only of producing other ambiguities very often of a worse character. Another difficulty in which I find myself is that it is so difficult as to be almost impossible to accept Amendments in this Bill which do not have the effect, direct or indirect, or which cannot be construed in Ireland as having the effect, indirectly, of altering the Articles of Agreement. Your Lordships know very well that the one argument that Mr. de Valera has throughout used, and used with great effect, is that by some means or other steps will be taken to invalidate the Articles of Agreement; that Parliament does not intend really and honestly to deliver the goods; and that somehow, by some means or other, the Irish people, if they accept the Treaty, will not be given by it the autonomy and independence which it pretends to give them.
That is the one argument that Mr. de Valera uses with great effect, and I implore your Lordships to consider very carefully whether any Amendment to this Bill is not calculated to assist him, and to enable him to point to something being done now in this House which may invalidate the terms of the Treaty. I am fearful of any-

739
thing being done in this House which will have that result, and of anything being Said in this House that will assist him. I confess that I heard with dismay the words which fell from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, on the Second Reading of the Bill, when, in effect, he told your Lordships that the foreign military commitments of this country were so great, and this country had become so feeble, that if a Republic was established in Ireland it would not be resisted by force. That is exactly what Mr. de Valera said.
LORD CARSON: It is quite true.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: If Mr. de Valera is to be backed by the great experience of my noble and learned friend—
LORD CARSON: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to explain. What I was doing was to quote the Lord Chancellor, who said the reason they had to come away and submit to this Treaty was that it would have taken 100,000 men, and a great deal of money which they could not afford, to put down crime in Ireland. What I was arguing was that if they were unable to do that much now, after they had evacuated Ireland they would not have any power to go back and re-conquer it.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: The noble and learned Lord is evidently speaking in reference to something which fell from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. My only point is that the opinion expressed in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, backs up Mr. de Valera's opinion. I am certain the noble and learned Lord has no desire to wreck this Treaty indirectly by seeing a Republic established in Ireland, but that is unquestionably the effect which the words that fell from the noble and learned Lord will have upon Ireland.
The condition of Ireland is quite unparalleled. I do not think any community of people has ever been placed in such a position—a complete change of Government contemplated, and the country absolutely denuded of military and police during the interval which must elapse between the exit of one form of Government and the entry and the full establishment of the other. I do not know why troops have been withdrawn from Ireland, but I think I can make a pretty good guess. I assume that they were withdrawn because in the
740
opinion of the Irish Plenipotentiaries—the present Provisional Government—the people of Ireland would never believe in the bona fides of the Agreement as long as Ireland was occupied by troops. I think they were withdrawn in deference to the profound suspicion entertained not only by their leaders but by the people generally in the South and West that by some means or other, by trickery of some sort, they would be defrauded of the rights and privileges given them in the Articles of Agreement.
The best and most efficacious way of putting an end to the unparalleled and horrible condition of things in Ireland is to set up a Provisional Government in Ireland with some authority and power. We speak about a Provisional Government. I do not think the Government, such as it is in Ireland, can be rightly described as a Provisional Government. It is a sort of Provisional Provisional Government. It has no powers of any sort or kind, and, surely, the immediate object we should have in view is to set up a Provisional Government with power and authority in order that they may do their best to restore law and order and put an end to a condition of things which is a disgrace to civilisation. I do not know whether they will be able to do this. It is a difficult matter. I am sure they are doing their best. But what can they do? They really have no power or authority, and to my mind the best means of restoring order, and ending the atrocious state of things, is by setting up this Provisional Government and giving them full power at the earliest possible moment.
The one thing which stands between us in Ireland and absolute destruction is that the people at an Election should accept the terms of the Treaty. For that reason I earnestly hope your Lordships will be careful that nothing is done by way of Amendment to this Bill in this House than can possibly encourage Mr. de Valera and his fanatical Republicans to tell the people that he has always been right, and that some means or other will be adopted to cheat them out of the independence granted in the terms of the Agreement. If the Irish Free State is established and functions well, then this question is practically settled. If the Irish people refuse to accept the terms of the Agreement the responsibility rests upon them. But if anything is done in Parliament, in this House, that could justify the people of

741
Ireland saving, in agreement with Mr. de Valera, that they can never get assured independence except by setting up an independent Republic, then the responsibility rests upon us, and upon Parliament; and it is a responsibility which I do not like to contemplate.
I earnestly hope that this Bill will go through without any serious alterations. It would give to the Provisional Government power which they have not got at present; they will be able to assert themselves. I know they are moderate men. I believe they would be able to come to some agreement to put an end to the warfare which is taking place on the boundary of the North and South. I will go further and say that I hope they would be able to come to some agreement as to the vexed Boundary Commission. My knowledge of Ulster is not so great as that of Lord Carson, or Lord Londonderry, but I am not entirely ignorant of the people in Ulster, and my impression is that in Ulster there is a large body of moderate opinion, which I hope will have an opportunity of asserting itself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Like so many other speeches which have been delivered in the course of the debate, the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, is another fresh testimony to the hopeless condition, the misery, and chaos, to which the policy of the Government has reduced Ireland. I do not quite understand the general object of the noble Earl's observations. No one wants to resist giving the Provisional Government authority. That is what this Bill is going to do; and your Lordships have been assured from all quarters that there is no intention whatever of wrecking the Bill. The Bill is going through, the noble Earl need not be afraid. The Provisional Government, in a few days, will have all the power they can exercise. Our only doubt is whether they have any authority at all in Ireland, and whether they will be able to use the powers we are about to confer upon them. The noble Earl has urged us to give them authority; he may make his mind quite easy on that point.
But that is no reason why we should not urge the Government to remove yet one more cause of friction in Ireland—namely, the difficulties of the boundary between the North and the South and West. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, described this as a
742
dilatory Amendment. I regret that phrase. What do we intend to delay? We are not going to delay the passage of the Bill; we are not going to delay anything. All we are doing is to suggest to the Government some way out of the difficulty; and the noble Viscount calls it a dilatory Amendment! Far from that being the case, I would point out that when the noble and learned Lord was appealed to he withdrew his Amendment. There was no desire to put any difficulties in the way.
May I repeat that where there is proved ambiguity in the Treaty and in the Bill we are doing nothing but a public service in pointing out that ambiguity and in doing our best to persuade the Government to clear it up. There is ambiguity here. It cannot be denied. It is true that the Lord Chancellor said there ought to be no ambiguity; but there is, because Mr. Collins, one of the parties to the Treaty, one of the negotiators, said that the terms of reference, such as they are, which are contained in the Treaty, would render it possible for the South of Ireland to take whole counties from the North. That is what he said; and he was one of the parties to the Treaty. He is not a sort of vague commentator; he is one of the men who signed it. And he says that when he signed it that is what it meant. The Lord Chancellor says there is no ambiguity. Of course, there is. The two parties to the Treaty, represented by the Lord Chancellor on the one hand and by Mr. Collins on the other, who for this purpose may be looked upon as equals, differ diametrically as to the interpretation of the vague terms of the Treaty.
We do not propose to alter the Treaty. We say we must clear it up. There is a difference of opinion between the contracting parties. They do not understand or look at the matter from the same point of view, and my noble friends behind me have therefore made certain proposals for clearing it up. I ventured to ask the Government last night, towards the close of our proceedings, whether they would not make some attempt to assist the House to arrive at a conclusion, and my noble friend, Lord Midleton, has repeated that request this afternoon. He said to the Government: "Will you not come forward and contribute something to the solution of this ambiguity?" I do not think I agree with all that my noble friend said, but at any rate I agree with that.
VISCOUNT PEEL: He referred, I think, to two other Amendments, not to this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let the Government make a declaration. I will give way in a moment if they have a declaration to make that will assist the House, or if they have anything to say upon Lord Dufferin's Amendment. I do not mean a mere blank negative; I do not want to give way in order that they may say that they will not do anything. But if they have a positive contribution to make, let them say so. We are here to clear up these ambiguities, and while the Government are considering the matter, let me add that many of your Lordships heard the speech of the Lord Chancellor yesterday afternoon, when he said that it was not fair to one contracting party that the other contracting party should provide the Court of Appeal—he was speaking to my noble and learned friend's Amendment—from the awards which might be made by these arbitrators. What I do not think the Government ever realised is that what is asked for is not any impartiality as between Great Britain and Southern Ireland but as between Ulster and Great Britain.
I am compelled to say that Ulster no longer looks upon the British Government as friends. That is the point. And yet the British Government, by this Bill, proposes to appoint a supreme arbitrator. The Bill provides that without any intervention by Parliament the Chairman of the Commission and the reference to the Chairman are to be withheld from the Imperial Parliament and decided, in so far as they are decided, by His Majesty's Government. The result is that Ulster sees a party whom they do not believe to be friendly deciding their fate so far as this boundary is concerned. I am not saying that Ulster is right in looking upon His Majesty's Government as enemies, but the people of Ulster undoubtedly do so. They have lost confidence in that Government absolutely. They believe that His Majesty's Government are devoted to the interests of the other side and are really leagued with the parties in the South and West of Ireland. I have a better opinion of His Majesty's Government, but that is undoubtedly the view of a large section of opinion in Ulster.
How can you expect them to be content with this vague reference, which may mean
744
anything or nothing, which Mr. Collins considers to mean that he may have several counties torn from Ulster and joined to the South, and content that this vague reference should be determined by a Chairman who is not to be appointed by Parliament but by His Majesty's Government, whom they believe to be the allies of the South and West? You cannot expect them to be satisfied with that, and if you want to impress upon them the justice of the arrangement which you are now creating you must introduce some kind of modification.
My noble friend, Lord Londonderry, has suggested to your Lordships, in an admirable speech, that it should be done in the form of the separate reference to both Houses, so that we should have a check upon it, and Ulster would have the security of the assent of both Houses of the Imperial Parliament. That is one proposal. My noble friend, Lord Dufferin, has another proposal. He proposes that the name of the Chairman should come in the same way before both Houses of Parliament before the appointment becomes effective. That again would give confidence to Ulster. We ask the Government to help us. We do not bring any accusation against them, but we say that the sad and melancholy fact is that they have wholly lost the confidence of the North of Ireland. We ask them, therefore, whether they will not give their assent to some provision which will restore the confidence of the North of Ireland in the tribunal which has to decide this very difficult question of the frontier.
I hope I have stated the case clearly and I hope I have not stated it in any extreme language. I believe I have said nothing but that which is absolutely true, and I earnestly hope the Government will agree to it. The House itself does not propose for a moment to wreck the Treaty. All we propose, if your Lordships are willing to do so, is to put this Amendment or Lord Dufferin's Amendment into the Bill, in order that it may go to the other House for consideration by the Government in that House. That is the very modest and moderate demand which I humbly and most earnestly commend to His Majesty's Government.
LORD BUCKMASTER: This Amendment seems simple when you look at it, but it appears to have acted as a solvent upon the seals that bind nearly all the other Amendments upon the Paper, and

745
it has undoubtedly resulted in a discussion which has embraced two or three, if not the whole, of the other Amendments. That is not unnatural, because it affects this question of the ascertainment of the boundary, which is undoubtedly the real point upon which the minds of your Lordships are exercised in considering this Bill. I appreciate one objection which has been made by the noble Marquess who moves this Amendment and supported, I think, by the noble Marquess who has just sat down.
The terms of the Treaty with regard to this Commission are, I say, admittedly ambiguous; I am not sure that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, accepts that, but I cannot think any reasonable man will say that they are not doubtful and that it is not very difficult indeed to know what the mean. In those circumstances it is not surprising that Ulster, who is at this moment in a state of irritation and not unjustifiable suspicion, should be uneasy lest when the Commission is set up the terms under which they are to act are so regulated that they embrace the wider and not the narrower interpretation. I should have thought, therefore, that the wiser plan would have been to provide that the terms of the Commission shall be in writing, and that they shall be those mentioned in Article 12, and no other. At this moment there is nothing to define what they are to be.
There is a further matter that is surely not free from observation. Uneasy and unwilling as I am to alter this Treaty by a single word—and I explained my reasons to your Lordships last night—as Article 12 stands it may be quite incapable of being worked, and there is no alternative provision in the Treaty. It is not unnatural. Things that are done under the strain and stress through which this Treaty was reached must necessarily be imperfect. Whey you find that if the South do not appoint, or if the North do not appoint, there is nothing to provide for what is to take place, and that there is nothing to provide for what is to happen if, when you have appointed the people, they differ, I think it is plain that something must be done in order to make clear what are to be the powers, constitution and method of business by which that Commission is to carry out what is one of the gravest and the most responsible duties with which any Commission has been charged within my memory in recent times.

746
It has been suggested by the noble Marquess who has just sat down—and there he suggested, I think, what we used to call in the Greek grammar a prolepsis—that the name of the Chairman should be inserted. I do not want to consider now any other Amendments, because this is so full of matters which need close and vigilant attention, but I should like to say, in conclusion, that although I have expressed a strong desire to see the Treaty passed without any Amendment whatever, it does appear to me that in the matters I have mentioned something must be done which must lead to alteration. Therefore I am not prepared at the present moment to view unfavourably the suggestion that we should know in advance who is to be the man who is to be the arbiter in this great dispute.
THE EARL OF DESART: I should like, in two or three words only, to reinforce the general appeal which was made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to the Government. I was rather hoping that some answer would be given before I got up. Without arguing the thing at all, I find considerably more difficulty about the Amendment of Lord Londonderry than I do about the Amendment of Lord Dufferin, which I think is a proposal absolutely reasonable and justifiable. I am anxious to assist as far as I can in anything which might tend to remove the apprehensions of Ulster as regards the operations of this Boundary Commission, but I am equally anxious, as are many noble Lords who have spoken already, that nothing should be done by this House which can by any reasonable possibility be said to be an infraction of the Articles of the Agreement. I shall not develop this now, but I apprehend that if that occurred in the British Parliament it would be likely to remove that which, however slender, is the only hope that we in the South of Ireland can have.
Very shortly stated, the difficulty which I feel about Lord Londonderry's Amendment is that I think it would be said, if not in this House at any rate in Ireland, that the terms of reference are in the Article. A mere demand for the terms of reference, therefore, would only mean that there would be laid upon the Table a recital of the Article, which would afford no consolation whatever to Ulster, and it would be said that the only object it would have would be to add something or define something, and a definition might very well be urged to be an addition. I think

747
there is a risk of that, and although with all deference I think that a boundary is a boundary, and will be so interpreted, I know that Ulster thinks, and many men think, there is an ambiguity, and it is known that it has been contended by Mr. Collins that there is an ambiguity.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And he was one of the signatories.
THE EARL OF DESART: Yes, and therefore I am afraid of this particular form of amendment. But I think that something should be done, and that the Government should make seine concession, to meet the reasonable wishes of Ulster. I feel that as strongly as any man can feel it. Knowing the difficulties of Ulster, I sympathise with her, and it is extremely disagreeable if I have to vote against noble Lords who represent Ulster, as I have, or may have, to vote in some Division. I think, however, that upon a reasonable demand of this kind we might hope for some concession from the Government, and I wish to say that while I find a good deal of difficulty in Lord Londonderry's Amendment, if the Government would concede, or Lord Londonderry would accept, Lord Dufferin's Amendment, I will support that, because it cannot be an infraction of the Treaty and contains a proposal which should be agreeable to both parties. Therefore, I ask the Government to give Lord Londonderry a chance of reconsidering his position, by saying now what their attitude will be on Lord Dufferin's Amendment.
LORD CARSON: I do not ask your Lordships to hear me at any length at this stage, because it is plain that we can frame no Amendment which the Government will accept, and the Government make no suggestions for solving the horrible situation that they have created on the border. Therefore, I think it would be well if we could take a Division on the subject, because none of us want to delay the Bill unreasonably, and it is no use putting forward arguments because they are never Answered or attempted to be answered. The noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for India, has all the appearance of answering, and is very courteous, but of course he says nothing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, raises specific matters upon this question, which are unanswerable, but the Government do not try to
748
tell us what they propose might even be an answer, and nothing can be more disappointing, if you allow this to go on, than to find you have passed a clause which cannot be worked.
The noble and learned Lord put this question, and I was astonished that no one tried to answer it. He says there is to be a Commission of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State, one by the Government of Northern Ireland, and one by the Government here, and he asks: If the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland is speaking the truth when he says that unless it is made clear what are the conditions on which he is to go into this Boundary Com, mission he will not appoint any one on the Commission, what is to happen then? Surely you are not going to have the whole thing left futile? What will Mr. Collins, or whoever is governing you at that time, think? The noble and learned Lord put another question. He asked: Will the whole arbitration break down? Then he says it is provided that the 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." How are you to take the wish of the inhabitants? Supposing the Government of Northern Ireland say: "We will not allow you to take it; it is our district and you have no jurisdiction there"—you do not make any provision for that.
Then the noble and learned Lord puts another case. He says, supposing three Commissioners are appointed, and they go to draw a line, and the whole three of them differ, what is to happen then? Are we to have the three lines, or are they to toss up, or are they to fight it out? The whole thing is an absurdity. No lawyer could make head or tail of it, or administer it in any way, and when we propose Amendments of the most reasonable character, as I think this one is, we are met by a non possumus. "It is not merely that your Amendment is bad, but we have no way of amending it ourselves"—was there ever such a proceeding in a Legislative Assembly as that? This Amendment says that all this is to be defined in writing and submitted to the two Houses. At all events, it gives you the chance of going to Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith and saying to them that this Treaty drawn up at two o'clock in the morning will not work and

749
that there are all these points arising from it. And cannot you put a little pressure on and get them to put in something that is workable? Oh! not at all. "The Treaty, the whole Treaty, and nothing lint the Treaty, so help me God," is all they say. Really, it is the paralysis of legislation which has taken place. Let us get it over, and I suggest that we have a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I cannot help feeling, and I think a great many of your Lordships will share the view, that the House finds itself in a situation of no little difficulty. Many of us, I think, were impressed from the first by the particular difficulties surrounding this subject, which were so clearly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, and to which, as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, has recently stated, His Majesty's Government have not given an answer of any kind. The whole series of difficulties was altogether ignored by the Lord Chancellor, who replied for the Government. Those difficulties, as has already been pointed out from this bench, are very substantial. I entirely share the view, which has been expressed by more than one noble Lord, that it is most difficult to make any material alteration in this Bill which may appear to affect the terms of the Treaty. The noble Earl, Lord Desart, stated that in clear terms. But it does not follow from that that we ought, or that the Government ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of passing this measure in a form which is not intelligible either to the people of this country or to, at any rate, a great many people in Ireland.
I can apprehend the difficulty which the Government may feel in agreeing to the particular Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, and, as for myself, I should not feel able to support the noble Marquess in pressing it on the House. But there are some other possibilities of amendment, although His Majesty's Government may say that they would not be able to promise them offhand, and, the terms of the Treaty being what they are, that they could not agree to any of them without some consultation with the Provisional Government in Ireland. I would ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, therefore, whether it would not be wise, from his point of view, to take a little more time to consider these subjects. It may be necessary, or it may be desirable from the point of view of the
750
Government, to make some further communications with Ireland, and, if so, before burning all their boats by endeavouring to insist on the rejection of all these Amendments one after the other, I would ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether they might not take some time, if necessary adjourn the debate, or at any rate adopt some method of postponing consideration of some of these Amendments, and that they should not ask the House as a whole to support them in carrying through this Bill verbatim et literatim without sonic further opportunity for considering it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I apologise for intervening without having heard most of the debate, but I heard the points originally made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner. It was necessary for me to leave the House upon public business, and what Lord Crewe has said has been reported to me. I understand that the difficulty which is felt relates to some points taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, upon the last discussion which I was so fortunate as to hear. The noble and learned Lord advanced a series of hypotheses, of which I shall take leave to say that one of them, at least, in my opinion, is in a high degree improbable and fantastic.
He asked, in the first place, what would happen if all three members of the tribunal took individually a distinct and irreconcilable view of the matters referred to them. Let us consider what the constitution of this Commission is to be. It is to consist of a member nominated by the Government of Southern Ireland, and a member nominated by the Government of Northern Ireland. Now, supposing that those two gentlemen were met together, it would not be a very far-fetched hypothesis that they might not reach a complete harmony of view. That, of course,, was present very clearly to the minds of those who, on both sides, undertook the responsibility of framing this instrument, and it was for that reason, and for that reason alone, that both parties, after long discussion, agreed to provide a person whose impartiality was certain, in order to act as a reconciliating third party as between these two presumably divergent opinions—presumably divergent., let me say, in order to avoid all suspicion of accusing them of intentional partiality—until the argument was fully developed and understood. At

751
any rate, the object was plain, and that was that there should be introduced there, to guide their deliberations, a man of whom no one on either side would suspect that he was there with any object except to supply an honest and unbiased mind.
The noble and learned Lord asks us to suppose, in relation to these three men, that not only will the two men fail to agree with one another, but almost that they will fail to agree with themselves, or, at least, such a state of things will result that it is impossible for the impartial man, standing between them as between the two sharply contrasted points of view, to say either that one is right or the other is right. The only possible answer to a hypothesis of that kind is this. In the last Amendment, supported, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord, it was proposed that an appeal should lie from this tribunal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is quite obvious that, if we observe—as of course, we should observe—our ordinary rule, we should not select even numbers to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We should select, as is our habit, where we can adhere to it, in disputable matters, an odd number.
You might just as well suppose that you were presenting us with a serious or formidable argument if you were to say that of all the four or five members of the Privy Council in these matters every one of them took an individual view in your Court of Appeal. The answer is that these things do not happen. If you get three men there, of whom it is the function or the understood function of the one to compose and reconcile and decide between the divergent views of the other, she will discharge that task. My experience of persons exercising judicial functions is that they are able to arrive on such matters at a harmonious and happy conclusion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Who is he to be? Is he to be a judge?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Marquess will feel that it is a little unfair to ask me to be definite; but I would say quite plainly that, as far as my advice goes, I should never dream of recommending one who had not very great legal experience, or one of whom it could be said that he was in any way disqualified by any political past or any adherence to one side or the other in politics.
LORD CARSON: I hope he will not be a Judge.
A NOBLE LORD: And so do I.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the first unfavourable word that has been said of the legal profession in a debate in which so many lawyers have taken part I am glad that my noble and learned friend can be accommodated upon that point. It is a pleasure to discover something on which it is possible to accommodate him. I have, in fact, some one in mind whose name, if it was mentioned here—I cannot mention it, of course, until he has been consulted and until some of my colleagues have also been consulted; but it is a point on which, I think, the Prime Minister would be naturally guided by the advice I gave him—I have in my mind one whose name, if I mentioned it here to-day, would command the support, the adherence and the confidence of all sections of this House. It is difficult to imagine that such a man will not be able to decide between the divergent opinions—if I am always to, assume them to be divergent—of his two colleagues, in this sense: that he can say that either this or that view is right, or, if neither view is absolutely right, can by a compromise secure the support of one of his colleagues.
One other question was asked by the noble Lord and repeated by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. It was this. Supposing that one of the two parties principally concerned here declined to elect a representative to the Boundary Commission, what was to happen then? In the first place, I demur entirely to the case being made that there is an ambiguity in the Article; because this matter is not dealt with by anticipation and I consider there is no ambiguity in the Article upon that point at all. It is assumed that a Government of Northern Ireland responsible to a Parliament having at this moment representatives in the British House of Commons, which has already approved of this clause—it is presumed that, however apprehensive and anxious they may be in relation to the matter, they would be very unlikely to take the serious responsibility of saying: "Because we disapprove of it, because we think we have been badly treated, we utterly refuse to give effect on our part to that on behalf of which the Parliament of Great Britain

753
has pronounced, and which has been accepted and is being implemented by the other party to the negotiations"—
LORD CARSON: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, Or to appear to take so much part in this debate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not at all.
LORD CARSON: Perhaps the Lord Chancellor would allow me to say that I referred to that matter because the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland had already said in his Parliament that he would not appoint a Commissioner to take part in this Boundary Commission on the ground that the thing was left in such a state of doubt and difficulty that he could nut possibly undertake the gamble of having an Inquiry of this kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord will permit me to say that I am well aware of what the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has already stated, and I am aware of the grounds, so recently repeated by the noble and learned Lord, upon which he has professed to found himself in reaching that conclusion. The answer that I have to make at this stage is that I should be extremely sorry that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland or any Prime Minister should be held bound by a statement made at this stage of the negotiations without even knowing who the third party to the Commission is to be, or without knowing what degree of confidence may be reposed in him by reason of his character and antecedents; and I should be very much surprised if that were the deliberate judgment either of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet of Northern Ireland when ultimately the Commission came to be appointed. My surprise would certainly not be diminished but enormously increased by the reasons given by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and repeated by the noble and learned Lord.
The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, of whom I never, either here or elsewhere, speak in any tone except that of respect and admiration, professes, speaking no doubt at a moment of disappointment and of indignation, to found himself upon the uncertainties of this Article. We listened to the ingenuity of noble and learned Lord after noble and learned Lord, point-
754
ing out the ambiguities of this Article, and where are the ambiguities when they are examined? Is there one noble and learned Lord who has got up and said: "My view, speaking as a Judge, confirms the claim which has repeatedly been made by Mr. Michael Collins"—
TIER MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I am aware that he has a tremendously heavy burden upon his shoulders, and that we ought only to be grateful that he comes in occasionally and gives us the benefit of his advice. But it is very inconvenient. I do not make any complaint in his case because he has not really heard the debate to which he is now replying, but it was pointed out by myself that there was a very grave case of ambiguity. Of course, my words would have no weight with him but it is a little inconvenient that all that should be passed over because of the manner in which the noble and learned Viscount was obliged to behave. Then, in exactly the same way, a question was put by a noble and learned Lord who did not merely say that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland made this statement, which he has undoubtedly made, but he put the question: Supposing that happened what was to follow?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was just coming to that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble and learned Viscount's pardon. I thought that he had passed away from that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess is entirely mistaken and if he had listened all through, if I may be allowed to say so without discourtesy, with more attention to what I said, he would have discovered that I was about to address myself to that point. He said that ambiguities had been suggested of which I was not cognisant. Give me leave, in the first place, to say that I think that is extremely improbable, as I listened—though it is true that I did not hear the noble Marquess—to the whole of the debate, or to nearly all of it, on the previous Amendment, on which there were exactly the same questions raised and the same reasons given as for making this Amendment now, and noble and learned Lords did not put forward any ground for alleging

755
ambiguities except the fact that Mr. Collins had a different understanding of it from that which has been put forward by others.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He is one of the signatories of the Agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly. But does the noble Marquess really think that an Article, in relation to which no technical expert in this House has pointed to an arguable ambiguity, as to which no noble and learned Lord has said: "By reason of those words or by reason of that expression we believe that the view taken by those who have spoken is wrong and the view taken by Mr. Collins is right"—does the noble Marquess really think that that imports ambiguity into an instrument? Is he really of opinion that that alone would justify the representative of a great community like that of Northern Ireland in not appointing a representative to sit on this Commission? I should be very much surprised to find that the noble Marquess, with his very great experience, would assume the responsibility of giving such advice to the Government of Northern Ireland.
I will not shrink from giving a perfectly candid answer to the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, in relation to which I understand that Lord Crewe expressed his desire that an answer should be made. I am asked what is the meaning of this Article. I dispute absolutely the suggestion made by Lord Sumner that it is in itself ambiguous. I dispute absolutely that there ought to exist any real doubt as to what the Article means in this particular. But Lord Sumner asks: "Supposing in fact the Government of Northern Ireland does not appoint a representative to this Commission?" I have said what I have to say about the contingency which I hope will not arise, but as for there being any ambiguity in the Article, I dispute it absolutely.
This is an Article which assigns certain powers to a Commission which, it is assumed, shall be constituted in a certain way, and shall consist of a certain number of Commissioners. In my judgment—and I am not entitled to construe it, except to offer my opinion—the Article plainly demands that the three Commissioners shall sit, and that a decision shall be effected. In my judgment that quite plainly must be taken by three Commissioners, and not
756
by two Commissioners. If the Government of Northern Ireland should assume the deep responsibility of saying, in spite of the decision of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords and of Parliament as a whole: "We refuse to appoint a Commissioner," then a wholly new situation will have arisen which will require to be dealt with by wholly new methods.
I make it plain that I have abstained, as those who attempted to explain this Treaty in the House of Commons have carefully abstained, from assuming the slightest right to construe it with authority. Whether you call it a Treaty or whether you call it a contract, it is made between two different parties of spokesmen, and neither of those parties has the right or title to construe it with authority. But I owe a duty to your Lordships' House to give my own opinion when I am asked for it, and I trust I have made it plain. In reply to the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, who has suggested that we should take time to think it over, with the most profound respect for Lord Crewe and others who have criticised the Article, I think it nevertheless right to say, with the greatest plainness, that upon this point we have nothing whatever to think over, because our minds are made up, and we are conscious of no ambiguity.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Will your Lordships forgive me for intervening once more? I think there has been a mistake. The noble and learned Viscount seems to think, if this Commission is set up, that the Chairman will operate an as umpire as between two arbitrators. That is not his function, as I read the Article. It appears to me that he is nothing but on an exact equality with the other two, although he occupies the chair, and it seems to me that you are courting disaster to let a Commission go forward with three people without defining what is to happen in the possible, nay the probable, event that there will be difference of opinion among the three. I have done everything I can honestly do for the purpose of supporting the Government in connection with this matter, but I am bound to say, if they find themselves unable to give any further assistance than they have given on this matter, I shall find it difficult to continue to support them any longer, for I think we are going straight to difficulty. Finally, let me say that I wish I could share—but I have stated publicly in your Lordships' House, and I repeat

757
that I cannot share—the view that there is no ambiguity in this Article. To my mind it is full of ambiguity, full of grave and dangerous ambiguity, and I think the Commission will have a very difficult task.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a word on one point. I am not going to reply to the whole speech of the noble and learned Lord. It is not right that I should ask for so much indulgence. Let there be no misunderstanding. So far as I am aware, neither I nor any one else has made the slightest mistake as to what is the technical position in which the third member of this Commission is to be placed under the terms of the Article. I am conscious of no ambiguity in my own mind. I am conscious of no ambiguity in the language I have used in attempting to make my mind plain. But does the noble and learned Lord really think that if you elect as one Commissioner a representative of the South of Ireland, and if you elect another Commissioner representing the North of Ireland, holding, as they will hold on every single point raised, strong views, bred in their bone—does he really think, if we succeed in discovering a Chairman with an open mind and who is absolutely impartial, that, whatever you may call him—you may say he is one of three Commissioners—he is not, in fact, by reason of his own training, in the possession of the powers of an umpire? This position is so serious, and the indication made by the noble and learned Lord so grave, that I must earnestly desire those of your Lordships who are under any delusions on the matter to remember that one cannot pass an Amendment upon this highly delicate and debatable topic without endangering the whole Treaty. I would most earnestly urge your Lordships at least to consider the opposite view, and the strong view, which is held by those who had the responsibility of negotiating the Treaty.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is imposing a great burden on your Lordships when he says that, in his mind, there is no ambiguity in this Bill. I am sure he is right; I am sure, with his intellect, he grasps the tenour of this Bill far better than most of your Lordships, and certainly far better than myself, who do not claim to be superior but inferior to the majority of your Lord-
758
ships. The reason I ventured to put down the Amendment was to get some definition for the purpose of touching the realities of the case. The realities are existing on the boundary at the present moment, and I feel sure your Lordships can assist to mitigate the circumstances of the present moment if you get a definition of what the Government intend in this measure.
The noble Marquess who sits behind me referred to the fact that unfortunately the Lord Chancellor had not been able to be present for the whole of the debate. The noble and learned Viscount has made himself acquainted with certain points which were raised, but he has not made himself acquainted with all the points that were put before the House. My noble friend, Lord Desart, made a suggestion which I should like to put before the noble and learned Viscount, and that is, if he does not see his way to accept my Amendment to define clearly the reference which the Commission would receive, that he should consent to accept the Amendment which will be moved later by my noble friend Lord Dufferin, which is for the purpose of eliciting the name of the Chairman. The noble and learned Viscount has the name of the Chairman in his mind at the present moment, and if he can see his way to give us some enlightenment on this subject, which is one of burning anxiety in Ireland, I for my part should be glad to withdraw my Amendment, and to accept that enlightenment from the noble and learned Viscount.
The noble viscount who addressed us earlier in the debate spoke of my Amendment as a dilatory Motion. He and I have been associated with dilatory Motions in another place on more occasions than one, and I should have thought that he would have realised from the words which I used that my Amendment was in no sense a dilatory one, but was moved for the purpose of establishing some element of confidence amongst those whom I represent in Ireland, which I know is singularly lacking at this moment. It is for that reason I move the Amendment, and I am sorry that the noble Viscount should have accused me of being dilatory when I have persistently shown my desire in no circumstances to wreck this Bill. I should like to say that in bringing forward this Amendment I am in no sense endeavouring to prevent the passage of the Bill, but I am putting forward an Amend-

759
ment for the consideration of this House and also of another place if possible, and, if the Government and another place cannot see their way to accept the Amendment I should not think of pressing it further. That has been my position.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Marquess has misunderstood me. I did not use the word dilatory in reference to this Amendment as an equivalent to obstruction. I did not mean it in that sense at all.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Viscount and I know what a dilatory Motion means.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I assure the noble Marquess I did not mean it in that sense.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am still in the dark as to the construction the noble and learned Lord Chancellor puts on this Article. Does he mean that the three persons must be unanimous, or does he mean that the majority are to decide? My present impression is that the three persons must be unanimous, and I should like to know whether that is his view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My reading is clearly to the contrary, that a majority can decide.
On Question, whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 110.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Cave, V.

Horne, L.

Devonshire, D.

Chaplin, V.

Kenyon, L.

Somerset, D.

Charlemont, V.

Lambourne, L.

Wellington, D.

Templetown, V.

Lamington, L.

Lawrence, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M. [Teller.]

Exeter, L. Bp.

Mowbray, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Penrhyn, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Ampthill, L.

Raglan, L.

Salisbury M.

Atkinson, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Abingdon, E.

Avebury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Devon, E.

Basing, L.

Roundway, L.

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

Bellew, L.

Rowallan, L.

carson, L.

Saltoun, L.

Grey, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Sempill, L.

Jersey, E.

Deramore, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Derwent, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Lindsay, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sumner, L.

Morton, E.

Dunleath, L.

Terrington, L.

Selborne, E.

Erskine, L. [Teller.]

Trevor, L.

Stanhope, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Walsingham, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Farnham, L.

Wavertree, L.

Bangor, V.

Forester, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gisborough, L.

Ystwyth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Malmesbury, E.

London, L. Bp.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Midleton, E.

Aberconway, L.

Onslow, E.

Abinger, L.

Marlborough, D.

Portsmouth, E.

Aldenham, L.

Sutherland, D.

Sandwich, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Shaftesbury, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Braye, L.

Bath, M.

Wicklow, E.

Cable, L.

Normanby, M.

Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.)

Cawley, L.

Astor, V.

Chalmers, L.

Ancaster, E.

Burnham, V.

Clwyd, L.

Bradford, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Colebrooke, L.

Buxton, E.

De Vesei, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Devonport, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Chichester, E.

Haldane, V.

Denman, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hood, V.

Dewar, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Dunedin, L.

Drogheda, E.

Emmott, L.

Eldon, E.

Knollys, V.

Ernle, L.

Fortescue, E.

Knutsford, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Howe, E.

Peel, V.

Faringdon, L.

Iveagh, E.

Pirrie, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Lichfield, E.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Lucan, E.

Ullswater, V.

Gorell, L.

Hemphill, L.

Merthyr, L.

Rotherham, L.

Hylton, L.

Meston, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Islington, L.

Methuen, L.

Shandon, L.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

Monk Bretton, L.

Shaw, L.

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

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Shuttleworth, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Killanin, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

O'Hagan, L.

Teynham, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Treowen, L.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Pentland, L.

Vernon, L.

Loch, L.

Phillimore, L.

Weardale, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Playfair, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Marchamley, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CAVE VISCOUNT CAVE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided that if an address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement, then as from the date of that address and until identical Acts making other provisions are pawed by the Parliaments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland, the powers exercisable by the Council of Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, shall, as respects Northern Ireland, be exercisable as from the date of that address by the Government or Parliament of Northern Ireland as the case requires."
The noble Viscount said: The time of your Lordships' House has been rightly occupied in the discussion of 'the last two Amendments, and I think I can in a few sentences put the case for considering the Amendment I am moving. I think I can show your Lordships quite clearly that there is an omission from or oversight in the Treaty which could be corrected without any alteration of the Treaty in its real meaning. The case stands in this way. Under the Act of 1920 there is to be set up a Council of Ireland consisting of twenty members of the Parliament of Southern Ireland, of whom seven will be Senators and thirteen members of the House of Commons, and twenty representatives of the Parliament of Northern Ireland appointed in the same way, with an independent President nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. Its powers relate both to administration and legislation with reference to railways, fisheries, and diseases of animals, and also to certain Private Bill legislation. The Act of 1920 provides that these powers shall not be exercised by either the Parliament of Northern Ireland or the Parliament of Southern Ireland, but only by the Council of Ireland.
I want your Lordships to take in two compartments the time that must elapse before the Council is appointed, and to see how we stand. First, take the time between the passing of this Act and the setting up of the Parliament of the Irish Free State. I think that time could hardly be less than six months, and it may be as much as twelve months. During that time there is and can be, as I understand the matter, no Council of Ireland. It cannot be set up, because there is no Senate of Southern Ireland properly constituted, and there is no House of Commons of Southern Ireland properly constituted, because no member elected to it has taken the Oath; so that you cannot have representatives of Southern Ireland appointed to the Council, and therefore, during that time, there will be no Council. That being so, I may be wrong, but I think nobody can administer the law relating to railways and fisheries and so on in Northern Ireland, and nobody can legislate with regard to those matters. They are wholly derelict, and therefore there is a gap in the law as it stands under this Bill which must somehow be filled up, because otherwise matters will be at a deadlock and important questions will not be dealt with at all. That is the first point.
The second point, which is almost equally simple, is this. What will happen with regard to the matters committed to the Council of Ireland after the Government of the Irish Free State and their Parliament have been set up? On one reading of the Treaty the effect of it would be that the Parliament of the Irish Free State, the constitution of which of course we do not know but which may consist of one Chamber only, will appoint members to the Council of Ireland. But that Council, when appointed, would have power to deal with the matters committed to it, not in Southern Ireland at all, but only in Northern Ireland. So that you would

763
have this extraordinary result, that as regards important matters both of legislation and of administration you would have representatives of the Irish Free State having equal power in the North of Ireland with members representing Northern Ireland, but none of them, and no representative of Northern Ireland, would have the least power in those matters throughout the area of Southern Ireland.
That would be so grossly unjust that I cannot think it is the real meaning of the parties to the Treaty. I think there must be something implied in the Treaty which does not at first sight appear there. The point was put in another place to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he is reported to have said:
"There was a grievance and an anomaly in this ease. While certain reserved services affecting Northern Ireland were to be dealt with by the Council of Iceland, upon which the South was represented, similar services relating to the South were to be dealt with by the Free State Parliament without any interference by Northern representatives."
He added that there was a way of remedy, through an agreement between the Northern and Southern Governments, and he was hopeful that such a remedy would be found. I think that really does point the way out.
Before the Council can meet there must be agreement between the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland. That agreement must, I think, take the form of legislation by the Parliaments of the two States, but until that legislation is passed this thing is wholly unprovided for and undealt with, and I suggest to your Lordships and to the Government that it can be dealt with in the manner proposed in my Amendment. I have taken a phrase from the Act of 1920. Until identical Acts dealing with these matters are passed by the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland, the subject matter which is by the Act of 1920 committed to the Council of Ireland—fisheries, railways and so on—shall, as regards Northern Ireland only, be dealt with by the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland.
I do not think that that will infringe what I believe to be the real intention of the Treaty. If I am wrong in that, I am sure that it is a reasonable way of supplying what has been forgotten, and I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government that, if they think the Treaty will be affected by the Amendment, they should
764
at least take steps to ascertain, if they think there is a mistake, whether the other party to the Treaty also thinks so, and to endeavour to arrive at an agreement on the matter with those who entered with them into this Agreement, embodied in what is called the Treaty, and so to endeavour to prevent what must be, unless it is at once dealt with, a very great grievance and injustice to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Cave.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Viscount quite rightly pointed out that two periods are affected by the Amendment—the period until the Constitution of the Free State is set up, and the period after that. Therefore, the difficulty to which he has alluded, that in the Council of Ireland dealing with these railway and other matters in Ulster there may be appointed a certain number of representatives of the Southern Government or Parliament, really would not arise in that first period, because the proper numbers could not be appointed by the Southern Government. Further than that, there is another reason why the question would not arise. As I understand, until that period happens, and until the new Constitution is set up, these powers in connection with the Council of Ireland will not be transferred to the Ulster Government, but will be retained by the British Parliament. I think, therefore, it is quite clear that the difficulty which he anticipates cannot arise during the first period.
Now I come to the second period, that is to say, after the new Constitution has been set up. Then, as he has pointed out, tins difficulty would arise, that while all these powers would be exercised freely by the Government of Southern Ireland, there would be upon the body dealing with these matters in Northern Ireland an infusion of representatives of the South of Ireland; and he points out that there is an apparent anomaly in that case. This, I understood, was one of the questions on which something in the nature of an agreement had been made between the Prime Minister of the North and Mr. Collins. I think they agreed that this was obviously a clumsy arrangement to make, and that even if things could be done by councils on which equal numbers could be appointed, it would be far better that it

765
should be done by the Executives or Ministers on each side, and one hopes that an arrangement may be made in the next few months. If it be made, and it seems a reasonable arrangement to make, it would be quite easy for that to be put into some form which would be binding.
I think that the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed is inconsistent with the proposals of Articles 12 and 13 of the Treaty. Article 12 provides—
"If, before the expiration of the said month, an Address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (including those relating to the Council of Ireland), shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, continue to be of full force and effect."
Therefore, I think the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed clearly involves an alteration in the Treaty itself. As I have said, however, the proposals of the noble and learned Viscount have no application to the next few months, and before the second period occurs no doubt some arrangement will be made by which these matters can be managed in a much better way, by joint action between the two Governments or Ministers, instead of by this rather elaborate device.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble Viscount suggest it should be done by Imperial legislation?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not quite know what the exact form would be, but of course if an agreement was come to about these questions of the railways, fisheries and diseases of animals—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Supposing there is no agreement?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether it is possible to get very controversial about fisheries or diseases of animals—
VISCOUNT CAVE: But supposing there is no agreement?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Then, of course, the Treaty itself would operate.
LORD CARSON: What would be the operation?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Precisely as the noble and learned Viscount said—this rather remarkable system by which there would be appointed upon this Council for the North of Ireland representatives from the South.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY Does the noble Viscount really defend that as a reasonable arrangement?THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY Does the noble Viscount really defend that as a reasonable arrangement?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not now dealing with the reasonableness or unreasonableness of it, but only pointing out that it is distinctly an alteration in the Treaty. The noble and learned Lord did ask whether it would be possible that this matter should be referred. The noble and learned Lord knows that that is a question which I can hardly answer without consideration, but I can refer to it if he wishes before the Report stage comes on. I could not give any promise at the present moment.
LORD CARSON: I venture to think that the House has seldom listened to a more impotent explanation than the noble Viscount has given. In fact, at the end of his speech, I think we knew less about the matter than we did at the beginning, and felt much more puzzled. The first proposal of the noble Viscount is that because the Treaty is so curiously drawn, you are to postpone altogether all that was to be conferred upon the Parliament of Northern Ireland in relation to various matters.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Not because of the Treaty. That was the intention.
LORD CARSON: I should have been glad if he could have told us what the reason was, if it was not the Treaty. He says there will be nobody in existence who could supply the quota on the Council which the Act of 1920 lays down for Southern Ireland.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The difficulties are partly due to the Act of 1920, and then to the fact that there is nobody who can now supply the quota.
LORD CARSON: That is by the Treaty, because you have abdicated the functions of government over there. The noble Viscount has very curious ideas of the, way in which Governments ought to be established. He says: What does it, matter about railways, contagious diseases and little things of that kind. But this relates not only to railways and contagious diseases and to fisheries, which he thinks are nothing—
VISCOUNT PEEL: I never said they were of no importance.
LORD CARSON: But there is something more. As I understand the Bill of 1920, the Council were to have the power of Private Bill legislation. Are you to hang that up at the will of the Government? That is a very important matter. After all, we are getting accustomed in the course of these debates to the idea that any answer at all is good enough, or that any attempt at answer is good enough. Go on and get your Treaty, and let there then be chaos.
I really should have thought that it was the intention of the Government—at least, it has been very frequently so expressed—that Ulster was not to be affected by this Treaty except in so far as you gave liberty for some of her territory to be taken away. I have heard it over and over again stated that nothing was to be done to Ulster. Now, not only are you to hang up all these powers which were given something more than a year ago—and I suppose they have been hung up ever since in consequence of these negotiations—but you are to perpetrate another injustice. When the Free State Parliament comes into power, as I understand the answer given to my noble friend, Lord Cave, you are to allow the Free State Parliament to interfere in the affairs of Northern Ireland as regards Private Bill legislation, and railways, and fisheries, and other matters, but the North of Ireland is to have no power whatever to interfere in Southern Ireland.
If that is so, why are you going to put the fisheries and the railways, as far as they relate to Northern Ireland, under a Sinn Fein Parliament? Is it to insult them more, punish them more for all their misdeeds, or what is the reason? It is a miserable state of affairs, utterly unworkable, and the whole idea of this Council, which at the time was put forward by the Government as being the best part of the Bill, was that the two parties from Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland were to meet together as equals, and put their heads together about matters like railways and fisheries, which relate generally to Ireland—because it is hard to describe either a railway or a fishery as a local matter, inasmuch as generally a river flows through both parts of Ireland, and a railway goes through both parts of Ireland—and work out the matter to the common good.
768
In addition to that there are large powers under the Act of 1920 to transfer various other matters to the Council of Ireland. All these are apparently in abeyance. I must make one confession. I did not think there was the slightest hope of the Government accepting this Amendment. It would have set something at rest and would have given a chance of a little peace between Northern and Southern Ireland, and have given them an opportunity of meeting together subsequently without the friction of having one interfering in the domain of the other.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is quite apparent that, so far as the argument has developed, the balance on merits is in one direction. The difficulties of the Government in accepting Amendments to the Treaty, although they may easily be made the subject of thoughtless derision, are real and apparent. And therefore your Lordships will not complain if my noble friend and I do not accept this Amendment. We are not in a position to accept the Amendment, I say plainly. The course I suggest would be that your Lordships, who have evidently formed a clear opinion about it, should have the Question put. We should not think it proper to challenge a Division, but the result of the Question being so put would be that it would be remitted elsewhere, and some days would be afforded for consideration and discussion, which, I say frankly, on the case made, is desirable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that what the Government suggest is that this should be inserted in the Bill, with a view to its being considered in another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that is very fair.
VISCOUNT CAVE: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided that if an Address is presented to His Majesty under Article 12 of the said Agreement then as from the date of that Address and until identical Acts making other provisions are passed by the Parliaments of the Irish Free State

769
and of Northern Ireland any appeal from His Majesty's court of Appeal in Northern Ireland shall, instead of as provided by section 43 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, lie to the House of Lords in the same manner and subject to the like conditions as an appeal from His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland lay to the House of Lords before the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920."
The noble and learned Lord said: Under the Act of 1920 there was a Court of Appeal for the whole of Ireland, consisting of certain Judges from Southern Ireland and certain Judges from Northern Ireland, and it was necessary for anyone from Northern Ireland who was a litigant in the Courts there to go to this Court of Appeal in Southern Ireland, which was composed of Judges of both North and South, before they could proceed to take the appeal to your Lordships' House, which was the privilege that they have always had before the passing of the Act of 1920.
This Treaty, of course, alters the whole position as regards the South of Ireland in relation to judicature. The South of Ireland, contrary to what is provided by the Act of 1920, will now appoint its own Judges, or have power to legislate to appoint its own Judges in its own way. They may be elected Judges, or they play be Judges appointed by the Government there, bat they will no longer be appointed by the Imperial no Government. The object of my Amendment is that you should not ask the North of Ireland, which is now being even more separated than before from the South of Ireland, and whose Judges will be still appointed by the Imperial Government—that you should not ask them to go before the Sinn Fein Courts in the South of Ireland as a Court of Appeal, those Sinn Fein Courts having Judges appointed in an entirely different way.
There is a Court of Appeal in the North of Ireland set up by the Act of 1920, and my Amendment proposes that there should lie an Appeal direct from that Court to this House, so that the parties will be in exactly the same position as if the Act of 1920 had not been passed at all, and they had reserved to them the same right of appeal to this House from the first Court of Appeal without going for a second appeal to the Court in Dublin. I cannot imagine how a system could be expected to work under which the Judges were selected, soma by this country and some by the Sinn Fein people in whatever way they decide upon electing Judges, nor
770
would it be a fair or proper tribunal before which you could expect the North of Ireland people to go.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: On the question of this Court of Appeal the Government do not hold a very different view from that held by the mover of the Amendment, and I think the shortest way with which I can deal with the matter is to give the actual words of a pledge which was given in another place on this subject. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said:—
"If when the time comes, namely, when the Free State Constitution is before this House, the representatives of Northern Ireland and the Northern Government insist upon having no appeal from the Appeal Court of Northern Ireland to any High Court of Appeal of all Ireland then will be the time to put it right, and I promise that it shall be put right."
There is a definite pledge that this matter will be dealt with, but the view of the Government is that this Bill is not the right place to do it. The matter will be dealt with when the time comes.
LORD CARSON: Does the noble Viscount, then, lay down that under existing conditions in Ireland the appeals are to be taken from Northern Ireland to Dublin? Does he lay that down pending the new Constitution? You thus debar them from coming to this House unless they can get their cases properly heard there. May I say that at the present moment His Majesty's Judges, appointed by this Government over there, who are now supposed to be doing work on circuit, have had an intimation in several places from the Provisional Government that they had better go away as they could not protect them. It seems to me to be entirely unsatisfactory that the people of Northern Ireland should be asked to go down to Dublin over the border to the Court there. In the present circumstances it almost amounts to a denial of justice.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was very much gratified by the result of our efforts on the last Amendment, because the Government did what I think is a perfectly reasonable thing—they accepted the Amendment with a view of considering it in another place. That was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and that, I think, is all that we have ever suggested should be done in respect to these Amendments.

771
The noble Viscount has said that when the Constitution Bill comes to be considered, the Government are pledged to put that right. I accept that pledge and I am sure they will honour it. But there is going to be a considerable interval between now and then; I do not want to put it too high, but I ekpect it will be three or four months. I am reminded that the, permanent tenure of the present Government is not quite certain, and that they might be succeeded by a more extreme Government who would not honour the pledge, but I will not press that.
What I suggest is that during the four months' interval the whole course of jurisprudence in Ireland is suspended in so far as the appeal jurisdiction is concerned. As I understand it, litigants in Northern Ireland will not awl cannot appeal to the Appeal Court in Dublin. Therefore, they cannot get to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity as the superior Court of Appeal. I may be in error about that, but I understand it is the case. We suggest, therefore, that during the interval litigants in Northern Ireland are entitled to proper treatment, and we consider that the proper course is to follow what was done in the case of the last Amendment—to put this Amendment into the Bill and let the Government consider it. I should think there would be no difficulty in getting Mr. Collins to agree to that Course.
V1SCOLTNT PEEL: I should like to suggest to the noble Marquess that he has not stated the case correctly, so far as I am informed. I understand that the Court referred to is presided over by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was appointed by this Government and is not a Sinn Fein Judge. I understand that the Court is also functioning in Dublin, and that some appeals have been brought to it from the Courts of Northern Ireland. I am not informed on the point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, that some of the Judges are unable to go circuit because they cannot get any protection. That may or may not be so; I have no information one way or the other. But surely it does not affect the point that this Court of Appeal is functioning and, so far as my information goes, has dealt with appeals brought to it. His objection on that ground, therefore, does not apply.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Some of the litigants may be afraid to go to Dublin.
LORD CARSON: Of course they are.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will not the Government consent to put that Amendment in on those terms?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the most clear understanding that we are not accepting an Amendment which might be misunderstood, but that we are yielding to the wish of noble Lords that this matter should be made the subject, of further consideration, so far as it is in our power—on that understanding we will not resist the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, at, tile end of subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided it is hereby declared that the British Government does not seek under Article 10 or any other article of the said Agreement, to evade its just responsibilities to, and engagements with, public servants of His Majesty in Southern Ireland, and undertakes to continue responsible for payment of compensation or pension, as the case may be, to judges, officials, members of police forces, and other public servants on terms not less favourable than those provided for such public servants under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920."
The noble Marquess said: There has been some discussion this afternoon as to whether. Law Lords should be muzzled. I almost think they ought to be, for this reason only, that the standard of oratory would not be so high and it would not be so paralysing to an ordinary mortal to enter into these debates. I do not think that the Amendment I am now moving requires very much oratory to commend it because it is founded on justice and equity, and I believe that, however badly I put it, your Lordships will feel bound to support it. If you refer to Article 10 of the Schedule, you will see 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 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."
Therefore, the responsibility for paying pensions to Government servants is lifted from the British Government on to the shoulders of the Free State. It is the object of my Amendment to provide that

773
there shall be a statutory guarantee that if the Free State is unable to fulfil this obligation the Government shall make the payment.
In every other Home Rule Bill or Act which has been before Parliament since 1886, some guarantee of this kind is to be found In the first Home Rule Bill of 1886 public servants had the guarantee of Hit Majesty's Government in regard to pensions, salaries, superannuation, etc, Clause 29 (2) of that Bill provided that—
"The amount of pension shall be paid to him out of the moneys carried to the Customs and Excise account under this Act, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Irish consolidated Fund, and so far as the same are not so paid shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament"
Clauses 26 and 27 of the Bill of 1893 contained a similar safeguard, and the Acts of 1914 and 1920 contain safeguards of the same sort. In fact, the most important safeguard in those Acts of 1914 and 1920 is the provision that pensions and compensation awarded to existing officers who might retire or be removed in consequence of the change of Government should be paid from moneys voted by the Imperial Parliament; the recovery from Irish revenues of the same being carried out by the Treasury.
I must draw attention to the attitude of the Government towards this matter during the debates in another place. On December 19, 1921, Mr. Chamberlain stated that—
"His Majesty's Government win be the guarantor of pensions granted under Article 10."
But on February 15, 1922, Mr. Churchill said that the security for compensation would be the credit of the Irish Free State. On February 16, in reply to a question asking what arrangements had been made for guaranteeing or securing the compensation provided for by Article 10, he referred to his previous reply, and on February 27, in answer to a similar question regarding guarantees, he said that the whole question would be subject to negotiation and discussion and that there would be no advantage in pursuing the subject further. Finally, on March 8, Mr. Churchill, while repeating his colleague's pledge that in the ultimate issue the British Government would be the guarantor of the pensions, definitely refused to accept an Amendment which would have given that pledge the force of law.
Therefore, your Lordships can understand how unsatisfactory this state of affairs is to the public servants at present in Ireland. It is not that they doubt the wish of the Free State to abide by their obligations, but that the Free State may not he able to do so. The Free State may not be existing in another month or so. There may then be a Republic. The whole of Ireland may be running with blood from North to South in a few weeks. Who then is going to pay these pensions? The Government have given a verbal guarantee that they will do so, but why cannot they put it in the Bill. That is the only satisfactory way of doing it.
Supposing any one of your Lordships were a pensioned officer under the Free State, and had a large family and nothing but your pension to live upon, would you feel very comfortable if the regularity of the payment depended on the Free State? You need not be an enemy of the Free State to realise that their position is very precarious, and that with the best of good will in the world they may not be able to pay these pensions. Surely, therefore, it is only fair that they should be guaranteed by the Government. Mr. Collins, as we have been told, is a very honourable man, and I am not speaking sarcastically when I say he is much more honourable than I ever expected him to be, up to date. But even honourable men die or fade away, and there may be another man in his place who may repudiate the whole thing. It. is not fair to the public servants who have done such magnificent work for the Government during the last few years that they should he left in this uncertain position.
It is very difficult for me to believe that I should vote for things that I consider wrong. It is very difficult to believe that one should vote for every paragraph of this Treaty, and especially of a paragraph that does such injustice to public servants who have served us so well. My conscience is no better than that of any of your Lordships, but I feel that I could not bring myself, even if it meant the breaking of the Treaty, to vote against this particular Amendment. There are many things that I cannot believe. I find it difficult to believe when the Lord Chancellor tells us he has been more politically consistent all his life than Lord Carson. I do not know whether your Lordships know of the famous Dr. Coué who says that in order to get

775
well, and to feel well, you have only to repeat to yourselves every morning that you feel better and better every day. I cannot help thinking that the Lord Chancellor has been to Dr. Coué, and that he repeats to himself every morning: "I am more consistent, and more consistent."
When I entered politics very late in life—only two years ago—I took to myself a political adviser, and he advised me that I should never attack the high luminaries in the House of Lords. I suppose he meant by the high luminaries the Lord Chancellor, the ex-Lord Chancellors, the Ministers, and the ex-Ministers. My difficulty is that if I do not attack them I cannot attack anybody. My miserable ammunition would never be used. The only back bencher—I hope he will not think I am insulting him by referring to him in that way—whom I have heard speak in favour of what he is voting for is the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I do not see the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, here at the present moment, but he was here earlier in the debate. He has always most consistently voted against us. But I must mention a palpitating moment that I had yesterday when I saw him advancing towards our Lobby. I thought that for once he was going to join the wise men. Not at all. He appeared in a moment or two leading a rather frightened looking and unwilling Peer out of our. Lobby into his own, so that he not only votes against us but he, so to speak, robs our hen-roost. I would like to ask the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, whether he thinks this arrangement under which the Civil Servants are to be paid, is fair? Is it fair that there should be no guarantee by the British Government? If he does not think it is fair then he must support this Amendment. He has a conscience, and lie cannot help himself.
I am very diffident about referring to the right rev. Prelates, but I know that if they descend into the political arena they will not object if one of their very humblest adversaries ventures to criticise them. I do not know if they are aware that the people of Ulster, and I think the whole Protestant population in Ireland, have felt very bitterly that the right rev. Prelates have nearly always—I must say that I have seen one exception in the last two days—voted against us. To my amazement I saw the Archbishop of Canterbury in our Lobby, but as a rule the right rev. Prelates have voted against us, and I cannot
776
imagine why. The Protestants in Ireland have the whole weight of the Roman Catholic clergy against them, and they feel it a bit hard that their own Protestant clergy should also place their intellect and their arguments against them. I always think that is very unfair. It is impertinent of me to suggest it, but I think that it would have been better for them to have remained neutral. I have heard the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking about the Black and Tan atrocities, but when those twelve officers were murdered on Sunday I never heard any right rev. Prelate get up and suggest that the Government should have protected these officers.
I would ask the right rev. Prelates here to-day whether they think that this is a fair arrangement. Their consciences are better than ours, and I think they will be bound to feel that the public servants in Ireland are not getting fair treatment by the present arrangement, and will vote for the Amendment. It is a question of conscience, and I feel sure they cannot go wrong there. I need not remind your Lordships of the magnificent work the public servants have done, especially the police, through those bloody years in Ireland. Are you not going to fulfil your contract with those who fulfilled their contracts with you? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: I rise only to explain that I have taken no part in the debate because I am a junior member, and cannot be here regularly, but I have always been a warm supporter of the North of Ireland, and I have spoken and written publicly in favour of it. I might have at least the credit of my own opinions.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I am aware of that fact, but you are so very rarely present—
NOBLE LORDS: Order, order.
LORD KILLANIN: I should like to say one word in support of the Amendment. I feel that I also must apologise for intruding into this debate which has been entirely, up to now, carried on by eminent lawyers of this House. I feel like the song we have in Ireland in which Father O'Flynn says:
"Is it leave gaiety all to the laity."

777
I feel inclined to apologise for myself on rising by saying—
"Is it leave technicalities all to the legalities."
I hope you will excuse another back bench man addressing your Lordships. This is a very important Amendment; and I wish the house to realise it. It does not deal with a great constitutional change; it is incidental to the substance of this Bill. At the same time it is an extremely important and grave subject, and one which the House should treat seriously and justly. I do not think your Lordships would repent anything more bitterly than that in carrying out this great change you did not behave honestly and justly to the past servants of the British Government in Ireland. I submit that the Amendment does not infringe in any way the Articles of the Treaty, and that it is one which the Government should consider on its merits.
The position is this. Under the Act of 1920 very full and adequate arrangements were made to protect all the old servants of this country in the Government of Ireland. You accepted responsibility and financial liabilites in the matter, and you made arrangements whereby justice should be done, and if there was any injustice there was to be a Court of Appeal, or a Civil Service Commission, to ensure that right was done. What has happened under the Articles of Agreement? As I understand, all these arrangements have been practically superseded and all the civil servants in Ireland are now to be entirely dependent upon Article 10 of the Agreement. Let me read 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 ether public servants, who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof."
This deals with all the civil servants in Ireland, including the police and Judges. It says that the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation. Who is going to decide what is fair compensation? Who is going to interpret as to whether the terms are "not less favourable"? And who is going to decide whether these civil servants retire in consequence of the change or not? All the protection given to these servants in the Act of 1920 is abolished; there is no appeal, and they are left entirely dependent on what the Irish Free state thinks proper to do. The civil servants in Ireland,
778
while hoping that justice would be done to them, consider that their position is being made extremely precarious and they ask this House, by the Amendment of the noble Marquess, to protect them and give them the security to which they are entitled. Why should you repudiate—that is what it means—your financial liabilities and your responsibilitity to these men? Who are these civil servants? Who employed them? Whom did they serve? They were employed by you; they have served you, and served you faithfully in extremely trying and difficult circumstances. It is almost impossible to describe the anxieties and the danger to life under which these men, from the Judges down to the police, have all these years served you. And you propose now to hand them over to a totally new Government of which I will only say this, that they are not their servants, and not employed by them. Why should you throw your responsibilities in this matter on to their shoulders?
Some of these men may perhaps go on the assumption that they are going to be dismissed by the new Government, and some may decide that then will not serve the new Government. In these circumstances is there not likely to be a great prejudice against them? I think there is a great possibility of prejudice corning in, even if some of the representatives of the Irish Free State Government are anxious to do justice. These men have served you, and there are great bodies of Irishmen in Ireland who look on that as an offence in itself. The position of these men is prejudiced by the very fact that they have served you faithfully in the past, and some members of the Irish Parliament will be opposed to them because of the fact that they originally served the British Government.
Furthermore, the fact that they served you faithfully may mean that many of these public servants did injury, in carrying out their duties, to the very men who are now to be their judges. This is bound to prejudice their case. The Government, therefore, should do everything they can to see that these men get justice. We saw the other day a sample of tine compensation and pension that three policemen in Galway received. They were riddled with bullets while lying in a hospital. They were your public servants. These men are in a similar position to them; and they will be

779
dealt with by the new Government. I most earnestly and seriously beg the Government to be straight in this matter and not desert their old servants. I cannot see what harm can be done by accepting the Amendment or that it is in any way contrary to the Treaty. I do not see why the Irish Free State should object to it. I do not see why they should object to the British Government taking a joint financial liability in the case of its own servants who have faithfully served it in the past.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not suppose the noble Marquess expected that the Government would accept his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I hope so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It reads as follows:
"Provided it is hereby declared that the British Government does not seek under Article 10 or any other Article of the said Agreement, to evade its just responsibility to, and engagements with, public servants. …"

I do not think anyone would seriously suppose that any Government would support or accept a clause which suggested that it was trying to evade its just responsibilities, and the noble Marquess could not expect the Government to accept it. The noble Marquess and Lord Killanin seemed to detect in the Government some desire to evade doing justice or supporting proper compensation and pensions to those who have served them in the past. Everyone will feel sympathy with the warm tribute paid to the way these public servants have served their country in extremely difficult circumstances, and if they were really to be deserted I think, naturally, there would be just indignation against the British Government. But, of course, the charge that has been suggested is entirely without foundation.
May I point out what the arrangements are? Under Article 10 of the Articles of Agreement 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, are defined. The police and officials concerned are assured of treatment "not less favourable than that provided in the Government of Ireland Act." I think it was admitted by both noble Lords that those terms in the Government of Ireland Act were not
780
unfavourable, and that if those conditions were to be carried out there would be no just cause of complaint. But both noble Lords went further than that. They wanted to insert in the Bill a statutory right that this compensation should be provided directly by the British Government. In the first instance, of course, this duty is laid upon the new Government of Ireland. It is part of the terms of the Agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? The statutory guarantee is the most important thing. That is what I want.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am perfectly aware of what the noble Marquess wants. If he will allow me to finish—
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I think the noble Viscount misquoted use.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not miss anything he said.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: You misquoted me.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not think I misquoted the noble Marquess, but in any case I hope he will let me continue. The position is that, in the first place, the obligation of paying these pensions, retiring allowances and so on, falls upon the Government of the Free State. That being so, under the terms of the Treaty, why is it to be assumed that those duties are going to he neglected? They have the income from their Taxes and so on, and they have ample funds for discharging them. If you are going to set up a new Government in that way why are you to assume that they will be false to the obligations into which they have entered? Behind them, of course, there stand the British Government, who have given their guarantee that if those men suffer the British taxpayer will come to the rescue.
I should point out that, in the opinion of the Government, it would be an extremely foolish expedient to put this statutory right into the Bill itself, because that itself would be a suggestion to the Irish Government that they were not going to discharge their duty and fulfil their trust. If this were put in as a statutory duty, they might say: "We are so little trusted

781
as to the payment of these funds that de statutory duty of paying them is put upon the British Government." The possibility might then arise that they would consider themselves to some extent free from their obligations, and might throw them upon the British taxpayer. These men are perfectly safe. In the first instance they have to rely upon the Government of the South of Ireland, and if that Government fails, the pledge has been most distinctly given that behind them is the guarantee of the British Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might I ask the noble Viscount in what form the guarantee is given?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The pledge has been given by the British Government. It has been stated in another place.
Loan CARSON: Is it in an Act of Parliament?
VISCOUNT PEEL: No, it is not in an Act of Parliament.
LORD CARSON: Then it is no use. How can you get it on the Estimates?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The pledge was given by Mr. Austen Chamberlain in Other place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Can the noble Viscount read the terms of the guarantee?
VISCOUNT PEEL: The police and the officials concerned are assured of treatment not less favourable than that provided in the Government of Ireland Act, and This Majesty's Government will he the guarantor of their pensions. That is the statement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What we should have liked to have is an assurance that if there is a failure on the part of the Irish Government to meet the obligations to which they are bound under Article 10 of the Agreement, then the British Government will meet the deficiency out of Imperial funds.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That is exactly what I was trying to avoid. If you suggest that people are going to be false to their obligations, you invite them to be false, and that would be a very unwise course.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not at all suggest that they are going to be false. I am willing to accept everything the noble Viscount has said. But the primary obligation rests upon His Majesty's Government, and it is no derogation of the Irish Government to say that, supposing they failed in their obligations, His Majesty's Government would take over the duty. It is what we should all do in our private capacity if there were an absolute obligation upon us to meet a certain liability. The fact that somebody else had promised to do it for us would not release us from the liability. We might say we had absolute confidence that the other person would not fail, but we should say in the most unequivocal terms that we recognised our own obligation to meet the liability. If, for instance, Mr. Collins died, or there was some change of Government in Ireland, or what not, and there was a failure on the part of the Irish Government to meet the obligation, the British Government would do so. Or supposing the Irish Government became bankrupt. That is quite possible, and in those circumstances the Imperial Government would see that their servants, who have suffered for us, should undergo no loss. That is all that I want the noble Viscount to say.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think I have said so already, because if the Irish Government were to go bankrupt, obviously a bankrupt Government cannot pay pensions. In that case, the liability would be recognised by the British Government. I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to insert the proviso giving this Statutory guarantee because, as I said before, it would be an invitation to those who have accepted the liability under the Treaty to repudiate the liability which they so accepted.
LORD CARSON: Even at this late hour I would press upon your Lordships, as Lord Killanin has already done, to consider with whom you are dealing in this case. You are dealing with the Judges and the police and the civil servants who are now being handed over to the tender mercies of those with whom they had to deal in a criminal capacity, and in keeping law and order in the past. They have been your most faithful servants. They have the right to expect, and it was so provided, that they would receive their pensions and retiring allowances from the Imperial

783
funds. What have they done that this should be taken away from them? That is the condition upon which they took their office.
The noble Viscount seems to have a curious idea of how money can be guaranteed by a Government. He says first: "Why are you going to assume that the Irish Government will be false to their promise as contained in this Treaty?" Would anybody have assumed a week ago that the Irish Republican Army, or members of it, would walk into a hospital and, finding three constables sick in bed, would walk up to them and riddle each of them with bullets? Would anybody assume that, in a country like Ireland? But what does that demonstrate? It demonstrates the great, the overbearing hostility that these men have towards those who were your officers in Ireland, and demonstrates to you that you ought to take every means to protect them.
What does the noble Viscount really say? He says we cannot put a guarantee into an Act of Parliament. Why? Because, if the Free State Government knew it was there, they would not pay these pensions. I understood that was the argument that he used, but he gets up in this House and puts upon record that that is what will happen, and then he says: "Oh, but this foolish, silly, incompetent Irish Free State Government will not know anything about our desire to pay these pensions if they do not." Anything more futile or ridiculous I have never heard. But then the noble Viscount goes on to say: "You have the guarantee of the British Government," and when I say: "Show it to me," he says it is something Mr. Chamberlain said in another place. What guarantee is that? I should have thought the noble Viscount knew enough about Parliamentary Government to know that it is none. On what
would you frame your Estimate without a Statute? Where would you get the right to frame your Estimate without a Statute? Supposing this Government goes out of power after twenty years, or whatever time they contemplate misgoverning this country, or at any time, how are they bound? Will they be bound by what they find in the Official Report? Will they be bound to find the money if, for instance, money is wanted for socialist or other schemes.
If ever you had a duty it was to protect these men, who have carried their lives in their hands all these years, carrying out your policy which you have now reversed. You have made them the underdog, and you say to them: "Look for merciful treatment to those whom hitherto you have been trying, under the orders of the British Government, to keep within the bounds of law and order." It is an impossible position, and a false position, and I can assure you that there is nothing at the present moment more disturbing to the minds of these men, some of them very poor men, than the treatment they find accorded to them by the British Government under this Treaty. Why? Because they know well that the mere fact of their having served the British Government is not only an inducement to these people to stop their pensions, but even to render their lives unsafe from day to day. On behalf of these men I make an appeal to your Lordships to pass this Amendment—if the Government want it altered, it can be altered—and let us have a guarantee that the Government are going to do what the noble Viscount says they will do.
On Question, whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 42; Not-contents, 40.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Bangor, V. [Teller.]

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Farnham, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M. [Teller.]

Charlemont, V.

Gisborough, L.

Linlithgow, M.

De Vesci, V.

Killanin, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Abingdon, E.

Mowbray, L.

Buxton, E.

Templetown, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Devon, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Drogheda, E.

Raglan, L.

Iveagh, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Lindsay, E.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Atkinson, L.

Sempill, L.

Morton, E.

Basing, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Portsmouth, E.

Bellew, L.

Sumner, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Carson, L.

Walsingham, L.

Wicklow, E.

Deramore, L.

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Sutherland, D.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sandwich, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Shaftesbury, E.

Gorell, L.

Bath, M.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Hylton, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll)

Ancaster, E.

Astor, V.

Loch, L.

Bradford, E.

Peel, V.

MacDonnell, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Chichester, E.

Abinger, L.

Meston, L.

Clarendon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Braye, L.

Treowen, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Chalmers, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes after eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine o'clock.]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided that nothing in this Act shall have any force or effect until all persons resident or domiciled in Northern Ireland who are declared by name by the Government of Northern Ireland to be illegally detained in Southern Ireland or elsewhere outside Northern Ireland, shall have been released and conducted in safety across the frontier of Northern Ireland."
The noble Marquess said: It may surprise your Lordships to learn that there are still in the hands of the Provisional Government, or in the hands of the so-called Republican Army, by whose deeds the Provisional Government is not averse from profiting, although it refuses all responsibility, five members of the Special Constabulary who were the victims of the raid on the night of February 7–8, and of the subsequent outrage at Clones on February 11. I have the names of these five constables before me, and I move this Amendment in the hope that the Government may see their way to exert pressure to bring about the liberation of these constables. My primary object is to urge this matter on the Government. It is one of very great importance, and I sincerely hope that the Lord Chancellor will use his influence, because he has the power of doing so, on the Provisional Government for the purpose of securing the liberation of these men.
There is no justification whatever for their incarceration. They cannot be placed under the heading of hostages because I think your Lordships will agree that there
786
can be no question of hostages between any other forces than belligerents, and I cannot believe that Mr. Michael Collins, as the chief Minister of the so-called Provisional Government, can claim that he has any right whatsoever to retain these five constables. I have ventured to tell your Lordships when these men were taken. The excuse at the time was made that they were seized owing to the detention by the Northern Government of those who were known as the Monaghan footballers. That excuse must have vanished by now because the footballers, as they were called, have been released by order of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on February 10.
It may interest your Lordships to know who the Monaghan footballers were, and how it was they came to be detained in Northern Ireland. These men were arrested in the New Year at Dromore in County Tyrone while on their way, as they alleged, to take part in a football match in Derry City where at the time certain Sinn Feiners were lying in gaol, accused of the brutal murder of their gaolers and of an unsuccessful attempt to escape on the part of prisoners lawfully confined there. The Special Constabulary had been warned that attempts would be made to, rescue these murderers from Derry gaol, and they arrested this party of footballers because, on searching them, they were found to be carrying aims and bombs. I feel that even the Colonial Secretary, with his usual optimistic nature, will realise that this is not quite the equipment one would expect to be carried by individuals who were proposing to engage in a football match. To cut a long story short, these men, or some of them at all events, were obviously members of the Irish Republican Army who were on their way to do what they could to liberate their friends and colleagues in Derry gaol.

787
These men were apprehended and confined until such time as the Assizes should be held, when they would be brought to trial.
I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor is fully aware that, owing to representations which were made by the Government here to Sir James Craig and the Attorney-general, these men were liberated, or rather the usual procedure was adopted. They were granted bail and when the time tame that they were to be brought up for the offences for which they were indicted, the Attorney-General pursued the course which is familiar to your Lordships of entering what is known as a nolle prosequi. That was done on the representations of the British Government that in the interests of peace this was a magnanimous act which could be performed with advantage. I think your Lordships will agree that the Government of Northern Ireland have done everything they can in the direction of conciliation by waiving their clear rights.
It is obvious that at a time when a Government is set up it is most important that there should be punctilious observance of the law, so far as you can possibly secure it, and any pardoning or any condonation of offences naturally very injurious to your own administration. We have fallen in with every suggestion which has come from the British Government, and we have allowed our indictments to go by the board. The Attorney-General, in the interests of conciliation, has taken upon himself not to undertake prosecutions (which he was fully entitled to initiate) in order to make the so-called Provisional Government realise that everything is being done to bring about peace in Ireland. After what we have done in the North we are, I think, entitled to press for the release of these five constables whose names I have before me at the present moment. I should not like to make any insinuations that the British have not done everything they can possibly do to procure the release of these men, but I felt it so important that this matter should be brought forward in public that I have put down an Amendment to the effect that tins Bill shall not be carried into law unless these men are released.
The Lord Chancellor knows perfectly well that I have no desire to wreck this Bill. It has to go through. I have made no attempt to try to pass a wrecking Amendment in your Lordships' House. I
788
have already, to-day, ventured to put forward an Amendment, and I have said very specifically that that Amendment was for the consideration of the Government here and in another place, and that if they considered it was not possible to carry out the Amendment because it would wreck the Bill, I should not press it. That remark applies equally to the Amendment I now put before your Lordships. I should like very much to receive an assurance from the Lord Chancellor that every step is being taken for the release of these men. The Provisional Government has no right whatever to retain the men in confinement, and I sincerely hope I shall receive from the Lord Chancellor an assurance that steps are being forthwith taken to obtain their release. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the noble Marquess, as was very frankly indicated, is to procure some further discussion upon the subject of the impudent and detestable outrage which has been reprobated by every one who has discussed these matters. But really his Amendment—he will forgive me for saying so—while admirably adapted for the purpose of enabling him to remind us that these men have still not been released, is an Amendment which is not adapted happily for any other purpose. Observe what the Amendment really means. It means that if the Government of Northern Ireland choose to say that any single man is illegally detained anywhere in the world except in Northern Ireland, the whole of this Act is to be suspended. They may say that one O'Brien is detained in Kamchatka. They need not even say he is detained by the Government of Southern Ireland. All they have to say is that A.B. is detained anywhere in the world, and this Act is to be suspended.
The noble Marquess, of course, would be the first to agree that the Amendment is ridiculous in its present form, or anything like its present form, but I choose to discuss it in a sentence or two on merits rather than on the amazing effect which, if adopted, it would produce—namely, that the Government of Northern Ireland could suspend this Bill indefinitely as long as they put forward a long list of persons whose cases required investigation. Its

789
form is incapable of defence. Let me, then, say a word about the merits. These men are not detained by the Provisional Government. The noble Marquess said they were illegally detained by the Provisional Government, but I should be astonished if he made that statement advisedly, because all the information at my disposal satisfies me that the statement has no contact at all with fact. On the contrary, I am satisfied that the Provisional Government have used every effort in their power to procure the release of all these men, and the indignation of the noble Marquess at the insolence and the success of those who, in fact, are responsible, I think he will accept from me, does not exceed mine; and his satisfaction if, and when, those who have been guilty of this act are brought to justice and their release effected, will not be greater than mine.
But this is just the kind of act that we are hoping the success of this policy will render impossible for the future. It would be as sensible to put down an Amendment: "Until all outrages have ceased in Belfast, or until the Southern Government have declared that all outrages have ceased in Belfast, this Act shall have no effect." It is our hope that the result of these proposals will be to render impossible incidents of this kind, and also of the kind that have taken place in Belfast. We cannot tell whether we are too sanguine or not, nor have we ever, as far as I am concerned, expressed our hopes in too sanguine language. We have had to take grave decisions and there is not one of us who at every stage has not been conscious of his own fallibility. The only claim we have ever made on the people of this country and on both Houses of Parliament is that they should at least charitably suppose, not that we intended to leave or injure old friends, not that it was in our mind to do any disservice to the national cause, but that, in the spirit and temper of men who find themselves confronted on every side by formidable perils, we have tried to make the best decision we could.
Whether we are right or wrong the future alone can show. I make to-night no particularly sanguine prediction, though I am still hopeful that with patience and toleration on all sides the matter will be carried to a successful conclusion. It is to render such incidents impossible for the future that our efforts are directed, and it would indeed be a decision which
790
would involve this House, I think, in some legitimate criticism if we were to say that as a result of acts of violence, which I am sorry to say can be matched in other parts of Ireland, we were to delay the operation of a Bill, the policy of which noble Lords have said to-day that they do not desire to wreck.
LORD CARSON: I think it would have been more satisfactory to the House if time Lord Chancellor had told us what efforts they were making to procure the release of these men. He criticised the form of the Amendment. But that, after all, as I think he sees himself, is a very small matter compared with the realities of the situation. Let us see what it is that we are really dealing with, and what is happening under British government. On February 7 or 8 there was a raid in broad daylight at the station of Clones, which is outside the borders of Northern Ireland but which, as I understand, is unfortunately one of the stations through which, in traversing the district of Northern Ireland, it is necessary to pass in going to or from Belfast. Some special constables of Northern Ireland were going through when suddenly they came upon part of the Irish Republican Army who, I understand the Lord Chancellor to say, were not in any wise under the control of or concerned with the Provisional Government. That, in itself, seems to me a very extraordinary situation.
I suppose His Majesty's Government have entrusted the keeping of law and order to the Provisional Government without even an Act of Parliament because they thought they were the best means of carrying out the problem of enforcing law and order. What a commentary it is upon the abandonment of government by this country that these men should meet there and should shoot dead several, I forget how many, of these men, and kidnap five more. I had a pathetic letter from a nephew of mine, who had the happiness to have handed over to him for custody the dead bodies of these men, a rather gruesome duty for a young officer who had served his country well during the war and gained considerable distinction.
What happened in addition to that? These men are kidnapped on February 8. Are we to be told that since February 8 nothing has been clone to procure their release? Are we to be told that neither

791
His Majesty's Government nor the Provisional Government had any power to procure their release? If that is so, there is nothing but anarchy and chaos in the way the Government have managed the whole of this business. There was a time, not so very long ago, when the incarceration of British subjects in any part of the world would have at once excited the whole energies of this country to say: "These are British subjects, and as such they cannot be interfered with in this way." But here, in the United Kingdom, as it is still called (at least I hear it so called in church when I go there) there are five men kidnapped and the Lord Chancellor does not know to-day—and he is one of the most powerful members of His Majesty's Government, and, if he will allow me to say so. I should have thought him one of the most keen for the liberties of His Majesty's subjects— whether these men are alive or dead. I do not think that is a satisfactory situation.
I think he might have told us what they have done to procure the release of these men. I think we might have had communications from Mr. Collins and the others who represent Southern Ireland now, and be told what was done by them to secure the release of these men. But that is not all. A day or two after these men had been kidnapped, by order of His Majesty's Government a number of Sinn Feiners in this country, who had been guilty of arson and of shooting at police, and other matters of that kind, were released. Surely, His Majesty's Government might have said: "We will not release these men until the other men are restored to their homes," or something of that kind. It really is depicting this once great country, and I hope still great country, as the most feeble of all nations, to suppose that British subjects can be kept in captivity in open defiance both of this Government and of what you call the Provisional Government, without any step being taken for their release. I do not know, but looking at former incidents of a similar character in Ireland I should imagine, from the time that has elapsed, that very probably these men are dead. We know that women have been taken in similar circumstances, as for instance Mrs. Lindsay, and we know that only their dead bodies have ever been recovered.
I should have thought that if the British Government had taken the responsibility
792
upon themselves of handing over to Mr. Michael Collins and his friends the powers of Government, at least we might have gained something, but I cannot see, if this is allowed to go on, that we have gained anything. The noble Marquess who moved this Amendment did call attention to the fact that the excuse for the raid was said to have been that there were certain prisoners detained in gaol at Derry, who were called footballers. I hope your Lordships will not be led away by these technical terms. In Ireland a footballer is not a man who kicks a football. In this case he was a man armed to the teeth with revolvers and bombs, which he did not intend to kick.
When the Phœnix Park murders took place, and one man was hanged, it was said all over Ireland what a shameful thing England had done, for they hanged a man because he held up his handkerchief and blew his nose, which was the signal to the murderers that the victims were passing a particular place. These footballers were released by the clemency of the. Crown, whether with or without the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland I do not know. When the Lord Chancellor refers to what is going on in Belfast I think he might very well recollect who has brought about this state of disturbance in Belfast, and how it has been brought about by the management of the whole of this business. He might also have recollected that about this same time there were men in Derry gaol who had chloroformed and murdered a warder, and had been sentenced by the legal Courts of the land to execution. They were reprieved by order of His Majesty's Government as a method of bringing about peace and good will in Belfast. It is all a one-sided affair.
I agree with what the Lord Chancellor says, that from every side of this House it has been said that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, ought to be given a chance. I wish I could be as optimistic as the Prime Minister, who said we would have nothing but passionate loyalty the moment the truce was ratified. But I agree that it must be given a chance. Yes, that is true, but, while this chance is being given, the people who are responsible for giving the chance are His Majesty's Government, and it is His Majesty's Government who must be held responsible for incidents such as these, when they walked away

793
and left Ireland, and said: "The Provisional Government are able to carry on better than we could."
Are your Lordships going to be satisfied now that these men should be still kept in custody? Are you going to do nothing? The noble Marquess has put down this Amendment as, I suppose, the only way by which he could do anything effective. He is not a member of this Government, but I should imagine that, as a member of the North of Ireland Government, not only was it his duty to put it down, but it would have been cowardly and inhuman of him if he had not taken some steps to see that there was brought before the public the fact that there are five men who have been missing since February 7 last, and the British Government do not know whether they are dead or alive, and we are not told a single thing they have done to try to get their release. That is not English, and it would not have been allowed in any part of these realms except Northern Ireland.
There is another matter which I would bring to the notice of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack. Shortly after the occurrence of this outrage—which he has condemned, I admit, in very strong terms—he moved a Motion in this House, and there was another moved in the House of Commons, by which the Government were authorised to set up an Inquiry into this whole matter, and I saw by the newspapers—the only means I have of knowing —that an eminent Judge had been appointed to proceed with this Inquiry. May I ask the Lord Chancellor what has taken place about that? May I ask him also whether it is possible to go on with that Inquiry until you get these five men? And has anything been done to speed the Inquiry and get the witnesses for it, and are these five men necessary witnesses in the transaction?
You may, or you may not, pass this Amendment, but it is acts and omissions of this kind, and the utter dereliction of any sense of responsibility or duty on the part of the Government, once they adopted this policy, that has brought about the whole of this chaos. However you may approve, if any of you do in your hearts approve of the Government policy, however you may think that the Treaty was right, however you may think that in the circumstances there was nothing to do but to give way to the complete demand of the
794
assassin and the gunman in Ireland, will anybody defend the way in which the Government has carried out the Agreement? Ought you to have evacuated Ireland Ought you to have run away from all the responsibility? Ought you to have withdrawn your police, your soldiers, and everything else until you had set up there something to take the place of the previously existing Government and thrown the whole responsibility upon them? I trust we shall hear, before the debate concludes, something more hopeful as to the return of these men to their homes, and that we shall be assured that every effort has been made and will be made to have them released.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord is certainly entitled to no less at the hands of the Government, and it was an omission on my part that I did not make it plain to him and to the House that, entirely unsuccessful as our efforts have been. every attempt which was in our power has been made to procure the release of these men, and if I were to show to the noble and learned Lord the number of telegrams dealing with this subject that had been sent each day since this event first happened, he would see that, whatever other omissions he might complain of in our conduct, we had certainly not been guilty of negligence in this particular. I am most anxious not to become involved in controversy as to the merits of this particular incident. The noble and learned Lord will tell me if I am wrong, but I understand that this party was an armed band of Constabulary who had carried their arms on to the territory of the Provisional Government; that they had gone there without intimating what their purpose was, and without giving any notice to the authorities there of their intention of going armed. Those are the facts which have been given to me officially by those who, up to the present, have enquired into this matter. I am blaming nobody for this incident, because I understand they went round the loop line.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is a direct route.
LORD CARSON: It is the only route from Belfast.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be the direct route or it may not be, but

795
that is not quite the question, if the noble Marquess will allow me. The question is this: When the atmosphere was charged with excitement, was it a wise step on the part of these men to go armed, without warning of their intention, on to the territory of the Provisional Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think very few of them were armed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know what knowledge the noble Marquess has on that point.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think five were armed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My information is that they all had arms.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Five of them were armed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Five of them were armed; I am content to accept that from the noble Marquess. Let nobody think that I am even approaching the borders of a defence of anything that was done. I am trying to see how the misunderstanding and the excitement were produced which led to this horrible outrage. There they were, several of them armed and seen to be armed, and it is very easy indeed to imagine the effect in the kind of atmosphere which the noble and learned Lord has described in relation to the Southern so-called footballers—I am not arguing now whether they were footballers or not—who had gone to Belfast with arms. Here, again, I think that there is a slight conflict of evidence because I believe the possession of bombs has not been established and that when information was asked in verification of it, it was found not to be forthcoming. It appeared to me to be rather surprising if these people were really carrying bombs that the legal authorities in Northern Ireland should have been willing, as they were willing, to release them on bail. I do not desire to carry that matter further.
The noble and learned Lord has asked me a question which is entitled to a clear answer, and that is as to the progress that has been made in reference to the Inquiry for which I moved in this House and to which your Lordships assented. He is quite right in the suggestion he made. This Inquiry cannot be usefully held until
796
these men have been released. That is the view of the Northern Government, which has been conveyed to His Majesty's Government here, and it is in consequence of that view, so expressed by the Northern Government, and assented to, on grounds of reasonableness, by the Government here, that no further step has been taken in that matter. Let there be no misunderstanding. There is no member of the Government who does not condemn the original act at Clones, whatever may be said as to the misunderstanding of the moment. There is no one who does not condemn the illegal detention of these men, and who would not make any conceivable effort to procure their release.
But when the noble and learned Lord says: "You are responsible for this by evacuating your troops from the country," he really must allow me to point out that that is not a complete statement in relation to the situation. We were not able, in the kind of sporadic and difficult warfare with which we had to deal, to prevent outrages worse than this before we evacuated a single troop from Ireland, and your Lordships are well aware that in the last two or three years, in which I have been, unhappily for myself, responsible for replying in this House in Irish debates, over and over again I have been compelled to admit that with all the military forces we had there we had been powerless to prevent outrages graver than this. The alternative which presented itself to us was a very simple one. It was whether or not we were going to make an attempt, by multiplying our forces, to govern Ireland by coercion, or whether we were going to make an attempt to reach a settlement.
What do we observe going on to-day? The noble and learned Lord is a very close student, as I know, of the Irish Press, and of all that happens in Ireland, and he will have noted these events—and they are very significant—as closely as I have. What is happening to-clay? There is every evidence that Mr. de Valera realises that he is a beaten man. Mr. de Valera is a man who would stand to the death—whether his own or other people's I do not pause to inquire—in the cause of the Republic. He has rallied round himself all that is desperate and all that is implacable in Ireland at this moment. Every speech he makes, and every act he commits, makes it more and more certain, if only we

797
can avoid civil war on the boundary, that those who signed the Treaty and mean to carry out the Treaty must succeed, and that those who have ranged themselves on the side of the Republic must inevitably fail. All the information that we have at this moment is that if only the united efforts of both Parties can preserve peace on the boundary this Treaty will be confirmed by a majority in the Dail after the Election as large as, or larger than, has been attained in either House of Parliament in this country.
Observe the last speech made by Mr. de Valera. He said, I see, that "it will be necessary for us to wade through further streams of blood." His own wadings, I think, up to the present have not been very formidable. "We must wade through further streams of blood," he said, "and this time it will be not English blood but Irish blood, and it may well be the blood of Irish Ministers." Those are the ravings of a man who knows he is beaten.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Not in Ireland.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not follow that.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Never mind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is of importance I would wish to follow it, but if not perhaps the observation ought not to have been made. They are the ravings, it seems to me; of a man who knows that he has been defeated. If that be true what does it mean? Why does he exhibit this violence in relation to Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith? Why does he talk of wading through their blood? It is for one reason, and for one reason only. He knows that they are his enemies, and that they intend to carry this policy, if they have the power, to a successful conclusion.
This is at least worth the experiment. It may fail, but for the first time you have a large body of opinion collected in Southern Ireland which has arrived at the conclusion that the future prosperity of their country is not irreconcilable with the Imperial position, and the Imperial interests of this Empire. Let us at least give it a trial. If the whole thing breaks down we are no worse off than we were when we
798
started the evacuation. It does not matter a brass farthing, I assure the noble and learned Lord—if he will allow me to offer an assurance—if you apply your mind to fundamentals. It can be corrected, and it can he corrected in two days, either by military, naval or economic weapons, We are no worse off if the whole thing breaks down, and if only we get peace on the boundary I am persuaded that it will not break down, and that you will see, as a result of the Election in Ireland, a real prospect for the first time of these old differences being cured, and alleviated, and expelled for ever.
We have made every effort on the subject dealt with by the Amendment, on which, I imagine, the noble Marquess does not propose to divide the House. I can assure him that if he is interested enough to see the whole series of telegrams which have passed between the Colonial Office and the authorities in Ireland from the day these men were arrested he will recognise the restless industry with which this monstrous act has been pursued by the Imperial authorities. I do not mind giving him this admission, that I and members of the Government regard it as in some degree a kind of personal humiliation, of which the noble and learned Lord has spoken, that our efforts to procure their release have proved unsuccessful. But we should show a melancholy lack of perspective and proportion if we allowed an incident of this kind, however exasperating and terrible, to come into collision with the attempt we are trying to carry through.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There was a time when an assurance from His Majesty's Government as to the near revival of a better state of things in Ireland would have had sonic effect on your Lordships' House. In the course of the last few years. I have so often heard from that bench assurances that the "reign of terror was rapidly coming to an end"; "We have murder by the throat."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not from this bench.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was in the other House and by colleagues of the noble and learned Viscount. I make him a present of that wonderful discovery.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not wonderful, merely accurate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is hardly worthy of the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is most important.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was sorry for the Lord Chancellor as I heard him just now make such a humiliating confession of the abject state of things which exists in Ireland, but he had the grace at the end to say that it was humiliating. It was the first occasion on which a Minister of the Crown in the present Government has admitted the humiliating condition of things in Ireland. Indeed, he reproved the noble and learned Lord for having used that particular adjective.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, for having used it eighteen times.
LORD CARSON: May I say that, having regard to what the Lord Chancellor said, I counted it and I only used it six times.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is transcendently clear is either that the Provisional Government cannot, or will not, release these men. If they will not, then that is a very serious and grave act of defiance. If they cannot, then is it surprising that we doubt whether they are fit to exercise the powers of complete independence which the Government are conferring upon them? That is the state of things which has at last been admitted by the Lord Chancellor. In his own words, they are in the humiliating position of having tried to obtain the release of these men, and failed. I hope that confession will be printed and circulated throughout this country so that the electors may know that the Government, by their own admission, are in a humiliating position in Ireland.
As regards the present Amendment I agree to this extent with the Lord Chancellor—that in its present form it would not be possible to insert it in the Bill. It is much too wide, and probably your Lordships would not be willing to insert it. The noble Marquess, however, is amply justified in the debate he has raised and in the admissions he has obtained from the Government. I think he will be well advised not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, but that is a matter for him to decide.
LORD CARSON: Before the Question is put and the Amendment negatived, may I give notice that I will put down a Question and a Motion on this same subject next week?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will be very respectfully considered by His Majesty's Government when the noble and learned Lord takes that step.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the following proviso:—
"Provided always that if an Address is presented in accordance with Clause 12 of the Treaty no Order in Council under this section shall by its terms in any way, interfere with, detract from, or modify the rights, powers or privileges conferred upon the Parliament of Northern Ireland by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920."
The noble Lord said: The next Amendment which stands in my name cannot, I am glad to think, be argued as in any wise infringing upon the Treaty except perhaps in the imagination of His Majesty's Government, who do not want to help us. In the second subsection of Clause I very extraordinary powers are given to His Majesty's Government. They are allowed by Orders in Council to set up the whole of the Constitution for Ireland, and not only have they the power to transfer all the ordinary powers for carrying on the Government in Ireland but they have the right to include in these Orders
"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."
In fact, it makes the Government the legislators as regards the powers that are to be handed over to the Provisional Government.
Power is given to Ulster under the Treaty to vote themselves out. My Amendment is to make it perfectly clear that, if Northern Ireland votes itself out in pursuance of the Treaty, the Government shall not have power to affect the Constitution of Northern Ireland as prescribed by the Act of 1920, and that Northern Ireland shall be left alone. I have grave apprehension, under the wide words of the clause, as regards these Orders. They have nothing to do with the Treaty, and the Government may be inclined to make Orders which will infringe

801
upon the Constitution of Northern Ireland. My Amendment provides that if Ulster votes itself out, no Order in Council shall infringe its privileges under the Act of 1920. I hardly think your Lordships will allow the Act of Parliament setting up the Government of Northern Ireland to be infringed without at least another Act of Parliament, and your Lordships would never entrust the power of doing this to any Government without having the matter brought before you. I therefore put down this Amendment to make it clear that the Constitution of Northern Ireland is not to be affected.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.— (Lord Carson.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: Under Article 12 of the Agreement it is clearly stated that if Ulster contracts out, the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act (including those relating to the Council of Ireland) "shall, so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, continue to be of full force and effect, and this instrument shall have effect subject: to the necessary modifications." Therefore it is perfectly clear that the powers under the Act of 1920 will have full force and effect in Northern Ireland, and if so it is equally clear that any Order in Council modifying those powers would be ultra vires. Therefore, so far as that point is concerned, the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord would not only be unnecessary but also superfluous.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount is a barrister as well as myself and ought to know that Clause 1 (2), which is part of the Act of Parliament, is absolute. It is not governed only by the Article to which he refers. May I say that if the matter is so clear as the noble Viscount seems to think and my Amendment is only superfluous, will he put it in to make the thing perfectly certain?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I had not finished what I was going to say when the noble and learned Lord intervened. The words to which he referred relating to incidental or supplemental provisions would only be, of course, in connection with the handing over of administrative powers to the Southern Government. They could not possibly affect the powers of the Northern
802
Government, because they are most clearly dealt with and excepted under Article 12. Therefore, any such Order in Council would be completely ineffective and ultra vires.
The noble and learned Lord has appealed to me as a lawyer. I might appeal to him also as a lawyer and point out that it would be extremely unwise, when the matter is clear, to put in words which were superfluous, because some attention would be paid to those superflous words and they would be construed as having some meaning which the other perfectly clear words did not possess. But these words of the noble and learned Lord go further, because they would also prevent Orders in Council which modify the privileges of Northern Ireland, not merely as they relate to Northern Ireland, but as regards other matters as well. For instance, take the powers of the Council of Ireland. Those powers require to be modified under the Treaty, because under the Treaty they are, as regards Southern Ireland, handed over to the Southern Ireland Government. Clearly if the Amendment were passed, it would render it impossible for these powers to be handed over to the Government of Southern Ireland. Therefore, on these two grounds I must oppose the Amendment.
LORD CARSON: I am afraid I must insist upon the Amendment. I do not understand the argument of the noble Viscount. First, he says it is superfluous, and then he says it does something which he does not want it to do. I do not see how the two arguments hang together, and when he appeals to me on the ground that it is very unwise to do it I will take all the responsibility of the unwisdom.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I think my argument was perfectly consistent. As regards the powers of Northern Ireland the Amendment is unnecessary, and it does have a certain mischievous effect as regards the handing over of powers to the Southern Ireland Parliament. The two are not inconsistent with each other, because they apply to different matters—the Northern Parliament and the Southern Parliament.
On Question, whether the words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 72.

CONTENTS.

Dufferin and Ava, M. [Teller.]

Stanhope, E.

Erskine, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Farnham, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bangor, V.

Gisborough, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lawrence, L.

Abingdon, E.

Charlemont, V.

Mowbray, L.

Devon, E.

Templetown, V.

Penrhyn, L.

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

Raglan, L.

Atkinson, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E Ranfurly.)

Grey, E.

Avebury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Bellew, L.

Sempill, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carson, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Deramore, L,

Sumner, L.

Selborne, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Astor, V.

Hylton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Kenlis, L. (M. Headford.)

Devonshire, D.

De Vesci, V.

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

Sutherland, D.

Haldane, V.

Wellington, D.

Hood, V.

Killanin, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Bath, M.

Lamington, L.

Peel, V.

Lee of Fareham, L.

Ancaster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Loch, L.

Bradford, E.

Lovat, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Aberconway, L.

Meston, L.

Chichester, E.

Abinger, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Clarendon, E.

Aldenham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Eldon, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Nunburnholme, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Howe, E.

Braye, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Iveagh, E.

Chalmers, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lucan, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Shandon, L.

Midleton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Portsmouth, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart)

Teynham, L.

Sandwich, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Treowen, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingail.)

Vernon, L.

Strange, E (D. Atholl.)

Gorell, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Wicklow, E.

Hemphill, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(3) Before any Order in Council under this Act is submitted to His Majesty in Council, a draft thereof shall he laid before each House of the Imperial Parliament and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House within fourteen days on which that House has sat next after the draft has been laid before it, against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken on the draft, without prejudice to the making of a new draft."
The noble and learned Lord said: There is a certain amount of overlapping, I confess, between the Amendment that I have to submit to your Lordships and that which has just been disposed of; because this, like the preceding one, refers to the procedure by Order in Council for which provision is made in Clause 1 of the Bill.
It is, however, one of real importance. It is one which I had hoped was not nearly so controversial as some of the Amendments with which your Lordships have been dealing. I have a further reason for pressing it, and that is that I have discovered during the discussion on the last Amendment what I am ashamed to say I did not know before—that the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is learned in the law. From the part he has hitherto played in the conduct of this Bill I had not discovered that he had followed that branch of learning. Now that I have got him, avid have got him upon what I think is a dry but important point of Constitutional Law, I hope that I may make a little progress with him.
The point is this. Subsection (2) of the first clause makes the mechanical provision for giving effect to Article 17 of the Treaty, and Article 17 of the Treaty provides for

805
the transfer to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland of what it calls the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties. As the Government of Southern Ireland is a Government which is not at present responsible to any elected body whatsoever, as it is a Provisional Government—a term so far as I am aware hitherto unknown in our Constitutional Law and more suitable to a South American Republic than to these realms—there is as usual in the Treaty a certain vagueness about this Constitution, but at any rate it is quite clear that in order to carry out the Treaty it is our duty to put it in the power of His Majesty's Government to transfer to the Provisional Government such powers and machinery as are requisite for the discharge of its duties.
What are the duties of a revolutionary government not founded upon any basis of law in a country which is in a state of disorder and which it cannot control? I confess I am not very clear, but the way in which it is proposed to be done is this. Your Lordships are asked by this Bill to say that certain Orders in Council which you have not yet seen and which will take form at the hands of His Majesty's Government, have in advance the force of law. You are asked to take such a step as will withdraw them entirely from the cognisance of Parliament. You are asked to leave it entirely to His Majesty's Government to decide what powers and machinery are requisite for the discharge of the duties of a Provisional Government, and to select their own time and their own way and phraseology for the transfer of those powers. Shall I be using an indecent term if I say it is rather a large order? Hitherto, I have thought it was the duty of the Executive Government of this country—the constitutional duty—to take Parliament into its confidence, to obtain from it after full exposition the powers that it seeks to execute, and to allow to Parliament the opportunity of criticising the time, manner and language of the instrument by which it carries out those desires. All those things are taken away from us by this Bill.
It has two aspects. I will put them briefly at this hour of the night. The scheme upon which this curious reform is being carried out, as the noble Marquess who sometimes leads the House explained to us in December, was that there should be the erection of this Revolutionary
806
Government, the intervention of a Provisional period resting upon no authority of law and not much of order, to be regularised in the long run by certain legislation for the benefit of Southern Ireland and an Indemnity Act for the benefit of His Majesty's Government and the officials it employs—a programme a little unwonted but still, when it is all carried out, one which will no doubt make everything shipshape and water-tight. But the effect of this provision is to anticipate the Act of Indemnity for this reason.
Up to the present whatever has been going on in Ireland has been going on without the support of law. The legal powers and duties which the various Statutes for the better government of Ireland have imposed upon a number of officials and public bodies remain their powers and duties as before. There are a considerable number of officials in Ireland and in this country—I do not suggest that this applies to members of His Majesty's Government— who are liable to sundry and inconvenient processes because they do not do their statutory duty and these are the officials who, in due course, will require, and ought to receive, an Act of Indemnity. As soon as the powers are transferred to the Provisional Government then the obligation of these, officials is terminated, and although they may require an Act of Indemnity for what has passed, this inconvenient period will be brought to an end with the passing of this Bill wind the flight of a bundle or two of Orders in Council to Ireland.
It is therefore in effect, though not in name, an Act to indemnify, because it puts a sudden term to the period when government is carried on in such a form that people who are breaking the law are liable to the penalties of the law. I have no great objection to that if we knew the facts; but we do not know what is going on. I have no doubt that most of the powers requisite for the discharge of its duties by the Provisional Government have been transferred already by the simple process of "throwing up the sponge" and leaving the Provisional Government to do what it likes. But the fact that the powers have been left to them to exercise and the legal approbation that is to be given to that irregularity are two different things. His Majesty's Government cannot really desire to obtain the benefit of their Indemnity Bill by any side wind in advance

807
without the usual explanation of what has been done and the reasons why it was done.
The other point is this. This body of Orders when put together will constitute an elaborate machinery for the better government of the twenty-six counties; financial, economic, administrative, and judicial—I do not know to what extent they may not go because I do not know what powers and machinery may be necessary for Mr. Collins to discharge his duties. But they will constitute a large body of law, and we shall, in fact, have handed over to His Majesty's Government the power to legislate for the better government of Ireland for the next four or five months, without knowing exactly what they are doing.
Let me illustrate this. Are they to be the sole judges at what rate and dates these powers are to be handed over, without Parliament knowing anything about it? Are these powers to be handed over to the present members of the Provisional Government, of whom His Majesty's Government know something and entertain a high opinion, or to their successors whoever they may be? The Orders in Council may take the form of saying: "Let us get rid of our Irish responsibilities; we will unload upon Southern Ireland all our powers under various Acts, hoping we may never be troubled with them again." If that is the policy they may be worded in such a way that any successors of the present Provisional Government would take them up and hand them on to a more permanent Government. I gather from the speech of the Lord Chancellor recently that. Mr. de Valera, though he might have little chance of succeeding Mr. Collins, is a person who as a successor to the Provisional Government would not inspire the confidence even of His Majesty's Government, and I think it important that we should know the terms of this transfer.
Thirdly, there is the question of the Constitution, a weighty subject, I admit, though it is common ground to the noble Viscount and myself that as a subject of legal study, at any rate, it has been considered of some importance. Is the Constitution to have any wide breach, a breach as wide as a church door, made in it, or is it not? I am not going to ask your Lordships to listen to a lecture which I am ill-prepared to deliver, or to survey the course of constitutional history over a long period. I think all will agree that
808
we have been much too free with these Orders in Council in the past.
It is a very convenient thing to say: "Here is a short Act with a schedule or two, and anything wanted to fill it up can be provided by Orders in Council. "It is quite true that it means the ipse dixit of the executive Government, because the Order in Council is drafted and passed upon the advice of His Majesty's Government for the time being. For matters of detail it is convenient, and I make no complaint. But it is a thing that ought to be watched, and I suggest to your Lordships that this wholesale creation of a Home Rule Bill up to date—for that is what it is—ought to go through Parliament in the usual way, or at any rate to go through in some way. All I ask—and I appeal to the noble Viscount's legal instincts—is to regularise the position of himself and the Government, which is in some need of being regularised, by accepting the proposition that these Orders in Council, which I have no doubt are in draft at this moment, and ought to have been in draft last month, should be laid upon the Table of each House, and should only go forward to receive His Majesty's approval if they have not been dissented from by either House.
That brings me to the last point. Is there any inconvenience or difficulty about it? I have put a period of fourteen days because one must put something, but if His Majesty's Government agree I would halve it with great pleasure. Provided we get a few hours' opportunity of seeing them, we can readily tell whether there is anything to criticise in these Orders. The great point is to preserve the right of Parliament to see these things before they acquire the force of law. If any alteration in the number of days will meet the views of His Majesty's Government I shall be happy to make it. I cannot imagine there will be any real inconvenience in the course pursued, because I have no doubt that the great bulk of these Orders are already de facto being exercised by the Provisional Government, so far as they exercise any powers at all. What is really to be done, therefore, is not to invest them with more powers or to create more machinery, but to spread the sanction of law over proceedings which at present are, strictly speaking, lawless.
I do not want to repeat myself, but at the same time I do not want to embarrass the noble and learned Viscount by not giving

809
him an opportunity of appreciating my point, which is quite a short one. May I therefore summarize it for a moment. The point is this: That in the interest of Constitutional Law and procedure, Parliament, which even at the conclusion of the war is still a thing that we ought not lightly to disregard, because every time we let that slip we shall never recover it—we exalt the Executive power over the legislative power—in the interest of regular constitutional procedure I earnestly press that that shall be, done in this case which in any comparable case of equal magnitude would be done as a matter of course; that is to say, the Orders in Council shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, so that Parliament may at least be seised of them before they acquire the force of law.
I do not know whether this appeal will have any success or not, but I certainly think it will be a grave dereliction of duty if the point is allowed to pass without contest. At no cost of convenience or prestige to the Government, here is an opportunity of following Constitutional use and procedure, and of taking Parliament at long last into the confidence of the Executive as to what is being done, and of giving Parliament an opportunity of showing whether the Order receives its approbation or not, before the fatal step is taken which gives it statutory force. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Sumner.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord. I understand, considers, first of all, that these powers ought not to be handed over by Order in Council at all, but that we ought to proceed by the method of a Bill passing through both Houses. Alternatively—and I think that is the proper form for a statement of claim—he would desire that if we do proceed by Order in Council Parliament should have proper cognisance by the Orders being laid upon the Tables of both Houses. The noble and learned Lord exercised a great deal of ingenuity in arguing that this was an illegal Government, and I think it was frankly admitted it was an anomalous and illegal Government, and precisely for that reason it was necessary to clothe it with legal powers at the earliest possible moment. But if the noble and learned Lord did not say so in
810
terms, he was inclined to argue as if this Provisional Government was to be rather more permanent than it really is. I think he did not fully recognise that after all this Provisional Government is only to last for an extremely short time, and to be followed at the earliest possible moment by a proper Constitution drawn up by the Government and assented to by the elected Parliament. Therefore, we are dealing with an admittedly transitional period, and if the noble and learned Lord was to proceed by that method which he prefers, long before a Bill was through both Houses the days of the Provisional Government would, I suppose, be numbered.
His second contention is that these Orders transferring these powers to this Government should be laid upon the Table, and he also, I think, according to his Amendment, suggests that they should not become operative until fourteen days have elapsed without any Address being presented by either House condemning them. May I state shortly to the noble and learned Lord the difficulties in the way, and see whether it is possible to meet him. First of all, the noble and learned Lord, I think, in his speech on the Second Reading, though not so much today, spoke of these powers being handed over in large instalments to the Provisional Government. That is not quite the procedure that the Government desire to follow, because these general powers, I understand, are to be handed over by the first Order in Council that is made. The first Order in Council will be the important and dominant Order. Later Orders in Council will be really less important—adaptations of laws, and so on, but not banding over en bloc, as it were, these new powers.
It is very important that these new powers should be handed over as soon as possible to the Provisional Government for the purpose of clothing it with full authority, and for avoiding all these matters that have been under discussion this afternoon. But it is important also for another reason, because we are getting very near the end of this month, and, as no money is taken on the Votes for any of these services in Ireland, it is really essential for carrying them on that these powers should be handed over before that date. Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord wants to interpose so long a period as he suggests before this Order in Council becomes law it would cause not only delay

811
in handing over these powers, but great confusion in a financial way. One is very anxious to do what one can to meet the noble and learned Lord, and I understand that, although this Order in Council cannot be laid on the Table, strictly speaking, until this Bill becomes an Act, yet the Government hope that in a very short time—I believe possibly by Friday— it will be possible, anyhow, to publish this Order in Council, so that it will be fully known to your Lordships.
LORD CARSON: That is, after it is made.
VISCOUNT PEEL: That will be in draft. It will not, of course, become legal until this Bill becomes an Act.
LORD CARSON: What power does that Dive us?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Well, I am doing my best for the noble and learned Lord. May I suggest one further difficulty? These powers ought really to be handed over at once, for the reasons I have stated. Then, it is extremely difficult, in fact, it is practically impossible for these powers to be withdrawn when once they have been granted. But I have a form of Amendment which has been drawn up in order to try to meet the noble and learned Lord as far as possible. It runs thus—
"Any Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that any such Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken thereunder; and any Order in Council made under this Act shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, be of the same effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be revoked or amended by a subsequent Order in Council:
"Provided that Orders in Council under this Act shall not be deemed to be Statutory Rules within the meaning of Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893."
That differs from the noble and learned Lord's proposal in this respect—that the Orders become operative at once, and I would point out how very important it is that those Orders should become operative at once. But, subject to that, this would give your Lordships' House and another place full opportunity of discussing these
812
Orders, so made. If the noble and learned Lord thought fit to withdraw his Amendment I should be very glad to put down this Amendment before the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has not noticed another difference—of course, he is aware of it. That is only permissive so far as the Government quashing the Order is concerned, whereas, of course, the Amendment of my noble friend is mandatory; which is a very considerable difference.
VISCOUNT PEEL: This is "may."
TEE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount forgot to remind the House of that distinction.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not notice that the noble and learned Lord was so mandatory; I thought he was permissive.
LORD SUMNER: It says: "In the event of the Address being passed by either House His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same." I think the noble Viscount is in error in thinking mine is merely permissive. That is the proper form in which to allude to His Majesty's actions in Council; and although, of course, His Majesty acts upon the advice of Ministers, a permissive word in that connection is binding on the Ministers. His Majesty's Ministers would be bound, under this form of words, to accept the consequences of the Address presented to His Majesty by either House. I hope I am right in my Constitutional Law upon that, and that it is the view of the noble Viscount. It has got to be his view, I think; but one would like to know that it was his view on behalf of His Majesty's Government now. If that is so, of course the difference between us has come to be that my Amendment postponed the making of the Order in Council until Parliament had had the opportunity; whereas his Amendment makes the Order in Council, but gives Parliament power to present an Address, the automatic result of which would be that the Order in Council would be annulled, but without prejudice to anything that had been done in the meantime. If I have rightly apprehended and stated the difference, I think there is no reason why I should trouble the House by pressing my Amendment, upon the understanding that the noble Viscount's Amendment is proposed instead of it. One should be clear; of course, as to its effect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not aware of any authoritative construction of the words which are contained in the Amendment which the noble Viscount has suggested; but such assistance as I can give is rather that of experience. I am not aware of any case in which this somewhat common formula has been employed in which in fact the annulment which is contemplated in the form of words—which I have said is a common one—has not followed. I am not aware of any authoritative construction, but I rather agree with the noble and learned Lord as to what the practice has been.
LORD SUMNER: May I bring to the notice of the Lord Chancellor that Section 70 of the Act of 1920 uses this very formula:
"If an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses … His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same."
It is obviously intended that should follow automatically.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I think so, too. It is a well-known doctrine in our law that when the word "may" is used in the interest of some general section of the public it means an obligation to be conformed to. Of course, we never allow an Act of. Parliament to order His Majesty. It is a constitutional formula to which His Majesty's Ministers are bound to conform when the word "may" is used in the interests of any general section of the public. I, therefore, agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Sumner, in what he has said.
LORD CARSON: I am not going to enter into this learned disquisition as to when "may" means "shall," which is always a matter of considerable controversy among lawyers. I could never understand why it should not be put into plain language. But it has been a source of income to many lawyers in trying from time to time to snake it out and that, is probably one of the reasons why it remains as it is. I wish to call attention to the very grave departure that is being made by the proposal of His Majesty's Government, and the dangers to which your Lordships have to look forward in these democratic times. What would any of your Lordships have thought if Mr. Gladstone in 1886, or Mr. Asquith in 1912, had come to the House of Commons and said: "We have agreed to give Home Rule to Ireland, and that will he carried out
814
by Orders in Council which need never come before Parliament"? A more grave assertion of the power of the Executive over Parliament cannot possibly be imagined. I would have liked to hear the Lord Chancellor, or the noble Viscount, or any of the great men opposite, get up and denounce Mr. Gladstone for the operations that he determined to carry out. We almost came to blows in the House of Commons when he curtailed our discussions after 70 or 80 days. Now, by a sweep of the hand, under this Coalition Constitutional Government, all that is to be swept away. At the sweet will of the Executive these Orders in Council, setting up a Home Rule Constitution, are to be passed. I venture most respectfully to warn your Lordships of What you are doing in this matter.
We are sometimes warned by high authorities of the dangers of allowing a Labour Party to come into power. Let me draft a short Bill on the ideas of an extreme Labour Party:—Clause 1, the mines of the country shall be nationalised. Clause 2, the railways shall be taken over by the State. Clause 3, all necessary steps for the aforesaid shall be carried out by Order in Council. That is exactly what you are doing in this case. We look forward with terrible anticipations to what an extreme Labour Party might do. What would your Lordships say if a Bill in these terms were brought forward? You would say they were anarchy and revolution, and that men were being deprived of their property. But here, without a Bill, without the House seeing the draft, not only the property but the lives, the liberties and everything else of every man and woman in Ireland are to be handed over by Order in Council to these people. It is much more important to some of your Lordships than it is to me because I am not, a man of property, but I cannot conceive a more dangerous precedent, and I cannot conceive anyone who has ever called himself a Conservative or Unionist agreeing to such a policy as this, unless he were under the spell of some great Liberal statesman who had these ideas of legislation ingrained in him as being the speediest way to the exchange of all property in this country.
It is said that an offer is made to put in a different form of words. I suppose that will have to be accepted, but it is little or no use. The noble Lord put down what I should have thought was the mini-

815
mum. If I had the power I would strike out everything about Orders in Council, and let the Government bring in a Bill to transfer these powers. But if you have Orders in Council it is no use putting them before the House once they have been made and acted upon. In my thirty years' experience of the other House I have never known of an Order in Council, once acted upon, being reversed by either House. The Government would come down and say that they valued it, could not get on without it, and would say: "Are you really going to interfere with the prerogative of King Collins and take away this power which you gave him only the other day?" It is of no use. If Lord Sumner thinks it better to get that then let us have it. I do not pose as a prophet, but I do pose as one who feels the necessity of Bills going through both Houses of Parliament, and to-night you are creating one of the most dangerous precedents with regard to liberty and the rights of property that has ever passed both Houses of Parliament.
LORD SUMNER: I feel in a slightly embarrassing position. Lord Carson has almost convinced me that what is offered by Viscount Peel is of no great value, but at this hour of the evening it is necessary to be practical, and I must do something. I detect a value in this "deal" which perhaps he has not noticed, and it is this. I agree that this ought to have been done by a Bill, but what good is there in crying over spilt milk. If I may be allowed I will accept the offer of the noble Viscount as a sign of grace at the eleventh hour. I regard it as a recognition by the Government, not perhaps of the impropriety of their course, but of the preferable propriety of the substituted course; that is, a recognition of the supremacy of Parliament by giving it an opportunity in the form which has been consecrated in the Act of 1920, and if the noble Viscount will move his form of words I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I now move the Amendment that I suggested.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert:
Any Order in Council made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either of those Houses within twenty-one days on which that
816
House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that any such Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall forthwith become void, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken thereunder; and any Order in Council made under this Act shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this subsection, be of the same effect as if enacted in this Act, but may be revoked or amended by a subsequent Order in Council:
Provided that Orders in Council under this Act shall not be deemed to be Statutory Rules within the meaning of Section I of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SUMNER LORD SUMNER moved; after Clause I, to insert the following new clause:—
". If it appears to the Representative of the Crown in the Irish Free State or in Northern Ireland to be expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of any question respecting the interpretation or effect of the said Agreement or any part thereof, he may represent the same to His Majesty in Council and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs, the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
The noble Lord said: I may be too bold, but I have some hope now, when two, lawyers get together, that we may see, if I may use the expression, a new deal. This is a provision for machinery by which those who desire to have this Treaty interpreted may be able to get interpretation thereof. I have put down, as the body to be referred to, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, because a similar provision is put in the Act of 1920—which is still unrepealed—in Section 51, subsection (1). I shall not return to the suitability of that institution, and I am quite prepared to be reasonable. May I ask the noble Viscount what he would say to the Court of Session, a body entirely free from any of those reproaches that might fall upon some members of the Judicial Committee, a body highly respected where it is known, a body probably entirely unknown in Ireland, and therefore not likely to have excited any prejudices so far?
I submit, at any rate, first of all, that to provide a machinery by which the Treaty can be interpreted is almost essential if it is to work. It has been thoroughly-demonstrated, I think, that this necessarily fallible instrument requires, in some or

817
all of its eighteen Articles, some degree of interpretation by authority. My second point is that it is not interfering with the Treaty, but rather a furtherance of it, to provide machinery like that to give it easier application in practice. My third proposition is that this is safeguarded by the terms of the clause, and I think I may say that more consideration could not be shown to the policy of His Majesty's Government. The only people to bring the matter before the tribunal are Governments—the Government of the Irish Free State, advising the representative of the Crown in Southern Ireland, and the Government of Northern Ireland advising the representative of the Crown there. Either of tiles?, two bodies, acting constitutionally, could advise the representative of the Crown—
"that it is expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of any question respecting the interpretation or effect of the said Agreement or any part thereof … and thereupon if His Majesty so directs "—
again upon the advice of His Majesty's Government—
"the said question shall he forthwith referred to and heard and determined"—
by the tribunal, whatever it may be.
Is there no point at which either party or both the parties to this instrument could cavil, or at which, bona fide, either portion of Ireland, or both in concurrence, might and probably would discover something in the Treaty which they desired to have interpreted something on which neither could very well give way to the other, but on which they would be perfectly ready to accept a legal determination? I should have thought that in those circumstances a special tribunal would have been a God-send to them. The matter is safeguarded because in no case can any such reference be made by irresponsible persons, but only by the Representative of the Crown within the area, and in every case His Majesty's Government have the last word, because if they so advise His Majesty he may not direct any further steps to be taken. If, on the other hand, they are satisfied that the sooner the thing is cleared up the better, the matter then goes before the tribunal for determination.
Argument will not carry the matter any further—the ground was covered earlier in the day—but I make another appeal, and it is the last I have to make, as a
818
simple lawyer, to His Majesty's Government, to recognise that, without making any reflections upon the drafting of the Articles, they would be the better for some provision for interpreting them in the case of controversy. I suggest as the tribunal the Judicial Committee, but if that is not considered to be suitable I suggest the Court of Session. To my mind any other judicial tribunal would do as well—I was almost going to say the County Court. Judge at Westminster. I cannot help thinking that if the delegates of His Majesty's Government who drafted the Treaty had had an opportunity of completing their handiwork they would have found a place for this new clause. I submit it to His Majesty's Government with some hope that they may either accept it or at any rate be able to meet me in some way.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sumner.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble and learned Lord has, by the weight of his arguments, already secured such very large concessions from the Government that I had hoped he would be content with the unprecedented success he has attained. The noble and learned Lord is really almost sensational. He now brings forward a very far-reaching Amendment for submitting these questions to the decision, first, of the Privy Council, but having been rendered a little nervous by the arguments which have been raised in these debates, he has become more catholic in his choice of the Court, because, going on in the alternative to the Court of Session in Scotland, he ended up with the County Court at Westminster. So your Lordships will have a very wide choice of judicial authority in order to decide, these very difficult questions.
I was not quite certain from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, although I think it is clear from the Amendment, that he does refer to the period after the new Constitution has been set up, because he talks of the representative of the Crown, or of the Irish Free State, or of Northern Ireland, clearly indicating that he is looking forward to the future, a few months hence, when that new Constitution will be set up. And it is quite possible that, when that is done, an arrangement will have to be made for the interpretation of the Constitution, or of questions of clashing of authority and

819
so on. That is really a matter for the Bill when it comes before us, and it is unnecessary now to be anticipating difficulties which might then arise, and probably will rise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What does the noble Viscount propose to do if the case does arise?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I shall be very glad, if I am here, to explain when the case arises, but I can hardly be expected to deal with a Bill that is not yet introduced. A further difficulty that arises is this: We have had many discussions over the Boundary Commission, their authority, and their duties. The noble and learned Lord has raised an almost infinite series of difficulties on that point, although he may not have exhausted them all. My noble and learned friend behind me dealt very effectively with that. But this Would allow that, without question, to come up again. That is to say, the question of the Boundary Commission might clearly, under a proposal of this kind, be referred to the Privy Council, and I do not think we need really roll round that long discussion again. The Amendment, further, is even more far-reaching than the noble and learned Lord indicated, because these representatives of the Crown would, I suppose, act constitutionally upon the advice of their Governments, and it would be open, therefore, to either the Northern or the Southern Government to refer any and every question almost for the consideration of the Privy Council or other authority, and there might be a stream of problems and suggestions arising, and being sent to these Courts for decision. I do not think that this method of interpreting the Articles of Agreement is at all likely to commend itself to the Government of Southern Ireland, nor, indeed, possibly to the Government of Northern Ireland either. But, apart from that, I have to oppose the Amendment really on the ground that it is out of place here; it deals with difficulties that may subsequently arise, but at present it is neither necessary nor desirable.
LORD CARSON: The noble Viscount has, as usual, very gracefully, but without much information, dealt with this subject. He throws scorn on the idea of referring anything to the Privy Council. This is
820
rather a new idea, because under the Bill of 1920, for which the Lord Chancellor was mainly responsible, notwithstanding all we have heard about how terrible it is to resort to the Privy Council, there are many similar questions that can be referred to the Privy Council. I will read what the Act says:—
"if it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient in the public interest that steps shall be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Act, or order having the effect of an Act of the Parliament of Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland, or any provision thereof, or any Bill introduced in either of those Parliaments, or any provision thereof, or any legislative proposal before the Council of Ireland, is beyond the powers of such Parliament or Council, or whether any service is an Irish service within the meaning of this Act or not, or if the Joint Exchequer Board, or any two members of the Board, in the execution of their duties under this Act, are desirous of obtaining the decision of any question of the interpretation of this Act, or other question of law, which arises in connection with those duties, the Lord Lieutenant, Secretary of State, or Board, or members thereof, as the case may be, may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs, the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
In this case all the noble Lord asks is this. I suppose that section, at all events, in regard to Northern Ireland, will remain in force after this Bill becomes law; at least, I should hope so, though probably nobody has considered the question one way or the other.
Following the analogy of what you yourselves have said in Section 51 of the Act of 1920, the noble Lord proposes, instead of having rows and disputes between North and South which would be settled by guns and bombs and the other weapons which have been so effective in Ireland, that where there are these disputes between or in relation to the Governments, the matter should be referred to and should be decided by either the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or some other tribunal. A more practical, more reasonable, or more businesslike proposal one can hardly imagine. But it is met, of course, with the non possumus attitude of the Government, and I suppose in those circumstances it will be impossible to have it made law.
LORD SUMNER: I contemplated this clause as applying not to the distant future when the Constitution Act of Southern Ireland may, at some time, be passed, but to Abe critical period With which we are dealing now—namely, the chaotic and

821
irregular interval between the present moment and the time when the Act comes to be passed. When that Act is passed, the greater part of the Articles of this instrument will become mere matters of history, because all the Articles that deal with the status and Constitution of Ireland will then be merged in the Act, which will establish the Constitution of Ireland. Therefore, the suggestion that I am contemplating the time when in my view these Articles will be no more, is a total misapprehension. I thought there was at present a representative of the Crown even in Southern Ireland, that the Provisional Government, though a Provisional Government, was still a Government of the Irish Free State. My notion was that the machinery of the Act of 1920 should be applicable to the present period, and that either in Northern Ireland, which is governed by regular law, or in Southern Ireland, which is governed irregularly without law but still has a representative of the Crown and a Government of the Irish Free State, it should be possible for them, if they were both of good will or either of good will, to obtain a determination. The noble Viscount has intimated, in the pleasantest possible manner but quite dearly, a decided negative. There I must leave the matter.
But I point out that the Government deliberately assumes the whole responsibility of leaving this instrument without any form of elucidation, or suggestion of any form of elucidation, on their part. They appear to be so enamoured of the nebulosity of the valuable instrument which they have produced that they would rather at all hazards—and everybody knows that those hazards are great—leave it unprovided with any way or clue to the meaning of those passages which are dark and mysterious, than accept a clause which is modelled on the clauses of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920—rather even, than suggest any alternative to arrive at the same result. I can only say that I greatly regret this conclusion. I would willingly have made any modification in the clause that could be suggested. As that is the decision of the Government, what is the use of carrying matters further?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord has very greatly overstated and exaggerated the point which he desires to make, and not for the first
822
time. He represents the Government as most unreasonably refusing to accept a perfectly unimportant and reasonable Amendment—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not unimportant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Unimportant so far as its effect upon the fortunes of the Bill is concerned—which they could have accepted perfectly easily had they chosen to adopt a more reasonable frame of mind. I will undertake to say that there is no one in this House who appreciates more clearly than does the noble and learned Lord that if this Amendment of his is accepted the Treaty will have disappeared. He described himself as a simple lawyer. He is a lawyer. Whoever else has any delusions as to the effect of the adoption of this Amendment the noble and learned Lord is under no delusions.
He knows perfectly well that this is a bargain entered into between two people. His Amendment would enable either the Government of Northern Ireland or the Government of Southern Ireland to take every line and every clause of this Treaty in the two or three months which are in front of us and debate it and litigate it before what he calls an impartial Court, whether it be the Court of Session or the County Court Judge at Westminster. What would be happening to the Treaty and the signatories to the Treaty while the County Court Judge at Westminster was dealing with forty or fifty, or one hundred, or five hundred, or as many other ingenious points as his mind could raise upon this Treaty, in the weeks that he in front of us? The noble and learned Lord, knowing perfectly well the effect of what he proposes, having carefully calculated to an inch its destructive potentialities, lectures the Government for doing something unreasonable in not accepting the proposal which he knows no one could, in existing circumstances, accept.
He says there was a similar provision in the Act of 1920. The Act of 1920 did not proceed upon the basis of a bargain or understanding between two parties. The noble and learned Lord proposes that whereas the representatives of Southern Ireland on the one hand have entered into a bargain or instrument with the representa-

823
tives of His Majesty's Government, upon the other hand that you are to impose upon them at the last moment though no provision to that effect was contained in the Treaty, by an Amendment in this House, the compulsion to take every line of this to be considered not by a Court impartially set up as between the two, with representatives from the contracting Parties and an impartial Chairman, but to the Court of Session in Scotland or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to both of which there is, from the Irish point of view, the same objection. The plain truth is that this is a proposal which everybody who knows the circumstances in which this instrument was arrived at knows will not be accepted, and cannot be accepted, by those with whom we have entered into this instrument. If any noble and learned Lord, or any noble Lord wants to destroy the whole instrument it can very easily be done. Your Lordships never had a better opportunity.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Viscount need not detain the House at great length when there is no intention of dividing on this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad to have that assurance. If we had had it a little time ago it would have avoided discussion. I only wanted to make it plain, whether the noble and learned Lord intends to withdraw his Amendment or not, that I do not choose to see him withdraw it with a declamatory lecture to the Government without what I conceive to be a suitable reply on my part.
LORD SUMNER: I do not complain that at the conclusion of these proceedings the noble and learned Viscount should address your Lordships and should address me in terms of some heat and I think of some exaggeration, but there is one thing I have a right not only to complain of but to deny. He has made a charge against me of deliberately placing on the Paper an Amendment which I knew and meant to be a wrecking Amendment, although I have declared that there was nothing for it but to carry out the Articles of the Treaty. There is no foundation for the charge, and in my judgment—I hope your Lordships will agree with me— it ought not to have been made. I may be wrong— God knows it is very likely—but I did not
824
put it down and did not argue it except under the impression that it was consistent with the terms of the Treaty. I still believe it to be so. I still believe that the protection by which His Majesty's Government. is able to refuse to allow the matter to proceed further is an ample protection against any abuse and is a security for assuring that it will only be used where it was not being used in the interests of one side or the other but for the purpose of obtaining an elucidation of the Treaty. I do not aspire to persuade the Lord Chancellor that my statement is correct, but I protest against being placed under any such imputation as that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:—
"The Chairman of the Boundary Commission to be appointed under Article 12 of the said Agreement shall be appointed by the British Government, with the consent of both Houses of Parliament, and no appointment shall be deemed to be a valid appointment within the meaning of Article 12 until that consent shall have been given."
The noble Marquess said: I hope my simple little Amendment will not arouse any passions. Its object is to ensure that the Chairman of the Boundary Commission shall not be appointed until his name has been submitted to and approved by Parliament. This Chairman is all-powerful. The noble Viscount, Lord Peel, in reply to Lord Carson, said he could not say what was the explanation of Article 12, as to do so would be infringing upon the rights of the Chairman. This official is so powerful that the Government itself cannot dictate to him as to whether the rectification of the boundary is to be on a small or large scale. That being so, it is all the more necessary that his qualifications should be thoroughly inquired into, and Parliament having approved of this abominable boundary Article should also take the responsibility of nominating the Chairman. It will cause no hardship to the Free State.
The Amendment only ensures that nobody who is wholly obnoxious to Ulster will be appointed. It may be that the Government may nominate some gentleman who holds, or has held, some official position in one of our Colonies, and it may be that in that Colony there is a large body of Irish electors. For this reason

825
he may not be agreeable to Ulster, and Ulster would then be in a position in Parliament to give her reasons for objecting. Parliament would then decide, and if it were thought that these objections were valid, then the nomination could be rejected. That is an example of what I mean. The Lord Chancellor, as I expected, says that we can trust the Government that nobody who was not perfectly agreeable to both sides would be appointed. I do not wish to be offensive, but we do not trust the Government in anything relating to the boundary clause, or, as my noble and learned friend says, any other clause.
We would prefer to leave it to the decision of Parliament. I hope it will be remembered that the Chairman will not be dealing with a simple matter of soulless geography. On both sides of the border are human beings who stand to lose, amongst other things, their British citizenship, who stand to lose the form of government they cherish, who stand to lose the association with people of their own religion and faith. I do not think you should leave the nomination of a gentleman holding the fate of so many Ulstermen in the hands of the Government in whom Ulster has no faith.
Amendment moved—
After Clause I, insert the said new clause,— (The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: The noble Marquess introduced this Amendment as a very simple one, but I shall show that it is far from being simple and might have far-reaching effects. The noble Marquess starts, of course, by suggesting that he does not trust the Government, and that the Government ought not, therefore, to appoint this person without the consent of Parliament. I would suggest to him that the simplest thing, if he does not trust the Government, is to turn it out, because if you do not trust t to appoint the head of a Commission, it is unfit to be a Government.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: We cannot turn it out. How can Ulster do that? We should love to.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are several objections to this Amendment. One is that it goes beyond the Treaty, where it is clearly laid down that it is by the British
826
Government that this Chairman is to be selected. What would happen if it were thrown upon the British Parliament as well? It is obvious that if this Parliament is to have a voice, the Southern Parliament would begin to make a claim, and a new difficulty would arise. What does the Amendment mean? The name would be laid on the Table in either House, and an Amendment could be moved in which some other name was substituted. That would clearly mean that you might find yourself in the position of having one name moved and accepted in this House and another in the other House. That would end in no Chairman being appointed.
In legislation there is, as we know to our cost, some way of settling a deadlock between the two Houses by the Parliament Act, after two years have elapsed, but if there were a disagreement on the name of the Chairman, there would be no way of settling the difficulty, and it would be in the power of the two Houses to wreck the whole Commission. This is not, therefore, so simple an Amendment as is suggested; it is really a wrecking Amendment. I submit that this change is contrary to the words of the Treaty itself and may have very far-reaching effects. I do urge the noble Marquess not to press it any further.
LORD CARSON: I congratulate the noble Viscount, at any rate, on the good temper with which he has dealt with the Amendment, although that is all I can say about his speech, because, as usual, he has given us no reasons for refusing the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I gave four reasons.
LORD CARSON: To use a phrase made famous in another place, we are really getting on. He says the Treaty says the British Government are to appoint the Chairman, and that it would be a breach of the Treaty, therefore, for Parliament to make the appointment. Did anyone ever hear of a more extraordinary doctrine —that the British Government and the British Parliament are not the same thing. Why, the moment the British Government cease to be the representatives of the British Parliament, they are no longer the British Government, and to draw such a distinction as that is cutting at the very root of Parliamentary Government. There is no such thing as a British Government except

827
as representatives of the Parliaments of the Empire, and really the doctrine that we have had laid down to-day is to an old man like myself absolutely a perversion of anything I have ever read or heard of as regards Parliamentary institutions in this country. Here we have the noble Viscount, who is going to he called upon to play a great part in the Government of India, telling us this evening that there is an entity called the British Government apart from, different from, and not deriving its authority from, the two Houses of Parliament. It is an extraordinary doctrine. He went on to say that therefore, because that is true, we cannot, without a breach of the Treaty, submit the name proposed by the British Government to the two Houses, which I always thought was the whole basis and foundation of the Government of the day.
Then he went on to draw a picture of what might happen if there were other names proposed. Of course there might be other names suggested, but the votes of the Houses of Parliament would settle that, and the Government maintain their power and name only by what the Houses of Parliament do settle. Supposing there was a Motion in the House condemning the Government for appointing a particular person, what would happen? Would the Government go on? This Government would, but no other Government would. The whole thing comes back to the noble Viscount saying we must trust the Government. It is the same old thing. If there is one part of the Empire which I do not think any reasonable man can ask to trust the Government, it is Ulster. Ulster has been betrayed, abused, buffeted, kicked, aspersed, and libelled, and every pledge given to her has been broken by His Majesty's Government, and yet the last words on this stage of the proceedings here to-night are: "Trust the Government." You told the people of Ulster you were finished with them in 1920. You gave them a Bill, and you have gone back upon it. The pledge was that that would never be altered so long as the Lord Chancellor was a member of any Government, and that has been broken. You told them at the Conference with Mr. de Valera that the question of the Six Counties could not be touched. You then told the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that before anything would be done the new proposals would be submitted to him, and yet, without any communication to him, in the middle of
828
the night you signed this Agreement. We do not trust the Government. We prefer that these names should be put before Parliament, and we hope the Government will accede to this.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I hope the noble Viscount will realise that in the speeches he has made to-night he has been a little less adroit than usual. A few hours ago we had a declaration from the noble Lord who sits behind me that there would be great difficulty on the part of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in making an appointment under this Bill unless the Amendment of Lord Londonderry was carried. We have now got a proposal which I pressed on the Government earlier this evening. My noble friend's Amendment was lost, but still the door seems to be open. Is the noble Viscount going to close it? With this one reservation the authorities in Ulster are willing to make the nomination without which this Commission cannot sit. The noble Viscount, in an airy way, puts forward a number of what seem to me extremely trivial objections against doing what has been done constantly before. I gave the noble Viscount earlier this evening an instance of a Bill which was far more contested in both Houses of Parliament than this Bill has been, and in which the Government did not hesitate to put the names of the Chairman and of the Commissioners before the House of Commons during the Committee stage, although they knew that every word of that Bill would be contested here.
Now the noble Viscount advances what is to my mind an absurd contention, namely, that it is quite possible that there will be differences of opinion, and if the Government, before they make this appointment were not going to consult either Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, his contention might be valid. We all know that behind the scenes, whether this Amendment is carried or not, the Government of Northern Ireland will be invited to say whether the gentleman to be appointed is agreeable to them, and similarly with the Government of Southern Ireland. I care not whether or not this name is laid before the Dail and before the Assembly of Northern Ireland, if it is necessary, but I do care—and I think Lord Dufferin has a perfect right to ask it—that it should be laid before this House and before the House of Commons. I really think that the noble Viscount is short-

829
sighted and ill-advised in not taking this opportunity of obtaining the one safeguard on which, in my opinion, Ulster has a right to rely in this great difficulty of the appointment of Chairman.
Clause 2 agreed to.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I beg to state that I shall put the Report stage down for the sitting this afternoon, and give notice that I propose to move, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, the consideration of Standing Orders with a view to their suspension in order to take the Third Reading at the conclusion of the Report stage.

CAMBRIDGE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded
  830
  On Question, whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?—
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46 Not-Contents, 48.

  CONTENTS.

  Wellington, D.

  Bangor, V.

  Gainford, L.

  Bertie of Thame, V.

  Gisborough, L.

  Dufferin and Ava, M. [Teller]

  Charlemont, V.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Linlithgow, M.

  De Vesci, V.

  Killanin, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hood, V.

  Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

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

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Mowbray, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Grey, E

  Avebury, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Bellew, L.

  Ponaonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Kilmorey, E.

  Carson, L.

  Raglan, L.

  Midleton, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Morton, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

  Sempill, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Dynevor, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Erskine, L. [Teller.]

  Sumner, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Farnham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Birkenhoad, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Onslow, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Cullen of Aahbourne, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Sutherland, D.

  Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

  Gorell, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Hylton, L.

  Peel, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (K. Erroll.)

  Ancaster, E.

  Ullswater, V.

  Lee of Fareham, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Loch, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Aberconway, L.

  Meston, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Aldonham, L.

  Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]

  Howe, E.

  Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

  Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Braye, L.

  Treowen, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Chalmers, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Clywd, L.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  with the consideration of the Bills, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 21st of February and the 8th instant discharged, and Bill committed.

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BOLTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK (CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
TRAFFORD PARK BILL. [H.L.]
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection that Lord Trevor be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Drogheda; read, and agreed to.

RUGBY SCHOOL BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Thursday, March 30.
JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for this day) put off till to-morrow.
LAW OF PROPERTY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off to Tuesday next.
ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Tuesday next) put off to Wednesday next.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
To be read 2ª to-morrow (the Earl of Onslow).
House adjourned at a quarter past twelve o'clock, midnight.