Sitting of 28 November 1922

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

MEMBERS SWORN.
The following Members took the Oath and signed the Roll:—
Major Douglas Clifton Brown, County of Northumberland (Hexham Division).
John Leng Sturrock, esquire, Montrose District of Burghs.
Right Hon. George Henry Roberts, Borough of Norwich.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDER 11.—(Application to Owners, etc., on or before 15th December.)
  On or before the Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the Application for a Bill for power to take any Lands, or Houses compulsorily or for compulsory user of the same, or for an extension of the time granted by any former Act TOT that purpose, or to impose an improvement charge on any Lands or Houses, or to render any Lands or Houses liable to the imposition of an improvement charge, application in writing shall be made to the Owners or reputed Owners, Lessees or reputed Lessees, and Occupiers of all such Lands and Houses, inquiring whether they assent, dissent, or are neuter in respect of such application; and in cases of Bills included in the second class, such application shall be, as nearly as may be, in the form set forth in the Appendix marked (A).
  Amendments made:
  Leave out the words "application in writing shall be made," and insert instead thereof the words "notice in writing of the application shall be given."
  Leave out the words
  "inquiring whether they assent, dissent, or are neuter in respect of such application; and in cases of Bills included in the second class, such application."

  STANDING ORDER 12.—(Notice to frontagers in case of tramways.)
  Ordered, "That the Standing Order be repealed."

  STANDING ORDER 35.—(Deposit of Estimates, etc., in Private Bill Office.)
  All Estimates and Declarations, and Lists of Owners, Lessees and Occupiers, which are required by the Standing Orders of this House, shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office on or before the 31st day of December.
  Amendment made:
  Leave out the words "and lists of owners, lessees and occupiers."

  STANDING ORDER 35.—(Deposit of Estimates, etc., in Private Bill Office.)

    APPENDIX (A).
    [FORM referred to in Pages 97 and 135.]
    No… …
    As we are required to report to Parliament whether you assent to or dissent from the proposed Undertaking, or whether you are neuter in respect thereto, you will oblige us by writing your Answer of Assent, Dissent, or Neutrality in the Form left here with, and returning the same to us with your signature on or before the day of next; and if there should be any error or misdescription in the annexed Schedule, we shall feel obliged by your informing us thereof, at your earliest convenience, that we may correct the same without delay.
    Amendment made:
    Leave out the words
    "As we are required to report to Parliament whether you assent to or dissent from the proposed undertaking, or whether you are neuter in respect thereto, you will oblige us by writing your Answer of Assent, Dissent, or Neutrality in the Form left herewith, and returning the same to us with your signature on or before the day of next: and"— [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NEW WRIT.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Portsmouth (South Division) in the room of Major Herbert Robin Cayzer, who since his election for the said Borough hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burn-ham in the County of Buckingham."—[Colonel Gibbs.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I ask if this Motion is debatable, because, if so, I should like to address an observation to you?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the time has now come when something should be done about this practice of asking the electors to elect a Member of this House, and, in order to suit the convenience of the Government, for that Member to apply for an office of profit under the Crown in order, as we all know, to vacate his seat to make way for someone else. Both parties are to blame for this procedure, my own party and the party of hon. Members opposite, and, no doubt, my hon. Friends above the Gangway, when they form a Government, willdo the same thing.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: You do not speak for the Labour party.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The conditions to-day are different. We now have a much greater electorate, and it is well known that the constituencies resent this treatment. It is possible that nothing can be done at this moment, but I feel that the time has come when this question should be examined. I submit to you that it is against the Constitution of this country, and it is time to make a change.
Question put, and agreed to.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    BURMA LEGISLATION (ELECTORS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether ho can yet state the total number of electors, male and female, for the Province of Burma Legislature; and when the election for this Legislature is to take place?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The date fixed for the elections in Burma was 21st November, and it is expected that the results, will be known by 15th December. I have not yet received figures of the actual number of persons enrolled as electors.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Was there practised at these elections any non-co-operation?
    Earl WINTERTON: There is no reason to suppose that the elections are not being held under normal conditions.

    NATIVE PRINCES (PROTECTION BILL).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the action of the Viceroy, in overruling the Indian Assembly in the matter of the Bill for the protection of native princes, will be brought before this House by laying Papers upon the Table: and, if so, will this House have an opportunity to record its opinion on the subject?
    Earl WINTERTON: The text of the Indian States (Protection against Disaffection) Act, together with full explanatory papers, was laid before both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of the Statute on the first available opportunity last week, and the papers were distributed on Saturday. The Statute requires that the further action required to give validity to the Act shall not be taken until eight days, on which both Houses have sat, have expired. It is open to any hon. Member to table a Motion recommending that His Majesty in Council should be advised to withhold His assent to the Act.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to give notice that I will table a Motion that His Majesty be advised not to sanction this Bill.

    ARMY OFFICERS(WAR SERVICE).
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what decision ha6 been come to on the question of the application to the Indian Army of the Boyal Warrant of August, 1920, regarding the treatment of officers retained beyond their date of retirement owing to the emergency created by the War?
    Earl WINTERTON: The final recommendations of the Government of India on this question have recently been received and are now being considered.
    Sir C. YATE: When can I expect a reply?
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can receive a reply as soon as the matter has been considered.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Has not this been under consideration for over two years?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think so. I should require to have notice of the actual time during which it has been under consideration, but I do not think it is anything like two years.

    ELECTORAL RULES.
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the opportunity will be taken of the appointment of a Joint Committee in India to examine and report on the electoral rules for the Indian Legislature and Provincial Councils to bring in a rule for the deposit of a certain amount by each candidate for election to be forfeited if the candidate fails to get the required proportion of votes, in the same manner as in elections in the United Kingdom?
    Earl WINTERTON: The question is under consideration in connection with the Committee's Report, on which final decisions have not yet been taken.

    POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).
    Sir C. YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many police officers in India of more than 10 years' service have applied to retire on proportionate pensions up to date; and whether this retirement of these officers is due, as stated in the Indian Press, to the unbridled race hatred that the Government of India have permitted Indian politicians to preach throughout the country, or to what?
    Earl WINTERTON: Of the 72 police officers from whom the Secretary of State has received applications for permission to retire on proportionate pension, all but 9 have over 10 years' total service. As officers who apply to retire prematurely are not required to give any other reason for their application than the change in the conditions of their service brought about by the Act of 1919, any answer I could give to the second part of the question would merely be an expression of opinion.
    Sir C. YATE: Can the Noble Lord say whether any steps are being taken to prevent the loss of so many experienced officers to the Indian Police Service?
    Earl WINTERTON: The officers to whom the question has reference, who
    476
    have retired, have accepted the opportunity which was open to them to retire under proportionate pensions under the Act. It would be contrary to the pledge given by the Secretary of State to endeavour to induce those who have availed themselves of the opportunity to re-consider their decision.
    Sir C. YATE: Will any steps be taken to ameliorate the conditions under which police officers are serving in India and thus to induce those officers to remain in the Service?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask you, Sir, to ask the Noble Lord who is answering the questions to speak a little louder, because we do not hear what he says.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    DESERTERS.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of men returned as missing during the War who are, rightly or wrongly, officially recorded as deserters?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR(Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): No men returned as "missing" during the War were returned also as "deserters"; the two categories are mutually exclusive. Naturally some deserters—how many I am not in a position to say—have not since been heard of and are missing in that sense, but I have no reason to suppose that men returned as deserters were wrongly so returned, since no man is ever presumed to be guilty of the serious crime of desertion without evidence to that effect. A court of inquiry is held, the witnesses are examined on oath, and the onus of proof rests with the military authorities.
    Mr. W. THORNE: What will happen to a man assuming he has been reported missing and is found to be a deserter and is caught? What will be his doom?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: He is brought before a court and is liable to the penalty of imprisonment.
    Mr. THORNE: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is time to give a free pardon to all these men?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not think it would be possible to maintain discipline in the Army if desertion was not subject to punishment.
    Mr. THORNE: The question only relates to cases of desertion during the War.
    Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Have any soldiers recently serving in Ireland been reported as deserters?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No soldier is ever presumed a deserter until his case has been examined before a court of inquiry, and I cannot believe that officers who sit on such courts would bring in such a serious charge against a soldier without proper evidence.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we have at least ten cases in South Wales where men have been described as deserters and the documents were missing from the War Office?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: If hon. Members will give me evidence of such cases, I will promise they shall have sympathetic consideration.

    VOCATIONAL TRAINING SCHOOLS.
    Mr. HANCOCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War where the schools for vocational braining of soldiers are situated; whether the results of conducting these schools are satisfactory to his Department; and whether there is any idea of closing them?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The training centres in question are at Hounslow and Catterick. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but the permanent retention of the centres must naturally depend on whether funds can be made available for the purpose. This question is still under consideration.

    ARMY OF OCCUPATION, GERMANY.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what number of men are at present in the British Army of Occupation in Germany; and what has been the total cost of this Army of Occupation since the Armistice?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The strength of the British Army of Occupation in Germany on 1st November, 1922, was 552 officers, 8,138 other ranks, and the total cost of the force(exclusive of
    478
    accommodation and miscellaneous services which are provided free), from the Armistice to 31st July, 1922, was £54,658,127. The hon. Member will realise that the Army of Occupation was at first much larger than it is at present.
    Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House what proportion of that amount has been paid by the Germans?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I should like notice of that question.

    WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the War Office satisfies itself that persons and firms are financially solvent before contracts to buy or to sell are entrusted to them?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): Yes, the War Office takes such steps as are necessary to ascertain the general standing and credit of its contractors before placing contracts with them.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Why were not the same precautions taken with Messrs. McGrigor before the War Office continued to allow them to call themselves Army agents?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I do not think the two cases are quite analogous. It is not a question primarily of public money.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Why were these agents allowed to call themselves Army agents, if they were not Army agents?

    McGRIGOR'S BANK FAILURE.
    Mr. DOYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps the War Office takes to assure itself of the soundness of the Army agents with whom it deals; whether in the case of Sir Charles R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company any such steps were taken; and what measures it proposes to adopt in order to indemnify those ex-officers who, in the belief that the Government's dealings with this firm were a guarantee of its solvency, have, through its failure, lost both Army gratuities and private savings?
    Lieut,-Colonel CROFTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what

    479
    steps it-is proposed to take to compensate officers who are affected by the failure of Messrs. Sir C. E. McGrigor and Company, official Army agents?
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps the War Office proposes to take in the case of the McGrigor bank failure, more especially in regard to payments made to the credit of officers after the institution was known by the War Office to be insolvent?
    Sir J. REMNANTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what action the Government propose to take in order to indemnify those Army officers and their dependants who have incurred losses through the failure of the Government agents, Sir C. R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company;
    (2) whether any payments were paid on behalf of the War Office into Sir C. R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company, after the 6th October last, when it is reported notice was given to the Treasury that the position of this company was unsound?
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what action is being taken to give assistance to officers and their dependants who are in financial difficulties by reason of the failure of the Army agents, Sir Charles R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company; whether he is aware that it has not been the practice for this bank to publish duly audited balance sheets; and what steps were taken by the finance branch of the War Office to satisfy themselves of the solvency of these Army agents?
    Lieut-Colonel GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on the 24th inst. to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Mr. A. Herbert). With regard to Questions Nos. 10 and 14, payment of Army non-effective pay and of officers' widows pensions is made by the Paymaster-General and not by the War Office, and I understand that on 13th October last the Paymaster-General made payments amounting to £13,340, in respect of sums due to certain persons who had given powers of attorney to Messrs. McGrigor in that behalf. I do not think that the fact that these persons had for their own purposes made the private arrangements in
    480
    question with Messrs. McGrigor entitles them to exceptional treatment at the expense of public funds. As I have stated, the War Office were in no way responsible for the stability of this firm as bankers. The War Office were only legally responsible for the obligations of Messrs. McGrigor as Army agents and this agency work ended with the payment of public money either to the officers concerned personally or into their banking accounts whether at McGrigors' or elsewhere. With regard to Question No. 17, I am aware that this bank in common with others of undoubted stability had not made it a practice to publish balance sheets.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Arising out of Question 14, was there any reason for the payment of this £13,000 after the War Office had had notice that the position of McGrigor and Co. was unsound; and who was responsible for that payment?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I answered the hon. and gallant Member, that that payment was made by the Paymaster-General, who is not under the War Office. I would point out that, if the War Office had in the first instance taken action on the notice which Sir William McGrigor gave, that he was in difficulty, they would have done away with all possibility of his retrieving the position, and would have immediately caused suspension of payment. It was greatly to the interests of the customers of the bank that the delay took place, as it enabled Sir William McGrigor to raise £100,000. which went to the benefit of the sufferers and made it possible to issue an early dividend.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is it the practice of the War Office to pay in sums of money due to officers to an institution which has declared itself insolvent?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The War Office did not pay any money to McGrigor's after the first notice of their difficulties was received. They did not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, declare themselves insolvent. They did not put the details of their position before the War Office. They only said that they were in difficulties.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the last part of my question? If there was no duly

    481
    audited balance-sheet, will he inform the House what steps were taken by the finance branch of the War Office to satisfy themselves of the solvency of these army agents?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No special steps were taken. I would remind the hon. Member that several inquiries have been held from time to time as to the system of army agents, and it has been the deliberate policy of the War Office, as a result of these inquiries, neither to control nor in any way interfere with the banking business of these army agents. When the Supplementary Estimates which will be laid on this subject are discussed, it will be possible to give a fuller answer than is possible in question and answer across the floor of the House.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is it not very natural that these officers should have authorised a recognised banking firm to receive money on their behalf, being led to that belief by the practice of the War Office and the Paymaster-General, and is it not a very hard thing that these men having followed the directions of the War Office should now be mulcted in a loss of £13,000?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It is just because there is a hard case that the Government are going to recommend the House to make a grant. It is not the case that there was any direction to any officer to bank with Messrs. McGrigor. They were not even compelled to draw their pay through Messrs. McGrigor. They could get a cheque through the Command Paymaster. As a matter, of fact, more than one-fourth of the officers who were paid through Messrs. Holt and Messrs. Cox in the War instructed those agents to pay money as it became due to them into other banks. So that it was clearly understood by officers that there was no obligation, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The House will have an opportunity to debate the whole matter later.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    ENIIELD FACTORY (DISCHARGES).
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether 40 dis-
    482
    abled soldiers were discharged from the Government Small Arms Factory, Enfield, owing to the resumption of full time and to their inability to follow full-time employment through wounds and disease received during the War; whether the Chief Inspector issued a notice to the effect that dismissals would affect men in Category IV, that is, disabled soldiers; and whether he can state where and in what position these men are now?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: Yes, Sir. Forty disabled soldiers have recently been discharged from the Department of the Chief Inspector of Small Arms, after the notice indicated in the question had been given. This action was due not to the inability of the men to follow full-time employment, but to the necessity of reducing staff consequent on the reversion to the normal system of full-time work. That system was reverted to after very full consideration, and in the general interest of the Departments concerned and of the public service. Had the disabled men not been discharged, it would have been necessary to discharge pre-War employés, a course which would have been neither equitable nor consistent with the essential requirements of economy and efficiency.

    MENTAL CASES.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that 700 mentally afflicted ex-service men have recently been transferred from the care of the Ministry of Pensions to the Poor Law guardians and are now pauper lunatics; whether he will take steps to re-transfer these men to the Ministry of Pensions; and, if not, will he arrange for their photographs to be published in the Press so that their relatives can have them under care and observation?
    Lieut.-Colonel NALLasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he is taking to end the system whereby a number of ex-service men in asylums are classified as paupers?
    Mr. COLLISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now give any further information with regard to the reclassification of ex-service men in lunatic asylums?
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Pensions if any, and what,

    483
    regulations have been made for the transfer to asylums as pauper lunatics of men who have lost their reason in consequence of injuries sustained in the late War; and whether, if any regulations for such transfers are in contemplation, he will give an undertaking that men so injured shall be treated as State pensioners and not as paupers, and that no burden for their maintenance shall be placed on local ratepayers?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have been asked to reply. The main principle of the Royal Pensions Warrants, as approved by Parliament, is that compensation shall be granted to disabled ex-service men only if the disability claimed, mental or other, is found to be due to or worsened by service. Exceptional provision of a temporary and compassionate nature was made under which my Department gave medical treatment for the period of the War and one year after to men discharged with disabilities which were in no way due to or even worsened by service. A comparatively small number of insane ex-service men in public asylums were of this class. There has been no new decision and no new regulation in this matter. The Ministry-has simply carried out the Warrant and principles laid down by Parliament.
    The Government do not see their way, in view of the grave question of general principle involved, to alter the Royal Warrants in the sense suggested.
    In all these cases there has been a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against the decision that the disability was not connected with service, and this right has in many cases been exercised by the relatives, who, some months ago, were specially informed of the position and invited to make an appeal if this had not already been done. Moreover, I have had all the cases specially reviewed in order to make sure that no injustice should be done.
    The position, as regards the ex-service officers and men, numbering more than 6,000, whose insanity has been recognised as due to or worsened by service is not in any way affected. They remain on the footing of private patients, and are under the special care of the Ministry.
    Mr. HAYDAY: The Minister says "a comparatively small number," and in my
    484
    question I mention the figure of 700. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is correct or not, and does he not think it stands to the eternal discredit of the nation that men who served and are suffering such affliction should be termed "pauper lunatics"?
    Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what is going on with regard to these men in lunatic asylums? Is he aware that medical boards certified men as having an hereditary taint of insanity before they went to the War, and so sent them to lunatic asylums, when that insanity was brought on through "T.B." or grievous injuries received during service?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) that the figure 700 is not accurate. All these cases are being examined, and that figure cannot be accepted; it will be very much smaller. I have examined some of these cases, and have just seen a case of a man who had been for a very long period in an asylum before he was enlisted. The mistake was found out almost at once, and it is ridiculous to say that his lunacy is clue to the War.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many protests he has received from boards of guardians who know these casus, and whether these men under discussion were passed as fit for service, and if they were so passed, ought they not to be entitled to be fit for pension?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask my right hon. Friend, although this question has been settled in the sense which he has described by two Governments, whether His Majesty's present advisers will not take into consideration the small number of people whose cases are concerned, and the consequent small expense to the public, and the very grave and widespread feeling of unrest that men who, rightly or wrongly, were accepted for service should now be in pauper lunatic asylum?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in regard to the question by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), whether any of these men remain unidentified?
    Major TRYON: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that question. None of these men are unidentified, and therefore the publication of their photographs would serve no useful purpose? To publish them would only cause needless anxiety and pain to their relatives. With reference to the question by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), it is not a large sum which is involved, but if this country is going to be involved in the principle that disablement of any kind, or illness of any kind, not due to the War, is to be brought within the power of the Pensions Ministry, mere is hardly any limit to the responsibility which will be shouldered.
    HON.MEMBERS: Why not?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Fit for service!
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is it the fact that any of these cases have been treated as cases not attributable to or aggravated by service, merely on evidence as to the existence of a hereditary taint in a man's relatives, apart from any actual evidence that such taint manifested itself before the War in actual mental defect?
    Major TRYON: The very valuable point raised by the Noble Lord's question will, of course, be taken into account la the review which is going forward. I have myself examined some of these cases, and they have been clear cases of men who had been for a long period certified as insane and who, having been well at the moment, were enlisted by mistake, and then a few days—
    Mr. J. JONES: You dirty dogs!
    HON. MEMBERS: Order, order! Turn him out.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow observations of that kind.
    Mr. J. JONES(to hon. Members): I don't care a damn for you.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw from the House.
    Mr. J. JONES: I will withdraw. I am glad to do so. You are a dirty lot of dogs, slobbering over dead soldiers, and starving the living.
    The hon. Member for Silvertown then withdrew.

    PRESENT POSITION.
    Captain W. BENNasked the Prime Minister what opportunity will occur during the present Session for a discussion on the position of ex-service men and their dependants?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I fear there will be no opportunity for a discussion on this subject, unless it is raised in the course of the Debate on the Address.
    Captain BENN: In view of the fact that an opportunity may not arise on the Address, will not the Leader of the House make an opportunity, owing to the grave importance of the subject?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This Session is called, as my hon. and gallant Friend well knows, for a specific purpose, and I should not agree to do anything which would detain the House longer than was absolutely necessary.
    Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit the right of a new Parliament to have an opportunity of discussing a matter of such great importance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I admit the right of the majority of the. House of Commons to decide any question.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one union alone in South Wales there are 3,000 ex-service men being relieved by the-board of guardians?

    LOCOMOTIVE CONSTRUCTION, WOOLWICH AND ELSWICK.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give any details as to the financial results of the attempt to build locomotives in the State-owned works at Woolwich; and whether he has any comparative data as to the simultaneous attempt to build locomotives under private enterprise at the Elswick works?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: Fifty locomotives have been completed at Woolwich at an average cost of £15,600; work on a further fifty has been suspended at a stage about 30 per cent, short of completion. The locomotives have been handed

    487
    over to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, but so far as I am aware none have yet been sold, and I am therefore not yet in a position to indicate the loss on the transaction. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the great railway companies of the country have been approached with a view to taking over these locomotives?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I believe everybody has been approached.
    Mr. HANNON rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had numerous supplementaries, and there are many questions on the Order Paper.

    CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken to revise the constitution of Ceylon, as promised; and will he scrutinise the scheme, when drafted, so as to eliminate the communal system of representation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Certain proposals discussed in the Legislative Council of Ceylon were submitted some time ago to the late Secretary of State by the Governor, and are now under consideration. Representations have been received urging the continuance of communal representation from Burgher, Tamil, Mahommedan, Indian and European Members of the Legislative Council, and owing to the existence of this system in the past in Ceylon and its continuance in India, I doubt whether it will be practicable to abolish the system for some time to come. It must be borne in mind that in the discussion in the Legislative Council members were unanimously in favour of the retention of the non-territorial electorates and the representation of minorities provided for in the present constitution.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the hon. Member's known views on the question of communal representation, will he see that such representation is reduced to
    488
    a minimum, and will he reconsider from that point of view the constitution that it is proposed to give Ceylon?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not had time to go into that matter, and I shall be very happy to receive representation on the point.

  IRAQ.

    AIRCRAFT ACTION.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
    20. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to statements in the Press to the effect that the usual method of enforcing the collection of taxes in Mesopotamia is by air raids and the dropping of bombs on the native villages and encampments; whether any notice is given before such raids in order that women and children may be placed in safety; how many such raids have been undertaken during the present year; and what are the total casualties inflicted by such raids during the present year to date?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The first part of the question was answered yesterday, but I would like an answer to the other two parts.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I made a full statement on this subject yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley). As I then explained, the Secretary of State is in communication with the High Commissioner and further details are expected.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take it that there is no record in the War Office or in the Colonial Office of the number of raids that have actually taken place?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no such record that I have been able to obtain.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it necessary to keep supervision over these matters of reprisals?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have already-asked for statistics.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: In determining policy in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the nerve disease and distress to the whole population are often very much greater from a dread of air raids than the injury to life and limb, and will he look into this as—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I explained at the end of my answer yesterday, the whole policy will be reviewed by the Government.

    RESIDENCY (BAGDAD).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated cost of the new residency for the High Commissioner in Bagdad?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The total cost is approximately £167,000, inclusive of about £60,000 for the site. In addition to this a sum of £15,000 was provided in the Middle Eastern Services Vote for the current financial year for the completion of certain outbuildings and quarters for certain officials of the High Commissioner's staff and £8,000 for repairs and maintenance of existing buildings and offices. A saving on this year's provision is anticipated. The commitment was authorised in 1919. It should be explained that the Residency besides being the official residence of the High Commissioner himself contains office accommodation for the whole of his staff.
    Captain W. BENN: Is this pursuing the policy of cutting down anywhere we can which was announced last week?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I have explained, this commitment was entered into in 1919, and the present Government are in no way responsible for it.

    FIJI (INDIAN HOSPITAL).
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the retrenchments proposed by the Government in Fiji include the closing wholly or in part of the Indian hospital at Suva, and the dismissal of Dr. Staley, whose work during the past two years for the Indian women
    490
    and children in the Fijian group of islands has been repeatedly and publicly Spronounced to be of the highest value to the whole community?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Dr.Staley was engaged by the Government of Fiji for two years only and the term of her temporary appointment will expire shortly, Retrenchments in medical and other, establishments in Fiji are urgently necessary for financial reasons, and although the final recommendations have not yet been received, the Secretary of State would not be justified in urging the continuance of any particular appointment against the wishes of the Colonial Government.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be a waste instead of an economy to send Dr. Staley away?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should be very glad to receive further evidence on that point, but the situation, even with the suggested economies, is that the expenditure at Fiji is £420,000 and the revenue is only £360,000, and we have got to cut down everywhere we can.

    IBN SAUD (SUBSIDY).
    Lieut.-CommanderKENWORTHY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what subsidies are now being paid to Ibn Saud and to other Arab potentates, respectively, including the Sheruf of Mecca and King Hussein; and whether it is intended to continue these payments?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The only subsidy now paid is that of £5,000 a month to Ibn Saud. There is no present intention of discontinuing this payment. No subsidy is being paid to King Hussein, who is also Grand Sheruf of Mecca.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there no means of altering the policy so as to save this payment of £5,000 to this independent potentate?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As stated in the reply to the question, subsidies have already been abolished in the case of all the other Arab potentates, which is a cutting-down. This is a rather large question of policy, which must be reviewed before we can suddenly discontinue the present arrangement.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is this the only potentate who refuses to keep quiet without a subsidy?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no reason to suppose that that statement is in the least accurate.

    SUICIDES.
    Mr. RHYSDAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of suicides which have occurred in England, Scotland, and Wales for each year from 1913 up to date: and, if possible, an analysis of the nature of the verdicts?

    NUMBER of Inquests in England and in Wales in which a Verdict of Suicide was returned during the Years 1913 to 1921, distinguishing cases of Felo de se.

    (From the Annual Volumes of Criminal Statistics.)

    Year.

    England.

    Wales.

    Felo de se.

    Other Suicides.

    Total.

    Felo de se.

    Other Suicides.

    Total.

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    85

    3,254

    3,339

    4

    132

    136

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    …

    103

    3,460

    3.563

    4

    130

    134

    1915

    …

    …

    …

    Particulars not available.

    1916

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1917

    …

    …

    …

    …

    1918

    …

    …

    …

    …

    85

    2,544

    2,629

    3

    110

    113

    1919

    …

    …

    …

    …

    135

    2,991

    3,126

    6

    118

    124

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    …

    136

    3,103

    3,239

    1

    133

    134

    1921

    …

    …

    …

    …

    125

    3,400

    3,525

    5

    185

    190

    Mr. DAVIES: Will the answer include the number of deaths from starvation?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sending all I can supply. I cannot answer offhand whether cases of starvation are included or not.

  POLICE FORCE.

    PEE-WAR PENSIONERS.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that men retired from the police force and pensioned off prior to the War at a comparatively low rate, rejoined the police forces during the late War and served several years, and have received no pension or allowance after retirement in respect of the War period service; and, if so, will
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): Particulars were not collected for the years 1915, 1916, and 1917, but as regards the other years I am sending to the hon. Member, and will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table giving the figures for England and Wales and distinguishing the verdicts of felo de se from the other verdicts. No further analysis of the verdicts is possible, but an analysis of the methods of suicides will be found in the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General. Inquiries as to suicides in Scotland should be addressed to the representative of the Scottish Office.
    Following is the table promised:
    he take into consideration such cases with a view of granting a pension to cover the additional service rendered by such men, and/or increase the pre-War pension commensurate with the increased cost of living?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware that numerous pensioners obtained temporary re-engagements in the police; while so serving they continued to draw their pensions in addition to their pay as temporary constables, and in such cases there is no power to increase the pensions except in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Is it not a fact that the pay of these men who rejoined, while they were serving during the War, did not equal the pay of other men who were

    493
    serving in the force? Can the right hon. Gentleman sec his way to look into this whole question to see if he cannot remedy this very obvious injustice?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not mind looking into the question, but my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot answer the first part of his supplementary question, as I have been only a very short time in my present office.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS POLICE (ALLOWANCES).
    Sir J. REMNANTasked the Home Secretary if any allowances are made to the police attached for duty to this House when it sits beyond 11 o'clock for their food?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Police performing duty in the Palace of Westminster at present receive a special duty allowance of 1s. a day, whether the House sits late or not. This allowance, which is not provided for in the Police Regulations, is to be discontinued as from 1st January next, and the men concerned will be eligible for the grant of refreshment and other allowances on the same conditions as other members of the force.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question whether the petty withdrawal from these men of a shilling for extra work has received sanction before it comes into effect?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly look into the matter, but the decision had been given before I entered into my present office.
    Sir J. REMNANT: Can this money be withdrawn without the Home Secretary's approval?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman Las just said that it was done before he took his present position. The hon. Member can put down a question.

    WOMEN POLICE.
    Mrs. WINTRINGHAMasked the Home Secretary whether, in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise to consider carefully the re-establishment of women, police, he is now prepared to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I stated yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherham, I am con-
    494
    sidering this matter, but am not yet in a position to make a statement.

    DRUG TRAFFIC.
    Mr. LOUGHERasked the Home Secretary whether, in respect of recent cases of British women employed by Chinese resident in this country, the police should be accorded wider powers for periodic inspection of premises with the object of enabling the police force to exercise closer scrutiny in the matter of drug importation and its illicit usage amongst residents in seaport towns particularly?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question of giving the police increased powers of inspection in cases where there is ground for suspecting a breach of the law is under consideration in connection with the Bill for the amendment of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is not the presence of Chinese seamen in British ships largely responsible for the importation of drugs? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade on this matter?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be glad to consult my right hon. Friend, but I cannot answer in reference to shipping matters.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    Mr. EDWARDSasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to anend the present Workmen's Compensation Act, and, if so, when?
    Mr. JOHN GUESTasked the Home Secretary (1) whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amended Workmen's Compensation Act on the lines of the Holman Gregory Report at an early date;
    (2) if he is aware that over 60 per cent, of the premiums paid to insure against workmen's compensation and employers' liability are being absorbed by the insurance and indemnity companies for profits, reserves, and working expenses, while at the same time men suffering from accidents are, owing to the amount of compensation allowed by the Act, and also to the fact that insurance companies are

    495
    allowed to withhold pay as they deem desirable, being forced to make application for relief to the Poor Law guardians; and, if so, what steps he intends to take to ensure that an adequate provision shall be made for persons entitled to compensation for accident?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The question of legislation for the purpose of amending the Workmen's Compensation Act will be carefully considered by the Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present. I am aware of the fact to which the hon. Member calls attention, that a large proportion of the promiums paid by employers goes in expenses, and that is a point which will receive full consideration. Insurance companies have no power, as suggested in his question, to withhold compensation payments as they deem desirable.
    Mr. SEXTON: When considering the question of compensation for injury will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of codifying all the Acts dealing with injuries to workmen and to compensation for them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am ready to consider that suggestion.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present method of payment falls at the end of the year? What does he propose to do?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It will be continued.

    ALIENS RESTRICTION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1919.
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Section 10 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, 9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 92, which deals with the admission of former enemy aliens, expires next month; and if it is proposed to continue this Section of the Act or to allow it to lapse?
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Aliens Restriction Act is due to lapse on the 23rd December next; and whether the Government will take steps to continue the Act while the present conditions of unemployment continue?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to a question by
    496
    the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been come to with regard to the substitution for the present legal speed limit for motor vehicles of more drastic penalties in cases of dangerous or neglectful driving, together with the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle only to such persons who can show reasonable skill and physical fitness?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to reply. Both the points referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are dealt with in the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Regulation of Road Vehicles, issued in March last—see paragraphs 112–119, 134–140, and 213–214. The Report is still under consideration.
    Colonel NEWMAN: When will the Government tell us what is going to happen? When will a decision be reached?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say. It is a very difficult subject, and it may be some months before the final Report.

    POTATOES(FREIGHT CHARGES).
    Mr. SKELTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that a schedule of temporary freights reducing traffic charges on the carriage of potatoes on the lines between Scotland and England by from 20 per cent, to 40 per cent, was in force from November, 1921, to June, 1922, inclusive; that no similar schedule has been introduced this season; and whether he will use his best endeavours to have this done?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that temporary rates, approximately 20 per cent, to 40 per cent, below the ordinary rates, were in operation for potato traffic from Scotland to England during last eeason, and I am informed that similar temporary rates will be given for this traffic from the 1st December, 1922, until the 31st May. 1923.

    SCOTTISH RAILWAYS (CONTROL).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if 'he has received protests against the transfer of control of the Scottish railway systems from Scotland to London, involved in the provisions of the Railway Act, 1921; if, as one result of this transfer of control, the present basis of return fares, which are less than twice the single fare, are in future to be standardised upon the more costly English basis; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of the Scottish people?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, provides that each amalgamated company shall, as from the appointed day, levy the standard charges (including fares) settled by the Rates Tribunal. Until the appointed day the companies may make the charges in existence on the 15th August, 1921, but are at liberty to make such reductions as they think fit, and it is understood that, in making a general reduction in ordinary fares on 1st January next, they intend to make a reservation and, as a general rule, to adopt a standard basis of double the single fare for the return journey. Sections 60 and 76 of the Act give the Rates Tribunal power to hear applications from interested parties for reduction of charges made by the companies, and the Tribunal may make such modification as it may deem just. The Minister has no power to intervene.

    MOTOR-CAR HIRE, GENERAL ELECTION.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether a circular was issued by his Department to jobmasters and proprietors of garages on the question of the hire of cars for the General Election; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of the circular?
    Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

    ROYAL PARKS (REGULATIONS).
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Home Secretary whether there are certain by-
    498
    laws in force in Hyde Park and other Royal parks for the regulation of the conduct of persons using the same which are different from the requirements of the ordinary law and are largely unknown to the public; and whether steps will be taken to revise the said by-laws, so that they may be brought into consonance with the ordinary law with which the public are familiar?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Regulations under the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, in so far as they deal with matters of importance relating to the behaviour of users of the parks, differ but little in effect from the provisions of the ordinary law. The Regulations are prominently displayed at every entrance to the parks, and I have no reason to think that the requirements they impose are less well known to the public than are the similar requirements of the ordinary law.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the House that there is any provision in the ordinary law of the land that a person is forbidden to speak to another person in a public place without a formal introduction?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not suggest to the House anything more than is contained in my answer.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied recent decisions and the opinion of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions on a recent ease, and does he not think it desirable that the by-laws should be revised and the police receive fresh instructions?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is the question on the Paper.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the law equal as between menand women?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the Home Secretary realise that thousands of women are arrested on the evidence of the police without a word being said, but that when one man is arrested the whole nation is roused?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware that a great many difficulties beset this question, and I do not think that this is a very convenient time to debate it. I am considering the matter.

  POST OFFICE.

    TEMPORARY SORTERS.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Postmaster-General how many temporary postal sorters engaged during the War have been displaced; how many of such were physically unfit for war service; whether those who were employed for long periods and who proved efficient at their work, and yet dispensed with, will be given an opportunity to fill vacancies; and whether he is aware that the bulk of these men are now unemployed?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): About 3,000 temporary male sorters engaged during the War have been displaced. It is probable that the bulk of these men were over age or not physically fit for war service. As far as possible those who had served with the Forces and were eligible have been offered appointments as postman or porter; moreover, a special competition was held in September, 1921, among the temporary sorters, including the non-service men, and the first 200 candidates were offered appointment as sorters. In view of the claims of boy messengers, postmen and other grades in the Post Office, I regret that I am unable to offer any more permanent posts to the temporary sorters.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it a good example to private employers to throw so many hundreds of men on the labour market at a time like the present?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this does not increase the total bulk of unemployment? It is really a question of which men shall be taken into the Post Office. If I retained temporary sorters, I would throw others out of employment.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men were employed for seven years, that they have learned this particular job and now are not fit for other occupation?

    TELEPHONES, RURAL AREAS.
    Mr. MILLARasked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the question of providing a wide extension of the tele-
    500
    phone system in rural areas at reasonable rates to meet the requirements of the agricultural and other rural industries?
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the very favourable terms on which new exchanges are now opened in rural areas, the very low tariff for rural party lines and the rapid growth in the number of rural call offices and telephone subscibers, I do not consider that there is any case for an enquiry at present.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive further representations on the subject from the various interests concerned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly.
    Mr. FOOTasked the Postmaster General what progress has been made as to the installation of rural telephones within the past six months?
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Since May last about 200 new exchanges in rural areas have been authorised. In the same period 437 call offices have been opened at provincial post offices, chiefly in rural districts, and about 200 more have been authorised and are awaiting completion. The number of rural party line telephones in use has increased by 1,850 since the 1st May.

    IMPERIAL PKNNY POSTAGE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether he is able to give an approximate date for the re-introduction of Imperial penny postage?
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this matter.

    INLAND TELEGRAMS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Post master-General if he can state approximately the number of internal telegrams sent per month at the 1s. rate, as against the average number previously sent at the pre-War rate of 6d.; and whether he can hold out any possibility of a reduction in the near future to the lower sum?
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of inland telegrams sent in the United Kingdom (including Ireland) during the financial year 1913–14, when the rate was sixpence, averaged about 6,000,000 a month. The number sent during the financial year 1921–22 at the 1s. rate was

    501
    about 5,000,000 a month. In view of the fact that even with a 1s. tariff the service is run at a considerable loss, I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of a return to the sixpenny rate in the near future.

    TELEPHONE EXCHANGES, LONDON.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Post master-General whether his attention has been called to the varying degrees of efficiency of the various London telephone exchanges; and whether he is able to state which exchange, in the opinion of the Department, is worked with the greatest satisfaction to the subscribers and which exchange is the subject of the greatest number of complaints?
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Statistics which give some indication of the comparative efficiency of the various London telephone exchanges are periodically prepared and utilised by my Department, but in view of the many factors involved, including differences in local conditions, I do not think it is possible, consistently with justice to the staff concerned, to publish a list of exchanges in order of merit.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is anything done to help the Departments which prove to be most efficient? Is no reward or bonus given them to encourage them?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no reward or bonus, but all questions of efficiency are noted, and no doubt the Departments concerned are marked out and have a good mark for good work.

    ESTIMATES COMMITTEE.
    Sir PHILIP PILDITCHasked the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration at an early date the desirability of appointing an Estimates Committee of the House on similar lines to that which existed during the last Parliament or with extended powers?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): I am considering my hon. Friend's suggestion, and will make a statement at an early date.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    RELIEF SCHEMES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme submitted by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians to the Ministry of Health whereby the money at present paid by them and by the local Employment Exchange to able-bodied persons for doing nothing may instead be utilised by the local unemployment committee in paying wages for work rendered; and, if there are any legal difficulties in the way of such co-ordinated action, will the Government take steps to remove the same before the House rises, so that instead of money being paid away without securing any adequate return public works of a useful character may be carried out?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I have been asked to reply. Arrangements have been made in a number of cases for test-work to be provided through the local authority for those in receipt of outdoor relief. I understand that a scheme of this nature has been submitted by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and is receiving his sympathetic consideration. Suggestions that unemployment benefit should be used as part-wages for work done have been made on numerous occasions. This would require legislation involving serious issues of principle, and in these circumstances all we can undertake to do is to examine the whole question thoroughly between now and next Session.
    Mr. THOMSON: May I ask the Prime Minister himself whether, in view of the seriousness of this question and the economic waste involved in paying money for no services rendered, he cannot consider the matter in time for the House to deal with it before the Adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, that is obviously impossible. As my hon. Friend has explained, this subject has often been discussed in the House, and I think it is a very open question whether the actual giving of money in employing men on useless work is worth it.
    Mr. THOMSON: On useful work?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The difficulty is to get useful work.
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the Prime Minister consider giving more favourable opportunities to local authorities, than those given by the late Government, for the putting into operation of the many useful schemes of work submitted by them from time to time?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have been, since this Government was formed, doing our best to consider any possible means for relieving unemployment. Obviously I cannot answer a question like that off-hand.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: May we take it from the answer of the Prime Minister that he fears the country would be ruined, if too many useful things were produced?

    NECESSITOUS AREAS.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in many industrial areas, owing to the abnormal amount of unemployment, the local poor rates have increased fourfold; and what assistance is the Government prepared to give to such necessitous areas as the county borough of Middlesbrough, where out relief has increased from an average weekly charge on the rates of £377 in 1914 to £6,500 at the present time?
    Major BOYD-CARPENTER (for the Minister of Health): The Minister of Health has at present under his consideration an application for sanction to the raising of a loan for the assistance of the Middlesbrough Union. He has no reason to suppose that the arrangements made for enabling the guardians to spread a portion of their expenses over a term of years will not prove adequate in this and the other industrial areas to which reference is made.
    Mr. THOMSON: I again ask the Prime Minister is he aware of the total inadequacy of short term loans of six months and five years to deal with the question of necessitous boroughs, and will he receive a deputation representing typical necessitous boroughs on this question before the House rises?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question, and I suggest to
    504
    the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced Member of this House, that this is obviously Departmental business.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I then ask whether, in the event of a requisition being made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health from all the necessitous Poor Law areas in different parts of the country, he will be good enough to receive the deputation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.
    Mr. THOMSON: On this point, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, to whom we should address questions in the absence of the Minister of Health, and if it is not right that who should address them to the Prime Minister where legislation is necessary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, they must be addressed to the Department. The House was informed yesterday of the temporary absence from our midst of the Minister of Health.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the Prime Minister toll the House when he is going to fill the position of Minister of Health?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not on this occasion.

    LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large number of people who are desirous of possessing the ground upon which their homes are built, and in view of the many thousands who have purchased houses as a consequence of the house shortage, such legislation should be introduced as will secure to these people leasehold enfranchisement?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government cannot undertake, in the present state of public business, to introduce legislation upon the important matter to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. GOULD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether next Session the matter will be considered and legislation introduced!
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will promise to consider that.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is really no legal title to the private ownership of land, and that morally it is most objectionable?

    MERCANTILE MARINE (WAR INJURIES).
    Mr. LOUGHERasked the Prime Minister whether those who served in the mercantile marine during the period of the War and who suffered injuries and shocks consequent upon their service, can be placed upon the same basis in respect of treatment, etc., as is meted out to the military and naval ratings under the Royal Warrant?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to answer this question. Treatment has been and is being given to officers and men of the mercantile marine in suitable cases. The President of the Board of Trade will consider whether any alteration in the system, can usefully be made, and if the hon. Member has any particular cases in mind, or any specific suggestions to make, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

    AGRICULTURE (PRICES).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to institute any public inquiry into the condition of agriculture, including the question of the discrepancy between the price obtainable by the farmer for his produce and the cost to the consumer of the food made from it: and, if so, in what form the inquiry will be, and what will be the terms of reference?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): I have been asked to reply. The whole of this subject is now under consideration. With regard to the specific question of discrepancy of prices, I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Frome.
    Lord R. CECIL: In view of the very serious condition of the agricultural industry, will an opportunity occur during the present Session for a discussion in this House on the subject?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I think that is so.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the scope of this inquiry include references to railway rates and increased rates and taxes?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot say the exact terms on which it is proposed to bold the inquiry.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will it include railway rates and the incidence of rates and taxes?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I think it would, but I should not like to say until I look at the terms of the Act again.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In selling up this Departmental Committee, will the right hon. Gentleman secure that consumers' organisations are represented?
    Sir R. SANDERS: I will take all considerations of that sort into account.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to continue a separate Ministry of Pensions, and for how long?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to the same question given yesterday.

    GERMANY (RUHR VALLEY).
    Mr. WALLHEAD(by Private Jot ire) asked the Prime Minister whether the French occupancy of the Ruhr Valley is imminent; and, if so, whether such occupancy will receive the support of His Majesty's Government, moral or military?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information which would justify me in saying that the occupation of the Ruhr is imminent, and obviously I cannot answer such a hypothetical question.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rumours are already current in the Press that such occupancy is imminent?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I dare say. I have seen rumours of a great many things in the Press, but I can assure the hon. Member that no step of any kind in that direction has as yet been taken.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose there is no possible doubt that if such steps were to be taken, His Majesty's Government would know of them before they were taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Obviously.

    PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not the question I have disallowed?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, it is the one—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Then I am afraid the hon. Member cannot put it. I offered
    him an amended form which would have avoided repeating the question of yesterday.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am very sorry to disagree with your ruling, but I only want to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that, if possible, if we get done in time, I propose to raise the question on the Motion for the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the proceedings on the Irish Free State Constitution Bill and the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 159.

Division No. 7.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent

Cassels, J. D.

Foreman, Sir Henry

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Forestier-Walker, L.

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

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

Frece, Sir Walter de

Alexander. Col. M. (Southwark)

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

Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Furness, G. J.

Apsley, Lord

Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

Ganzoni, Sir John

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Clayton, G. C.

Gates, Percy

Ashley, Li. Col. Wilfrid W.

Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Astor, Viscountess

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Golf, Sir R. Park

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Cope, Major William

Gould, James C.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

Banbury. Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

Greaves-Lord, Walter

Barlow, Rt. Hon, sir Montague

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Gretton, Colonel John

Barnett, Major Richard W.

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

Grigg, Sir Edward

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol. N.)

Becker, Harry

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

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

Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

Guthrie, Thomas Maule

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Crooke, J. s. (Deritend)

Gwynne, Rupert S.

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

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth. Brixton)

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

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

Berry, Sir George

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Halstead, Major D.

Betterton, Henry B.

Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

Birchall, J. Dearman

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

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

Harrison, F. C.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Harvey, Major S. E.

Blundell, F. N.

Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

Hawke, John Anthony

Bowyer. Capt. G. E. W.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

Brass, Captain W.

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Edge, Captain Sir William

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)

Briggs, Harold

Ednam, Viscount

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Hewett. Sir J. P.

Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

Elveden, viscount

Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Hiley, Sir Ernest

Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Hinds, John

Bruford, R.

Erskine-Balst, Captain C.

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

Bruton, Sir James

Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

Hopkins, John W. W.

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

Falcon, Captain Michael

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Houfton, John Plowright

Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

Fawkes, Major F. H

Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Button, H. S.

Fisher, Rt. Hon, Herbert A. L.

Hudson, Capt. A.

Cadogan, Major Edward

Flanagan, W. H.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gon. Sir Aylmer

Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Hurd, Percy A.

Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles. N.)

Murchison, C. K.

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

Nail, Major Joseph

Shepperson, E. W.

Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

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

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

Sinclair, Sir A.

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

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Skelton, A. N.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Jarrett, G. W. S.

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

Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

Jenkins, w. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sparkes, H. W.

Jephcott, A. R.

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Stanley, Lord

Joynson-Hicks, Sir William

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Paget, T. G.

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Kino, Capt. Henry Douglas

Parker, Owen (Kettering)

Strauss, Edward Anthony

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Pennetather, De Fonblanque

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Lamb, J. Q.

Penny, Frederick George

Sturrock, J. Long

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

Porcy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Eraser

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Perring, William George

Sutcliffe, T.

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Plelou, D. P.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Lorden, John William

Pllditch, Sir Philip

Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

Lorimer, H. D.

Pownall, Lieut-Colonel Assheton

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Lougher, L.

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

Titchfield, Marquess of

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Ralne, W.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

Tubbs, S. W.

Lumley, L. R,

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

MConnell, Thomas E.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Wallace, Captain E.

McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.

Reld, D. D. (County Down)

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

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Remnant, Sir James

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

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

Reynolds, W. G. W.

Waring, Major Walter

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

Wells, S. R.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

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

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

White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Whitla, Sir William

Mercer, Colonel H.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

Windsor, Viscount

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

Winterton, Earl

Moles, Thomas

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Wise, Frederick

Molloy, Major L, G. S.

Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

Wolmer, Viscount

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

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

Russell, William (Bolton)

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

Mosley, Oswald

Sandon, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Falconer, J.

Kirkwood, D.

Adamsor, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Foot, Isaac

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

Lansbury, George

Ammon, Charles George

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Lawson, John James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

Leach, W.

Attlee, C. R.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Lee, F.

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Linfield, F. C.

Barnes, A.

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Lowth, T.

Batey, Joseph

Groves, T.

Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Lelth)

Grundy, T. W.

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Berkeley. Captain Reginald

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

M'Entee, V. L.

Bonwick, A.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

McLaren, Andrew

Bowdler, W. A.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Brotherton, J.

Hancock, John George

March, S.

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Harbord, Arthur

Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

Buchanan, G.

Hardie, George D.

Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)

Buckle, J.

Harney, E. A.

Maxton, James

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Hartshorn, Vernon

Middleton, G.

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Millar, J. D.

Cairns, John

Hayday, Arthur

Morel, E. D.

Cape, Thomas

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Chapple, W. A.

Herriotts, J.

Muir, John W.

Charleton, H. C.

Hill, A.

Murnin, H.

Clarke, Sir E. C,

Hillary, A. E.

Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hirst, G. H.

Newbold, J. T. W.

Collie, Sir John

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Nicol, Robert

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. p. (Preston)

Oliver, George Harold

Collins, Pat (Walsall)

Hogge, James Myles

Paling, W.

Collison, Levl

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Parker. H. (Hanley)

Darbishire, C. W.

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Phillipps, Vivian

Duffy, T. Gavan

Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Edmonds, G.

Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

Potts, John S.

Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.

Pringle, W. M. R.

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Kenyon, Barnet

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

510

511

Riley, Ben

Snowden, Philip

Welsh, J. C.

Ritson, J.

Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S)

Westwood, J.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Stephen, Campbell

Wheatley, J.

Robinson, w. C. (York, Elland)

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

Rose, Frank H.

Sullivan, J.

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

Royce, William Stapleton

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

Whiteley, W.

Salter, Dr. A.

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Wignall, James

Scrymgeour, E.

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

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Sexton, James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

Thornton, M.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Trevelyan, C. P.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Shinwell, Emanuel

Turner, Ben

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Wintringham, Margaret

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Warne, G. H.

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

Simpson, J. Hope

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Wright, W.

Sitch, Charles H.

Watts-Morgan, Li.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)

Webb, Sidney

Smith, T. (Pontefract)

Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Snell, Harry

Weir, L. M.

Mr. Spoor and Mr. Lunn.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make such provisions as are consequential on, or incidental to, the establishment of the Irish Free State,

  (1) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any pensions and allowances payable under the said Act to existing Irish Judges, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Irish Land Commissioners;

  (2) to authorise payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the Governor of Northern Ireland of a salary of eight thousand pounds;

  (3) to authorise payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to any trust which may be constituted under the said Act for the purpose of providing in Ireland cottages, with or without plots or gardens, for the accommodation of men who served in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces in the late War, and for other purposes incidental thereto, of a sum not exceeding one million five hundred thousand pounds."

  Resolution read a Second time.
  Mr. HAYDAY: May I ask whether it will be competent for me to move an Amendment on this money Resolution, or whether, at a later stage in Committee on the Bill, a manuscript Amendment will be acceptable.
  I desire, after the word "forces" ["air forces"], in paragraph (3) of the Resolution, to insert the words "or members of the mercantile marine and fishermen" who followed these occupations during the Great War. I want, if possible, without setting one class in competition with another, to give equal opportunities to any of those in the mercantile marine who gave service during the War.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have consulted the Chairman of Ways and Means on that point, and he is of opinion that as long as the hon. Member's Amendment deals with those who served during the War under the direction of the Government, whether in the Mercantile Marine or other similar Service, it can be brought in as an Amendment to a Clause of the
  534
  Bill. I think, therefore, that would be the more convenient place to introduce it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. PRINGLE: I desire once more to call attention to the creation of a new-office under the Bill of which this is the Financial Resolution. As the House is aware, the present Bill creates a new office of Governor of Northern Ireland. When a proposal is made to create a new office in these days, when economy is on all hands admitted to be urgently necessary, the House is put upon its trial in the matter. The question therefore arises, whether the proposed new office is necessary, and, in the second place, even if it be necessary, whether the expense connected therewith should fall upon the Imperial Exchequer. I submit that no case has been made out for the creation of the office of Governor of Northern Ireland. Last night, when the matter was referred to in Committee, it is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a pledge which had been casually given in the course of the Debates on the Irish Free State Agreement Bill, in which Mr. Churchill, as representing the Government, at that time said that, if Northern Ireland desired a Governor, then the late Government was prepared to agree. I would like to know, in reference to that statement, first of all, whether the Northern Government have made application, and secondly, whether before the Northern Government made application it had the assent of the. Northern Parliament to that application. These are both relevant questions, because, after consulting the Official Report of the Northern Parliament, I find that there have been serious discussions in that Parliament as to the number of offices which have been created. In view of the difference of opinion which prevails in the Northern Parliament as to the number of offices already created in connection with that Government, I think this House is entitled to know whether the request for a Governor of Northern Ireland has the assent both of the Northern Government and of the Northern Parliament. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give me some information on that par-

  535
  ticular point. I pass from it, and I wish to deal with the question on its merits. I submit that it is not necessary, in the case of a subordinate Government and of a subordinate Parliament so near to Great Britain, to have a Governor at all. It is true that in the Colonies we have Governors, but the majority of the Dominions are long distances from our shores, and in those circumstances it is necessary, or it may be fairly argued to be necessary.
  Sir CHARLES OMAN: What about the Isle of Man?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Isle of Man is a totally abnormal proposition in this respect, and I do not think that anybody in any part of the Empire would desire to follow any of the precedents of the Isle of Man. I do not think they are even satisfactory to the people of the Isle of Man itself. The Isle of Man has its customs and so forth settled by this House.
  Sir C. OMAN: You are absolutely wrong.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I have endeavoured to deal with the matter already, and the electors of the Isle of Man have almost no opportunity at all of obtaining redress for their grievances. But the Isle of Man is not relevant to this particular case. I was dealing with something more on the footing of the Dominions, and I hold that Northern Ireland is in a different position altogether from the Dominions and that other means could be found for dealing with such interventions of the Crown as may be necessary for the purposes of the Government of Northern Ireland. We have, however, a much better precedent. Before the Union, Scotland for 100 years had a separate Parliament, and during the whole of that time there was no Governor-General or Viceroy, and the affairs of Scotland were perfectly well managed without any continuous representative of the Sovereign in that country. In those circumstances, I submit that the practice that then prevailed in regard to Scotland might well be followed in regard to Northern Ireland.
  Apart altogether from this question of the merits, we are mainly concerned here with the cost which is to fall upon the Treasury. The salary of the Governor
  536
  of Northern Ireland is to be £8,000, and £6,000 of that salary is to be borne by the taxpayers of this country. That is the issue which entitles us to raise our voices in this matter. I hold that even if Northern Ireland desires a Governor, Northern Ireland should pay for the Governor. The Northern Government and the Northern Parliament have created so many offices, that if they desire another they ought to pay for it themselves. I find that they have the largest and most expensively staffed Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions. There are seven Ministers—the Prime Minister with £3,200 and six other Cabinet Ministers with £2,000 per year each, and, in addition, there are seven Parliamentary Private Secretaries at £1,000 per year each. The office of Parliamentary Private Secretary is unknown in any other Parliament of His Majesty's Dominions. I say, therefore, that when the Northern Government and the Northern Parliament decide that they can have such a large number of functionaries, they ought, if they seek further functionaries, to pay for them. In these days of economy, we should not encourage this luxury in the creation of offices. We should rather discourage? it. It may be that if Northern Ireland have to pay for a. Governor, they will either decide not to have one, or to cut down some of the superfluous offices to which I have, referred.
  For example. I am told that the "whipping" of the Northern Parliament, which contains 40 Members, costs £2,000– £40 a Member. The only thing indeed on which the Northern Parliament has economised has been prayers, for it has only three chaplains at £120 each. I should like to have seen certain Scottish characteristics applied in these other directions of economy. If in accepting the proposal for a Governor of Northern Ireland we insist that Northern Ireland pays for its Governor, this will be a means of forcing the Northern Government to economise. After all, it is a very-important matter in relation to the contribution that has to be made by Northern Ireland to the Exchequer. We were told that that contribution amounted to £8,000,000. It is something less than that, but if all these new charges are imposed upon the fund it is unlikely that the Northern contribution will reach the

  537
  sum which has been mentioned. I submit, therefore, that in these circumstances we have a right to call upon the Government to re-examine this question, and to reconsider their decision, and if they do desire to adhere to the so-called pledge of the late Government that there should be a Governor for Northern Ireland that they should allow Northern Ireland to pay for this luxury.
  Mr. WALLHEAD: There is an added reason to consider in support of the view put forward which has not been mentioned by the hon. Member for Peni-stone (Mr. Pringle). Some hon. Members here visualise the time, I think, when there will be complete unity between Southern and Northern Ireland. Views in that direction were expressed yesterday by hon. Members on the opposite benches who hope that ultimately unity might be achieved between the sections that were now rivals. Therefore we ought to consider very seriously before we set up an office that might be a barrier in some senses to the unity by creating a vested interest, in an office the abolition of which might be for various reasons opposed. There is the further reason: 10 or 15 years hence in such a contingency as I have put forward, there would be a claim put forward for the payment of a lump sum in compensation for loss of income to the gentleman who occupied the office of Governor at that particular moment. If we allow, or insist, that the Northern Irish Parliament must pay its own Governor if it requires one, the burden would fall upon them and not upon British Treasury. I therefore suggest there is that added reason why this office should not be assumed.

IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTIONBILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
The CHAIRMAN: Before we enter on the Committee Stage of this Bill, I should like to say a word or two on a matter of order. Clause 1 of this Bill gives the force of law to all the Articles set forth
538
in the Schedules of the Bill, which are Schedules of an Irish Act. These are specific documents. Any alterations made in them would be inconsistent with the description in Clause 1. It therefore follows that, if Clause 1 be once passed, no Amendment to either of the Schedules of the Bill would be possible. If, therefore, any Member wishes to amend either of the Schedules he must do so by way of addition or proviso to Clause 1.

IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTIONBILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Irish Free State.)
  The Constitution set forth in the First Schedule to the Constituent Act shall, subject to the provisions to which the same is by the Constituent Act so made subject as aforesaid, be the Constitution of the Irish Free State, and shall come into operation on the same being proclaimed by His Majesty in accordance with Article eighty-three of the said Constitution, but His Majesty may at any time after the proclamation appoint a Governor-General for the Irish Free State.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, after the word "aforesaid" ["Constituent Act so made subject as aforesaid"], to insert the words
  "and except as regards Article 41 in the said Schedule."
  In moving to omit Article 44 of Schedule I, may I say that not only is it a very important Article, but it is not to be found anywhere in the Treaty. Therefore the law to which the Attorney-General in his extremely clear and able speech yesterday referred to which enacts this Bill would not apply, because this particular Clause 44 is not anywhere in the Treaty, so far as I can see. I shall, I think, be able to show to the Committee that this is a very important innovation. Article 44 says:
  "The Oireachtas may create subordinate Legislatures with such powers as may be decided by law."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to give an explanation that may be satisfactory, but to my mind this particular Article, if allowed to remain in the Bill, would give power to the Irish Parliament to set up local Soviets without any power of revision by this House. I have a copy of the original draft of the Irish Constitution. I find that there was in that draft a Clause of a somewhat similar nature. The Clause in the draft Bill was as follows:

  539
  "The Parliament/Oireachtas may create subordinate Legislatures but it shall not confer thereon any powers in respect of the Navy, Army or Air Force, alienage or naturalisation, coinage, legal tender, trade marks, designs, merchandise marks, copyright, patent rights, weights and measures, submarine cables, wireless telegraphy, Post Office, railways, aerial nagivation, Customs and Excise."
  That is a very extensive list. It confers the power of the creation of subordinate Legislatures, and it withholds certain powers as specified. What I want to know is, Why was this Article altered? Who altered it? Where was it altered? Why did the Government allow the alteration? The present position is that the subordinate Legislatures may deal with the Army, Navy and Air Forces, which may lead to very serious results from the point of view of some of us. It seems to suggest that the real object of this Treaty is, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Batteorsea (Mr. Saklatvala) yesterday said, that the real object of this Bill is to create an Irish Republic. The hon. Member for Battersca made a very excellent speech upon the real meaning of this Bill.
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I want to say at once, if I may, to the Committee that it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept any Amendment which altered the Constitution as passed by the Irish Parliament. The reason why it is impossible to accept an Amendment which alters the Constitution is because our obligation is to pass, before the 6th December, the Constitution as passed by the Irish Parliament. If, therefore, we altered the Constitution, then the enactment passed is not the Constitution which the Irish Parliament has passed, and the result would be that on 6th December the position arises that there is no Constitution created and there is, therefore, no constitutional authority in Southern Ireland. It is impossible, therefore, for the Government to accept this Amendment or any Amendment which deals with the Constitution in the sense of seeking to alter it in any respect. But I would like just to say a word in answer to my right hon. Friend's fears. He asked three questions. He asked: Why was the original draft altered, who altered it, and why was it agreed to?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.
  Sir D. HOGG: I think I can answer the three questions. The reason it was altered was because the Irish Parliament, who altered it—perhaps I ought to have put it first, for they were the people who altered it—when it came to be passed in the Irish Parliament they omitted the limitations which the original draft contains, for the reason, as I imagine, given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, namely, that the Clause as originally drafted did not enable the subordinate bodies to do anything at all except to waste time in talk. I suppose the Irish Parliament thought it was not a wise thing to take power to create a body which was quite useless when created. The reason why His Majesty's Government, or rather the late Government—to be accurate—presumably agreed to the alteration was this because, as my right hon. Friend himself pointed out, there was nothing in it repugnant in any way to the Treaty, and, therefore, inasmuch as their concern was to see that the Constitution agreed with the Treaty, when it was found that the alteration did not conflict with that principle, they thought it right, I imagine, to accept it. Certainly that is the reason why the present Government have not challenged that Article, because it is not repugnant to the Treaty, and therefore it is one in accordance with the principle which we explained yesterday, that we could not properly object to if the Irish Parliament wished to have it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree with what the Attorney-General has said, and I realise that it is impossible for us to alter by any single word the Constitution before us now, because of the difficult position we are put into by everything having to be done by the 6th December. All I wish to do is to extract information as to what is the meaning of this Constitution. I gather from the remarks of the Attorney-General that these local parliaments will have full power, without any control from the Free State Parliament, over such matters as wireless telegraphy, and the other things which were enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, quite irrespective of the Irish Free State Parliament.
  If that is so, then they would have power to deal with matters connected

  541
  with the Army, Navy and Air Force. They would have control over some of the important Irish harbours. They would have control over matters affecting the Navy, Army, Air Force, alienage, naturalisation, coinage, copyright, submarine cables, the Post Office, wireless telegraphy, railways, aerial navigation and Customs and Excise. I am not-suggesting that we should alter the Constitution, but I should like to know how it is, intended that these local bodies will exercise these powers. I quite realise that we cannot alter the Constitution. I gather that these powers will exist if this Constitution is passed in its present form, and this seems a very serious power to give to subordinate Legislatures.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down is labouring under a misapprehension which is strange for one so learned in the law. He has read a list-of subjects from the original draft submitted to the Irish constituent Assembly which it was proposed to exclude from the purview of the authority of any local parliaments that might be created in Ireland. Those things are not all of the same kind, and I submit that there is a marked difference between the Irish Parliament and any Parliament to which it can delegate only such powers as it possesses itself. If the Irish Parliament proposes to do something outside the scope of the Treaty with the Navy or in excess of the powers of the Treaty with the Army it could not do that itself, and what it cannot do itself it cannot authorise another body to do, because it would be repugnant to the Treaty to confer powers in excess of the Treaty on subordinate parliaments, because they would be null and void, ab initio.
  When we are dealing with matters within the purview of the Irish Parliament, we need not greatly concern ourselves as to the manner in which the Irish Parliament chooses to exercise these powers. It does not matter whether they are exercised by the Irish Parliament itself or delegated to some subordinate body. That is a matter within their discretion which we may leave to them. I think my right hon. Friend has confused the Committee by not drawing a distinction between those things which are within the power of the Irish Parliament to deal with and within their power to
  542
  delegate, and those things which it is not within the power of that Parliament to deal with and which cannot be delegated to any subordinate authority.
  Colonel GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) has failed to apprehend the real case with regard to this Article which has been objected to and which has been criticised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and others. The question which the right hon. Gentleman has raised was not mentioned by either of my hon. Friends, that is, the Irish Parliament in Dublin contemplating delegating any power which it does not possess, or which are limited or confined by the Treaty. The Treaty gives them power to delegate such matters as coastal defence. I know it is provided that there should be a conference between the Imperial authorities to consider how far the new Irish Constitution may take over coastal defence, but surely these other powers are of a very wide character, such as the powers dealing with alienage, coinage, and naturalisation. With- regard to coinage, that is a matter in which everyone having a trading connection with Ireland is deeply interested. Then there is the question of trade marks, which is also a matter of interest to every trader. They may also deal with submarine cables, which is a matter of Imperial interest.
  Then there are such things included as wireless telegraphy, railways, aerial navigation, and Customs and Excise. All these matters, under this Article, may be delegated to one or more of the subordinate legislatures, and they may deal with them in any way within the Constitution which the Parliament in Dublin may decide. The history of this transaction has not been mentioned, but I am informed, and I think correctly informed, that these limitations were struck out of the Article at the instance of the members of the extreme Labour party in Dublin. Why were they struck out? There must have been some reason for it. It is well known that there is a large body of opinion in Ireland which sympathises with what has taken place in Russia and believes in a Soviet system, that is, a number of smaller bodies exercising very wide powers. If there is to be confusion of this kind in Southern Ireland, the position of British traders and British

  543
  subjects in Ireland will be greatly confused, because instead of dealing with one authority we shall be dealing with a number of subordinate authorities, and it is obvious that the whole position will become most complicated. That is the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London intended to raise, and that comes within the terms of the Constitution which we are now discussing.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I notice that Article 44 gives power to create subordinate legislatures with such powers as may be decided by law. I would like to know, what law? That is a point which the ordinary layman does not understand. I would like to know what redress we should have if, for example, a local legislature in Munster had certain powers to regulate shipping going into Queenstown or other ports? I would like to know should we have any power of direction at all in regard to such a matter?
  Captain BERKELEY: There is one point I wish to put to the Attorney-General. Under Article 3 of the Constitution, a restricted species of citizenship is created, and a special limited class become citizens of the Irish Free State. Under Article 7 there is a provision that the dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law.
  The CHAIRMAN: How does the hon. and gallant Gentleman connect that argument with Article 44?
  Captain BERKELEY: I thought the whole Bill was under discussion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General for the explanation he has given. I understand now that the reason for the rejection of my Amendment is that the Irish Parliament has agreed to this Constitution, and therefore it is impossible to accept any Amendment because it is now too late. What does that mean? It means that, owing to certain circumstances, whatever is put by the Irish Parliament into this Constitution we have got to accept. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I thought that we were exercising our right in the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act because we approved of it, and not because
  544
  we are afraid to make any alterations of which the Irish Parliament does not approve.
  The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is going a little far, I think, from the matter under discussion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I will submit reasons why I think my speech is in order. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General himself, brought forward that argument and I was only answering him. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman, being new to this House, did stray a little, but he was not called to order.
  The CHAIRMAN: I made some concession to his inexperience.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I will ask you to make some concession to my inexperience. That was the first point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I venture to suggest that it was a very bad point and that there is good reason for disagreeing with it. Then he suggested that these words were agreed to by the late Government. My reply to that is that that is all the more reason for disagreeing with them. All the various things which I read out were, he said, not in the power of the Free State and they could not do that which they had not the power to do. Why then put this sort of thing in if it cannot be done? he asked. I think every one of these things, with, possibly, the exception of the Navy and Air Force, is in the power of the Free State to do. As regards the Navy, as far as I remember, they are entitled to build ships for coastal defence. If they are going to have ships for that purpose, providing they can get the money, it is easy to say they are only intended for coastal defence and yet to build very powerful vessels. They could, therefore, very easily get over that difficulty. I do not know whether they can have an Air Force, but with that exception everything that is in this particular paragraph can be done by the Free State and will be done, if they get the chance, by local Soviets under this Clause. It is perfectly evident that something of this sort is going to be done. The question now is what course shall be taken with regard to my Amendment? I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member

  545
  for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlin-son) that there is nothing to be gained by going to a Division on this matter. We should only be beaten by a large majority —not that I mind that, but still there is nothing to be gained. We have had an explanation which I venture to suggest is not satisfactory, but then of course the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General cannot make satisfactory statements when it is impossible for anyone to do so. Under the circumstances I shall not press the Amendment to a Division.
  Sir W. DAVISON: May I ask the guidance of the Chair for the information of the House? I want to know how these matters can be dealt with, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General has informed the House that the Government must; take exception to every Amendment on the Paper, on the ground that it cannot be dealt with by this House, because if any Amendment to the Constitution were; accepted the Constitution could not be passed before the 6th December, and the Provisional Government would then cease, to be operative and chaos would result in Ireland. I desire, oven in these very early days of this Government, to protest, as I protested frequently in the days of the last Government, against the House, of Commons being placed in such a position, and I wish to ask if, providing that is the attitude which is to be taken up—namely, that owing to causes outside our own control we are not to have an opportunity of discussing these matters at all—what opportunity will be afforded us of raising this question at a later date.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of order at all. It is a question of merit. The Amendment is perfectly in order, but it was refused by the Attorney-General on grounds of policy. I am afraid I am quite unable to give any help to the hon. Member in this matter.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I fully accept what the Attorney-General has said as to the practical impossibility of making any alteration in the Constitution, and, therefore, I did not press my Amendment, but I want to take this opportunity of asking a question with regard to Article 2, the
  546
  wording of which is somewhat unusual, as was mentioned last night. The words are:
  "All powers of Government and all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial, are derived from the people."
  That is a common formula probably known to all constitutional lawyers as indicating the powers of a Republic. In the case of a constitutional monarchy these powers are said to be derived from the Crown. This is the form of Clause which invariably appears in the constitution of a Republic, and a rough and ready test of it is that, in the case of prosecution of an offender under a monarchy it is set out as the Crown versus the prisoner, whatever his name may be, while in the case of a Republic the form would be the People versus the prisoner. Will not the effect of this Clause be, therefore, that in Ireland you will have a condition which is not consistent with the position of the Crown as being the source of all jurisdiction of that kind. Mr. Barton has told us in the Irish Press that substantially the words of this Clause were submitted to the late Lord Chancellor and to the present Lord Chief Justice, at the time of the negotiations regarding the Treaty, and that they were rejected. I want to know-exactly on what ground they are now put in. Doubtless the Government have seen the statement of Mr. Barton in the Irish Press. I wish to ask, how has it come about that these words which had been rejected, and which, undoubtedly, if they stood alone, would be against the terms of the Treaty, are now to be found in this Article? The hon. Gentleman very fairly dealt with the subject in his speech last night in this way. He said, "It is true that there is some doubt as to what the words may mean, but you must read the whole context, and if you read Article 61, and some subsequent Articles, you will find that they contain words which will contradict the effect of these words which, if they stood alone, might have the meaning which has been put on them." I want to know why words which admittedly, if they stood alone, would be consistent with a Republic and inconsistent with a constitutional monarchy, and which were rejected when brought up for discussion by the late Government, have found their way into this Constitution? Has there been any correspondence between the two Governments on this point? Has any explanation been given why these rejected

  547
  5.0 p.m.
  words were put in? There is also one small point of practical detail as to which I wish to ask a question. If the Constitution goes through in its present form, what will be the position in regard to ordinary criminals? At present, if a criminal is wanted in England for a particular purpose and goes over to Ireland, a warrant is issued for his arrest and sent to Ireland, where it is merely backed as in the case of an English county, and the prisoner is arrested without further difficulty and brought back. This is a simple and expeditious way of dealing with criminals, and I suppose the same procedure would apply in the case of criminals coming from Ireland to this country. But what will be the position under the new Constitution? Will it be the same as it is in regard to other countries: that application will have to be made under the Fugitive Offenders Act, a cumbrous and expensive procedure, or will it be dealt with by means of extradition, which is not quite as effective, but is also cumbrous and costly. Has any arrangement been made in this matter? I have heard it-suggested that one has been made. I want to know whether it will be possible, at any rate, to make some arrangement with the Irish Free State Government to facilitate matters of this kind. Surely the Government could get a working concession from the Irish Free State Government which would be useful to both Governments, instead of both being bound by the four walls of the Constitution. I hope to be able to get an assurance from the Government on these points. I have only indicated that one which comes within my own sphere of knowledge, but I know that there are many other points which will require working arrangements between the two Governments. I should like an assurance that the Government are approaching the Irish Free State Government for the purpose of arriving at some agreement, and, if necessary, embodying it in an Act of Parliament, so that these and other facilities may exist between the Governments, and they may not be simply bound by the four walls of what some of us think is the not very well drawn Constitution which we are bound now to accept.
  Captain BERKELEY: Article 3 of the Constitution says that citizenship of the Irish Free State is limited to persons who are either children of Irish parents, or who were born in Ireland, or who have been domiciled in that territory for it period of seven years. In Article 7 it is laid down that
  "The dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law."
  I cannot believe that it was intended that the Constitution should be so drafted that only that limited class of persons who can claim, in the sense of Article 3, to be citizens of the Irish Free State, are intended to get the protection afforded by Article 7. The situation, however, is not without difficulty, because, in Article 6. which legislates for the liberty of the person, the words are:
  "The liberty of the person is inviolable."
  That seems to make a difference between persons generally and citizens. Article 15 provides that every citizen who has reached a certain age, and is not under any disability, shall be eligible to become a member of the Dail, and that, to my mind, clearly means that throughout the Constitution the word "citizen" is interchangeable with the words "citizen of the Irish Free State.' I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether it would not be possible in some manner to provide that the protection of Article 7 for the dwellings of citizens should be extended to the dwellings of all householders in the Free State.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I was going to move an Amendment to leave out Article 49 of the Constitution, and should like to say a word or two on the subject here, as this Clause really brings into effect the whole Constitution. I object to the Clause passing principally on account of Article 49 of the Constitution. Article 49 says that
  "Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Five State (Saorstat Kireann) shall not he committed In active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas."
  Article 7 of the Treaty says
  "The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces …
  (b) In time of war or of strained relations with a foreign power such harbour

  549
  and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid."
  Last night the Attorney-General, speaking in this House, said that he thought there was no inconsistency between Article 7 of the Treaty and Article 49 of the Constitution. He said:
  "It does not say, and does not mean, that the Irish Free State is not to give the harbour facilities which they have undertaken to give. What it does mean to, say, and what it does in fact say … is chat the Irish Free State shall not be committed to active participation …."—[OFFICIAL RETORT, 27th November, 1922; col. 375.Vol.159.]
  In the interval between last night and to-day I have taken the opportunity of looking up the Debate in the Dail on this very subject, when this particular Article was going through Dail Eireann; and there I find that a very different view is taken in Ireland as to this Article 49 from that taken by my right hon. and learned Friend. The words there used were "actual participation," which is a very different thing from "active participation." "Actual participation in the War" are the words that were used by the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr. O'Higgins. I suggest to the House that, although we are all wanting to pass this Constitution as soon as possible, yet at the same time we are dealing with a matter of the most vital importance, not only to Ireland, but also to England, and that we cannot afford to ride in a slipshod way over these matters, but must examine them properly. I submit that Article 49 will function in a way which is not in accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty, and which might be a cause of immense friction between Ireland and England in the future unless some provision is made in regard to it. Article 7 of the Treaty says that Ireland is to provide these harbour facilities for the British Navy, not only in time of war, but in time of strained relations, and I submit to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as he must know, any nation which provides harbour factilties in time of war for another nation can hot possibly be neutral. I have fortified myself with the arguments of distinguished international lawyers on the subject, one of whom. Professor Davis, an American, says:—
  "Any substantial aid or service, which contributes to the success of the military
  550
  operations of one belligerent, enables him to inflict an injury on his enemy with whom the neutral is at peace. The neutral State therefore, in a more or less direct manner, has injured, or contributed to injure, a friend …. It is easy to see, there fore, that, if it were permitted to render such services with impunity, every important war would, sooner or later, involve all neutral States in its operations."
  Ho goes on to argue that this is the reason why international law forbids neutral States to give any facilities to either belligerent. Article 7 of the Treaty is a very important Article, because it was, perhaps, the last link which we maintained in the fighting unity of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It was signed by the Irish representatives. They agreed to it, and I see no reason why we should let them off the results of that agreement. It means that in time of war we can occupy certain harbours in Ireland; but, if this Article49is passed, it means that we are not going to be allowed to occupy those harbours or ports peaceably until the Oireachtas, or whatever the Parliament of Ireland will he called, has decided that they will come into the war with us. That is a matter of immense importance to this country, and it is no kindness to Ireland or to England to have a matter like this slurred over just with a few words from the Attorney-General last night. It is a matter which might mean war between Ireland and England, and we cannot be too particular in seeing that it is clearly understood in Ireland that we have the right, if war is threatened, to occupy Irishports. Of course, that would bring Ireland in at once as a belligerent; it would be impossible for Ireland to be a neutral country once we had occupied her ports and used them for military purposes. Therefore, the question whether they raise troops to join us in an active way or not is a matter of no importance at all. The really important matter is whether we can use those harbours, and whether Ireland will be brought in on our side by that. If the Dail Debate is read—unfortunately there are very few copies of it in this country—it will be found that everyone who spoke pointed out that their idea is that Ireland is going to decide whether it is going to be neutral or not. That makes an enormous difference. If Ireland were to refuse to allow us to use those harbours, this country would be in

  551
  a very parlous position in time of war unless we seized the harbours, and thereby at once went to war with Ireland. There was no one who was more eloquent on this subject than the late Prime Minister, who, when he spoke at Carnarvon in October, 1920–1 think his speech will readily recur to the memory of many hon. Members of the last House—said:
  "And I saw a map the other day that was captured, a German map, a map circulated to show how Britain was having her Fleet destroyed, and the coast of Ireland was black with British ships they had sunk, in the Atlantic, in the Irish Sea, in the St. George's Channel. It is girdled with British wrecks; yes, and British seamen are there, too: and we are to hand over Ireland to be made a base of the submarine fleet, and we are to trust to luck in our next war. Was there ever such lunacy proposed by anybody?"
  Those were very eloquent and, in my belief, very true words. I believe it to be absolutely vital for the safety of this country that we should have the use of the Irish harbours, and it was agreed in the Treaty that we were to have that use. Why whittle it away and say that this is to be subject to a question whether the Irish Parliament agree to come into a war or not? As I have, said, everyone who spoke on the subject in Dail Eireann took the view that Ireland could be neutral if she liked, and the cause of the Debate was an Amendment moved by Mr. Darrell Figgis, who suggested that, instead of the Parliament of Ireland deciding whether Ireland would go into a war or not, the matter should be submitted to a referendum. That was not accepted by the Dail, but it seems to me that a referendum would simply mean that we probably should not know for many months whether we could use those harbours or not. Parliament might not be sitting, and it might take time to call it together, but sometimes it is a matter of life and death to act quickly in time of war. If some nation made war on us, as the Germans did out of a blue sky in 1914, it would be a matter of days whether we seized the harbours, fortified them, and used them as naval bases. Why, therefore, should not the Government make it clear, in some statement here in this House, that this country does regard Article V of the Treaty as absolutely binding, and that Ireland must give us the use of those harbours in accordance with the Treaty, if required, with-
  552
  out any question of submission of the matter to the Irish Parliament? Whether they like to raise armies or help us in other ways afterwards might, no doubt, be a matter for their own Parliament to decide, but, as regards the use of those harbours and facilities which were promised in the Treaty, those are vital to the safety of this country, and we have to look after our own interests first. We do not want to have any cause of quarrel with the Free State if we can help it, but that was put in for a specific purpose, and it is practically the only safeguard we have left from the miserable surrender of 1921. I ask the Government to make it clear, in this House at any rate, that the interpretation which was put upon that in the Debate in Dail Eireann upon Article 48, as it used to be, which is now Article 4D of the Constitution, is one which is not accepted by this country, but that we do hold the Irish Free State strictly responsible to Article 7 of the Treaty.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I should like to address one or two remarks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I do not know how far I may be travelling beyond the order of the discussion, but no doubt, Mr. Hope, you will keep me right. What I should like to know is, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends in the Government believe in the principles of government laid down in this Constitution. For instance, we have heard from the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken that Ireland cannot be drawn into a war without the consent of the two Houses of Parliament in the. Irish Free State. The hon. Member rather feared that there would be difficulty which might result in our losing a single little war. I think all the difficulties that can be placed in the way of war are in the right direction, but I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that that is a principle good in itself, and if he does believe in it, will he take an early opportunity of extending to the law-abiding citizens of this country the principle of government which he is now conceding to the more vigorous politicians in. the Irish Free State. I find also in this Constitution that the right hon. Gentleman is conferring on the. Irish people adult suffrage, and I want to know whether he

  553
  believes in that principle himself and whether the Government believes in it. I find also that for the second House men are to have votes for the election of half the number and women of 30 years of age even are to have votes. Does he believe in that as a principle of government also?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going a little beyond what is possible, I do not think it would be in order to discuss how far the Irish Constitution can be extended to this country.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I was thinking not -so much of how far it could be extended hero. I was rather thinking of the honesty of the Members of the Government. I was wondering if it were possible for the right hon. Gentleman to sit there and, with all the eloquence and learning at his command, impress upon this House the wisdom of passing into law a Constitution of this character, in which he himself Las not the slightest faith or belief. If he does believe in it, I wonder why he should confine his charity to the people of Ireland. It may be, of course, that it is difficult in this House to realise that, when legislating for Ireland, we are legislating for a people who are more politically intelligent and more politically advanced than those who are represented by the majority of the people on the other side. At any rate, the lesson of what we are doing here is that if the English people, particularly the English common people, will only express themselves as vigorously and as tenaciously as the Irish people have done, we may get hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side bringing forward views which they are opposed to in principle, but which they are evidently prepared always to concede if the people clamouring for those reforms can only make themselves nasty enough.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Will the Attorney-General inform the Committee as to the meaning of the word "citizen" in this Treaty, because it is a matter of very vital importance with regard to Clauses, several of which have been pointed out. There is particularly Article 7, which says that the dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law. We want to know what is the extent of that—"of each citizen." Under this Treaty is that
  554
  objectionable class which we had so much trouble with with regard to the Transvaal, the Uitlander, re-constituted? Is a British citizen who lives in Ireland for a large part of the year a citizen of the Irish Free State within the meaning of the Treaty, and, if not, is he not entitled to have his dwelling inviolable from being entered and his person from being molested? It is a matter of very great importance which I am far from clear upon. Later on we have the same phrase in Article 10:
  "All citizens of the Irish Free State have the right to free elementary education."
  Supposing there is, as might very well be, some Scotch or English person employed over there, are his children not entitled to free education if they do not happen to fall into the actual scope of Irish citizenship as specified in this Treaty? Then there is again the right of voting and the right of sitting in Dail Eireann. It all depends on the very ambiguous phraseology of Article 3, which uses the word "domicile" with regard to citizenship in a way which is unusual. It says:
  "Every person, without distinction of sex, domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution who was born in Ireland or cither of whose parents was born in Ireland or who has been ordinarily resident in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State for not less than seven years, is a citizen of the Irish Free State, and shall, within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Free State, enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligations of such citizenship: provided that any such person being a citizen of another State may elect not to accept the citizenship hereby conferred."
  I want to clear up whether a person who holds British citizenship is entitled to all these privileges and protections which are provided for every citizen of the Irish Free State.
  Captain W. BENN: I wish to ask the Attorney-General a question about the Second Schedule. I presume there is no doubt at all that if such an Address as is referred to in the agreement is presented by the Northern Government, Clause 12 of the Agreement will be implemented, namely, that a Boundary Commission will be set up with the fullest powers to do what is prescribed in Clause 12 of the Agreement. The matter has not been raised for some

  555
  time, and I thought it well to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some assurance that a Boundary Commission will be set up with full powers if an Address is presented, as required by the Act, by the Northern Government.
  Mr. G. BALFOUR: It must be clear to everyone present that the Constitution Act passed by the Provisional Government bristles with difficulties. I only rise because we have been told from the Front Bench, and it has been repeated on several occasions, that it is quite impossible to propose a single Amendment because it has been adopted by the Provisional Government. I rise for one simple thing, to associate myself wholeheartedly with the protest which has come from these Benches against being nut in this position. It is only fair to say that, while we make that protest, we realise the difficulty in which the new Parliament has been put by being compelled to pass through some measure to bring some kind of settlement to Ireland in this hurried fashion. We feel bound to make our protest with no desire to hamper or hinder the Government in any way, but I feel in my own mind satisfied that grave difficulties are going to arise in the future through the hurried manner in which this Constitution Bill is being put through the House, which will re-act against the liberty of British subjects who are resident in Ireland. As far as I have been able to study-it there are a dozen different directions in which this Act will operate quite differently from what I believe was intended by His Majesty's Ministers. With that protest I content myself, and I only hope our fears are unfounded and that this Constitution will operate as the Government expect.
  Sir D. HOGG: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) has asked questions which are very important with regard to the procedure which is going to be adopted between this country and the Irish Free State on such matters as, for instance, the extradition of criminals. If I may use the phrase. We have not at present negotiated a final arrangement with the Irish Free State, but it is a matter which has engaged our attention, and we are endeavouring to make such arrangements as may result in our being able to adopt the very much simpler
  556
  procedure which is provided by the existing law rather than the more cumbrous method of the Fugitive Offenders Act. Then I was asked with regard to Article 7. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley) pointed out that Article 7 declared that the dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law. There is a very obvious criticism which can be made on that. No one's dwelling can be forcibly entered except in accordance with law whether that Clause is in or not. If you enter a person's dwelling forcibly, not in accordance with law, you are doing something illegal and you can be punished for it. It does not merely rest there. Article 73 provides that. "subject to this Constitution and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent therewith, the laws in force in the Irish Free State at the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution shall continue to be of full force and effect until the same or any of them shall have been repealed or amended by enactment of the Irish Parliament." Therefore the position is that when this is enacted anyone resident in the Irish Free State, be he an Irish citizen or not, will have all the protection which is at present afforded by the code of laws under which they and we both live.
  Captain BERKELEY: Do I understand that Article 7 is surplusage, and is not necessary in the Constitution at all?
  Sir D. HOGG: My own view is that it is quite unnecessary in the Constitution. It-is put in, I suppose, as a declaratory article. There are two or three articles which propound political doctrines which really have no legislative effect and do not alter the effect of the Constitution one iota. The next question was raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee) in regard to Article 49, and he pointed out that if facilities such as were provided for by Clause 7 of the Treaty, harbour facilities for coastal defence, were provided that was a breach of neutrality, and he argued that Article 49 of the Constitution whittled away Clause 7 of the Treaty. I am able to reassure him. I am quite prepared to state on behalf of the Government that we regard the whole of the Treaty as absolutely binding, and unaffected by anything in the Constitution.

  557
  It is only on that express understanding that the Constitution was accepted, and the. Irish Parliament has expressly enacted the Articles of the Treaty in this very Statute, which include Article 7. The only effect of Article 49 of the Constitution was that the Irish people are not committed to active participation in war. There is nothing in that which says they have to remain legally neutral.
  Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the words used in the Irish Parliament were not "active participation" but "actual participation." In other words, Ireland would not come into the war at all.
  Sir D. HOGG: I am afraid my answer to that is that I do not know what words were used in the Irish Parliament, but I know what is the Constitution enacted by the Irish Parliament, and that is the only document that is binding. Some questions were asked by an hon. Member for Glasgow with regard to the honesty of the Government in passing this Constitution if we did not believe in it. My answer to that is a very simple one. The question is not whether we think this is a good or a bad Constitution, but whether we on this side of the House are going to carry out the pledge which has been given to the Irish people to enact the Constitution so long as it complies with the Treaty. We believe on this side of the House in self-determination, we do not intend to impose upon the Irish people a Constitution which they do not like because we think it would be a better one for them. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) asked me certain questions in regard to Article 3, and the expression "citizen" therein used. The qualifications of a citizen are set out in Article 3, and anybody who complies with those qualifications can, if he likes, become a citizen as soon as this Constitution becomes law. The conditions under which anyone else hereafter may become an Irish citizen are going to be determined by the Irish Free State Parliament hereafter. They are not enacted in the Constitution. Therefore, the provisions will have to be the subject of subsequent legislation. As soon as a man becomes an Irish citizen, he acquires the privileges which are set out in the Constitution. The principal ones, I think, are the franchise and the
  558
  right to sit in the Irish Parliament. It is quite true that anybody who is not an Irish citizen would not have the franchise in Ireland under this Constitution. That is a matter which the Irish Free State are entitled to decide for themselves, in our view, just as every self-governing Dominion has the right to decide for itself. We do not think that this is a matter with which we can properly deal.
  Captain BENN: Is it the intention of the Government under the Treaty to proceed with the setting up of the Boundary Commission?
  Sir D. HOGG: I do not think there is anything in the Constitution which refers to it.
  Captain BENN: Are the Government going- to proceed with the setting up of the Boundary Commission with the full intention of implementing Article 12 of the Agreement?
  Sir D. HOGG: I am afraid that if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to ask a question which docs not deal with the particular matters which we are enacting under this Constitution, it would be better if he set it down in the ordinary way. I am only endeavouring to explain the Constitution which I am asking this Committee to pass. I am not at present prepared to make a statement of policy on behalf of the Government in regard to matters which are not raised by the enacting of the Constitution.
  Captain BENN: I understood from your ruling, Mr. Hope, that any question relating to the Schedule could be raised on Clause 1.
  The CHAIRMAN: That was not my ruling. I said that the Schedule could not be altered, but I did not say that it could not be discussed.
  Captain BENN: When you put the Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill." shall I be entitled to ask a question?
  The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
  Clause 2 (Temporary Continuation of Present System of Taxation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Irish Free State to adopt Acts applicable to other Dominions.)
  If the Parliament of the Irish Free State make provision to that effect, any Act passed before the passing of this Act which applies to or may be applied to self-governing Dominions., whether alone or to such Dominions and other parts of His Majesty's Dominions, shall apply or may be applied to the Irish Free State in like manner as it applies or may be applied to self-governing Dominions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Colonel GRETTON: I oppose this Clause, which raises a point of considerable importance by giving power to the Irish Free State to adopt Acts applicable to other Dominions. This is a provision? which is quite new in any Statute setting up a Constitution or regulating the relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions or any other part of the Empire. There are certain general enactments which affect the whole Empire. In this particular case, the Irish Free State will be able to say that it will either agree to these enactments or to some one or other of them, and that it may disregard and disagree with others. There is one particular Act, the Colonial Laws Act, 1865. This Act is of very considerable importance, because,-among other things, it prohibits interference by the Colonial or Dominion Executive with Imperial enactments applying generally to Dominions of the Empire. It also deals with the most important question of naturalisation. Apparently, it is intended that the Irish Free State shall not be subject to this very important law or to any enactment of a similar kind. Why should this exception be made? I admit that the case of the new Irish Free State is different from that of the other Dominions and Colonies. In the other Dominions and Colonies they have had Constitutions conferred upon them by an Act of the Crown and the Imperial Parliament. They have been raised, confirmed and improved in their status by these enactments. The Irish Free State is different. The Irish Free State is set up under the terms of a Treaty. Before the Treaty, Ireland was a constituent and equal part of the United Kingdom, and in the change that has been made she is taking a lesser degree in the British Empire by accepting
  560
  the status of a Dominion, which is somewhat less than that of a constituent part of the United Kingdom. I am not disputing whether it is the desire of a large number of people in Ireland that this change should take place.
  Constitutionally, Ireland is accepting a lesser and lower position in the eyes of the Constitution and in the eyes of the law than she occupied before this change was made. In that fact, I do not think there is any reason why Ireland should be excepted from any general Statute which applies to the Dominions of the Crown overseas. If there was any Statute from which she should be excepted it might have been set forth. The tact is that enactments dealing with the general position of British subjects in the Dominions overseas are not applied in the case of Ireland. I, therefore, ask the Attorney-General if he will explain why this Clause is included in the Bill. It in no way affects the Schedule. It is part of the Bill, but it does not affect the Treaty. It is something in the Bill which is outside the terms of the Treaty, and the Committee has full liberty to deal with is. In this respect we are not bound by any agreement or any previous enactment or undertaking. We are perfectly free to discuss this Clause and to take whatever action we think fit on the merits of the case presented.
  Sir D. HOGG: The points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend only require explanation to commend themselves to the Committee. He is quite right in saying that the House is free to deal with these Clauses on their merits. They are not part of the Constitution. They are matters which fall to be enacted outside the Constitution, and I think that when the Committee has heard the meaning and effect of them they will have no difficulty with regard to them. The fact is that there have been enacted for many years past a number of Acts of Parliament, some of which only apply to the dominions which adopt them, some of which provide for reciprocity between the dominions and this country if the dominions choose to adopt them, and some of which apply to the whole Empire, except to the extent that a dominion may-choose not to adopt them. If I give the Committee one or two illustrations they will see the sort of thing that has to be dealt with. The Copyright Act,1911,

  561
  applies to the whole Empire, except that a self-governing dominion can, if they choose, refuse to adopt the Act, and then it will not apply there. The Colonial Probate Act provides that if any self-governing dominion arranges for reciprocity with this country there would be easier ways of proving wills or accepting the probate of wills which have been proved in the dominion or in this country respectively. That is to say, we provide for accepting proof of a will proved, let us say, in New Zealand, and New' Zealand, on the other hand, provides that she shall accept a will when it is proved in the United Kingdom. There are such provisions as facilities for enforcing maintenance orders and matters of that kind, which only become operative in regard to a self-governing dominion in so far as the self-governing dominion chooses to enact reciprocal legislation.
  Then there are certain Acts which only apply to self-governing dominions in a different way from the way in which they apply to this country. For instance, there is a provision such as the Extradition Act. In this country we act under the power of a Secretary of State, while in a self-governing dominion the power is exercised by the Governor-General. Very likely it may happen that the Irish Free State, considering itself expressly put in the position of a self-governing dominion, would prefer to be in. the position of a dominion in a matter of that kind, and for all purposes. This Clause is inserted in the Bill simply and solely to enable the Irish Free State to be in the same position as to adopting Acts, of Parliament as any self-governing dominion is in to-day. It has no sinister meaning nor effect. It is simply to enable the Irish Free State to take advantage of Acts of Parliament which confer adoptive powers upon self-governing dominions, and to enable the Irish Free State to do so if they so choose. Failure to pass this Clause would, I think, not only be inconvenient to the Irish Free State, but would also probably be very inconvenient to this country, because we should be unable to make reciprocal arrangements with the Irish Free State in the same way that we are able to do with other self-governing dominions except the Irish Free State.
  Sir H. CRAIK: The Attorney-General has raised a point of very considerable importance. He mentioned the Copyright Act. Am I to understand that from the
  562
  passing of this Bill the Copyright Act ceases to apply to Ireland, and that there is nothing to prevent the piracy of books which are printed and published in this country being printed and sold in Dublin, without any restriction whatever unless the Legislature of the Irish Free State chooses to re-enact the Copyright Act? This is a matter of very great importance. It virtually makes copyright valueless in this country, because anyone could print a book in Dublin and sell it there, and there could be no reciprocity in the real sense of the term. There is cause for considerable alarm in the casual way in which the right hon. Gentleman brought in the Copyright Act, which seemed to indicate that that Act should have no application unless there was reciprocity by the Free State. I should be very glad to be assured on that point.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Saving.)
  Nothing in the said Constitution shall be construed as prejudicing the power of Parliament to make laws affecting the Irish Free State in any case where, in accordance with constitutional practice, Parliament would make laws affecting other self-governing Dominions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. DAVID REID: I would suggest to the Attorney-General that this Clause should be removed. It is quite unnecessary. Article 12 of the Treaty says
  "The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Irish State (Saorstát Eireann) is vested in the Oireachtas."
  But that seems on further reading to be a very wide enactment. As has been pointed out, it must be read in connection with the Treaty, and Article 2 of the Treaty provides:
  "Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State."
  The Treaty has been given the force of law. Therefore it has already been enacted that the relationship of the Imperial Parliament to the Irish Free State is to

  563
  be the same as its relationship to the Dominion of Canada. But, that point having been provided for, when we come to this Clause in the Treaty, it is an actual derogation from the Treaty. The effect of the Clause would be to cut down the power of Parliament to make laws. The power of making laws is one thing. The constitutional practice obtaining with regard to the Dominions is another thing. Yesterday we had a lucid speech from the Prime Minister as to the undesirability of embodying the constitutional usage which governs the relations of this country to the Dominions in any Statute law. But this Clause has the effect which the Prime Minister deprecates of bringing the constitutional practice into the Statute.
  The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were at one in saying that it was very undesirable that the constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Dominions to this country should be defined by law. Now this Bill is doing the very thing which they both deprecate. Suppose that this Clause were necessary, it is not a general power of legislation: it is a limited power of legislation, and if a law were passed by the Irish Free State under the provisions of this Clause, and a person were charged with an offence under it, it would be a defence open to that person to say that the Act is not a valid Act, and he would be able to give evidence to show what is the constitutional practice. I would suggest therefore, that if the Clause is to stand, the words
  "in accordance with Constitutional practice"
  should be omitted, because that would leave the power of Parliament to make laws affecting the Irish Free State, where Parliament could make laws affecting the other self-governing Dominions. For these reasons I suggest that this Clause should be removed from the Bill or amended in the way which I indicate.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made a very interesting speech, but his argument docs not carry conviction to the minds of some of us on this side. No doubt he will observe that there are other places in this proposed Constitution in which reference is made to the constitutional
  564
  practice. Article 60 provides that the Governor-General of the Irish Free State is to be appointed
  "in like manner as the Governor-General of Canada, and in accordance with the practice observed in the making of such appointment."
  I do not know what view the Attorney-General may take, but I apprehend that probably some confidential conference takes place before an appointment is actually made by His Majesty. But there is a further and more serious reason. In Article 12 of the Constitution, I find those words which, to those interested in constitutional development, are striking words:
  "The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the peace, order and good government of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann.) is vested in the Oireachtas."
  Therefore I apprehend that it is an Act of considerable importance that we should have an enactment Clause like Clause 4, which says that, whatever the language of the. Constitution, nothing in the Constitution shall prejudice the power of the Imperial Parliament to make laws affecting the Irish Free State in any case where, in accordance with constitutional practice, Parliament-would make laws affecting other self-governing Dominions. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman on considering the arguments would really desire that Clause 4 should be omitted if the result would be to leave Article 12 of the Constitution quite uncovered.
  Mr. REID: As the hon. Gentleman has addressed himself pointedly to me, I think that I did call attention to the fact that the governing document was the Treaty. The Treaty lays down definitely what is to he the relationship of the Imperial Parliament to the Irish Free State. Therefore on that subject it does not matter what you have in your Constitution. The governing document is the Treaty. The Treaty has been adopted by this House and is now the law, but this decides now the relationship of the Imperial Parliament to the Irish Free State.
  Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I do not think that this Clause is in any way compatible with the Constitutions of the self-governing Dominions. Neither in the British North America Act, constituting the Dominion of Canada, nor

  565
  the Act constituting the Commonwealth of Australia, nor the South Africa Act will any such Clause as this be found. It is most undesirable to make an innovation in this respect when the effect of this; innovation is to restrict the power of the Imperial Parliament. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) quoted the words that the sole and exclusive power of making laws for peace, order and good government is vested in the Irish Free State. Those words "sole and exclusive power" do not really matter, because whatever is in the Irish Constitution is governed by the Treaty, and if these words mean what is suggested, that the power of this House is gone, then they are obviously repugnant to the Treaty, which provides for a relationship of this House to the Irish Free State, the same as the relationship between this House and Canada. Therefore if the words "sole and exclusive power" should be construed as my right hon. Friend suggests, that does not matter as the Treaty covers it all, but the Treaty relations between the two Governments and Parliaments must be maintained.
  Clause 5 (Short Title and Effect) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Saving.)
    SHEDULE.

      CONSTITUENT ACT.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
      Captain BENN: I would ask the Attorney-General to give an explanation, which I expect he is in a position to do, in reference to the Boundaries Commission. One of the Articles of Agreement is that in the event of Ulster not desiring to come into the Irish Free State there shall be a Boundaries Commission, and the powers of the Commission are to determine, in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, the boundaries of Northern and Southern Ireland. So far as we can ascertain, the wish of the inhabitants of Tyrone and Fermanagh are represented in this House by one
      566
      Nationalist Member of Parliament and one Sinn Feiner, who is being detained under the powers—
      6.0 p.m.
      Captain CRAIG: I submit that the hon. Member is not entitled to ask any questions referring to boundaries under this Bill, which is a Bill providing for a. Constitution for the Irish Free State. The boundaries question has nothing to do with the question of the Irish Constitution. The Treaty is printed with this Bill, presumably for the purpose of giving to the public the opportunity of deciding for them selves whether the Constitution, which is also printed with the Bill, comes within the terms of the Treaty or not. There are many points which, I am convinced, we could not discuss in this Bill. For instance, there are such matters as coastal defence, the ports being open to the ships of various nations, the compensation of judges, auxiliary police, and a hundred and one other matters. I submit that the question of boundaries is among the number.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): I understand that this question has already been raised, and that the hon. and gallant Member is in order in putting his question.
      Captain BENN: I hope that the learned Attorney-General will not say that he must have notice of this question. It is a question of plain good faith. The Agreement says that this Commission shall determine, in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, the boundaries of Northern and Southern Ireland. I understand that the two counties have chosen to be represented in this House, the one by a Nationalist, and the other by a Sinn Fein member who is at present under lock and key. I repeat, therefore, that it would be extremely desirable that the Government should say that they intend to stand fully by Clause 12 of the Treaty. If they say that they are not able to give an answer, they will lay themselves open to a serious and quite unneeessary imputation of weakness—I will not say of bad faith.
      Sir D. HOGG: I rather regret that my hon. and gallant Friend has raised this point. It does not arise directly on the

      567
      Bill, and I doubt very much whether it will tend to improve relations between North and South if the matter is discussed in Parliament. When the House gave this Bill a Second Reading, it accepted the provision now under discussion. No possible object can be gained by discussing it now. The question cannot arise until Ulster has used her option to contract out. It is surely not too much to hope that when the time for its discussion does arrive an agreement may be arrived at between North and South.
      Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like the Attorney-General to define Article 3 a little more clearly. I have had some experience recently of the difficulty of interpreting the English language as used by Parliamentary lawyers. This Article defines the people who become citizens of the Irish Free State, and it is broad enough to embrace millions of people who are not resident there now. Towards the close of the Article there are the words:
      "Provided that any such person, being a citizen of another State, may elect not to accept the citizenship hereby conferred."
      Would the learned Attorney-General explain whether it is necessary for the citizens of Britain, who might become Irish citizens under this Article, to take the initiative so as to preserve their British citizenship, or whether they automatically remain outside if they do not apply for membership of the Irish Free State?
      Sir D. HOGG: I have already discussed Article 3 of the Constitution, once yesterday and twice to-day. But I am very anxious that there should be no misapprehension. So far as I understand it, there is nothing whatever in the Constitution which which renders a British subject any less a British subject if he chooses to become an Irish subject.
      Mr. WHEATLEY: He may be both?
      Sir D. HOGG: He may be both.
      Preamble agreed to.
      Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee,
[Captain FITZKOY in the Chair.]

IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Modification of Government of Ireland Act, 1920.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Captain BENN: On a point of Order. Shall we be at liberty to move Amendments to the Schedule, or, inasmuch as the Schedule is referred to in Clause 1, should we be more in order in discussing the Schedule on Clause 1, or shall we have liberty on the first Schedule to discuss Amendments to that Schedule?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When we come to the Schedule, hon. Members will be at liberty to move Amendments to it.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We were told by the Chairman of Ways and Means on the other Bill that we could not move Amendments to the Schedule, because it had been already enacted in Clause 1 that the Schedule shall become law. The same thing is enacted in this Bill. Therefore, if we were unable to move Amendments to the Schedule of the other Bill, we cannot move Amendments to the Schedule of this Bill.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In the first Bill the Schedule was a separate document from the Bill. In this Bill that is not the case. This is in a different category from the previous Bill.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Provision as to Judges, etc.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. PRINGLE: This Clause relates to Judges. The question has been raised in Ireland regarding officials of the Courts who are not technically Civil servants, and it is held that those officials are not protected by this Bill. I wish to ask the learned Attorney-General what is the position of the officials of the various Courts in Ireland?
  Sir D. HOGG: In this Bill we have made provision with regard to the Judges

  569
  and the Land Commissioners. The reason why we have made provision for them and for nobody else is that they are people whose salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund. They, therefore, have a contract in this country, and however much it may be that we have protected their position by arranging that the Free State shall compensate them, as we have under Article 10 of the Treaty, they technically have a right to look to us first. We have provided that any compensation recovered from the Free State goes in reduction of our liability under this provision. The other officials to whom the lion Member refers are not in the same category, and, with regard to those who are not on the Consolidated Fund, their compensation is assessed in the same way as under the Act of 1920, and there is an express Clause in the Treaty, under Article 10, that they shall be paid by the Irish Free Stats on terms equally favourable.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Establishment of a Trust for the provision of cottages, etc., for? ex-serrice men in Ireland.)
  (1) For the purpose of providing in Ireland cottages, with or without plots or gardens, for the accommodation of men who served ill any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces in the late War, and for other purposes incidental thereto, a body shall be established consisting of five members, of whom three shall be appointed by a Secretary of State, one by the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, and one by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
  (2) The body so established shall be a body corporate by the name of the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and is in this Section referred to as "the Trust."
  (3) For the purposes aforesaid the Trust shall have all the powers which are conferred upon the Local Government Board for Ireland by Section four of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act. 1919, including power to carry out the schemes made under that Section by that Board prior to the passing of this Act, and such powers of management, sale, disposal and otherwise as may be conferred on them by Regulations made by the Treasury, and nil property, assets, rights and liabilities held, enjoyed or borne by the Local Government Board for Ireland in connection with any schemes so made by them shall be transferred to the Trust:
  Provided that the provisions of the said Section relating to the compulsory acquisition of land, limiting the time within which
  570
  the power to acquire land may be exercised by the Board, and regulating the expenses and receipts and audit of accounts of the Board shall not apply to the Trust.
  (4)There shall be paid to the Trust out of moneys provided by Parliament, at such times and in such instalments us the Treasury may direct, a sum not exceeding one million five hundred thousand pounds, and the sum so received and all other receipts of the Trust shall be applied by the Trust to the purposes for which the Trust is created.
  (5) The Treasury may make regulations as to the procedure of the Trust and as to the application of the proceeds of sale, and as to the audit of the accounts of the Trust, and generally as to the manner ill winch the Trust shall carry out their powers and duties and the Trust shall act in accordance with those regulations.
  (6) The term of office of a member of the Trust shall be such as may he determined by the authority by whom he is appointed, hut the Trust may act notwithstanding any vacancy in their number.
  (7) This Section shall not come into operation until the Treasury certify that such legislation has been passed by the Parliament of the Irish Free State and the Parliament of Northern Ireland as is necessary to enable the Trust to acquire and to hold land, to vest in the Trust any land and other property which is under this Section to be transferred to the Trust, and otherwise to enable the Trust to carry out the purposes of this Section.
  Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "War," to insert the words
  "including men who served in the Mercantile Marine during the late War under the direction or control of any Government Department."
  I move this Amendment in order to remedy what has obviously been an oversight in making, for the men referred to, some provision equal to that of ex-service men who were in the Army or Navy or Air Force, so far as housing is concerned. I was hoping that the Government would accept the Amendment without much being said in support of it. We have to remember the position with which the Mercantile Marine was confronted during the earlier stages of the great War Hon. Members must recollect vividly that there was a long period during which merchantmen were not armed to repel enemy attacks. During that period the Mercantile Marine was placed at a much graver disadvantage than were the armed forces of the Navy and Army. Many of the men, particularly those in the "Black Gang," working in the bilge of the ship, perhaps 30 ft. or 40 ft. below the water line, had no chance of saving their lives

  571
  if their ship was hit. I mention that in order to show the gravity of the risks run by the men of the Mercantile Marine at that time. Upon them, as much as upon our other excellent lines of defence, we depended in this nation for the bringing in of the foodstuffs which were necessary not only to feed the civilian population but also to ensure an adequate supply for the forces engaged in more active spheres of operation.
  It is not to my mind quite right that in connection with these amounts which are being definitely set aside, this arm of the service should be forgotten or should not have an equal opportunity of securing the advantages of any provision made in this respect. Here I ought to say—although it is very obvious—that I am in no sense mentioning the mercantile marine in competition with the valuable services rendered by the Army, Navy and Air Force. I do not desire to introduce the question of the mercantile marine merely as an argument for expanding the scope of this proposal, although some Members may feel inclined to go beyond its present scope. We should remember, however, that many of these men and women too— stewardesses and others—after having been on vessels which were torpedoed three and four times, at once re-engaged. That is the spirit of the merchant service. It is a spirit which is akin to that of the naval service. The traditions controlling and governing the acts of our race on the high seas of the world are beyond words to describe. The word "magnificent" comes nowhere near an adequate description. Now, many of these men find themselves houseless just as do members of other branches of His Majesty's Forces, and if there is to be any preference at all in a matter of this kind the mercantile marine should have equal opportunity with the other services.
  The argument may be used that members of the mercantile marine are in a different category to ex-Navy and ex-Army men in so far as the latter are either time-expired or demobilised, are no longer actively associated with the forces, and must seek home employment. Having sought it, and having perhaps been successful, it may be said that they have an increased hardship in regard to housing accommodation. My answer to that argument is that we must recollect the tonnage which is at present laid up and
  572
  the stultifying, almost, of the whole of our mercantile marine in the matter of tonnage. Many thousands of these men find their occupation gone, and are in the same category as the other ex-service men. The strain of the War period has equally affected them: it has prematurely-aged a large number of them, and they are apt to seek shore occupations because of that. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment so that after all the magnificent tributes which have been paid to these men on the Floor of the House it shall not be said that now, when the War is over, they are forgotten and regarded as belonging to the past. We can never forget them. Certainly, so long as I have a voice left, I shall never permit any section of the community within my hearing to forget the duty and the obligation which we owe to the mercantile service. During the War period every merchant seaman came under the control of some Government Department or another. There was the Shipping Control Department there was the Naval Department: there was the department dealing with air matters, and these men were all subject to control and to rules set up for their guidance by Government departments. Remembering this fact, and remembering the circumstances of the merchant seamen during that terrible four-and-a-half years, and particularly the earlier portion of it, I ask that they be given equal consideration in this Government subsidised housing scheme with other ex-members of His Majesty's Forces.
  Sir D. HOGG: I would like to say at once that certainly nobody on this side of the House intends to forget or can forget the services which the mercantile marine rendered during the War. I am glad that this point has been raised by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), because it has given me an opportunity for making that statement. When I have said that, I should like to point out to the Committee that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the reason for this Clause. In the year 1919 there was passed by this House an Act to facilitate the provision of land in Ireland for men who had served in the Naval, military or air forces of the Crown. That Act gave certain powers and duties to the Irish Local Government Board to acquire land in Ireland and to build cottages for these men. It must be apparent to the Committee that now,

  573
  when the Irish Free State is constituted and is given jurisdiction, they would resent an English Government Department carrying on operations of that kind within their jurisdiction. They would say that this was a matter in which it was much hotter that we should not directly, as a Government, interfere. Accordingly this Clause is proposed in order to transfer to a new body—a trust constituted in the way defined in the Clause—the duties and obligations which were, up to this moment, entrusted to the Local Government Board. There is no question of making any fresh provision. We are merely altering the machinery by which we are carrying out existing provisions. If the Amendment were carried, the effect would be that there would not be that provision which the House thought fit to make in 1919 available for men who have served in the Forces, because anything which went to the mercantile marine would necessarily, as a result of the Amendment, be deducted from the sum already provided for the ex-service men. I do not think that i3 a result which the hon. Member would wish to attain or which the Committee would wish to sanction. This Clause simply and solely give:; power to the, trust which we hope to set up, to carry out the old provisions, and it may alleviate the quite legitimate anxiety of the hon. Member, if I say that I have made inquiries and I am told that the Board of Trade have not had a single application from any member of the mercantile marine to know whether they could come within the provisions made so long ago as 1919; so there does not seem to be any great demand on behalf of this very gallant class of the
  community for these particular advantages. I hope with that explanation, the Committee will see fit to leave the Clause in its present form.
  Mr. HAYDAY: There is not much weight to be attached to the argument as to inquiries at the Board of Trade. Has the Board of Trade at any time sought knowledge as to whether or not there is any demand? If it is left to the sea-going fraternity themselves the last place they will go to for any favour is the Board of Trade. We all know the articles which are read out at the Board of Trade offices when signing-on takes place, and it is certainly the last place seamen would go to in search of houses. Assuming, however, that the number of applications is small, I am not so much concerned about that as about remedying what I consider to be an obvious oversight. Even if there were only one, or two, or very few applications, these men should be given an equal right with the others. That is all I am asking. The services of these men were, analogous to the services of other branches, and were sometimes even more dangerous, for many men described as ex-service men perhaps were depot men who never left depots during the War. I attach no importance to the Board of Trade statement that they have had no applications. Ono would never expect them to have, and all I ask is that these men should have equal opportunities with other ex-service men in this matter.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes. 169; Noes, 264.

  Division No. 8.]

  AYES.

  [6.30 p.m.

  Adamson, Bt. Hon. William

  Charleton, H. C.

  Gray, Frank (Oxford)

  Adamsom, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

  Clarke, Sir E. C.

  Greenall, T.

  Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Asqulth, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Collins, Pat (Walsall)

  Groves, T.

  Attlee, C. R.

  Collison, Levi

  Grundy, T. W.

  Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

  Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

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

  Barnes, A.

  Darbishire, C. W.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

  Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

  Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Harbord, Arthur

  Berkeley, Captain Reginald

  Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

  Hardie, George D.

  Bonwick, A.

  Duffy, T. Gavan

  Harney, E. A.

  Broad, f. A.

  Duncan, C.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Bromfield, William

  Edmonds, G.

  Hartshorn, Vernon

  Brotherton, J.

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

  Hayday, Arthur

  Buchanan, G.

  Entwistle, Major C. F.

  Hemmerde, E. G.

  Buckle, J.

  Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Burgess, S.

  Fairbairn, R. R.

  Herriotts, J.

  Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

  Falconer, J.

  Hill, A.

  Cairns, John

  Foot, Isaac

  Hillary, A E.

  Cape, Thomas

  Graham, D. m. (Hamilton)

  Hinds, John

  Hirst, G. H.

  Nicol, Robert

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

  Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

  O'Grady, Captain James

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

  Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Paling, W.

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

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Parker, H. (Hanley)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

  Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

  Thornton, M.

  Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

  Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

  Tillett, Benjamin

  Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

  Phillipps, Vivian

  Trevelyan, C. P.

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Turner, Ben

  Kirkwood, D.

  Potts, John S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Lansbury, George

  Pringle, W. M. R.

  Warne, G. H.

  Lawson, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Leach, W.

  Ritson. J.

  Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

  Lee, F.

  Roberts. C. H. (Derby)

  Webb, Sidney

  Linfield, F. C.

  Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

  Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

  Lowth, T.

  Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Weir, L. M.

  Lunn, William

  Robinson, W. C. (York, Eliand)

  Welsh, J. C.

  MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Westwood, J.

  M'Entee, v. L.

  Salter, Dr. A.

  White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

  Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Scrymgeour, E.

  White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

  March, S.

  Sexton, James

  Whiteley, W.

  Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

  Wignall, James

  Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)

  Shinwell, Emanuel

  Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

  Mathew, C. J.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Williams, Or. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Maxton, James

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Middleton, G.

  Simpson, J. Hope

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Millar, J. D.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Morel, E. D.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Wintringham. Margaret

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Smith, T. (Pontefract)

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

  Mosley, Oswald

  Snell, Harry

  Wright, W.

  Muir, John W.

  Snowden, Philip

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Murnin, H.

  Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

  Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

  Spoor, B. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.…

  Murray. R. (Renfrew, Western)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Morgan

  Newbold, J. T. W.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Jones.

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

  Sullivan, J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

  Furness, G. J.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton. East)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Galbraith. J. F. W.

  Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

  Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Apsley, Lord

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Gardiner, James

  Astor, J. J. (Kent. Dover)

  Cohen, Major J. Brunei

  Garland, C. S.

  Baird, Rt. Hon. sir John Lawrence

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Gates, Percy

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Colvin, Brig. General Richard Beale

  Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Gilbert, James Daniel

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Cope, Major William

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Banks. Mitchell

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

  God. Sir R. Park

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

  Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

  Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w.

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

  Greaves-Lord. Walter

  Bennett. Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Gretton, Colonel John

  Berry, Sir George

  Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

  Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)

  Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

  Birchall, J. Dearman

  Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

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

  Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

  Halstead. Major D.

  Blades, Sir George Rowland

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

  Harrison, F. C.

  Blundell. F. N.

  Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

  Harvey, Major S. E.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Davies Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Hawke, John Anthony

  Brass, Captain W.

  Davies J. C (Denbigh Denbigh)

  Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

  Brassey Sir Leonard

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive

  Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

  Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

  Briggs, Harold

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

  Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Hewett, Sir J. P.

  Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

  Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

  Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough. E.)

  Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

  Hiley, Sir Ernest

  Bruford, R.

  Doyle, N. Grattan

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

  Bruton, Sir James

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Edmondson, Major A. J

  Holbraok, Sir Arthur Richard

  Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

  Ednam, Viscount

  Hood, Sir Joseph

  Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter E, (Lanark)

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

  Butcher, Sir John George

  England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

  Houlton, John Plowright

  Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)

  Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

  Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.

  Hudson, Capt. A.

  Cadogan, Major Edward

  Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gon. Sir Aylmer

  Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Falcon, Captain Michael

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

  Hurst. Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fawkes, Major F. H.

  Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

  Hutchison. W. (Keivingrove)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

  Flanagan, W. H.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

  Ford, Patrick Johnston

  Jarrett, G. W. S.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Forestier-Walker, L.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Churchman, Sir Arthur

  Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

  Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

  576

  577

  Kennedy. Captain M. S. Nigel

  Parker, Owen (Kettering)

  Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

  King, Capt. Henry Douglas

  Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Somervllie, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

  Penny, Frederick George

  Sparkes, H. W.

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

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Stanley, Lord

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Perring, William George

  Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.

  Lorden, John William

  Phillpson, H. H.

  Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

  Longher, L.

  Pielou, D. P.

  Stott, Lt.-Col, W. H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

  Strauss, Edward Anthony

  Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

  Raeburn, Sir William H.

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Lumley, L. R.

  Raine, W.

  Sturrock, J. Leng

  Lynn, R. J.

  Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  M'Connell, Thomas E.

  Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

  Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

  Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

  Sutcliffe, T.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Remnant, Sir James

  Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

  Reynolds, W. G. W.

  Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

  Manville, Edward

  Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

  Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Margesson, H. D. R.

  Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

  Thorpe, Captain John Henry

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)

  Titchfield, Marquess of

  Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

  Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Mercer, Colonel H.

  Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

  Tubbs, S. W.

  Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

  Rogerson, Capt. J. E.

  Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.

  Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wallace, Captain E.

  Moles, Thomas

  Roundell, Colonel R. F.

  Waring, Major Walter

  Molloy, Major L. G. S.

  Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

  Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

  Molson, Major John Eisdale

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wheatley, J.

  Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

  Russell, William (Bolton)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

  Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney

  White. Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Whitla, Sir William

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Windsor, Viscount

  Murray, John (Leeds, West)

  Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

  Winterton, Earl

  Nesbitt, J. C.

  Sandon, Lord

  Wise, Frederick

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

  Scott. Sir Leslie (Liverp't, Exchange)

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Shepperson, E. W.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Norton-Griffiths, Lieut-Col. Sir John

  Simms. Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

  Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

  Yerburgh, R. D. T.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Singlair. Sir A.

  Paget, T. G.

  Singleton, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Captain DIXON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7), to insert the words
  "Provided that if within six calendar months from the date of the passing of this Act the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have passed and the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall not have passed such legislation, the said Trust shall be established but shall consist of three Members only, of whom two shall be appointed by a Secretary of State and one by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and its powers and operations shall be limited to Northern Ireland."
  I think there is a certain amount of misconception with reference to the money in this trust. This is not a new trust set up for the ex-soldiers in Ireland, but it is the remains of an old trust set up in 1919, which was given to Ireland largely through the efforts of the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland and who did everything in his power to help Ireland in a material sense during the time he was in office. We have no abjection whatever to the trust being set up in reference to this money, but what we do object to is this, that the trust cannot come into
  578
  operation until an agreement has been arrived at as between the Parliament of the Southern Government and the Parliament of the Northern Government. We hold that this is a great hardship to the ex-soldiers in Ireland, and we say that this free gift which has been made to the ex-soldiers for their services to the Empire should at once be put into execution, and that if either the North or the South of Ireland fail to carry out their contract two trusts should be set up. We do not ask that we should have all the money. We are willing to leave that to the financial advisers of the Government, bearing in mind the fact that Ulster sent 76,000 men to the War and that the rest of Ireland sent, I think, 73,000, and also bearing in mind the fact that owing to the Local Government Board being in Dublin and having worked conscientiously against Ulster for the last six or seven years, I think some 1,500 houses have been built in the South and only-half that number in the North. I am sure that every ex-service Member in the House agrees with mc that we should do all we can to see that these men get their houses and their plots at once.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsly-Gore): I have been very carefully into this question, and I am very much afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. First of all, this Clause comes into this Bill as an agreed Clause, definitely agreed by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and the President of the Provisional Government of the Free State, and when such an agreement has been reached on both sides, I think it would be unfortunate that we should put words into the Bill which might suggest that honourable obligations undertaken in that way are not going to be fulfilled. I am quite sure the proper way to deal with the breakdown is when the breakdown has occurred, and not to imagine that the ex-service men in the Free State after the passing of the Constitution Bill are not going to get the benefits of this Clause. I have every hope and every reason for thinking that they will get the benefits of this Clause. The Local Government Board, which is doing the work in Southern Ireland, ceases to exist on 6th December, but that machinery will not cease to exist as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and consequently I am informed that there is no reason why, if the trust be not immediately operative, the old machinery should not go on in the North of Ireland if and when Northern Ireland exercises her option to contract out. If we were to split the trust, it would destroy the whole machinery contemplated by this Clause.
  This, as I say, is an agreed Clause, and I have every reason to think that, as all the money comes from this country, to discharge an obligation to ex-service men, neither the North nor the South will reject that money. There is one thing which, I think, is clear, and that is that if an Imperial contribution is forthcoming, both sections in Ireland are only too ready to take it, and in this case one rejoices that that is so. After all, it will diminish the housing shortage which is apparent, and I am sure the Free State will welcome the provisions of this Clause. We have no reason to suppose the contrary. Do not let us invite criticism by suggesting it. Whatever happens, we will continue to have this obligation, which was incurred in the 1019 Act, to the soldiers and sailors. We in this Parliament have undertaken that obligation, and, whatever happens, it is up to us to see that it is properly discharged. If
  580
  it be not properly discharged either by the Board or by this House, it will be for Parliament to reconsider the matter. The money is to be voted by this House, and the machinery is to remain under the control of this House. I want to remove from my hon. Friend's mind the idea that either the Northern Government or the Government of the Free State is going to handle this money. We are definitely retaining control of the Trust by having a majority of the members on the Trust, and the, money is not going to be handed over to either Government, but is going to be administered by the Trust for the benefit of these ex-service men. The Amendment is most unfortunately worded, and would have a most unfortunate effect. An incidental effect, probably not intended, would be that the whole of the activities of the Trust would be limited to the North of Ireland, and, after all, even if it he true, as my hon. Friend said, that in Southern Ireland the Local Government Board has been more active than in Northern Ireland, I think, in view of the position of many ex-service men in Southern Ireland during the last few years, they would probably be well advised in concentrating on securing adequate provision for obtaining houses and plots whereby to maintain their families. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, for the reasons I have given.
  Captain CRAIG: There is one statement, which the hon. Member has made in the course of the speech to which we have just listened, on which I must join issue with him, and that is that this is in any sense an agreed Clause. I can only say that I have been in very close touch with the Prime Minister of the Ulster Parliament during the four or five days which preceded the introduction of these Bills into the House of Commons, and I think I am in possession of all the facts in reference to these matters. This was never agreed, so far as I am aware.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was so informed by my legal advisers.
  Captain CRAIG: The hon. Member is quite wrong; it is not an agreed Clause. By an agreed Clause, I presume the hon. Member means an agreement arrived at between the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and Mr. Cosgrave. I am perfectly certain—in fact I know as a fact— that no such agreement was ever reached.

  581
  and I doubt very much whether this question of ex-soldiers was ever raised at the last meeting. I, of course, exonerate my hon. Friend from any intention of misleading the Committee, but I wish to make clear that that is not the fact. I am sorry he does not see his way to divide up this Trust. We are quite sensible of the good that may flow from the Clause as it is, and we are glad to have the Clause, but we think it might be improved by treating this in two parts. As to his objection that the machinery may be broken up by dividing the Trust into two parts, I really do not think that is the case. In the South of Ireland, it will, presumably, be the Board of Works, or whatever Department looks after the building of these houses, and in the North there will be a similar Department. I see no difficulty, and I am quite sure that had the draftsmen of the Bill thought dividing this fund into two parts, there would have been no difficulty in doing so, and I have not the faintest doubt that had they done so, it would have been productive of more good than the present system.
  There is one more, point. The hon. Member made a conjecture that in providing almost twice as many houses for ex-service men in the South as for ex-service men in the North, in spite of the fact that the North provided almost exactly the same number of men for the War as the South, that that was because of some philanthropic idea of those to whom the administration of this matter was entrusted in the South of Ireland, and that they thought ex-soldiers in the South, in the circumstances, deserved bettor treatment than those in the North. I can only repudiate that idea altogether. We, who come from Ireland know perfectly well that in cases of this kind, where the South has been treated more liberally than the North, it is due entirely to the fact that the officials in Dublin have always preferred the South to the North. The hon. Member is new to his office, but I hope in the course of hit: continuance of that office, which I trust will be prolonged, he will not offer to this House the explanation, where something flagrantly favourable to the South is done by some official in Ireland, that it was done because the South, for some, reason or other, deserved better treatment than the North, when
  582
  the fact is that the officials in the South are prejudiced against the North, and they show it in some practical form on every occasion it is possible to do so.
  Captain BENN: I do not know whether it is possible to pursue this arithmetical calculation as to whether the North or the South sent more men to the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it takes no account of the thousands of Irishmen, exiles from overseas, who came forward with the Dominion troops and did noble service in the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Ulstermen as well!"] I do not accept the figures, and fail to see that any profit can be gained by discussing them. The second point is this. There is no doubt at all that if a solution is ever to come for Ireland it will be on the basis of a United Ireland, and whenever anything in the direction of union is mooted the opposition comes from the Ulster Benches. I think when those Members come to this House for money—
  Mr. LYNN: We are not coming for money.
  Captain BENN: The money was voted by this House under the Act of 1919, and the least they can do, if they come here for money, is to accept some little step— it is not much—towards union which is drafted by the Government; but, instead of that they come forward with the original proposal that if the Trust does not do something within six months, the operation of the Trust shall be limited to Northern Ireland. In the event of something happening which is not likely to happen, they make a proposal that the whole of the money should be devoted to Northern Ireland.
  Captain DIXON: On a point of Order. I clearly stated—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Captain BENN: I was proceeding to say that for hon. Members from Ulster to propose that this House should set up a Trust, the operations of which, and the funds of which, should be limited to Northern Ireland, is only what I can describe, within the limits of Parliamentary language, as a shameless proposal.
  Captain DIXON: I clearly stated in moving this Amendment that we did not

  583
  wish for the money, and that we were prepared to leave it to the financial advisers of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, there is no point in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. Throughout the whole of this Irish controversy 'he has been the one voice that has stirred up strife on every occasion between the North and the South, and even when the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him was trying to help us a little in Ireland, he had to go into the country denouncing us in every place. Now he gets up and purposely misrepresents me in this House, and makes a statement which is absolutely untrue. As I have said, I desire fair treatment throughout Ireland for ex-service men—I do not care what part they come from.
  Mr. MOLES: I do think it is a great calamity that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, who always poses in this House as being on the side of Irish unity, should try to achieve that object by attacking those who sit on these benches. Over and over again from those, benches opposite there have been provocative speeches, which, I tell him deliberately, have been attended with consequences to human life in Ireland. He deprecates any reference to arithmetical calculations. Of course, he objects to them: they do not suit him. We could not accept the views of his party of what is likely to achieve Irish unity. The whole history of the party with which he is associated has been one calamitous series of blunders leading up to the present situation. I do not wish to pursue the matter. I do not envy the hon. and gallant Gentleman the unworthy distinction he has achieved in that direction. While he describes certain action of ours as shameless, the statements he makes are so hopelessly at variance with the facts, that, were it Parliamentary, I would describe his statements as shameless and impudent impostures.
  7.0 P.M.
  I want to pass away from that and come to something of really much more moment. Whatever antagonisms party passion may have provoked in the past in this Irish controversy, let us, at any rate when we are discussing the case of ex-service men, put them on one side and not victimise the men. What really is the position in this matter? The Under-
  584
  Secretary for the Colonies tells us that this was an agreed matter between the representatives of the two Governments.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: And the British Government.
  Mr. MOLES: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and in saying that I do not wish to imply any reflection on my hon. Friends from Ulster. Supposing, however, it were an agreed matter, the Under-Secretary would not challenge this view that none of the three parties at all considered the probability of the breakdown of the whole scheme. That never was before them, and it is an entirely new fact. It is because we know that position to be imminent, and indeed almost inevitable, that we wish to make some provision for it. The position in which the Free State Government finds itself at this moment is really a desperate one. With the best desire in the world, it will have an infinitely more urgent and terrible problem to deal with. I ask all sides of the Committee if it is fair that, if this problem cannot be dealt with in the South, thousands of ex-service men who need houses in the North should be compelled to wait until the conditions in the South are so cleared up that the problem can be treated as a united one?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have already said that I am assured that will not be the case. If this trust, which is our purpose, fails, well, it fails: but even if it does fail the machinery can continue to work in Northern Ireland if the North of Ireland opts out of the Free State.
  Mr. MOLES: Lei me show what the present difficulties are. The machinery you have hitherto employed for dealing with this problem is that of the Local Government Board. That machinery you will scrap on the 6th December, at the week-end. Therefore, the only machinery upon which you could have fallen back will have been destroyed by your own action. The other machinery which you propose to set up will not have become operative. These are the facts. Those of us who come from Ireland have every day contact with the practical working of these problems. It is not reasonable, indeed it is unjustifiable from every point of view, that the Government in the North of Ireland, which is not only willing, but able to deal with the problem in its own area, should have

  585
  its activities paralysed, and that the ex-service men there should be denied redress for a considerable number of years.
  That is not the whole of the matter. What really is behind the Under-Secretary's statement is this. You can set up two Governments, one for the North of Ireland and one for the South of Ireland. You can entrust them with authority over matters of life and death. You can give them complete control over law and order; you can give them the power of legislation; yet we are seriously asked to believe that you cannot give them the control of the erection of houses for ex-service men. I dc not think anybody, from any quarter of the Committee, will attempt to justify that position. If the Government wish this problem to be dealt with, and dealt with early, we offer them a way by which it can be done. I admit, quite frankly, that it cannot be dealt with throughout the whole of Ireland at once. Why cannot you permit it to be carried out in one part where, for the time being, it can be done?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The Clause does that. You do not understand it.
  Mr. MOLES: Thai may be, but I do not wish to turn aside and address the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) in the impertinent manner he addressed me. If I wish to make observations in that spirit, I could do so, but I desire to get away from that atmosphere.
  Mr. PRINGLE: You have not been in order at all.
  Mr. MOLES: Really, although the hon. Gentleman has been a long time in this House, I think some of his friends might take him outside and give him a lesson in deportment. I come back to the practical point involved. Is it or is it not desirable that, if you cannot deal with this problem for the whole of Ireland, you should do so for so much of Ireland where it can be dealt with at the moment? It is not fair on these ex-service men in the North to deny them the redress which can be given to them almost immediately because you cannot get the scheme set up throughout the whole of Ireland at once. It is perfectly easy to make whatever financial discrimination may be thought reasonable and practicable between the two schemes; there will be no acrimony, so far as we are concerned,
  586
  upon that point. We think, however, as soon as is practicable, in view of the fact that we can deal with this question in the North of Ireland, that it ought to be dealt with there. You should leave it to the Free State Government to deal with the residue of the problem at such time as they can. I hope the Under-Secretary will reconsider his attitude and try to meet us, as we have met him, in regard to the ex-service men.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I will not deal with any of the fulminations of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, either in regard to myself or to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Bonn). I wish simply to deal with the question whether this Amendment is necessary. When I interrupted the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles) with the suggestion that he had misunderstood the Clause, I did it because I had read the Clause. The assumption underlying the hon. Member's speech is that this Trust will come into operation on the 6th December. That is not so. If he reads Sub-section 7–
  Mr. MOLES: I have no such misapprehension of the Clause.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Then the statement the hon. Gentleman made in the course of his speech that this Clause was to come into operation—
  Mr. MOLES: No. Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I said the machinery of the Local Government Board would be scrapped on that date.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The statement, he made in his speech was that the existing machinery would come to an end on the 6th December. It does nothing of the kind. The existing machinery continues until something takes its place, and Subsection (7) says:
  "This Section shall not come into operation until the Treasury certify that such legislation has been passed by the Parliament of the Irish Free State and the Parliament of Northern Ireland us is necessary to enable the Trust to acquire and to hold land, to vest in the Trust any land and other property which is under this Section to be transferred to the Trust, and otherwise to enable the Trust to carry out the purposes of this Section."
  Therefore, this Clause does not come into operation upon the date the hon. Member suggests at all. Until it does come into

  587
  operation the existing machinery must operate so far as Northern Ireland is concerned. As that is the Local Government Board, or whatever Department has been instituted in Northern Ireland to take over the functions of the Local Government Board, I submit that, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the rights of the ex-service men are safeguarded pending the institution of the Trust. In these circumstances I suggest that the Amendment is unnecessary.
  Mr. O'NEILL: May I ask the Under-Secretary a question? If, as I think perhaps he can, he is able to give a satisfactory answer, it will largely dissipate the fears we feel. He said just now that the existing administration would continue, and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has just said so. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles) stated that that would be impossible, because the Local Government Board for Ireland would come to an end on the 6th December. I think that is perfectly true. The Local Government Board in Ireland was the body which administered these soldiers' houses. Can the Under-Secretary for the Colonies give me this assurance that even though the Local Government Board may disappear, there will be some body, possibly the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, which will act on behalf of the Imperial Government? Can he assure us that it will be possible for this scheme to be continued in Northern Ireland, even though the Trust may not come into operation? If he can get me that assurance, then I am authorised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment to say that he will ask leave to withdraw it.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think I am in a position to give that assurance. Of course, the machinery comes to an end on the 6th December in Southern Ireland. There is power under the 1919 Act to make other arrangements to carry on, pro tem., I do not say indefinitely; and if this Trust does not come into operation within a reasonable space of time, we shall have to introduce further legislation for dealing with this matter. I have made that quite clear, and I am advised that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill) suggested, either through the Ministry of Home Affairs or
  588
  by other machinery under the Act of 1919, this work will be carried on in Ireland. I hope that will be satisfactory.
  Mr. M'CONNELL: I am sure the Committee will forgive me for rising, though I do not like to do so after the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has given us such a promise. I cannot allow the statement that has fallen from his lips to the effect that the Government in the South have built houses for ex-service men, while apparently nothing has been done in the North, to pass unchallenged. We have done something in the North. In Belfast we have built between 800 and 900 houses, and not one of those houses is occupied by other than ex-service men. We have also built, something which does not exist anywhere else in the whole, of these islands—a colony for absolutely disabled men. In that colony the men are living free of rent and taxes for the term of their natural life. The Committee will agree with me we have at least done something. We have been spending our own money, and not looking entirely to the British Government for that money. The South of Ireland has been entirely dependent upon the taxpayers of Great Britain for money to build houses. We have not. We have spent over £1,000,000 in Belfast, and we are at present spending over £1,000,000 for the purpose of relieving unemployment. There is no greater need in this country than the provision of houses for these people. By that means unemployment will be grappled with. I hope something will be done with regard to this very important matter, and that at a very early date we shall sec more and more houses erected in the three kingdoms.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has rather done me an injustice in giving to something I said a meaning which certainly I had no intention of conveying. What I said was not. that Ulster had done nothing—I never made any reference to that: I said that when my hon. Friend the Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon) introduced this Amendment, he said that the Local Government Board in Ireland had done more under this scheme in the past for ex-service men in the South than—according to his own showing, I have not had time to go into the figures—they had in the Northern area. Possibly that was due to

  589
  the disturbed political conditions in the youth making it more urgent that special attention should be given to the cases of individual ex-service men in the South. I deplore any attempts to draw any comparison between the North and South with regard to this, or to bring into the matter such points as have been imported; and I regret that this Debate has given rise to any recriminations. On matters of this kind beyond all others it is desirable, in dealing with the ex-service men in Ireland, that we should keep the atmosphere cool.
  Captain DIXON: I readily accept the assurance that has been given by the hon. Gentleman that no matter whether we go from, his Department or not, or no matter whether the Local Government Board is scrapped or not, that the building of houses for ex-service men in Ireland will go on. That was the statement which he made. I readily accept it. I am glad to know that nothing will hold up the building of houses for ex-service men, and nothing will stop the employment of men in building of houses at the present moment. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not see anything in the Clause that lays it down that the ex-service men concerned under this Clause must be Irish. I presume the Government of Ireland will see to that themselves. But I could not help thinking, on reading the Clause, that those ex-service men should think themselves lucky that they are Irish. Had they been Scotsmen coming to the same Government and asking for cottage houses, the same Government, which seems to keep one mind for the Irish problem and another mind for the problems of this country, would have told them that the country had been hard hit and that the Government could not afford a million and a half to provide cottages for the people of this country. I have no doubt whatever that in the very near future representatives of the Government sitting on the Front Bench opposite may use the granting of this million and a half to Ireland as an additional reason why they should not embark on the erection of cottage homes for the ex-service men of England and
  590
  Scotland. It all gets back to this: that the ex-service men in the industrial districts of this country made themselves too cheap. Had they been more exacting in their demands—had they followed the example of the Irish people and placed a higher value on their lives, they would have been treated with more respect today, and not receive merely lip-service. What are we doing for the ex-service men of these two countries? As a matter of fact the house that is being provided in Glasgow is the poor house for ex-service men while you are proposing cottage homes for Ireland. You are providing cottage homes for the people of Ireland who know how to make themselves uncomfortable to any British Government. I again protest against the attitude of the Government, and say again that the lesson to be derived from it is that if you want to get anything from a British Government you must kick it hard.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been looking at the Act—I refer to the corresponding Act for Scotland—and the figure there inserted is £2,750,000. The amount spent altogether was approximately £17,000,000.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: How many houses?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not ready with an answer to that at the present moment, but what I refer to was passed as a land settlement scheme, an Act for Scotland as well as an Act for Ireland. Really the speech of the hon. Member shows an absolute disregard of the facts of the case. He has forgotten the provision that has been made by the respective English and Scottish Acts.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not forgotten this: that in Glasgow, one Division of which I represent, there are tens of thousands of ex-service men who cannot get a cottage under the Act he has quoted.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: We have tens of thousands of men in Lanarkshire who are in need of houses, and this Government, as far as we know, instead of helping has been putting difficulties in the way.
  Captain ELLIOT: I deprecate these attempts to make party capital for the purposes of the Labour party. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say

  591
  that the way to get anything from the British Government is to make yourself as unpleasant as you can, and to kick it.
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Hear, hear!
  Captain ELLIOT: Yes, that is applauded by hon. Members on the other side; but consider what the lot of the ex-service men in Ireland has been. The ex-service men there have been assaulted, abused, and assassinated. If there is one man above another who has suffered in silence in Ireland, it is the ex-service men. Yet the hon. Member (Mr. Wheatley) comes here and in this miserable fashion endeavours to make the treatment of the Irish men an occasion on which to attack the Government. He forgets to add that there are schemes under which we in Scot-land and also the people in England have received benefit. To make party capital out of such an occasion is entirely unjustifiable; but to say that the way for the ex-service men to get benefits is to make themselves obnoxious to the Government is a statement that within the knowledge of every Member is absolutely at variance with the facts.
  Mr. McENTEE: I should like to make some reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I happen to be an Irishman. Though I have been sometime out of Ireland, yet I have a fair knowledge of what is going on. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) has charged hon. Members on this side of the House with a desire to make party capital out of the conditions of ex-service men in Belfast, and in the North of Ireland generally, and, may I say, in England too. After all, we on this side of the House are exceedingly pleased that the representatives of Northern Ireland have been able to secure such exceedingly good conditions for the ex-service men, and we should have liked to see such conditions given, where required, to any other body of men or women. We were simply drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, judging by the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, there appears to be in Northern Ireland such a condition of affairs that the ex-service men in a very short time will not be in need of houses. What is there to complain about if we here in England find out that the conditions are not so good as they apparently are in the North of
  592
  Ireland? In the constituency which I represent we have at the present time 780 applications. The whole or nearly the whole of them are from ex-service men who cannot get a cottage, or a house of any kind, or even in some cases a room to live in. We feel that condition very much indeed. I have had some recent personal experience in dealing with the Department of the Government concerned. We have land. We were compelled to buy it by the late Government and at an exorbitant price, too! We were compelled to borrow the money. We were compelled, further, to make certain grants approved by the late Government.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in order to go into a long history of what has occurred in certain localities in England on the housing section of the Irish Bill.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have thought for some time that the hon. Gentleman was rather wide of the mark. The question of housing in England and Scotland can only be used to illustrate an argument, but I hope hon. Members will not continue to discuss it.
  Mr. McENTEE: I congratulate the Members of Northern Ireland on the fight that they have put up for their ex-service men, but I cannot congratulate hon. Members from Northern Ireland on their continued interjections when someone on this side of the House is trying to put up an equally good fight for the ex-service man here. After all, we are as justified as themselves in our endeavours to induce the Government to give consideration to the men over here, and to treat them at least equally with the men in Northern Ireland. Personally I am exceedingly glad, indeed, to know the good conditions in Northern Ireland, yet, in spite of all that has been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I am afraid, from what I know of the place, that after you have spent all your million and a half there will be still opportunity for building more houses—and plenty of need for them in Northern Ireland! I happen to have had some experience over there. I am of opinion—rightly, I think—that the condition of the working classes in respect of housing, more especially in Belfast, is very far from that rosy picture presented to us to-night. We protest against the con-

  593
  ditions that are imposed upon our ex-service men here, and we hope the Government will pay more attention and give them some opportunity of getting houses. The conditions are such in this country that, although we have been compelled to buy land and to borrow money for our schemes, a large portion of our schemes have been held up. When I heard the representative of the Government make his statement on this point, I could not help thinking that there was a plan being carried out in Ireland which we would like to see carried out in this country.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Hon. Members opposite seem to have taken offence at the statement that the best way to get anything out of the Government is to kick them. May I point out that the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Elliot) seems to think that there is another way of proceeding, which is that you may obtain concessions from the Government by acting as their apologist on particular occasions. In this way I hope the hon. and gallant Member's reward will come in due course, and if he displays as much zeal in regard to housing and housing conditions in that small portion of the County of Lanark, which he represents, as he does in regard to housing conditions in Northern Ireland, I think his constituents will look upon him with more favour than a very large number of them do at the present time.
  On these benches we do not protest against the persistency of the representatives of Northern Ireland in this connection, but we rather admire it. I suggest that in subsequent Debates we may follow their admirable lead in regard to other parts of the country, and then I hope they will not complain. It has been said that on these benches we are trying to make party capital out of ex-service men, but I entirely repudiate that statement. We are anxious that ex-service men throughout Great Britain should obtain all that can be provided for them in the way of housing. Further than that, we ask that the Government should provide what they promised years ago with regard to housing conditions.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to discusss the application of the Housing Acts to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid that I have been led away by the observations of the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) whom we expected to set a good example. I merely content myself by saying that we on this side of the House are not making any complaint about the attitude of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland, and all we ask is that the same persistency displayed in this matter in regard to Northern Ireland may be directed to ex-service men in other parts of Great Britain.
  Sir W. ALLEN: I rise in order to deny the statement that we are trying to get for Northern Ireland something in the way of preference over other parts of the United Kingdom, because nothing is further from the truth. What we are fighting for is that the Bill of 1919 dealing with this question should not cease its operation because of the passage of this Measure. That Bill has been passed, and there is about to be a dislocation of Departments, and when that takes place we are urging that the procedure formerly adopted may continue. This particular Section is to secure that there shall be no dislocation. It is true that when we got that money before for this purpose we only got it because England and Scotland got its proportion as well. It was only because Bills were being passed for England and Scotland that we got anything at all.
  I want hon. Members to disabuse their minds of the false impression that Northern Ireland's representatives are trying to get something preferentially, because they are doing nothing of the kind. We are only trying to secure that these Acts with which we are now dealing shall not dislocate things that have been proceeding smoothly in Ireland. The action of the Local Government Board ceases on the 6th of December, and all we ask is that there shall be a continuity of these housing operations, that there will be expedition and no delay in the carrying out of that which has already been granted and sanctioned. We are very glad to be informed that no delay will be necessary in providing further housing for the ex-soldiers in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members must see that, owing to the difficulties with which the Government of Southern Ireland are confronted at the present time, and which

  595
  may continue for some time to come, it will be impossible for them to get through all the legislation that is necessary, and consequently we think that Subsection (7) of this particular Clause may militate against expedition in providing ex-soldiers housing accommodation in Northern Ireland. We want more expedition and less delay in order to get houses for the ex-soldiers.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Application of Custom Acts to Land Frontier.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Colonel GRETTON: I want to know whether under this Clause it is the intention of the Government to set up a Customs barrier on the borders of Northern Ireland. Sub-section (1) deals with the making of regulations with reference to the importation and exportation of any goods into and from Northern Ireland, and regulations for the purpose of safeguarding the revenue and preventing and regulating the importation and exportation of prohibited and restricted goods. I take it that prohibited and restricted goods relate mainly to arms and explosives, but it is not clear what the Government mean by safeguarding the revenue. How will they safeguard the revenue by this Customs barrier? It is clear that the goods subject to Customs duty will be such articles as tea, sugar, alcoholic liquors and matters of that kind, and no doubt Customs duty will have to be charged upon those articles as if they were imported into any port in the United Kingdom when sent across to Northern Ireland.
  There is another Clause which raises a question of greater difficulty, namely, the excisable goods sent to Southern Ireland which are afterwards sent across to Northern Ireland. Large quantities of goods are sent from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland, and I would like to know what the Government propose to do under this Clause with regard to these matters. The Government propose to safeguard the revenue, and clearly it follows as a corollary that similar action will have to be taken in other parts of
  596
  Great Britain. Therefore there will be a new Customs barrier set up by the Act under this Clause between the Free State and what was the United Kingdom. I am not quite sure that the Government realise how far this Clause really carries them. These are all matters which arise directly out of this Clause, and I think this is the proper time to ask the Government what they mean by inserting this provision and how they propose to carry out the conditions set down for safeguarding the revenue, and regulating the importation and exportation of prohibited and restricted goods.
  There is another further question which will have to be dealt with. There is not the slightest doubt that under Article 12 of the Treaty Northern Ireland will elect to remain part of the United Kingdom. The boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland is of a most irregular character. The Customs harrier to which I have referred is subject to provisions under the Treaty. A boundary will have to be arranged, and it will be found that economic conditions will have to be taken into consideration. At present the boundary is over 200 miles long, and if economic conditions are to be taken into account there must be some considerable modification of the boundary in order to make it more convenient to administer the economic conditions arising out of the Customs duty. I do not propose to pursue this question any further, but I ask some Member of the Government to explain what is meant by this Clause, and how it is proposed to put it into operation.
  Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I want to supplement the remarks of the last speaker by asking one further question in connection with this Clause. Clearly this land boundary, the first and only Customs boundary by land in the British Isles, will be a very expensive matter to administer, although it is hoped that, by some of the powers taken in the Clause for defining the routes for the entry of exports, the expenses may be diminished. As I understand it, under the present financial settlement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is an allocation to Northern Ireland of the contributions of Customs Revenue. The question I want to ask is this. Will the extra expense—possibly a very substantial amount—of the maintenance of the

  597
  land Customs boundary between Northern and Southern Ireland be brought into account against the revenue attributable to Northern Ireland, or what other arrangement in respect of the allocation of that burden is to be made between the two Exchequers?
  Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Grebton) has spoken of this Clause as a very unusual arrangement. Under the Clause we are told that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are empowered to make regulations with reference to the importation and exportation of any goods into and from Northern Ireland, in the event of an Address being presented to His Majesty as prescribed in Article 12. They will make the regulations on the basis of the existing boundary. They may arrange for places for purposes of importation, but they may set up a network of machinery which, when the Boundary Commission makes its Report, may be rendered totally obsolete and useless for the new condition of Ireland. I would suggest that it is premature to take any steps until the Boundary Commission has reached a decision as to the final boundary between Northern Ireland and the Free State, otherwise a great deal of expense may be incurred and the whole of the machinery may have to be scrapped. There is another point in connection with this, and that is as to the working of the preferential tariff. It is a very interesting point. We know that under the Budget of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) in 1919 great credit was given to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying out a policy with which his father's name was associated. It was a very poor thing to associate with the name of the late Mr. Chamberlain, but, nevertheless, it was put forward on that basis. Preference is given under it in regard to certain existing duties. I assume if those preferential duties are applied in relation to goods exported from the Free State either into Northern Ireland or into Great Britain, it will require a considerable amount of discrimination on the part of the Customs Authorities. There are sundry things to encourage the production of which in Ireland great efforts have been made, and I hope that either the Attorney-General or the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will be able to give us some information as to what it is proposed to do on this point.
  Sir D. HOGG: The answer to the first questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) is that Clause 4 is a machinery Clause and nothing else. As soon as the Irish Free State comes into existence it becomes a separate Customs entity altogether, and therefore it is essential that some provision shall be made for some Customs frontier between Southern and Northern Ireland, because if none is made, dutiable articles which went into Southern Ireland paying, possibly, no duty, would come into Northern Ireland without duty and then be passed over to this country. As soon as we make a contract with the Irish Free State under which they become a Customs entity with a separate tariff and separate provisions as to Customs, it becomes necessary to provide some machinery by which we can levy the duties which are imposed by law on such goods as come into Great Britain and Northern Ireland by the land frontier. This Clause 4 only enables the Customs to set up such machinery as seems best fitted for carrying out that necessary purpose. The provisions they have in mind are set out in paragraph (b), which prescribes the places where the entry of goods imported or exported shall be made, and they will be able to fix the hours at which they shall come in. It is essential to have some such provision, but the exact details are left to be worked out by the Customs authorities. I need hardly assure the Committee that in setting up these Regulations they will have regard to the most economical way of carrying out the object which we have in view. Then it has been suggested by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) that we should do nothing until the Boundary Commission has rectified the boundary. I venture to think that the Committee will realise that that is a wholly impracticable suggestion. It would involve this, that until the Boundary Commission had been set up and had reported, all goods coming from Southern Ireland into Northern Ireland would come in duty free, because there would be no one to collect the duty.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why not continue the existing temporary arrangement with the Provisional Government? I suggest that a temporary arrangement be made with the new Irish Government until the boundary is settled.
  Sir D. HOGG: We have an arrangement with the Provisional Government under which the taxation for the current year remains as it was before the Provisional Government was set up. We have taken power in the Bill to make arrangements with them for continuing that in whole or in part, but we have no guarantee that they will see fit to do that, and it would be impossible to leave this country in the position that there was no power to erect any Customs frontier along the whole of the land division between Southern and Northern Ireland. At the same time Southern Ireland would become a Customs entity, and it might prove to be a fruitful field for enterprising persons who want to smuggle in prohibited goods without the disadvantage of a Customs examination. There are certain things, drugs for instance, which by law we have power to exclude from the Customs, and I think it would be very undesirable if through lack of machinery we left an open door by which such goods could pass over the frontier. The object of the Clause is merely to enable us to set up the necessary machinery, and I think it will; the Committee will see that that is what it does.
  Mr. HILTON YOUNG: I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for answering my questions, but I think he did not fully apprehend what I wanted to know. No doubt the Customs people, with their usual efficiency, will reduce expenses to the greatest possible extent, but, nevertheless, the expense will be exceptional in comparison with that of a sea front Customs boundary. Is it possible to give the Committee any information whether the whole expense of the land Customs frontier between Northern and Southern Ireland will be brought into account against the revenue attributable to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. MOLES: May I ask whether it would be equitable that a Government which imposes, collects, and appropriates taxes should not pay the cost of so doing?
  Sir D. HOGG: The answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) is to be found in the First Schedule of the Bill. In Clause 4, Sub-section (3, b), it is provided that
  "in ascertaining the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of reserved services the Joint Exchequer Board
  600
  shall have regard to any increase of expenditure thereon which may appear to them to be attributable to the establishment of the Irish Free State and shall make such allowance in respect of any such increase as may appear to them to ho just."
  The Committee will remember that in the Act of 1920 the cost of the reserved services is charged against Northern Ireland, and it is for the Joint Exchequer Board to assess the proper contribution of Northern Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. The paragraph I have quoted enables the Joint Exchequer Board, in ascertaining the cost, to make such allowances as appear to be just in respect of any increase. That, I think, is a complete answer to my right hon. Friend's question.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as in relief from double taxation.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: I should like to ask for some explanation on this important question of double taxation in Great Britain and in the Irish Free State. Perhaps I may be allowed to put my remarks somewhat in the form of questions, and, if the learned Attorney-General can answer them in the affirmative, well and good. In the first place, as regards relief from double Income Tax, am I right in supposing that, the moment the Irish Free States becomes a Dominion, persons who are living either in the Free State or in this country will become entitled to the same exemption in regard to double Income Tax as in the case of any of the other Dominions? In other words, will they get exemption under Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920? I think they will, but I should be glad to receive an assurance. The importance of this matter is that that relief is granted automatically, whether the Dominion in question acts reciprocally or not. There are some duties in the ease of which no relief is granted unless there is reciprocity between this country and the Dominions concerned, but I believe I am right in saying that relief from double Income Tax is granted by this country whether the Dominions act reciprocally or not.
  The second tax to which I desire to refer is Estate Duty. I take it that, as soon as the Irish Free State becomes a

  601
  Dominion, the existing provisions in Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, will apply, giving relief from double Estate Duty. There is, however, this difference between double Estate Duty and double Income Tax, that relief is granted from double Income Tax even when there is no reciprocity by the Dominion, but that, in the case of double Estate Duty, there must be reciprocity. Now I come to the cases of two taxes as to which at present there is, I believe, no provision made in any existing Act, namely, Stamp Duties and Corporation Profits Tax. I take it that Clause 5 would in certain cases give certain relief from double taxation in respect of Stamp Duty and Corporation Profits Tax, but I would point out that that relief cannot be given unless the provisions of Sub-section (1, b) of this Clause are complied with. That means that, unless the Irish Free State is willing to make arrangements as to relief from this double taxation in the case of these taxes, nothing can be done. If I am right in that, I would ask the Attorney-General whether that is a desirable state of things. If it is too late to deal with the matter now, perhaps he would be able to give us some assurance to the effect that provision could be made, possibly in the Finance Act of next year, for giving relief from double duty in the case of these two taxes, even though no reciprocity is granted by the Irish Free State. That seems to me to be only reasonable. Otherwise, if the Irish Free State does not choose to come into line, this vary heavy double taxation might be imposed upon persons who are liable, whether they be residents in the United Kingdom or in the Irish Free State.
  Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down, great hardships will arise with regard to double taxation in some cases, unless safeguards are provided. Equal difficulties will also be caused to the authorities in collecting taxes from people who reside in one or the other country. For example, shareholders of English companies might be resident in Ireland and vice, versâ. There is some reference in the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax to leakage of Income Tax, and I see no provision in this Bill under which Regulations can be agreed upon between the Government of Great
  602
  Britain and the Government of the Free State to see, at any rate, that no leakage of that kind occurs. It is not only a question of relief from double taxation, but is also one of seeing that there is none of that kind of leakage, which is so frequently referred to in the evidence before the Royal Commission on Income Tax. I hope that some machinery of that kind is going to be set up. Another point to be borne in mind is that during the transition period there must be brought before the authorities a large number of cases of arrears of Income Tax and other taxes, which will have to be dealt with. I should like to know whether those cases are to be dealt with by two entirely different pieces of machinery—whether the Irish Free State will set up machinery of their own to deal with them, or whether we are going to have in the Free State, until these arrears are collected, officials from Somerset House in addition to the new officials appointed by the Free State. If that be so, surely it will not be economical. I think we ought to know what is going to be the line taken by the Government in this matter.
  With regard to assessments to be made in Ireland in respect of past periods, assessments are often made long after the periods in which the profit or income has accrued, and I should like to ask whether assessments are going to be made in respect of these past periods by the new machinery set up by the Free State Government, or are going to be dealt with by the Board of Inland Revenue of Great Britain. In these matters we want to see that there is real harmony of working between the Inland Revenue authorities of this country and the new authorities set up by the Free State, and that there shall at any rate be no overlapping and shall be reasonable economy in setting up the machinery.
  Sir D. HOGG: I think the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) is quite right as to the Sections to which he referred of the Finance Act, 1920, and the Finance Act, 1894, and as to the effect which those Sections have in relation to double Income Tax and Estate Duty. In the former case the relief need not necessarily be reciprocal, in the latter case it must. The provisions in this Clause are directed more particularly to the question of Stamp Duties and Corporation

  603
  Profits Tax, with regard to which some provision has to be made. The object is to enable us to make reciprocal arrangements with the Irish Free State under which we may, so far as possible, avoid double taxation in respect of these matters. I do not think the Committee would wish that we should pass now a provision under which we let off people in this country if they paid taxes in the Irish Free State, without any reciprocal provision, because that might be something of a temptation to the authorities in the Irish Free State to collect revenue at our expense. We hope to make an equitable provision, and I think I am at liberty to tell the Committee that, as long ago as July last, the late Government submitted to the Irish Free State authorities an exhaustive memorandum dealing with questions of finance, and that the matter is, therefore, under discussion between the two Governments, although I cannot say that final arrangements have yet been arrived at, because, as the Committee knows, the Irish Provisional Government has been pre-occupied with matters of very great importance and urgency in Ireland, which prevented their giving as much attention as they otherwise would have given to some of these matters. In answer to the hon. Member for the Hillsborough Division of Sheffield (Mr. W. Alexander), the question of assessment of Income Tax is provided for in the Irish Free State Constitution Bill, which has already passed through Committee. That Bill contains an express provision with regard to the assessment and collection of taxes notwithstanding the creation of the Irish Free State, and, if the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 2, he will find that it deals with the point which he raised. The question of leakage of Income Tax is, of course, one which will have to be dealt with on broad lines in the light of the Report of the Royal Commission, and it is not quite a matter, I think, which can be effectively dealt with or provided for in this Bill.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Power to adapt enactments, etc.)
  (1) His Majesty may, by Order in Council—

  (a) make such adaptations of any enactments so far as they relate to any
  604
  of His Majesty's Dominions other than the Irish Free State as may appear to him necessary or proper as a consequence of the establishment or the Irish Free State;

  (b) make such provision as may appear to him necessary or proper for effecting the severance of the system of National Health Insurance in Great Britain from that in the Irish Free State, and for giving effect to any arrangements which may be made with the Irish Free State for that purpose, and for inquiring such transfers of funds of societies and branches whose principal office is situate in Great Britain as may be necessary to give effect to any apportionments made in pursuance of the Order, and as to the application and disposal of the funds so transferred, and for extending to Northern Ireland and to societies and branches whose principal office is situate in Northern Ireland the like provisions as are made by any such Order in respect to Great Britain and societies and branches whose principal office is situate in Great Britain;

  (c) give effect to any reciprocal arrangements which may be made with the Irish Free State with respect to unemployment insurance;

  (d) make such provision with respect to the management of the National Debt and Government Securities and Annuities (including India Stock) as may be necessary to secure that the management thereof shall not as respects any part thereof be transacted within the Irish Free State;

  and any such Order in Council may contain such supplemental, consequential, and incidental provisions as may appear necessary or proper for the purposes or the Order, and any such Order shall, subject to revocation or alteration by a subsequent Order, have effect as if enacted in this Act.
  (2) Any Order in Council made under this Section 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 ha* sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that the 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 anything which in the meantime may have been done thereunder.
  (3) Section one of the Rules Publication Act. 1893, shall not apply to any Order in Council made under this Section.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).

  605
  I hope the Committee will forgive me if I move this Amendment in a very few words, purely with the object of eliciting an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the meaning of Subsection (1, a). I quite understand that the Government may require some provision which will enable them to make certain consequential alterations in certain Acts of Parliament, but the wording of this Clause is so wide that, so far as I can see, it would give Ministers the power to make any Amendment in any Act relating to any Dominion. The broadness and looseness of the drafting is increased by the fact that the intention of the Government is expressed as that of adapting enactments relating to any of His Majesty's Dominions other than the Irish Free State. Put in that form, it almost expresses the intention of His Majesty's Government, to acquire rights to amend the British North America Act, or any Act of the kind. Of course, no one supposes that the Government has any intention of that kind, but, in the interests of what I may call water-tight legislation, and the proper drafting of a Clause like this, I do feel that we need some explanation as to why the Clause is drawn so broadly and loosely, and whether more exact wording, limiting the rights of the Government in this matter, would not he an improvement in the drafting of the Bill.
  Sir D. HOGG: The reason why the Clause is worded in the way it is is because we are anxious to follow the golden rule, which we lawyers think is sometimes more honoured in the breach than in the observance, of trying to be consistent in our legislation. The wording of the Clause is copied substantially from the wording of the corresponding Clause in the Government of Ireland Act, which, of course, still governs Northern Ireland and which at the time it was enacted was intended to govern both Southern and Northern Ireland. Clause 69, paragraph (a) of the 1920 Act contains a provision that
  "His Majesty may by Order in Council make any adaptation of any enactments so far as they relate to England or Scotland as may appear to him necessary or proper its the consequence of any change effected by the provisions of this Act."
  The word "adaptation" is one the effect of which, perhaps, escaped the Noble Lord. It is not a case in which the
  606
  Government is taking power to amend Acts of Parliament, but many Acts of Parliament contain references to the United Kingdom or to the British Isles or to Great Britain and Ireland, and it becomes necessary, in view of the changed position of the Irish Free State, to define whether those terms do or do not include the Irish Free State in respect of each Act. In most cases, probably, it will be found that it will be necessary to say they do not include the Irish Free State now and in some few of them it may be necessary to say they do include it, but in each case some provision must be made, and this is the machinery provided in order that the necessary adaptation may take place. It has no further effect than that. It is merely to enable us to adapt existing enactments to changed circumstances and not in any way to seek to amend them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. D. REID: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, b), after the word "and" ["and for extending to Northern Ireland"], to insert the words "subject to the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland."
  This paragraph deals with the separation of the National Health Insurance systems in Great Britain and Ireland. Under it, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Government of Northern Ireland may have orders made over their heads without any right to be consulted. It is only reasonable that in such a case, where a society has its headquarters in Northern Ireland, the Government of Northern Ireland should be consulted in the matter.
  Sir D. HOGG: I think I can give an undertaking which will satisfy my hon. Friend. I cannot accept his Amendment, because I cannot put it in that the consent of Northern Ireland is to be obtained before we can do anything, but we are willing to give the undertaking that Northern Ireland shall be consulted, and, in fact, the Order in Council which we propose to enact is to carry out a scheme which has already been framed by a Departmental Committee, on which Northern Ireland was represented, and which was approved by the representatives of Northern Ireland. The adjustments under the Order in Council will be carried out by the National Health

  607
  Insurance Joint Committee, and that is also a body which includes a representative of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. REID: I can only say, after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, that it shows how right my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) was to ask for an explanation about the first part of the Clause, and it shows how extraordinarily undesirable is this legislation behind the back of the House of Commons. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (d).
  I do not think I need apologise for detaining the Committee on this topic, because it concerns, or, at any rate, is alleged to concern, a question affecting engagements entered into by the Government with classes of investors in Government securities. I am quite convinced that the Attorney-General will be the first to agree that if such a matter has been alleged it deserves the most careful consideration. The effect of the powers contained in this Clause will be to transfer away from Dublin to London and Belfast all the business of the transference of Government securities. I am not raising any objection at all against the proposal to transfer to Belfast the business of the management of Government securities held in Northern Ireland. That is obviously desirable, and a reasonable arrangement from the point of view of administration. But now as to the transfer of the management of the debt from Dublin to London. That means that the possibility of transferring Government stocks through the Bank of Ireland will cease, and in order to transfer their stock holders in Southern Ireland will have to do business in London. As regards Government stocks, that is a very serious question of convenience. Government stocks inscribed on the register can only be transferred by the attendance of the holder in person or under Power of Attorney. If the business of transference is token altogether away from the Bank of Ireland and brought over to London, it means that the holders in Southern Ireland will either have to come over to London them-
  608
  selves to transfer their stocks or execute a power of attorney to get them transferred. That is a very serious inconvenience which may mean seven or eight days' delay. That means the end of an active market in Government securities on the Dublin Stock Exchange. The result will be very much to reduce facilities for the transference of these stocks in Dublin. It may be said that is the inevitable result of separation. I know there is much to be said for that, but there is also this to be taken into consideration, and I cannot but think it merits the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the prospectuses under which these Government securities were issued were put forth to the public, they contained a statement in respect to many of them that the securities could be transferred at the Bank of Ireland. If that was in the nature of an inducement held out to investors, on the strength of which they invested in these securities, it becomes rather a grave matter if the convenience is withdrawn from those investors at a later date. This needs the most serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman before he finally makes up his mind as to the exercise of these powers, or at any rate as to the manner in which these powers are to be exercised.
  Other considerations are involved affecting not so much the investors as the Government of Southern Ireland. I do not feel particularly interested myself to argue them, but I imagine they are matters which must naturally occupy the attention of the Government before coming to a decision upon this matter. The result, as I understand it, is that the transference of the management from Dublin to London will have a very marked effect on the Revenue from Income Tax and Death Duties. As I understand it. Income Tax and Death Duties payable in respect of stocks registered in Dublin will pass directly into the pockets of tin-Government of Southern Ireland. If the management of the debt is transferred to London, they will not pass directly into those pockets but into the pockets of the Exchequer. It would be a reassurance to know that so important a matter has not been lost sight of, and that there is no likelihood of any serious difference of opinion on this matter between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Southern Ireland.

  609
  It may well be that, in future, it will be a disadvantage to us to lose entirely the source of investment in Government securities from Southern Ireland. It may be said that it is little likely, after the separation of the Dominion, and the institution, as we will see instituted, of a Southern Irish Government security, that there will be any large stream of investments coming from Southern Ireland for British securities. Still, some hard-headed investors from Southern Ireland may be attracted by, shall I say, the more certain investment of British Government securities. In removing the management of the National Debt wholly from Dublin to London, would not there be some prejudice to the British Treasury in the loss of the freer command of facilities from the investing public of Southern Ireland? This further consideration appears to be of less importance than the first one, which causes me some misgivings. Might it not be seriously considered, before any decision is made by the Treasury, that we shall have, at least, the appearance of withdrawing from those who have invested in British Government securities on the strength of inducement in certain prospectuses, albeit a secondary inducement, something that was held out to those investors?
  I am not aware of the attitude of the Government towards this question. The Clause is merely an empowering Clause. It may be that it is simply thought necessary to secure the powers. If that is so, I should not consider that it was an unreasonable thing to do; but in view of the arguments which I have suggested, it appears to me that it would be a reassurance to those who are anxious about this matter, if something could be said at the present time to show that these considerations have not been lost sight of, and that, before exercising any such powers as those conferred by this Sub-section, the matter will be investigated with a view to ascertaining whether some arrangement cannot be arrived at which would have the effect of preventing the slightest sense of grievance on the part of investors in Southern Ireland.
  Sir J. BUTCHER: There are two points to which I should like to draw attention. In the first place, are there facilities in any existing Dominion for transferring Government securities to this country which are held in the Dominions, or have
  610
  the holders of our Government securities who live in the Dominions to get stocks transferred to the Bank of England? If there are no facilities of that sort in the other Dominions, I cannot for the life of me see why there should be facilities of that sort in Southern Ireland, and why Southern Ireland should be given the privilege, if it be a privilege, which no other Dominion possesses. The second point is that we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Dublin, at the present time, is not a very safe place in which to keep valuable documents. We know from the burning of the Four Courts that documents of the most priceless value were destroyed, and can never be replaced. I am sorry to say that the situation in Dublin at the present moment is not such as to preclude the possibility of similar destruction of property taking place. I hope that it may not be so; but the present situation of affairs is not hopeful. Therefore, I should be exceedingly sorry to think that books which ought to be kept at the Bank of England, where they are safe, ate likely to be kept in the Bank of Ireland, with the possibility of their being destroyed, thereby inflicting infinitely more harm upon the holders of those Government stock than any possible inconvenience to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. WISE: I do not agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) in regard to transferring the securities' side from Dublin to London. So far as the free market is concerned, you will get just as much a free market with the transference from Dublin to London as you would have if you left it in Dublin. It must be remembered that in the provinces investments are made in war stocks, and power of attorney is taken out, and the power of attorney has to be sent to London, and it takes about four or five days before the power of attorney can be exercised and turned into cash. It is the same thing if a person invests money in Dublin, and a power of attorney is taken out in Dublin and handed to the Bank of England here. You would get as free a market as if it were retained in Dublin. With respect to the Dublin Stock Exchange, you will get the same free market there, whether the power of attorney is exercised in Dublin or in London. As to the Southern Unionists or others who have invested in Government stock, I do

  611
  not think it would affect them at all, because the chances are that if there was a Government issue it would be advertised in all the Irish papers, and they would subscribe through the papers if they did not receive a prospectus. I think the transfer of the office from Dublin to London would make no difference at all.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It seems to me that the position of the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) has been some what misconceived, particularly by the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher). The case which he made was that an undertaking was given to investors that facilities should be given in Dublin, and, apparently, those facilities are now to be withdrawn. As this was an inducement offered to these investors, it is unfair to withdraw it now. It is not a question of giving facilities to the Irish Free State which are in excess of facilities enjoyed in any other community. It is purely a question in relation to certain individual investors in Government stock, and whether they are to have the benefit of the promises that were made to them when they invested. My right hon. Friend has put forward a perfectly fair contention, and one which the Government ought to meet. It may be, as the hon. and learned Member for York has said, that Dublin is not a very safe place in these days, and that nobody who has valuable documents will wish to have them kept in Dublin. The investors, I have no doubt, considered these things at the time they made the investment. It is rather strange that the hon. and learned Member for York, who cheered the Prime Minister last night in regard to the great red plot in London, which was to produce riot here and was likely to bring about revolution, should now contrast the condition of security existing in London with that of Dublin. When we hear hon. Members speak their own minds, we see that really they do not believe in these sensational reports. When you get them speaking on other topics, they reveal their true view, and we see at once that when they talk about risk of revolution in this country and the machinations of men from Moscow—
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member confine his remarks to the question of the management of the National Debt and of Government stock?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I was merely dealing with one single argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for York. The argument seems to be decisive in his mind, but no doubt my object has been attained, and he will now agree with the right hon. Member for Norwich.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): As my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Young) who first spoke truly said, this is an empowering Clause. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is desirable to have such an empowering Clause, because it is conceivable that circumstances might arise in which there would be an apparent necessity to remove the register from Dublin, but, although it might seem that the removal of the register would be a necessary consequence of the withdrawal of Southern Ireland from Great Britain, I am advised that there is a very strong sentimental feeling, and I recognise, for what they are worth, the arguments which he used. There are some on the other side, but I do not think it necessary to press them to-night, because my right hon. Friend spoke as though action was at once contemplated under this Clause. That is not so. We take powers, because after the passage of the Free State Act it would be much more difficult to get powers that might afterwards be necessary, and we think it well to be armed with these powers, and to have them under this Bill, but it is not our intention at present to make a move, and I will give an undertaking to my right hon. Friend that no move will be made until, not only has the matter had careful consideration, but that representations shall be heard, not only from the Irish Government, but from interested parties, by which I mean stockbrokers or stockholders.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) said that no one is compelled to remain on the Dublin register, because he is free to remove from Dublin to London or from London to Dublin, and there is nothing in this Bill which prevents that being done. There was another point as to the danger of any document remaining in Dublin. I think that the only answer which I can give to that is, that if any stockholder registered in Dublin is really apprehensive on that score, it is open to him to | transfer to London. Of course, stock-

  613
  holders resident in Northern Ireland will desire to transfer from Dublin, because the registered stocks, as my right hon. Friend knows, are assessable for Death Duties in London or in Dublin, as they happen to be registered in either of those places, and it seems unfair that the heirs of citizens in the North of Ireland should find their estates assessed with estate duty in territory under another jurisdiction, and if they find that there is no power under this Clause to make arrangements for those domiciled in Northern Ireland to be able to remove the registration to Belfast, if that be more convenient than London, then I shall have words suggested in another place, and they will come before the House of Commons again.
  Mr. YOUNG: I wish to express ray thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the very sympathetic manner in which he has met this Amendment. As he says, this is an empowering Clause, and the matter would come before the House in the ordinary manner as an Order in Council which it is to carry out. I am convinced that a question affecting an obligation between the State and an investor would be in no safer hands than his, and would receive from him most sympathetic and careful consideration, and owing to the manner in which he has undertaken to go into the circumstances, I would ask leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clauses 7 (Miscellaneous Provisions) and 8 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    FIRST SCHEDULE.

      MODIFICATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND ACT, 1920, ETC.
      Governor of Northern Ireland.
      1.—(1) There shall be a Governor of Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, with respect to the Lord Lieutenant shall apply to the Governor of Northern Ireland and in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act), and in any other enactment references to the Lord Lieutenant shall, in their application to Northern Ireland, be construed as references to the Governor of Northern Ireland.
      (2) In Section three of the Lord Lieutenants' and Lord Chancellors' Salaries (Ireland) Act, 1832, eight thousand pounds shall be substituted for twenty thousand
      614
      pounds as the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland, and in Sub-section (3), of Section thirty-seven of the Principal Act two thousand pounds shall be substituted for five thousand pounds as the sum to be deducted towards the payment of such salary:
      Provided that out of the said salary of eight thousand pounds there shall be payable the salaries and allowances of members of the personal staff of the Governor.
      Privy Council and Great Seal of Northern Ireland.
      2.—(1) There shall be a Privy Council of Northern Ireland, and anything which, prior to the first appointment of a Governor of Northern Ireland, might be done by, to, before, or with the advice or concurrence of the Privy Council of Ireland or any Committee thereof may, as respects Northern Ireland after such appointment, be done by, to, before, or with the advice or concurrence of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland or a corresponding Committee of that Council.
      (2) The persons who are to be members of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the Governor of Northern Ireland and sworn in as Privy Counsellors, and the members may from time to time be removed by the Governor of Northern Ireland.
      (3) In the application of the Principal Act to Northern Ireland references to the Privy Council of Northern Ireland shall be substituted for references to the Privy Council of Ireland, and after the expiration of one month from the first appointment of a Governor of Northern Ireland no person shall be a Minister of Northern Ireland unless he is a member of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland.
      (4) There shall be a Great Seal of Northern Ireland which shall be kept by the Governor of Northern Ireland and shall, after the first appointment of such Governor, be used for all matters in Northern Ireland for which the Great Seal of Ireland was theretofore used. Until a Great Seal of Northern Ireland is provided the private seal of the Governor of Northern Ireland may be used as that Geat Seal.
      Council of Ireland.
      3.—(1) The constitution of the Council of Ireland shall, if identical Acts for the purpose are passed by the Parliament of the Irish Free State and the Parliament of Northern Ireland, be altered in accordance with those Acts, and it is hereby declared that the passing of such Acts is within the powers of the said Parliaments.
      (2) The appointed day for the transfer in relation to Northern Ireland of the powers, which by the Principal Act are made powers of the Council of Ireland, shall be such day as may hereafter be fixed by Order in Council not being earlier than the day on which any such identical Acts as aforesaid come into operation or the expiration of the period of five years from the passing of this Act, whichever may first happen.
      Financial Provisions.
      4.—(1) (a) The contribution to be made under Section twenty-three of the Principal Act towards the Imperial liabilities and expenditure therein referred to shall be a contribution to be made by Northern Ireland and to be called the Northern Ireland contribution, and the provisions of that Section with respect to apportionment as between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland shall cease to have effect.
      (b) The amount of the Northern Ireland contribution in each year until the end of the second financial year after the appointed day shall be a sum calculated at the rate of seven million nine hundred and twenty thousand pounds a year, or such less sum as the Joint Exchequer Board may in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Sub-section (5) of that Section substitute therefor, and those powers may be exercised at any time whether before or alter the end of the said second financial year or before or after a contribution has been made at the rate aforesaid.
      (c) The Joint Exchequer Board, in determining the just proportion of Imperial liabilities and expenditure to be contributed by Northern Ireland in respect of each financial year after the end of the said second financial year shall have regard to the relative taxable capacities of Northern Ireland on the one hand and Great Britain and Ireland on the other hand.
      (2) The apportionment of the proceeds of reserved taxes to be made by the Joint Exchequer Board under Section twenty-two of the Principal Act shall be an apportionment as between Great Britain and Northern Ireland instead of an apportionment as beween Great Britain and Ireland, and the sum determined under the said Section to be the Northern Ireland share of the said proceeds shall be called the Northern Ireland share of reserved taxes; and in making such an apportionment the Joint Exchequer Board shall have regard to the effect of any arrangement made with the Irish Free State for relief from double taxation which may unduly prejudice Great Britain in relation to Northern Ireland or Nothern Ireland in relation to Great Britain.
      (3)—(a) The sum charged upon and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom under Section twenty-four of the Principal Act, and therein referred to as the Irish residuary share of reserved taxes, shall be paid to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland and shall be called the Northern Ireland residuary share of reserved taxes, and the provisions of that Section with respect to apportionment between the Exchequers of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the application of the principles governing such apportionment in any cases where an apportionment may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the sums to be deducted or to be made good by means of deductions from the Northern Ireland share or residuary share of reserved taxes.
      (b) In ascertaining the net cost to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom of re-
      616
      served services, the Joint Exchequer Board shall have regard to any increase of expenditure thereon which may appear to them to be attributable to the establishment of the Irish Free State, and shall make such allowance in respect of any such increase as may appear to them to be just.
      Reconstitution of Joint Exchequer Board.
      5. Sub-section (1) of Section thirty-two of the Principal Act, relating to the constitution of the Joint Exchequer Board shall have effect as if for the words "two members appointed by the Treasury one member appointed by the Treasury of Southern Ireland" there were substituted the words. "one member appointed by the Treasury," and any question which may be referred to the Board under that Section may be referred to them either by the Treasury or by the Treasury of Northern Ireland.
      Abolition of High Court of Appeal and provisions consequential thereon.
      6.—(1) The High Court of Appeal for Ireland shall cease to exist, and Sections forty-two and forty-three of the Principal Act and any other provisions of that Act relative to that Court of Appeal shall cease to have effect.
      (2) In any case where under Section fifty of the Principal Act an appeal would have lain to the High Court of Appeal for Ireland from a decision of a Court in Northern Ireland an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland by virtue of this Section. Questions under the Crown Cases Act, 1848, which would have been reserved for the decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland under Section forty-three of the Principal Act shall, in Northern Ireland, be reserved for the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland whoso decision shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final.
      (3) An appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from any decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland being a decision from which an appeal would have lain to the House of Lords under Section forty-nine of the Principal Act had it been u decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland, and that Section shall have effect accordingly with the substitution of references to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland for references to the High Court of Appeal for Ireland.
      (4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall affect the right of appeal to the House of Lords from any decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland given before the date when this Schedule comes into operation, and in the case of any appeal to the High Court of Appeal for Ireland which is pending at that date the decision of the Court from which the appeal was taken shall, for the purposes of appeal to the House of Lords, be treated as if it were a decision of the High Court of Appeal for Ireland given immediately before that date.
      Civil Service Committee.
      7.—(1) The Civil Service Committee shall, instead of being constituted in the manner provided by Sub-section (2) of Section fifty-six of the Principal Act, consist of five members, of whom one shall be appointed by the Treasury, one by a Secretary of State, one by the Government of Northern Ireland, one by the existing Irish officers who have been transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland, and one (who shall be chairman) by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
      (2) The powers of the Civil Service Committee (which shall hereafter be known as the Civil Service Committee for Northern Ireland) shall be exercisable in relation only to existing Irish officers who have been transferred from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of Northern Ireland under the Principal Act, and in relation to existing or pensioned officers of local authorities or of a university or college in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (1, 1).
      I desire once again to raise the question of the Governor of Northern Ireland, and to take a vote of the Committee as to whether this office is to be created and whether the financial liability thereby incurred is to be imposed upon the Treasury. On the different occasions on which this question has been discussed there has been no attempt on the part of the spokesman of the Government to defend the proposal on the merits. There has been no attempt to show that such an office is necessary, and there has been no justification of the expenditure which is consequential upon the establishment of the office. The only defence made by the Government is that the Premier of Northern Ireland has insisted that this office shall be created for the benefit of Northern Ireland. I can understand the motive s which led the Premier of Northern Ireland to make that request. He found that, under the arrangements of the Irish Free State Constitution, the representative of the Crown in the South of Ireland was to be virtually selected by the Government of the Free State, and Northern Ireland felt that a representative so selected would not be acceptable as the representative of the Crown in Northern Ireland, and in these conditions Northern Ireland said, "We must seek another arrangement." The first idea that occurred to their mind was that there should be a Governor. He made that request and, as I understand it, the late Government yielded to the request, and
      618
      the pledge upon which the Government now found themselves was granted under those conditions.
      I suggest that that consideration should not be binding either upon the Government or this House, and that we have now an opportunity of re-examining it in the light of present circumstances and of considering whether this is really the best arrangement both in the interests of Northern Ireland and of the Treasury. Another arrangement might be made which would be just as satisfactory to Northern Ireland. There is no reason why a representative of the Crown should be permanently established in Belfast. I have fortified myself with the Official Report of the Debates of the Northern Parliament, and I find there that the anticipation on the part of Members of the Northern Parliament is that that Parliament will sit for not more than three months in the year. Surely, then, it is totally unnecessary to have a representative of the Crown in Belfast during the whole year, and to pay him £8,000 a year. The main function for which the representative of the Crown is required is for the opening of Parliament or its prorogation. The services of a representative of the Crown or of a Commissioner are required for giving assent to laws passed by the Northern Parliament. These things can be performed perfectly without a representative of the Crown being permanently in Northern Ireland. Earlier to-day I mentioned that for 100 years in Scotland, from 1603 to 1707, we had a separate Parliament, and that during all that time there was no separate representative of the Crown in Scotland; we were able to dispense with him.
      This idea for Northern Ireland is due partly to the analogy of the Colonies and partly to the fact that Ireland has always been accustomed to having a Viceroy in Dublin. In modern days and under present conditions we should not be led astray by these analogies. We desire to economise. There is an equal desire to economise in Northern Ireland. I have found evidence of that in the Debates of the Northern Parliament. I mentioned in the House to-day the luxurious way in which the Government of Northern Ireland is staffed. They have six Cabinet Ministers in addition to the Prime Minister, with seven Under-Secretaries and

      619
      sundry other officials. Apart from this House, the Northern Irish Parliament is the only Parliament in the Empire in which there are Under-Secretaries, and all these Under-Secretaries get £1,000 a year. This munificence aroused some criticism in the Northern Parliament. It is well known that the great majority of the Members of the Northern Parliament were returned as supporters of the Prime Minister, Sir James Craig. There was a revolt on the part of his supporters. I find that when a Division took place on this matter on 1st December, 1921, the Ayes were 20 and the Noes 11, but when I analysed the figures I found that if you took from the majority the officials whose salaries were in question the Division was a tie. In view of this state of feeling in the Northern Parliament, the British Government has no right to assume that when Sir James Craig made that request he was representing the real feelings of the Northern Parliament. Therefore it is a matter for reconsideration. It is a matter upon which the Northern Parliament itself should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion. Of course, if the Northern Parliament insisted upon it, we should leave it to them to consider whether they are going to pay for this expensive and unnecessary official. Some of them may desire to have a Governor for Northern Ireland for the purpose of reducing the number of other officials.
      Eloquence is not confined to the South of Ireland. No matter what we may say about partition, fluency and eloquence are characteristic, both of the North and South. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Lynn) has contributed as much eloquence to the Debates of the Northern Parliament as he has to our discussions in this House. I think that the arguments which I have put dispose altogether of the contention put forward by the Government that they are bound by some sort of pledge. But apart from that, granting that the Government is so bound, then this Committee is not so bound. This Committee can ask the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland to reconsider the matter. It may be said that £8,000 a year is a trumpery thing. But £8,000 is a consideration in these times, and if we let every £8,000 go because it does not
      620
      matter, we shall have no real economy and no reduction of the burdens on the taxpayer. There is an old saying of Mr. Gladstone, who used to be criticised and jeered at because he insisted on small economies, it was that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer was worth his salt he would look after the candle ends. £8,000 is a very substantial candle end, and it is because I regard it in that light that I move the Amendment.
      Mr. O'NEILL: I do not intend to follow the last speaker into the details of the argument which he has used. I listened to the discussion of this matter last night and earlier to-day, and I want now to put before the Committee a consideration which I do not think has been advanced hitherto by any Member. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is a legal expert, and he will forgive me, perhaps, if I ask him to follow me through a few words of the Bill under discussion. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 there are these words:
      "The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and other enactments mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act shall, as from the date of the presentation of such Address, have effect subject to the modification set out in that Schedule."
      In other words, if Ulster votes herself out, she is to remain under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The whole object of this Bill is to bring about that state of affairs with the necessary modifications. Let us look at the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Under Section 32 of that Act, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is continued in his office. He receives a salary to-day of £20,000 a year. That salary has been paid, I think, since the year 1832, and the office has existed for a very much longer period. Under the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 that old salary of £20,000 a year was not interfered with, but of that £20,000 a year the Imperial Government was to pay £15,000 and the Irish Governments, Northern and Southern together, were to pay £5,000. I followed the Debates in this House on that Act, and it was never suggested in any quarter of the House otherwise than that the old and long existent salary should be continued.
      Mr. PRINGLE: This was the last Parliament.
      Mr. O'NEILL: Certainly.
      Mir. PRINGLE: It was an extravagant Parliament.
      Mr. O'NEILL: That may be, but it is not the point. Then the Free State came into being, but the previously existing state of affairs has got to be applied to Northern Ireland, if Northern Ireland opts out under the present Measure. Instead of there being a Lord Lieutenant of all Ireland at £20,000 a year, there is to be a Governor for Northern Ireland at £8,000 a year and the proportion of eight to 20 has always been adopted in all adjustments as between Northern and Southern Ireland. It is the same proportion as that which exists in regard to the Imperial contribution, and this proposal is simply carrying out the former Act of this House. Regarding the other point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) that of this £8,000 a year, the Imperial Parliament is to pay £6,000 and the Northern Irish Government £2,000, there again it is simply a, question of proportion. Formerly £5,000 a year was to be paid by Ireland as a whole. Now £2,000 is to be paid by Northern Ireland and had the former system gone on, the other £3,000 would have been paid by Southern Ireland. I hope I have made my point clear. There is no great change being made. This proposal simply continues under this present Measure the state of affairs which existed under the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 and applies it to Northern Ireland. That is the whole position. Perhaps it really did not fall to me to make this incursion into the Debate. I am perfectly certain the Under-Secretary for the Colonies would have put the matter in that light, but it struck me that in the Debates which have taken place, so far, this point has never been fully developed before the House.
      9.0 P.M.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: I certainly think this Committee has a right to protest against what may be described as a Brobdignagian salary for a Lilliputian job and I enter my protest under this head—that we have no definite assurance that our liabilities will remain at our share of the £8,000 a year. I should like to know, before the Debate closes, whether a pension will be attached to this office, and, if so, what amount? If there is to be a pension, will it be upon the same grandiose scale as the salaries already allotted for the jobs given to Members of
      622
      the Northern Irish Government? How many people will be enabled to draw this pension at one and the same time? Shall we see the spectacle of this country being asked to pay more in pensions than it actually pays in salary? Shall we be faced with the position of having more pensioners than there are holders of offices? We have that scandal in connection with another place, and I want to know whether it is to be extended to Northern Ireland, and exactly what will be our liabilities in that direction. I associate myself entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), and I enter my protest against the erection here of vested interests which will render the union of Northern and Southern Ireland improbable if not impossible.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I have listened to the Debate last night and to-day, and while I heard a justification attempted for the amount of this salary, I have heard no one say anything as to what duties are to be performed by the gentleman who is to be appointed to the office. When anybody, whether a local authority or a Parliament, is about to pay £8,000 to an individual, the first thing to be insisted upon is a knowledge of what they are going to get in return for the £8,000. We have heard the justification put forward about a sum of £20,000 having been paid in the- past, but one thing we must set our faces against is the theory that because a thing has been done foolishly for 100 years, we should go on doing it for another 100 years. No one has said what we are to receive in return for this money. I am not against paying men salaries if they are performing services for the salaries. I am one of those who think that in certain cases, whether the system be good or bad, you are compelled to pay salaries of a fairly high character. But when we are going to pay a salary of that kind we should know exactly the functions and the work to be performed in return for it. Some of us here may be raw and new to the House, but I hope the Government will give consideration to our views. Some of us come from Scotland and value £8,000 possibly more than other hon. Members. Being Scotch myself, I certainly should like to know how much value we are going to have in return for this money. If foolishness is to be continued I do not

      623
      want Scotland to have any part in it. Let it be confined to Northern Ireland if they care to have it. Meanwhile, as a Scotsman representing a Scottish constituency, I wish to enter my protest against any foolish payment of this character.
      Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Like most Members of this House, I have just been on an electioneering platform, and also, like most Members of the House, I have been promising economies at every meeting I addressed. I have listened to the arguments put forward here, and unless there be some very good reason for the expenditure of this money, I find I shall have difficulty in supporting the proposal. I do not feel I should be honest to my constituents if, merely because I am sitting on this side of the Committee, I allowed myself to be carried away into supporting the expenditure of £8,000 a year. That is not merely because it is £8,000 a year. This is one of the first occasions on which in this House we have had the opportunity of exercising the pious doctrines we have preached from our platforms, and I think we shall want to know a good deal more about this office and the reason for establishing this officer, whether at £8,000 or £800 a year, before I can support the proposal.
      Mr. ORMSBY-G0RE: I would like to point out to the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) that if they ever get Home Rule for Scotland, I am quite sure they will want a Governor—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]—and I am quite sure, also, that this House will be expected to contribute to his salary. In this matter, however, the Labour party are in a very different position from that occupied by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) and his friends, who, after all, have asked us to vote £20,000 a year for the Lord Lieutenant's salary while they and their party have been in office for many years past.
      Mr. PRINGLE: That salary is not on the Votes.
      Mr. ORMSBY-G0RE: It has been on the Consolidated Fund, and the hon. Member could at any time have voted against the Consolidated Fund Bill in which it was included, but it has been paid without any protest from the hon. Member. Another thing I think I ought to say in passing, and that is that the hon.
      624
      Member knows very well that, whether it has been a Liberal Viceroy or another, not one of them has been in pocket on the transaction. You cannot fulfil these posts on the salaries that have been paid for the carrying out of these duties. Every one of these salaries has been fixed at below what the occupant of these posts is expected to spend. I admit that in this case a pledge was given by the late Government, and it was given across the Floor of this House. The then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in Committee on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill, gave this undertaking on the 6th March of this year. He said:
      "I wish to make it quite clear that if Ulster contracts out of tree area of the Free State, as she will have a statutory right to do, and unless there is an agreement, we should regard the wishes of Ulster in this respect as decisive. I make that statement definitely. If she does not wish the Viceroy or Governor-General selected for the Free State to discharge these functions over Northern Ireland, some other arrangement will be made. I wish to make that quite clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1922; col. 907, Vol. 151.]
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. Who gave the pledge? They have no right to give any pledge.
      The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of argument, not a point of Order.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When there is a Parliamentary undertaking given in this House, across the Floor of the House, on a matter of quasi-international agreement, when you are dealing with a Treaty, there must be very strong arguments adduced before upsetting it. The Government of Northern Ireland received this pledge from the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, given across the Floor of the House, and it would not be right for me to appear here and to say that that has no weight. On its merits, I think it is impracticable to suggest that the Governor-General of the Free State should fulfil the same functions in regard to the separate area of Northern Ireland. I do not think he could. The Free State would want him and his services for signatures to documents, for communications with His Majesty's Government, and for all the public functions which the head of the State and the representative of the Crown has to undertake, functions of many kinds. Those functions could not, in my

      625
      opinion, be performed by one and the same man, and on its merits, therefore, I defend the demand put forward by the Government of Northern Ireland to have a separate representative of the Crown. A perfectly accurate statement was made by the right hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. O'Neill) as to the amount of the payment involved. The way in which we calculated it was to take the usual proportion, two-fifths, of the salary provided in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The right hon. Member described exactly how the figure was arrived at, and in view of the very large Imperial contribution paid by the Ulster taxpayers, we thought it fair under the circumstances that they should be asked to pay £2,000 and that this House should be asked to pay £6,000. That is what we had in mind in making this provision. We have had one Division on this question already, we are obviously going to have another, and as I do not see that anything more can be said one way or the other on the point, I would ask the Committee to come, to a decision straight away.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: What about the question of pentions?
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no pension whatever, and never has been, attached to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and there will not be to this post of Governor of Northern Ireland, nor to that of Governor-General of the Free State.
      Captain BENN: There are two questions which we are discussing to-night. One is, Should we have this official; and the second is, Should we pay him, and, if so, how much? As to the first, there is one small technical obstacle which I do not think has been dealt with. Under the first Schedule the Governor of Northern Ireland is to have the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, and in the Government of Ireland Act, under Section 2, the Lord Lieutenant appoints the President of the Council of Ireland. The Council of Ireland is a somewhat vague but very important body, because it represents the feeling towards unity in Ireland which many of us think is the one hope for a permanent Irish settlement. According to this new arrangement, there will be a Governor under the control of Northern Ireland who shall nominate the
      626
      President of the Council of Ireland. Has the Attorney-General considered this point? Does he really propose that Ulster should have the power to appoint the President of the Council of Ireland? Is he aware of what he is doing?
      "There shall be a Governor of Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, with respect of the Lord Lieutenant shall apply to the Governor of Northern Ireland."
      That is in the Schedule. In the Act of 1920 you find that the Lord Lieutenant, acting in accordance with instructions from His Majesty, is to appoint a person who shall be President of the Council of Ireland. So that we find that the first technical objection to appointing anybody at all is that it would give to Ulster the power of appointing the President for the whole of the Council of Ireland. That is a point to which the hon. Gentleman, who is so well informed as to the murky past of the Liberal party in this respect, has not had time to devote his attention. The second question is, Shall we pay this official, and, if so, how much? Certainly it must strike the public as very strange, that when the most rigid economy is being practised even at the expense of ex-soldiers—I am not merely making an emotional appeal, but it is true, that when even small sums are being denied to people in need, the Government can still find money for posts of this kind, and for such enterprises as a dancing room at Bagdad—it does certainly seem strange to the public that you should make these ceremonial arrangements at great expense when you have not the money for these other objects. The hon. Gentleman has advanced the argument that the party, of which I was a very obscure and undistinguished member, paid the Lord Lieutenant £20,000. Why? Because everybody knows that in the old days the policy in Ireland was to pour out British money in default of real settlement, which the hon. Gentleman and his friends opposed. If it had been possible to have a settlement of the Irish question, it would have been unnecessary to pauperise the whole of Ireland with British money. That is the answer to his small debating point.
      We are told that the £20,000 has had to he adjusted in the proportions of 8 and 12. The hon. Member really should devote less time to the trivial aspect of his subject, if I may say so, and more time to the details and facts, because, in

      627
      point of fact, under this very Statute, we are cutting down the salary to £10,000, the same salary as is given to the Governor-General of Australia. What, then, becomes of the argument that it must be £8,000, because under the arithmetical calculation that is the figure necessary? There is nothing in it at all. The third and final point is, Why should we be asked to pay? If Northern Ireland wants a Governor, let it pay for him. I do submit that this House, newly constituted as it is and coming, as has been said, straight from the Election platforms, where economy has been talked, should set some limits to the insatiable mendicancy of the Ulster party.
      Sir W. ALLEN: I am sorry for Members of Parliament, or gentlemen who desire to become Members of Parliament, having to put themselves in the position that they must give so many promises before their election. For my own part, I never give any promises. I write no election address. I am in the happy position of being trusted by my constituents. Of course, if you have got to give promises, promises have a very awkward habit of coming home to roost. I heard of one promise that was given by a Member of the House. I do not know whether it is true; I am only giving what I have heard. It was that a workingman was promised his wages should be doubled, and when he went for his pay, he refused to accept it, because it was not doubled. There are a few points I would like to impress upon the Committee. We are constantly confronted with the question of the possibility of unity between North and South, and that this rather strikes a blow at that unity. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and all the people around him to use all their influence, in the first instance, to get the Southern Irish to shake hands with themselves, because there is not the slightest chance, I can assure them, of any rapprochement between North and South until they come to some arrangement amongst themselves. So that I would recommend my hon. Friends, when they talk of unity between the North and the South, to be very careful that the speeches they make will not prevent the Southern Irish coming
      628
      together. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Are there no differences in Belfast?"] We are overcoming them in Belfast, I am glad to say, between all parties and all classes. This Amendment strikes at the root of the 1920 Act, because the Governor-General in each ease is the representative of the Crown, and his name runs all through that Act for the purpose of carrying out that Act. If you pass this Amendment, therefore, you strike at the root of the 1920 Act.
      Mr. PRINGLE: It is dead already.
      Sir W. ALLEN: I do not know where the hon. Member has been living for the last two years.
      Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. Member is appealing now to the 1920 Act, Let me point out to him that under the 1920 Act there were two Irelands, and one Governor-General was to do for both. We are departing from that. Why should we appoint one man to do a job which could be done by the Viceroy in his spare time?
      Sir W. ALLEN: I am sorry to say that that is largely our complaint from this side of the Committee. It is that the House has departed from the 1920 Act. We want, however, to retain as much as we can of that Act. There is another point I wish to bring before the Committee. It is frequently repeated here that of this £8,000, £2,000 is paid by the Northern Parliament, and that £6,000 is paid by this House, as a separate payment by the Government here. Let me remind the Committee that Northern Ireland, in addition to paying this £2,000, contributes her fair share to that £6,000 which is returned to Ireland. That seems to be forgotten. We are taxed in Northern Ireland just the same as you are here. We are quite satisfied to be so taxed, because we still maintain our integrity and the Union between Northern Ireland and this country. We are satisfied to pay our portion of the War charges and all the rest. When you talk of this £6,000 being paid by this country, please do not forget that in the taxes which you collect from Northern Ireland that money is included. We pay our share of this. While it is just possible that some hon. Members opposite—I think there is something in that point—would like to know what value they will get for this money,

      629
      I want to ask who gets the £8,000? Will hon. Members apposite try and answer that question for themselves? [HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Somebody or other!" and "The man who gets it!"] I am sorry the minds of hon. Members opposite cannot go any further than that. Eight thousand pounds is handed over to (his man. Who gets it? [An HON. MEMBER: "He buys groceries with it!"] I suppose the hon. Member buys groceries also. I have no doubt hon. Members will begin to realise that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and in future both the Governor of Northern Ireland and the Governor-General of Southern Ireland, will spend far more than that sum, which will go into the pockets of their employés. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not give it to the employés direct?"] That is about as direct as any money can go from the British or any other Exchequer. Try and remember that a great many of these employés are of the working classes.
      Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is not this a good deal more on the unemployment question than on the subject of the Amendment now before the Committee?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Fitzroy): So far as the discussion has gone at present, it appears to be quite in order.
      Sir W. ALLEN: I hope the Committee will not divide on this Amendment. It is a matter that vitally affects the whole of the Act of 1920. By deleting this paragraph you may as well destroy the Act of 1920.
      Mr. JOHNSTON: In defending this proposal to find £8,000 for some needy aristocrat, the Under-Secretary could only fall back, if I understood him aright, for an argument upon some unfulfilled pledge given by the late Secretary for the Colonies. If that pledge be not fulfilled, it. will be only one more of the many unfulfilled pledges given by the late Secretary for the Colonies. I should like to say to the hon. Member for Armagh (Sir W Allen) that it is not purely a question of expense with many Members on these benches. This is a question of an insulting job.
      Mr. ORMSBY-G0RE: Why does the hon. Gentleman call a representative of the. Crown insulting?
      Mr. JOHNSTON: To talk in the twentieth century of appointing a Governor of a free people is to insult that free people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In our free self-governing Dominions—Australia, New Zealand, and Canada—protests are continually being made against insults offered to them by imposing upon them Governors-General. As I say, the question of expense is not alone involved. If it were only a question of expense, a question of candle-ends, such as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) suggests, this could be made a profitable business for the taxpayers of Northern Ireland. Why pay a Governor at all? Do with the Governor what you do with your baronetcies, and O.B.E.'s, and dukedoms—put them up to Dutch auction, sell them at so much a time. You would get any number of stupid people in this world with more money than sense who would be willing to pay you so much money a year for the privilege of being allowed to drive through the Belfast streets in a top hat to open bazaars and mothers' meetings, to lay foundation stones, to attend polo gatherings, and on occasion, perhaps, to lose the Crown jewels. No justification whatever has been offered here for the imposition of this post on the people of Ireland. In my opinion, it is not a question of £8,000 or £80,000. It is an insult, at this time of day, to impose anybody with the title of a Governor on a free democracy.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think it is necessary the Committee should jeer at the suggestion that a Governor is unnecessary in the 20th century. A certain distinguished American, about 60 years ago, remarked that nobody had yet been born good enough to govern another. That is the principle by which we hold on these benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The applause with which that remark was greeted shows the dawning realisation that the Labour party are, at any rate, fitted to govern. It is the opinion of Members on the opposite benches that you can make anybody fitted to govern if you pay him enough money, and that if you offer £8,000 a year you can get the genuine article. I am not quite certain, from the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, whether his defence of this appointment was that the salary was sufficient or not more than

      631
      sufficient, or whether it was not rather that he had been let in by his predecessor, and that, in doing his duty to-day, he was not indeed following the dictates of his own conscience but obeying his master's voice. The pledges of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies have been, I think, washed out by the recent election. Let the Under-Secretary start afresh with his own pledges, and let him keep them to the House. Then his own party will be perfectly satisfied with his conduct. Do not let him go back too far. As for this pledge, the Committee ought to observe that it was merely a statement in a speech by the previous Colonial Secretary, to the effect that if Northern Ireland declined to go into partnership with Southern Ireland, there should be set up in Northern Ireland some head of the Government, in accordance with the wishes of that august people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or any other arrangement could be made!"] Yes, not this definite promise of a Governor. But whether a definite promise or not, it cannot be held binding on a Liberal Government and a different Parliament, and least of all can it be held binding on those people in the old House of Commons who did not agree with the pledge, and who had no part in it. They are as free as air to vote to-night for it, or for the promises they have given to their constituents, instead of the promise made by the late Secretary for the Colonies to the Ulster Members. So far as the pledge is concerned, we on our side—and there must be many hon. Members opposite who will vote with us in this Division on the strength of promises given to their constituents—will observe the pledges of economy given rather than the pledge given by the late Secretary for the Colonies who has lost his job.
      The pledge is not that which really appeals to hon. Members opposite. The present Government is being forced by the Ulster Members to provide this post in Ireland, to provide this gift, for they know full well that by establishing a Governorship for Northern Ireland, they will be setting up another vested interest to prevent the unity of Ireland in the years to come. We on this side are supporting the hon. Member for Penistone in this Motion because we believe that
      632
      the worst possible service that can be done to Ireland, or to the homogeneous corporation of the British Empire, is to enable the division between the North and the South of Ireland to be perpetuated. The question of the unity of Ireland, I believe, is agreed upon by every Member of this House, except those from Ulster, as being a desirable solution to the question. Here you are deliberately putting up a new barrier. It is perfectly obvious that the whole idea of the Viceroy in Dublin is to be perpetuated now by the Governor in Belfast. We shall have the same Court, the same functionaries, the same Court dressmakers and the same flunkeyism that used to exist in Dublin. It is now to be transferred to Belfast. We are asked to do this in the interests of unemployment'. Does Belfast imagine that it is possible to solve the unemployed problem by giving to the North of Ireland a Governor at £8,000 a year? If so, there is no earthly reason why we should not help the problem still further by giving the Governor £80,000 a year. In fact the solution of our difficulties is perfectly simple. All you have to do is to find money from the British Treasury and spend it somewhere else!
      The last argument of the Ulster Members was really typical of Ulster. That was: "Why should we not have this? Do we not contribute large sums to the British Exchequer for the Army, the Navy, the National Debt, and so on? Do we not contribute very nearly £7,500,000 a year towards the national services? Why, therefore, should we not have a call upon the Exchequer?" But if they do not want to contribute their quota to the national services and to national defence, then do not let them come here and tax our people. We have them coming to this House and inflicting taxation upon the working classes of this country—and they are nearly all Tories. If they were going to tax food then they need not brag of their contribution being a gift by Ulster to this country. It would be a gift if, as they do in Canada or some other of the Dominions, they did not sit in this House. If they did not sit here, then they might talk about their gift and expect gratitude for it. So long as they sit here and join in taxing the people of this country we have a right to ask, when an additional I post is set up like this merely to gratify

      633
      the wishes of Ulster, that they themselves should contribute not one quarter but the whole of he cost.
      Mr. POTTS: I should like the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to clear up one point. Has it been correctly stated that an undertaking was given by the late Government to set up this office "unless agreed to the contrary"? Does the statement contain these latter words, and is it or is it not laid upon the House to determine the establishment or otherwise of the office?
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That referred possibly to an agreement between Ulster, that is to say, the Northern Government and the Free State—an agreement binding upon this House. But the hon. Mem-
      ber is perfectly entitled to vote against that.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: What are the duties and what time will be occupied by this gentleman who will be appointed to the post? What will he give in return for this £8,000 per annum?
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The duty of this Governor will be the duty of any other representative of the Crown whether under the Government of Ireland or elsewhere.
      Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 258: Noes, 150.

      Division No. 9.]

      AYES.

      [9 45 p.m.

      Ainsworth, Captain Charles

      Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

      Hawke, John Anthony

      Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

      Curzon, Captain Viscount

      Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

      Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)

      Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)

      Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

      Allen, Lieut-Col. Sir William James

      Davidson, J. C. C (Hemel Hempstead)

      Henn, Sir Sydney H.

      Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

      Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

      Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

      Apsley, Lord

      Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

      Horbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

      Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

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

      Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

      Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

      Dawson, Sir Philip

      Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)

      Hiley, Sir Ernest

      Balfour, George (Hampstead)

      Doyle, N. Gratton

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

      Banks, Mitchell

      Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

      Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

      Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

      Ednam, Viscount

      Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

      Berry, Sir George

      Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

      Hood, Sir Joseph

      Betterton, Henry B.

      England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Houfton, John Plowright

      Birchall, J. Dearman

      Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

      Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

      Blundell, F. N.

      Erskine-Bolst, Captain C. E.

      Hudson. Capt. A.

      Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

      Evans. Ernest (Cardigan)

      Hume, G. H.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

      Eyres-Monsell. Com. Bolton M.

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Brass, Captain W.

      Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Brassey, Sir Leonard

      Fawkes, Major F. H.

      Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

      Bridgernan, Rt. Hon. William Cilve

      Formor-Hesketh, Major T.

      Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles. N.)

      Briggs, Harold

      Fildes, Henry

      Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

      Brown, Brig.-Gen. clifton (Newbury)

      Flanagan, W. H.

      Hutchison, w. (Keivingrove)

      Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)

      Ford, Patrick Johnston

      Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

      Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

      Forestler-Walker, L.

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

      Bruford, R.

      Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

      James. Lieut.-Colonel Hun. Cuthberf

      Bruton, Sir James

      Fraser, Major Sir Keith

      Jarrett, G. W. S.

      Buckingham, Sir H.

      Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

      Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

      Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

      Furness, G. J.

      Jephcott. A. R.

      Butcher, Sir John George

      Galbraith, J. F. W.

      Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

      Button, H. S.

      Ganzoni, Sir John

      Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow. E.)

      Cadogan, Major Edward

      Garland, C. S.

      Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

      Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

      Gates, Percy

      King, Capt. Henry Douglas

      Cassels, J. D.

      George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

      Lamb, J. Q.

      Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)

      Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

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

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

      Goff, Sir R. Park

      Lever, Sir Arthur L.

      Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

      Gould, James C.

      Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

      Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

      Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

      Lorden, John William

      Churchman, Sir Arthur

      Greaves-Lord, Walter

      Lorimer, H. D.

      Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender

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

      Lougher, L.

      Clayton G. C.

      Greenwood, William (Stockport)

      Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

      Lumley, L. R.

      Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

      Gretton, Colonel John

      Lynn, R. J.

      Colfox, Major Win. Phillips

      Grigg, Sir Edward

      M'Connell, Thomas E.

      Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

      Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.

      Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      Gwynne, Rupert S.

      McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

      Cope, Major William

      Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

      Macpherson, Rt. Hon, James 1.

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

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

      Makins, Brigadier-General E.

      Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell

      Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'T,W.D'by)

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

      Courthone, Liout.-Col. George L.

      Halstead, Major D.

      Margesson, H. D, R.

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

      Hamilton, Sir Gcoro. O C. (Altrincham)

      Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

      Craik, Fit. Hon. Sir Henry

      Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

      Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

      Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

      Harvey, Major S. E.

      Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

      Moles, Thomas

      Rentoul, G. S.

      Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

      Molloy, Major L. G. S.

      Reynolds, W. G. W.

      Sturrock, J. Leng

      Molson, Major John Eisdale

      Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.

      Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

      Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

      Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

      Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.

      Morris, Harold

      Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir p. (Chrtsy)

      Sutcliffe, T.

      Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

      Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

      Morrison-Bell, Major A. c. (Honiton)

      Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

      Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

      Murchison, C. K.

      Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)

      Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)

      Murray, John (Leeds, West)

      Rogerson, Capt, J. E.

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

      Nail, Major Joseph

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Thorpe, Captain John Henry

      Nesbitt, J. C.

      Roundell, Colonel R. F.

      Titchfield, Marquess of

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

      Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

      Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Tubbs, S. W.

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

      Russell, William (Bolton)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

      Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

      Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge HIM)

      Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)

      Oman, Sir Charles William C.

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

      O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Waring, Major Walter

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

      Wells, S. R.

      Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

      Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

      Weston, Colonel John Wakefield

      Pennefather, De Fonblanque

      Sandon, Lord

      Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

      Penny, Frederick George

      Shepperson, E. W.

      Whitla, Sir William

      Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

      Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

      Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)

      Perkins, E. K.

      Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.

      Windsor, Viscount

      Perring, William George

      Singleton, J. E.

      Winterton, Earl

      Philipson, H. H.

      Skelton, A. N.

      Wise, Frederick

      Pielou, D. P.

      Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray

      Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)

      Price, E. G.

      Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

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

      Raine, w.

      Sparkes, H. W,

      Worsfold, T. Cato

      Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

      Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.

      Yerburgh, R. D. T.

      Reld, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

      Stanley, Lord

      Reid, D. D. (County Down)

      Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Remer, J. R.

      Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

      Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.

      NOES.

      Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

      Hartshorn, Vernon

      Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

      Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

      Hastings, Patrick

      Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

      Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

      Hayday, Arthur

      Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

      Ammon, Charles George

      Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

      Rose, Frank H.

      Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

      Herriotts, J.

      Royce, William Stapleton

      Barnes, A.

      Hill, A.

      Saklatvala, S.

      Batey, Joseph

      Hillary, A E.

      Scrymgeour, E.

      Benn. Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

      Hinds, John

      Sexton, James

      Bonwick, A.

      Hirst, G. H.

      Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

      Bdwdler, W. A.

      Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

      Shinwell, Emanuel

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Broad, F. A.

      Irving, Dan

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

      Bromfield, William

      John, William (Rhondda, West)

      Simpson, J. Hope

      Brotherton, J.

      Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Smith, T. (Pontefract)

      Buchanan, G.

      Kenyon, Barnet

      Snowden, Philip

      Buckle, J.

      Kirk wood, D.

      Spoor, B. G.

      Burgess, S.

      Lansbury, George

      Stephen, Campbell

      Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

      Lawson. John James

      Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

      Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

      Leach, W.

      Sullivan, J.

      Cairns, John

      Lee, F.

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

      Cape, Thomas

      Linfield, F. C.

      Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

      Chappie, W. A.

      Lunn, William

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

      Charleton, H. C.

      Lyle-Samuel, Alexander

      Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

      Clarke, Sir E. C.

      MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

      Thornton, M.

      Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

      M'Entee, V. L.

      Tillett, Benjamin

      Collins. Pat (Walsall)

      Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

      Tout, W. J.

      Collison, Levi

      March. S.

      Trevelyan, C. P.

      Darbishire. C. W.

      Marshall, Sir Arthur H.

      Turner, Ben

      Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

      Mathew, C. J.

      Warne. G. H.

      Davison. J. E. (Smethwick)

      Maxton, James

      Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)

      Dudgeon, Major C. R.

      Middleton, G.

      Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

      Duffy, T. Gavan

      Morel, E. D.

      Webb, Sidney

      Duncan, C.

      Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

      Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.

      Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

      Mosley, Oswald

      Weir, L. M.

      Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

      Muir, John W. l

      Welsh, J. C.

      Fairbairn, R. R.

      Murnin, H.

      Westwood, J.

      Falconer, J.

      Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)

      Wheatley. J.

      Foot, Isaac

      Newbold, J. T. W.

      White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)

      Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)

      Nicol, Robert

      White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

      Gray, Frank (Oxford)

      O'Grady, Captain James

      Whiteley, W.

      Greenall, T.

      Oliver, George Harold

      Wignall, James

      Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Paling, W.

      Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Parker, H. (Hanley)

      Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

      Groves, T.

      Pattinson, R. (Grantham)

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

      Grundy, T. W.

      Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

      Ponsonby, Arthur

      Wintringham, Margaret

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

      Potts, John S.

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

      Hancock, John George

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Hardie, George D.

      Riley, Ben

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Harris, Percy A.

      Ritson, J.

      Mr. Pringle and Mr. Wallhead.

      Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      Sir D. HOGG: I bog to move, in paragraph (3, 1), to leave out the words
      "and it is hereby declared that the passing of such Acts is within the powers of the said Parliaments."
      I do not think this Amendment need occupy more than a very few moments, because it is purely formal. The paragraph as it stands reads:
      "The Constitution of the Council of Ireland shall, if identical Acts for the purpose are passed by the Parliament of the Irish Free State and the Parliament, of Northern Ireland, be altered in accordance with those Acts, and it is hereby declared that the passing of such Acts is within the powers of the said Parliaments."
      My Motion is to leave out the last sentence beginning "and it is hereby declared," first, because these words are unnecessary, for as the Committee will realise, the House enacts that the Constitution is altered in accordance with identical Acts as soon as they are passed. Secondly, these words are objectionable from a technical point of view, because they may-lead people to think that there is power in one or other of the Parliaments to alter the Constitution of the Council of Ireland. That is not a thing which it is desirable to lead anyone to believe. Neither is it the fact. It might lead to complications hereafter if these words were allowed to remain. I am therefore moving their omission.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I should like to draw attention to paragraph (4, 1, c) of the Schedule, which reads:
      "The Joint Exchequer Board, in determining the just proportion of Imperial liability and expenditure to be contributed by Northern Ireland in respect of each financial year after the end of the said second financial year, shall have regard to the relative taxable capacities of Northern Ireland on the one hand and Great Britain and Ireland on the other hand."
      I should like the Government to define the taxable capacities of the partners to this arrangement. What is meant by the term? Under this Bill we are likely to have quite different methods of taxation in this country as compared with the Irish Free State and with Northern Ireland, and we ought to have some definition from the Government of what they mean by the phrase, "taxable
      638
      capacities." Later on, when the Joint Exchequer Board comes to decide what shall be the Imperial liability and expenditure, they will have to bear in mind that in the case of Southern Ireland a very large proportion of the population are small farmers who have become exempt from the payment of Income Tax. They ought also to remember, in considering the question of taxable capacity, that the working classes of this country are far more overtaxed than they should be, especially in the matter of food taxation. Are the. Joint Exchequer Board going to take into consideration, when arriving at the taxable capacity, the food taxation to which I have referred? I should like the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to define therefore what is meant by the term "taxable capacities."
      10.0 P.M.
      Sir D. HOGG: The answer to the hon. Member is that we are merely here reproducing with regard to Northern Ireland a provision of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which, in Clause 23, imposes upon the Joint Exchequer Board the duty of determining the proportion of Imperial liability and expenditure and the Board are to have regard in so doing to the relative taxable capacities of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Of course, now we have Northern Ireland instead of Ireland as a whole, and that is the reason why these words appear in this Bill. We really are re-enacting what is already in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as to the best method of assessing the proportion of liabilities and expenditure which is to be borne by Northern Ireland and by Great Britain.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.
    PART I.

      JUDGES.
      (1) Any existing judge may, at or any time after the date on which the Constitution of the Irish Free State comes into operation, resign his office on signifying his desire to do so to His Maiestw's representative, and thereupon His Majesty may, if lie thinks fit, notwithstanding that such judge has not completed the period of service entitling him to a pension, grant to

      639
      him such pension, not exceeding the pension to which he would on that completion have been entitled, as His Majesty thinks fit.
      (2) When a new Court is established by the Parliament of the Irish Free State in the place of any existing Court or Courts, every existing judge then holding office as a judge of any 6uch existing Court shall on such abolition of office, be entitled to receive by way of compensation for loss of office a pension equivalent to two-thirds of his salary, and, in addition, an annual allowance payable for such period and of such amount, not exceeding (when added to the amount of his pension) his full salary, as may be determined to be reasonable and just, regard being had to the tenure and character of his existing office, the probability of his further continuance therein but for the establishment of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State and all the circumstances of the case.
      The amount of the annual allowance shall, subject as aforesaid, be determined by a committee consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls in England, and a Judge of the Supreme Court of England nominated by the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain.
      (3) Where any judge who is entitled to a pension under this Part of this Schedule is appointed to a judicial office in Great Britain or Ireland, then, so long as he holds such office, the pension and any allowance, to which he may be entitled under this Part of this Schedule shall be wholly suspended if the emoluments of such office are equal to or greater than those of his existing office, and if they are less than those of his existing office, so much only of the pension and allowance (if any) shall be payable as with the emoluments of such office shall be equal to the emoluments of his existing office.
      (4) If any annual allowance is payable by way of compensation under Article 10 of the said Articles of Agreement (hereinafter referred to as a compensation allowance) to a judge who is entitled to a pension under this Part of this Schedule, then so long as the compensation allowance continues to be paid, the pension and any allowance to which he may be entitled under this Part of this Schedule shall be wholly suspended if the compensation allowance is equal to or greater than the pension or the sum of the pension and allowance, as the case may be to which he is 60 entitled, and if it is less than the said pension or the sum of the said pension and allowance, then so much only of the said pension and allowance (if any) shall be payable as shall b? equivalent to the difference.
      Provided that, if a lump sum is paid to any such judge by way of compensation under the said Article, it shall be treated for the purpose of the foregoing provision as if it were an annuity of such an amount as could have been purchased for the lump sum if invested at the time of payment in an immediate life annuity according to the Post Office Tables.
      (6) For the purpose of this Part of this Schedule the expression "judge" means any
      640
      judge of a Supreme Court and any judge of a county court or recorder of a borough; and the expression "existing" means existing or holding office at the date when the Constitution of the Irish Free State comes into operation.

    PART II.
      LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.
      The office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland shall be abolished, and the person holding that office at the date of the passing of this Act shall be entitled to receive the like compensation for loss of office as if he were an existing judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland whose office had been abolished on the establishment of Courts by the Parliament of the Irish Free State, and the provisions of Part I of this Schedule shall apply accordingly.
    PART III.

      LAND COMMISSIONERS.
      As from the date upon which the administration of public services relating to land purchase is transferred as respects the Irish Free State to the Executive Council thereof the office of commissioner of the Irish Land Commission shall cease to exist, except so far as its continuance may be declared by the Treasury to be necessary for the execution of matters outside the jurisdiction of the Government of the Irish Free State, and any commissioner of that Commission whose office is declared by the Treasury to be redundant shall, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, retire from office and shall be entitled to receive an annual allowance of such amount as may be determined to be reasonable and just by the committee established for determining the compensation of existing judges, regard being had to the tenure and character of his office, the conditions of his employment, and the probability of his further continuance therein but for the establishment of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State, and the provisions of Part 1 of this Schedule with respect to the suspension of pensions of existing judges shall with the necessary modifications apply to any such annual allowance:
      Provided that the Commissioner of the Irish Land Commission who is a member of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Southern Ireland shall for the purposes of this Schedule, be treated as an existing judge of that Court and not as a commissioner of the Irish Land Commission.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move in Part I to leave out paragraph (6).
      This paragraph provides that
      "For the purpose of this Part of the Schedule the expression 'judge' means any judge of a Supreme Court' and any judge of a county court or recorder of a borough."
      I move to omit this pro formâ for the purpose of getting an expression of opinion from the Government as to the position of the Dublin Metropolitan

      641
      Police Magistrates. The position of these gentlemen is a very peculiar one. They are the only judicial authorities in Ireland for whom provision is not made by this Schedule. Judges, Recorders and County Court Judges have provision made for them, but the Dublin Metropolitan Police Magistrates are entirely left out of the Schedule. What is really rather more serious to them is that there are grave doubts whether under the Treaty they can get any compensation if they are retired or discharged or if their posts are abolished. I should therefore like an expression of opinion from the Attorney-General whether these magistrates will be entitled to compensation. I need hardly say that they perform very important judicial functions in Ireland, very similar to those performed by the London Police Magistrates in this city. Their work is continuous and requires a very considerable degree of skill, and therefore primâ facie there can be no question that they should be provided for either under this Schedule or by Article 10 of the Treaty. The question I put to the Attorney-General is whether these men will receive compensation under Article 10, and, if not, will he give an assurance that, if not in this Bill, at any rate in some other Bill which will have to be brought in, they will be provided for. I have no doubt myself that this Bill will later on have to be amended in some shape or form, and if it is impossible to deal with these men now, perhaps the Attorney-General can say that they will be provided for in a later Bill. If he is unable to give an absolute assurance, I hope he will, at any rate, give some assurance that will relieve the undoubted anxiety which these men are suffering, and which will convince them that they will not suffer the injustice of being entirely refused compensation.
      Sir D. HOGG: The point which the hon. and learned Member has mentioned is one which, I think, was only raised for the first time within the last two days, and, quite frankly, I have to say that I cannot give him an exact statement as to the legal position of these three gentlemen under Article 10 of the Treaty. I can tell my hon. and learned Friend what I think it is, but I cannot assure him of more than that. I should like to explain at once to the Committee what the essential difference is between these three gentlemen and the Judges who are
      642
      provided for in the Second Schedule. In the Second Schedule we are dealing with certain Judges whose salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund. As was explained earlier in the evening, the three police magistrates to whom my hon. and learned Friend refers are three magistrates who were never on the Consolidated Fund, who were transferred to the Provisional Government on the 1st April of this year, and who ceased from that time, of course, to be officers of the Imperial Government. They were transferred under terms which provided that their tenure was be not less favourable than it had been before, and, under Article 77 of the Constitution, they go from the Provisional Government to the Irish Free State. Under the Irish Free State they will hold office by a tenure corresponding to their previous tenure, and, by Article 78, it is provided that they are to be entitled to the benefit of Article 10 of the Treaty. So far as I can judge, therefore, their position is protected. I cannot offer to my hon. and learned Friend an undertaking or assurance as to what shall be done with any particular person or class of persons at this stage. I have no authority to do that. But if it should turn out that we are mistaken, and that in fact they are not provided for under the Treaty, I can certainly assure my hon. and learned Friend that we shall sympathetically consider any representations that may be made on the matter.
      Sir J. BUTCHER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance, and, in view of his promise of sympathetic consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion- made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill"
      Captain BENN: I should like to ask a question of the Attorney-General. In winding-up the older Government of Ireland we have been let in for a good deal of expense, and I want to ask particularly, in connection with Part II, for some financial information in regard to the retirement of the Lord Chancellor. I do not think I know who is the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, but that is not the question. What I want to ask is, how long has he held his appointment, what

      643
      are his present emoluments, and precisely to what sum will he be entitled under Part II of the Second Schedule?
      Sir D. HOGG: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking me rather more than I can answer offhand, when he asks me the exact amount of the Lord Chancellor's present emoluments. If I had had notice I could have had it looked up. The Lord Chancellor is Sir John Ross. I do not know how long ht> has been Lord Chancellor, but he has been a judge in Ireland, having been promoted from one position to another, for a great many years, I think for something like 20 years. The compensation to which he is entitled, is that provided by Part I of the Second Schedule; that is to say, the Committee which is there set up, consisting of the English Master of the Rolls, Lord Sterndale, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, and a Judge of the Supreme Court of England to be nominated by the English Lord Chancellor, are to assess in respect of every Judge, including the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, what they consider to be a fair compensation for loss of office having regard to all the circumstances of the case. I have just been handed the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asked. The Lord Chancellor's present salary is £6,000 a year; he is entitled on retirement at present to a pension of £4,000 a year; and he has been a Judge of the Supreme Court in Ireland for more than a quarter of a century.
      Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: How long has he been Lord Chancellor?
      Sir D. HOGG: I am told for six years, but I do not know.
      Mr. N. MACLEAN: It is rather peculiar that, in the winding up of the affairs of Ireland, this country is going to be asked to pay such enormous sums. We have been informed that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has practically been in office for a quarter of a century, that his salary has been £6,000 a year, and that, if he retires, he is going to get £4,000 a year as pension. If this had been a business concern, an employe1 who had served in it for a quarter of a century—as we find to be the case at the present time in a very large number of business concerns—would now be standing in a queue at an Employment Exchange waiting for a- dole: but when we have a House that is very largely
      644
      composed of lawyers, they look after their own interests, and they taunt-Members on this side of the House, who are sent here as Labour Members, with trying to look after the interests of the workers. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Oh, yes, you do. None of us here have ever denied that, but we have been taught a very good lesson by men who have had experience in that same matter for many years, men who have been looking to it that the legal profession has been getting the pick of all the jobs that had to be found, and that, when it comes to the period of retirement, they may, as in the case of the Lord Chancellor of this country, serve for four years and then, when they retire, they draw a pension of between £5,000 and £6,000 a year. I am talking of the Lord Chancellor of Britain, not the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. This is one of the usual things that we have in this House. I am not going so far as to talk of corruption, because it is within the legal forms of the country, and, therefore, it cannot be corruption in the eyes of the lawyers, who can usually find sufficient arguments on the one side when they are well enough paid, and, if they are better paid, they can find equally good arguments on the other side. I submit that the people of this country, who to-day are passing through such terrible conditions of starvation and distress generally, are going to ask some very pointed questions of the Members who have recently come from fighting constituencies, when they go back to address meetings of their con 6tituents. Some very pointed questions will be asked of those men who have come here on the plea of economy, while among the first of their actions in this House has been the voting away of such sums of money to men who have been earning exceedingly good salaries all their lives, and who, in the language we are accustomed to hear from the other side, ought to have been able, during those years, to put away sufficient for the rainy day which seemingly is coming upon them, and which we are asked to assure them against.
      Bill reported: as amended, considered: to be read a Third time To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    UNEMPLOYED MARCH TO LONDON.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Bamston.]
    Mr. LANSBURY: I should apologise under normal circumstances for once again raising the question I am going to raise now. The Prime Minister is not in his place, but I gave him notice at Question Time that I intended to raise the question of the unemployed marchers. The importance of the question is to be found in the fact that the men art still here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Let me tell you to shut up.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Hon. Members will hear well enough if they keep quiet themselves.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The question becomes more serious every day. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary together can crush these men and drive them back through the country dispirited and broken. I know you have power enough to do that, and I am not stupid enough to stand up here and threaten as to what may or may not be done by men driven to desperation. I have always held that a Government such as ours can, when it will, maintain order in the country. But that is not all that n Government exists to do. You have in the country very nearly a million and a half men and women registered as unemployed. You have, on top of that, large masses of men and women who are not registered for a variety of reasons. There are probably two millions. I believe there has never been within the memory of any of us here a period of such acute distress amongst such large masses of people as there is to-day. Out of that number a couple of thousand have marched from all parts to London. Some men have marched right down from Aberdeen. I have seen some of those men to-day, and I have seen some who marched right up from Wales and the West of England, and it seems to me it, is treating them with the utmost contumely and contempt possible for the Prime Minister to persist in the attitude he has taken up. I went to them last week, when there was a danger of them marching into Whitehall. The men came here to the Lobby. An hon. Member for Lanark has been charging us with wanting to make capital out of this and other questions. It was a
    646
    sheer accident that I was caught in the Lobby by these men on my way home the other night, and it was their appalling story of the suffering and misery which they had endured, which they told to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. G. Barker), the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Brotherton), and myself, that moved us to rush round the House and from the House to 10, Downing Street, in what proved to be a vain endeavour to get the Prime Minister to reconsider his position. We told the men that any attempt to force Downing Street would be disastrous for themselves, and we begged them to take some other course, which, ultimately, they did take. We promised them, and that is the reason for our persistence, that if they would take our advice we would use every endeavour in this House, of which we were Members, backed by a large body of other friends, to induce the Prime Minister to change his decision. Up to the present time the Prime Minister has been adamant. I know that when a Government puts its foot down it sometimes thinks that it must keep it down, in order that the public may not imagine that it has conceded to violence what it would not concede before. These men have made speeches, and I daresay similar speeches have been made by hon. Members for Ulster in and out of this House, and by Members of the Front Bench.
    The men have tried very hard to preserve the peace while, they have been here. I think there is a police report in the possession of the Home Secretary which will bear witness to the fact that the men have behaved themselves in an exemplary manner wherever they have been in the Metropolis. In workhouses, where they have been billeted, the workhouse masters have borne testimony to the magnificent behaviour of the men, and the men have borne testimony to the hospitality they have received at the hands of the authorities. That proves, if any proof was necessary, that these men are not actuated by the idea that methods of violence will gain them their ends, and it does seem to me that we on this side ought to recognise that, and that the Government and hon. Members on that side ought to recognise it as well. We have been preaching: "Trust Parliament: trust the Government"—I do not mean this particular Government, but the constitutional power of the State—" do not

    647
    put your trust in violence, but give us a chance of getting these things put right." What has happened? Yesterday, the first of these men was arrested. I have not met the gentleman, but he happens to be an ordained minister of the Church. He has thrown in his lot with these men, not because it will be an easy thing, or an easy life for him, and not because it will lead to preferment in the Church, because that sort of attitude never does, but he has thrown in his lot with them because he has seen the suffering and misery of the town where he lives. He has marched hundreds of miles to this city, and yesterday the first breach of the peace apparently took place, and to-day he has been bound over.
    A worse tragedy than that has happened, for one of the men, who did not march 600 miles but only marched from Luton to London, has to-day died of pneumonia in London. His wife has been brought up, and we are going to raise a voluntary subscription either to take the man back home and to bury him or to bury him here. I told the right hon. Gentleman privately, and I have told this House, that you are dealing with a set of men who are worn out physically, with their vitality at its very lowest ebb. Members of this House can have seen their leaders with me in the Lobby, with the physique crushed out of them, and there will be more of them dying. I went home last night after a good meal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order Hopkinson!"] This may amuse the hon. Member. I have read his speeches in this House and I have thought that he did understand this question just a little. If he lives, as I have lived all my life, among these people, he will know that what I say is true. He and I—I am not separating myself from him in this matter—get good meals every day, and go home to good homes and have nothing to fear from bad weather or anything of that kind. When I went out from here last night I could not help contrasting the fact that I could get into a taxi cab and ride home, and those unhappy men living in Poplar, herded together in lodging houses, would have to come out and walk about the streets in the inclement weather, vainly trying to get themselves heard in this metropolis by the Government. What I want the House to realise is that you and we are responsible for whatever happens to any of these men. If more
    648
    of them die we shall be responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, you think that we brought them to London. You have no business to think anything of the kind.
    Mr. MACLEAN: He does not think at all.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Whether he does think or does not he has no right to say that any of us who have taken up this matter had the least hand in bringing up these men. I have had no hand in it. I had enough to do with unemployed in Poplar without bringing anyone up here. Men should not make statements without having some kind of proof for what they say. There have been lying statements made about this business. Yesterday a Member apologised to me for making un true statements that I had been bringing these men up to Whitehall. The hon. Member says that I am responsible—
    Mr. HOPKINSON: I never suggested any such thing. What I suggested was that the hon. Member and his colleagues are very largely responsible for the state of unemployment to-day.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have heard extraordinary statements from intelligent men before, but that is the most extraordinary statement by anyone with an ounce of intelligence that I ever heard. Unemployment is not the result of anything which he has done or of what any one section of the community has done, but the result of social, economic and industrial conditions that have grown up in the country for which none of us can be asked to take entire responsibility. It is the nation's responsibility and no one else's, and the attempt to put unemployment on our shoulders is absurd. But that is not the point at this moment. The point to-night is that we have now got these men. I do not know whether it will be of any effect or not, but I want to ask the Prime Minister once more to reconsider his decision. I do not put it to him that he is any more responsible than the rest of us. There are these men here, 90 per cent, of whom are ex-service men. They are the men whose grit, determination and spirit everyone of you gloried in during the War. They came here with the set purpose of seeing the Prime Minister. If it had happened three months ago, the Prime Minister of the day would have seen them without any question at all.

    649
    All experience shows that he would have done so. On Saturday the right hon. Gentleman is to see the miners. They are coming to him to talk about the terrible plight in which their industry finds itself. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter from a point of view I put yesterday, and from other points of view. There are the diseases that these men may get because of the privation they have to endure during this inclement weather.
    When an interjection was made from the other side, I was trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the low standard of vitality of these men and the harmful effect of the weather just now when they are tramping about without proper clothing. They came to-day from three districts of London and asked what they were to do for boots when they marched back. In one district of London, where there are 70 of these men, a large proportion of them sat with only their coats on while their shirts, almost in rags, were taken to a steam laundry to be washed, ironed, aired, and brought back. Those are the men, 90 per cent, of whom fought for you and the country throughout the Great War. Are, you treating them decently by saying in effect, that you do not care what they suffer from or what happens to them? [HON. MBERS: "No, and" Withdraw."]
    Mr. FORD: I would like the hon. Member to withdraw the unworthy insinuation that Members on these benches have not got as much at heart the true interests of the unemployed as have the men who are trying to exploit them for their own interests.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Ford) is quite right, I think, in asking for the withdrawal of an imputation which I do not think was intended, though made: but he should not in his turn convey another imputation.
    Mr. FORD: If I was misled by the exuberance of the hon. Member's speech into misinterpreting him, I apologise for doing so.
    Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. Is the colossal impertinence of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh permissible?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to say to the hon. Member opposite that I have lived so long and have had so many things said
    650
    of me that I am not moved by any criticism of my motives. You may, if you like, think that for a lifetime I have been exploiting other people. I shall die probably, a relatively very poor man. I have tried to do what I can because I wanted to do it. I do not want anybody to give me any credit for anything I have tried to do in my life. I have done what I wanted to do. When the hon. Member tells me I am exploiting the unemployed, all I can put it down to is his colossal ignorance either of me or of anything I have ever done in my life.
    Mr. FORD: May I explain?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member rise to withdraw his remark? That is the only thing on which he is entitled to the ear of the House.
    Mr. FORD: If I misunderstood the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I certainly withdraw any remarks I have made due to that misunderstanding.
    Mr. LANSBURY: There is no misunderstanding. The hon. Member has charged me with exploiting the unemployed. He is presuming to know all about me. I say if he chooses to do that, in his ignorance, he can go on doing it. Perhaps now we can get back to the point we are discussing. I have no idea—and I thought I made it clear yesterday—of charging hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with having less care for humanity than I have myself. It is a question of the things that we think ought to be done. What I wish to insist upon is that if there were 2,000 men over there on the Marne, who stood firm and never budged, and went down one after the other, you would call it British pluck, British determination and British spirit. These men are standing firm—obstinately, if you will—for something to which they think they have a right, and surely the Prime Minister of the country ought to be accessible to a deputation of 2,000 men, some of whom have marched 600 miles to see him. That is the crux of the matter. I beg the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members to realise that they are up against a position in this country in which, if the weather becomes very bad, it is going to be of extreme difficulty for people who have to administer local affairs to carry on. The Prime Minister has seen the railway managers regarding

    651
    schemes of work, and he has seen other people. If he could see these men and send them home to-morrow with a message that the Government is going to do something, and it came from his own lips, I believe it would have a great effect in keeping heart in the men.
    When Mr. Speaker ruled me out of order to-day, I wished to make a proposal. I know it is always difficult to alter a decision, but I think in the case of these men it ought to be altered. If it would meet with the Prime Minister's approval, I would suggest that one, two or three Members of the House—not necessarily of this Party, but one or two from each Party—should go with the deputation to the Prime Minister and let the men see that we are interested. If there is objection to any of the Labour Members going, let any other Members go. Let us show the men that the House of Commons does realise that there is something due to them, something we ought to give them, and that the least we think we can give them is a promise to do our very best to alleviate their sufferings and the sufferings of their wives and children. That is the appeal I once more make to the right hon. Gentleman. I have not stood up here to say to your faces anything less than I have said behind your backs. I am not in disagreement with you because you are bad men. The better you are, the worse it is to fight you on the questions on which we have to fight you. I am against you, because I think you are backing principles and systems that do not make for the betterment of our country. If you can convince me, I am quite willing to be convinced, but if you were angels I should have to fight against you, and it is only that which makes me fight as I do on behalf of the thing I believe in. I hope that when the Prime Minister gives his decision he will dismiss from his mind altogether any idea that these men are violent, any idea that I am putting up to him something that may happen to him to-morrow. I am putting up to him only the suffering of these men, the fact that one has already died, that one has already been arrested, and that the rest of them are labouring under a sense of deep feelings of disgust that the Prime Minister of the country cannot see his way to meet them, but I hope he will meet them in the manner that I have suggested.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I certainly never, even when I knew the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) in a previous House of Commons, had any doubt of the sincerity of his motives. I always thought him sincere, and I think the speeches he has made here have confirmed that view, but he said he was perfectly willing to be convinced. I am sure he is walling, but I am sure he will admit that he is difficult to convince. There is one thing —if he will candidly listen to what I am going to say and take into account the conversation I had with him in Downing Street, when I felt he was coming simply out of sympathy and I had not the smallest suspicion that he was using these men for any political purpose at all—if he will do that, I think I can convince him that in this case I have taken the only course it is open to me to take. Let me put a case.
    First, it is suggested that these men have come enormous distances, that it would be a very small thing for the Prime Minister to see them, and that they would then go away home happy. The only new thing the hon. Member raised to-night was that I have agreed to see the miners. The explanation of that is one which I am sure will commend itself to the whole House. An agreement had been made by my predecessor to receive that deputation. I was asked about it the moment I undertook office, and I agreed to carry out the pledge given by my predecessor. Therefore, that, I think, puts it on an entirely different footing The hon. Member will agree, and his own leader says, that it is not a good principle that in difficulties of this kind an appeal should* always be made to the Prime Minister and not to the head of the Department which would naturally-deal with it. They all agree with that, but they say this is an exceptional case. Why?
    I will show that it is not an exceptional case. Any case where there are strong feelings would be equally an exceptional case in the eyes of those who had that strong feeling, and obviously, if I agree to something which at the outset I have said I am not going to do, it makes it almost impossible to take a decision of any similar kind when there, is any strong feeling. More than that, the hon. Member says he does not accuse us of not having sympathy with the sufferings of these men, and I can assure

    653
    him that if I thought it was going to alleviate in the smallest degree the sufferings of the unemployed in this country, I would spend every night of my life while I am. Prime Minister in seeing as many of them as wanted to see me, but that is not the question. I was asked, the moment I undertook this office, to receive this deputation. The majority of them had either not left the homes, or had gone a very short distance. I at once said that, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served by my seeing them, and I declined to see them; and they have come here, in many cases, with the knowledge beforehand that the object they had in seeing me could not be achieved. The hon. Member said—and I admit that, if true, there would be grave cause of complaint —that these men came all this distance to see the Government, and the Government refused. That is not the case.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I misrepresented when I said the Government. They definitely set out to see the Prime Minister.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Everyone who looks at it dispassionately will say that a Cabinet is composed of men—I declined to quote the Latin the other day, and I decline to quote it now—the best among equals. That is the theory of our Cabinet. What could be specially gained by these men seeing me I have received, I do not know how-many, letters all giving different reasons why I ought to see them. The only possible justification for those letters was chat I was not merely dictator but actually all-powerful, and could do absolutely anything that was asked. That is not so. If I had seen them, as the Cabinet Ministers deputed were willing to set them, all I should have done would have been to listen to their views, ask them questions, and bring their views before the Cabinet. In what way, then, are they injured by my adopting and adhering to a principle which everyone on these benches admits is right? In what way are they injured by my not seeing them? The hon. Member says we have a certain responsibility if anything happens to these men. I do not admit that for a minute. I have to consider not merely this particular case, I have to consider something else. They are not the only unemployed. If they get it into
    654
    their heads that they can achieve any object—even the small object, as it seems to me, of making me change my mind—by coming to London, it will not be the only deputation to march to London, and you will find that in hundreds of cases the same plan is tried again.
    Let me say this further. I do not accuse the hon. Member—indeed, it would be absurd to do so—of in any way attempting to exploit these people, but I do say—and I am sure he will not resent my saying it—that if there is responsibility, as he thinks, on my part, because I refuse to see them, there is equal responsibility on his part in encouraging them to stay here, when I am sure he knows that it really is quite impossible to go back on the decision which I have given. Let me give my reason for saying that it really is quite impossible to go back, for in my opinion it is. I do not believe that anyone who occupied my position, after what has happened, could reverse the decision he had made, and if it be any satisfaction to the hon. Member, I believe it is true to say that I am as little influenced probably as most men by the feeling that I have said something and must stick to it. Certainly in the last Parliament, when I was Leader of the House, over and over again when I felt that I had made a mistake, I was not the least ashamed to admit it, and frankly said to the House that I yielded to their decision. I would not hesitate to do it now, but the hon. Member must bear this in mind, though I agree that probably 90 per cent, of these men are unemployed, it is the fact that I have not been uninterested in this matter. I have taken the trouble to read the reports of their speeches. What do they come to? The recent speeches which I have read are all to this effect: "If we can force Bonar Law to see us we have won a great victory." It has ceased to be a question of getting news about unemployment, of getting reports of what we would do-they could get that from my colleagues just as well as from me. Their object now, so far as the speeches are concerned, is to obtain a victory, so that they can go back and say "He refused to see us and we compelled him to do so." That, really, is the point of all the speeches, as the hon. Member knows, for I am sure he has read them.

    655
    Is it possible that any Government can be carried on on that system 1 There are many bad forms of government, but that 'would be a government by threats, and of all the forms of bad government, I think that would be one of the worst. I can assure the hon. Member that it was not from lack of sympathy that my original decision was taken, but because I believed it was the right way to deal with this question. My adherence to it is because I still think it is the right way, and because, having clearly and emphatically stated that to be my decision, I am ready to give them every facility for stating their case and hearing our remedy, but that I have decided I would not see them myself. To go back on that would do them infinitely more harm than can possibly be done by my adhering to my decision.
    I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that whether I was right or wrong in my original decision—I think I was right, I am sure I would do it again—no one in my position could go back on it now. Nobody could, and I do urge the hon. Member, in compassion for these people, not to encourage them to stay on in expectation of something that they will not get.
    Mr. C. J. MATHEW: To my constituents in the East End this question of unemployment is of vital importance. May I, with great humility, suggest to the Prime Minister that he has forgotten the 1,300,000 other men out of work and is rather dealing with the other 2,000 who happen to be in London? While I say that, I would point out that the deputation that has come to London is being watched by all the other out-of-works all over England who, rightly or wrongly, regard the decision come to about that deputation as being a decision applying to all of them. The view of hon. Members on these benches is that this is a wholly exceptional case. Winter is coming on and there are millions of people involved in this—men, women and children. The Prime Minister knows the satisfaction it is to all workmen to see the master rather than to deal with the rest of the management. A man has the satisfaction of knowing he has seen the boss, and he will even be turned down by the boss with satisfaction when he will not take anything at all from the
    656
    manager. That is the position, and it was hoped that the offer made of a deputation from this House—not necessarily from these benches—who would bring some of the men to see the Prime Minister, would do away with any question of its being a victory of the men. There is no question, no idea of bullying, as I understand it. Some, of us are extraordinarily anxious that there may be no unnecessary ill feeling towards what may be considered an ill judged visit to London. But they are here. I still venture to hope that though it is still possible to refuse to see the deputation, it may be possible for a deputation of Members of this House to be received, and they may bring some of these men with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] With great respect I do not know that what is termed self-respect comes into the matter. I do not want it to be suggested that the men want a victory. No one here wants that. That might be got over and a way —or form—suggested, and we would be content. If the Prime Minister saw the men we do not want him to tell them what his policy may be, or is likely to be, or to discuss details. We want them to feel that they have seen the head of the Government; that the head has the matter in hand, and that he is going to see that those who work with him deal with the matter at once. This would be an enormous kindness. It is not only the 2,000 men in London, but the out-of-works all over the country. I believe they would appreciate it. They would not regard it as a victory. They would not regard it, perhaps, as a condescension, but as a kindness on the part of the Prime Minister, and it would make things very much easier for all of us, and keep any idea of violence out of the question.
    Mr. NICOL: In the circumstances of the case, seeing I speak for the first time here, I should like very simply to address myself to the original argument of the Prime Minister on which he says he bases his refusal to see the deputation. He says that the deputation can meet the Ministers of the Departments. Would not that imply seeing a very large number of Ministers I The Treasury are responsible for financing a great many schemes and for the whole of the relief. There is also the Foreign Office, whose policy it is certainly believed—that of the late Government—has largely been one of the

    657
    elements in causing unemployment. The Colonial Office might be approached, for its object, according to the Election speeches of hon. Members opposite, is to stimulate trade within the Empire by-giving encouragement to trade with Great Britain. There is the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Trade. Bui why should I continue the list of those whom it might be necessary to see I All know that in addition to these there are many other things.
    11.0 P.M.
    A week ago I was a teacher in a school —one— of the high schools of my own city of Glasgow—that had been condemned as unsuitable for teaching in 1907. In 1910 plans had been made for the rebuilding of that school. The work was held up by the outbreak of the War. At the present time that school, condemned as it was, is still one of the high schools of Glasgow. The work of rebuilding would give relief to a large section of the unemployed. I am told that there are 150,000 workers in the building trades unemployed at the present time. Both the Ministry of Labour and the Transport Ministry have been notified. In addition there are those Departments which are unrepresented entirely in this House which apply to my own native country of Scotland. I suggest that if there is one function that the British Prime Minister can perform, it is to act as the spokesman for every one of those Departments. I suggest that in this particular instance, with a problem that spreads itself over so many different Ministries and Departments of the Government, the right and proper person who ought to interview this deputation, not merely on behalf of one Department, but who ought to represent in a general way the policy of all the Departments implicated, is the Prime Minister of Great Britain.
    Mr. BROTHERTON: I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister once more to change his mind. So recently as a week to-day, I was drawing a dole. I have been unemployed for 18 months, and I have mixed with these men, some of whom are now in London making this appeal to the Prime Minister, and I know that they are not the type of men which has been suggested in this House There are 1,500,000 adult persons registered in your own books as unemployed, and is it suggested for a moment
    658
    that the men and women who have been endeavouring to draw the attention, not only of the Prime Minister, but also the Government of this and the late Parliament, are all rogues, criminals and the rest of it, as the Prime Minister has tried to induce this House to believe they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I stand here and say that as an individual I was deputed more than 30 years ago to speak on behalf of the unemployed in the city I come from, and therefore this is not a new problem. It is because of the way in which industry has been carried on with the consent of the mass of the representatives in this House that we are now in this state of unemployment. Had the late Government, many of whom are now part and parcel of this House, adopted and carried out a policy different from that which they did pursue, we believe that the country would not be in the sad condition of unemployment it is to-day. Therefore, again, I ask the Prime Minister of this new Parliament to accede to the request of the men who have tramped from distant parts of the country to this city and to let them go from the city carrying the message of hope that he alone can give. He is the head of the various Departments of this Government. In spite of the determined manner in which he has said to-night that he cannot. I hope that he will be persuaded by Members of his own party and by Members of the Government to accede lo the request of these men.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I would not have intervened in this Debate had I not been struck by one thing which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Mathew). The hon. and learned Member has struck mc by his remarks in other places, and I am sure he will often strike this House by what he says here. One thing which he said to-night constitutes the only real argument in favour of this Adjournment Motion. He said that the workman was always anxious to see his boss. That is perfectly true, but I should like to remind the House that there is another axiom, and that is that the unemployed and those who are suffering in this country have no use for mere, sympathy. It is no good for hon. Members on this or on the other side of the House saying that they have sympathy with suffering. The workman who likes to see his boss

    659
    very soon ceases to want to see him if he finds that the boss is not really the boss. I want my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitechapel to remember what happened only the year before last, when a great unemployed deputation came to 10, Downing Street, and when the Prime Minister having received them and not being really the boss and not knowing what to say to them, told them that the London County Council across the way had perfect schemes for employing all the London unemployed, and if only they went to the London County Council building the next day they would be set to work. The next day the men turned up at Spring Gardens expecting to sign on at once for work Do hon. Members want the same kind of thing to happen this year or next year, or whenever there is distress] Do you want the Prime Minister, who is not, and cannot be, in any real constitutional Government, the boss of all the Departments, and the boss of all the local authorities in the country—do you want him, in the kind of legal fiction that he is the boss of every local authority in the country, to receive these men and put them off with those nice kind of undertakings, promises, assurances, or pledges with which Ministers at that Box so often calm us in this House, but which are of no real good outside this House, when it is a question of bread and butter and livelihood? Do you want to encourage a legal fiction just for the sake of a little lubricating sympathy, or do you want to accustom the people of this country, and instruct the people of this country who are suffering, as to what is the real and necessary condition of all really highly organised constitutions, so that you will direct them to those quarters where they will receive, not mere sympathy and legal fictions, but real help and real assistance in their sufferings?
    Mr. G. BARKER: I deplore more than I can say the decision arrived at by the Prime Minister. I intended to make the same suggestion to him in this House that I made to him when we met him in Downing Street, because I believe that he has made a tactical mistake in telling the unemployed that he would not see them. If he had allowed them to see him, and had then told them that he was not able himself to deal with the question, but
    660
    would recommend them to go to his Departments, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, and that those Departments would frame legislation which he would submit to the House of Commons, we should not have had this deadlock that we have to-night. I deeply deplore the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken. I believe that he has thoroughly misjudged these men. To me the law-abiding patience of the unemployed in this country is an absolute marvel. Anyone who has been living amongst these men, and has seen them sell everything that they have, pledge everything that they have, bankrupt their co-operative stores, run into debt in every direction, bankrupt the local authorities, despair of getting any work anywhere— anyone who has seen these men do this and remain law-abiding citizens would marvel at their patience, and would never suspect them of coming to London on purpose to create riot and violence.
    These men have marched hundreds of miles, and they have had no police or military interfering with them. Property has been entirely at their mercy, but they have not even robbed a henroost. They have shown marvellous integrity in face of the most dire distress, and to think that they would come to London, where there are thousands of police and tens of thousands of soldiers, with another red plot to attack London, is one of the most extraordinary things that could ever get into the imagination of a man. I really do not understand how this attitude has come to be taken up with reference to these unemployed. If I were to turn my attention to America, I could never think of men marching 500 miles to see President Harding and being refused an interview. It seems to me utterly inconceivable, and I do deplore the attitude the Prime Minister has taken up. It is now a question of personal pique and pride, and it is almost impossible to shake a man who takes up that attitude, and I deplore the attitude that he has taken up. It is a holiday to walk, like these men have walked, hundreds of miles, sleeping in their clothes, lying on boards, walking through the rain, getting a bit of food where they can? Is the Prime Minister afraid that he will be besieged by men of this character who have to go through this misery before they can get into London? The whole thing seems I to me most unreasonable, and I deplore

    661
    the decision at which the Prime Minister has arrived. If I could, I would plead with him to rise above the whole thing and give these men an interview and tell them himself with his own lips that he is not able to pay attention to every Department under him, but that the Government are preparing plans to deal with this matter as well as they possibly can. If he will tell them that, I believe that the unemployed will be satisfied, and that the whole thing will come to an end.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I join with hon. Members on these Benches who have been making their appeals to the Prime Minister. From the right hon. Gentleman's reply one judges that his main reason for declining to see the unemployed leaders is that he has already taken up a position and has definitely stated the attitude he is going to adopt, and that it would be a false position for him to take up to resile from the attitude he has already adopted. That is not an argument nor even a reason to advance for refusing to meet the men. It shows that, having taken up a position, there is a lack of courage in the individual who takes it up that he might be held up to ridicule by some section of the public for having made one statement one day and backing away from it the following day. Yesterday the evening Press was full of the statement that he had met certain people in order to consult with hem regarding schemes of work which could be calculated to absorb a number of the unemployed. In to-day's Press appeared the photographs of the Members of the Government who met the chiefs of the railways and others under whose control such public schemes would he placed. They were the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Minister of Labour. The Prime Minister with certain of his colleagues has met retain people to whom the Government s going to make very large loans.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. Up till now hey have made no suggestion that we would lend them money, and my object n meeting them was to urge them to go on with schemes of their own with their own money.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I was taking merely newspaper reports, which have been
    662
    couched in rather vague language, and led one to believe that the Government indirectly hinted that they might be behind them in any work they might take in hand.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid what I have said may lead to misunderstanding. As a matter of fact, no suggestion was made by them that we should lend them money, and I of course made no suggestion of that kind to them. It does not follow, if a scheme like that adopted by the late Government were to turn up we should not adopt it. but up to now there has been no suggestion of that kind.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I accept the Prime Minister's statement, but I am pointing out what appears in the Press. It appears in such a vague way in the Press that one is led to the conclusion that if guarantees have not been given, a certain suggestion has been made, which, in some way, gives an assurance, that having gone on with their schemes, they would, in the end, receive some Government assistance. That does not spoil the effect of the argument which I want to put before the House, but rather strengthens it, because the Government have seen certain individuals whom they believe to be responsible, or who can be made responsible, for putting forward certain schemes of employment. The Prime Minister now refuses to see those to whom these chiefs will have to go, namely the unemployed, or to receive a deputation from the unemployed. Might I suggest to the Prime Minister that- the four Members of the Cabinet— the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and himself—should meet the deputation from the unemployed along with Members of the House, possibly from his own side or from below the gangway on this side, not necessarily from the Labour party, and that he should tell them the same thing that he has told to the Press and that he has told to the railway chiefs as to the promulgating of schemes, so that, by putting these schemes into immediate operation, a large number of men who are at present unemployed may find employment. That is not resiling from the position which the Prime Minister has taken up. It is not taking an undignified attitude. That is not weakening his position as Prime Minister?

    663
    Surely the position of the Prime Minister of this country is to be the head, not merely of a Government, but of a good Government, and a Government that looks after the welfare of even the humblest in the country. If it searches out schemes that will confer benefits upon the humblest of the community, that Government and that Government only can be held to be a good Government. It is not too late yet —and no Member of this House and no one outside this House would look upon it as a sign of weakness—for the Prime Minister to come away from the attitude he has taken up and see a deputation of the unemployed, saying to them, "I cannot guarantee you employment, I cannot put forward schemes which I can safely say will absorb many thousands of the unemployed, but I can tell you that we have suggested to those who are called the captains of industry in this country that they should proceed with schemes that will find work."
    "I can tell you of some schemes which they have already in their minds and which, if they can proceed with them now, will absorb a great number of the men who are unemployed." The Prime Minister could tell them these things, and it would not be a weakening of his position, if he took up that attitude. On the other hand he would be resiling from the mistaken idea of dignity which he has adopted. The Press of this country, many of them most violently anti-Labour, have put forward the suggestion to the Government and the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister has made a mistake in declining to see those men. They take up the attitude that even at the eleventh hour these men should be seen, and I suggest that the man is not a weak man who recognises a mistake. The man who recognises a mistake which he may have made, and goes along a fresh line and takes up a new-attitude, is a really strong man, and I am certain that the House would approve the action of the Prime Minister if he resiled from his mistaken attitude and agrees, with the other three Members of the Cabinet, to meet the deputation of the unemployed.
    Mr. TURNER: An hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House made an observation about seeing the boss. It has been my lot on many occasions to approach the boss in connection with
    664
    matters in his workshop, and, when the employés have seen the managerial heads and brought forward a question beyond their province, they have always been privileged to go to the direct boss. In this case, the direct boss of the British House of Commons, as regards the Government, is the Prime Minister, who is captain, manager, or boss of the Departmental heads of his Ministry;. and it seems to me not undignified, if captains of industry, heads of concerns, will see their employés over and above the heads of the Departments, for the Prime Minister to see these people, especially in the conditions laid down by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). It has always been my understanding of public affairs that the Government of the Kingdom was responsible to the people of the Kingdom, and that they could approach the head of the Government upon subjects of prime importance such as the unemployed question is at the present moment.
    We have been saying prayers in this House during the last week, as has been the custom from time immemorial, and in the midst of the greatest prayer which the world has ever seen there is the sentence, "Give us this day our daily bread." These men are asking for their daily bread. They are asking for suggestions and advice, co-operation and sympathy. They are asking for the wherewithal and the means of life, and they ask the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government of the greatest country in the world, to give them that advice, co-operation, and sympathy, and the answer is not bread, but a stone. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] They asked for bread and got a refusal to discuss the question of bread by the Prime Minister of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am right in my statement. They asked for bread and they got a stone. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
    I am bordering on my 60th year, and one thing has sunk into my heart ever since the day I was unemployed many years ago. I cannot forget the terrible weeks when I tramped from mill to mil; asking for work only to find that I could not get it. Thousands of my fellow countrymen in the same industry wert tramping in the same fashion. Their trade was depressed, and a word o sympathy and advice, of good fellowship

    665
    and cheer, at that time, was worth a great deal, and a great deal came from those words of sympathy. These 1,500,000 people, through their 2,000 representatives who marched this distance, have asked the Prime Minister of this Kingdom to give them that word of sympathy and advice when they were unemployed.
    When I was unemployed myself, and I had to go home to my wife and two children, the elder of them about 17 months old, time after time to tell the story of unemployment and no wage at the week-end to buy food for my children, he little sympathy which was given to me by my fellow men was comforting and cheering, and I ask the Prime Minister to remember that these men have suffered, many of them for two and a half

TEMPORARY CHAIKMEN OF COMMITTEES.
In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), Mr. Speaker has nominated
The Eight Hon. Sir Frederick George Banbury, Bart.,
Lieut.-Colonel the Right Hon. Sir John Gilmour, Bart.,
years, and they do want some words of encouragement and cheer at the present time. I do not think that it is a question of his dignity. I have a greater appreciation of the Prime Minister than to think that. I think that it is because he conceives it to be his duty that he should not see them. But it does seem to me to be the constitutional right of the people of this country to be able to approach the head of the Government on questions of this importance at the present time
It being Half-post Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.
Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. Arthur Cecil Murray,
John Frederick Peel Rawlinson, esquire, K.C., and
Robert Young, esquire,
to act during this Session as temporary Chairmen of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  WIDOWS' AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' AND DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS.
  APPEALS.
  APPEALS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  MENTAL CASKS (PARENTS' ALLOWANCE).
  MENTAL CASKS (PARENTS' ALLOWANCE).
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT.
  INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT.
  ROYAL FLEET RESERVE PENSION.
  ROYAL FLEET RESERVE PENSION.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S OFFICE.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S OFFICE.
  PUKLICITY BRANCH, MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
  PUKLICITY BRANCH, MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
  SALARIES (PRINCIPAL OFFICERS).
  SALARIES (PRINCIPAL OFFICERS).
  WOMEN.
  WOMEN.
  LOANS TO ALLIES AND DOMINIONS.
  LOANS TO ALLIES AND DOMINIONS.
  BANK OF ENGLAND (GERMAN GOLD).
  BANK OF ENGLAND (GERMAN GOLD).
  SUPER-TAX AND CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  SUPER-TAX AND CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GERMAN REPARATION.
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING.
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT CHEMICALS (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS GOVERNMENT CHEMICALS (DISPOSAL).
EDUCATION.
  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (WOMEN).
  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY (WOMEN).
  MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS, MANCHESTER.
  MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS, MANCHESTER.
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CIVIL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
  KING'S ROLL (DIFFERENTIAL TAXATION).
  KING'S ROLL (DIFFERENTIAL TAXATION).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (FABRIC GLOVES).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (FABRIC GLOVES).
  IMPORT DUTIES, INDIA (BRITISH MOTOR CARS).
  IMPORT DUTIES, INDIA (BRITISH MOTOR CARS).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
  BRITISH EXPORTS.
  BRITISH EXPORTS.
  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (COMMITTEE REPORT).
  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS (COMMITTEE REPORT).
HOUSING.
  TEMPORARY HUTS, SHEFFIELD.
  TEMPORARY HUTS, SHEFFIELD.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (EXCHEQUER PAYMENTS).
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES (EXCHEQUER PAYMENTS).
  COMMITMENTS (ANNUAL CHARGE).
  COMMITMENTS (ANNUAL CHARGE).
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.
SCOTLAND.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  LAND SETTLEMENT.
  HARBOURS (GRANTS).
  HARBOURS (GRANTS).
  PARCELFOST(CHARGES).
  PARCELFOST(CHARGES).
  LAUSANNE COXFEREXCE (RUSSIA).
  LAUSANNE COXFEREXCE (RUSSIA).
  EX-SULTAN OF TURKEY.
  EX-SULTAN OF TURKEY.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Thursday last reported by the Lord Chamberlain (E. Cromer) as follows—
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I have opened the present session of Parliament."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess the Deputy Leader of the House what is the business for this week?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I understand that debates on the Irish Free State Constitution Bill and the Irish Free State (consequential Provisions) Bill will be concluded in the House of Commons to-morrow night. I would ask your Lordships to allow them to be read a first time that night with the usual procedure of keeping a skeleton House for the purpose, and that the Second Reading of both Bills may be taken on the next day; that is, on Thursday. Your Lordships are aware from what was said upon the Address how very hard pressed we are for time. Everything has to be concluded, the Royal Assent has to be given and the Proclamation has to be made, by December 6; and it is with the greatest regret therefore that I, of all men, have to say that the opportunities of debate in your Lordships' House must be a good deal restricted. That, as the noble and learned Viscount opposite (Viscount Birkenhead) will recognise, is not my fault. He will know where the fault lies. That being so, we propose to take the Second Reading of both Bills on Thursday, if your Lordships are willing to do so, and in order to give a little more time I venture to suggest that
50
we should meet at three o'clock that afternoon. I have made inquiry and find that there is no judicial business on that day; consequently, there will be no difficulty on that head. We could, therefore, meet at three o'clock on Thursday, if your Lordships wished to do so.
Whether your Lordships will be content to read both Bills a second time on that day I, of course, cannot say, but I hope that you may be willing to do so. If not, they must go over to the Friday, but if you are willing to conclude the Second Reading on Thursday you will only be imitating the House of Commons, which read both Bills a second time in one day. If that were the wish of the House we would take the Committee stage on Friday, and the remaining stages on Monday or Tuesday of next week—probably on Monday. If, on the other hand, it is thought right to carry on the Second Reading debate—I should rather deprecate it, but it would be for the House to decide—the Committee stage could not be taken until Monday. Even then, I think we should just have time to get the business through.
I think the noble Lord questioned me only with regard to the business for this week. I have gone a little beyond his Question, but I dare say he will forgive me. There will, of course, be a little other business, of which I cannot, I am afraid, give any information, in the course of next week, but I will take an early opportunity of informing the House how matters stand.
VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I do not think it is profitable to ask where any fault lies in the matter, or whether there is any fault at all. I do not myself believe that in the difficult circumstances in which the Government is placed the noble Marquess will find that he is making an excessive demand upon the indulgence of the House in asking that both Second Readings should be dealt with on Thursday. The emergency is of the most pressing character, and my humble advice to the Government would be to make an attempt to procure the Second Reading of both Bills on Thursday. I believe it can be done.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed;

51
and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Rutland.

M. Lansdowne.

M. Salisbury.

M. Bath.

M. Cholmondeley.

M. Crewe.

Al. Lincolnshire.

M. Aberdeen and Temair.

M. Curzon of Kedleston.

E. Chesterfield.

E. Shaftesbury.

E. Stanhope.

E. Strafford.

E. Waldegrave.

E. Clarendon.

E. Onslow.

E. Beauchamp.

E. Selborne.

E. Cromer.

E. Loreburn.

E. Midleton.

V. Churchill.

V. Milner.

V. Haldane.

V. Finlay.

V. Birkenhead.

V. Ullswater.

L. Ribblesdale.

L. Wemyss. (E. Wemyss.)

L. Wigan. (E. Crawford.)

L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

L. Hylton.

L. Lamington.

L. Monk Bretton.

L. Ampthill.

L. Newton.

L. Stanmore.

L. Dunedin.

L. Atkinson.

L. Sanderson.

L. Colebrooke.

L. Desart. (E. Desart.)

L. Islington.

L. Southwark.

L. Buckmaster.

L. Muir Mackenzie.

L. Somerleyton.

L. Stuart of Wortley.

L. Lambourne.

L. Ernle.

L. Meston.

I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that, for a reason for which I expect I am to blame, one name was omitted from the printed list of the proposed Committee, that of the noble Earl,
52
Lord Strafford. I think, as a matter of fact, this is the second time that Lord. Strafford's name has been omitted, and I can only express the hope that on a third occasion, next session, I may be more lucky.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

MALICIOUS INJURIES IN IRELAND.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, on behalf of Lord CARSON, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government if a statement can be published showing the position as regards the assessment and payment of damages for malicious injuries to persons and properties of British subjects in Southern Ireland; whether the Commission, presided over by Lord Shaw, is still in existence, and whether it has made any Report, and whether such Report can be published.
I greatly regret to inform your Lordships that within the last two hours I was told by Lord Carson that he had been taken ill this morning and obliged to leave the Law Courts, and that it was consequently impossible for him to come here this evening. Knowing that I had some idea of taking part in the discussion, Lord Carson asked me to put the Question which stands on your Lordships' Paper. I am sure the sympathy of the House will be with Lord Carson, and that your Lordships will earnestly hope that his indisposition may be only temporary. Those of us who know him know also how very severely the strain of the last two years has told upon him, and it is scarcely surprising to us to learn that, for the moment, that strain has proved heavier than he is able to bear. It is in these circumstances that I ask the indulgence of the House in putting the Question of which Lord Carson had given Notice.
That part of the Question which relates to Lord Shaw's Commission may, I think, be disposed of in a very few words. It is an open secret that Lord Shaw has resigned from the presidency of the Commission, and it has been stated elsewhere that His Majesty's Government are prepared to propose a chairman in his place. The noble Duke below me (the Duke of Devonshire) will no doubt be able to tell us whether any Report can be presented, and also what course is likely to be followed

53
by that Commission. But, as the House well knows, the Shaw Commission is authorised to deal only with cases of malicious injuries known as pre-truce cases; that is to say, cases which occurred before July 11, 1921. Later cases are to be dealt with in a different manner.
In respect of the whole of these cases, whether pre-truce or post-truce, I think I may say that there exists in the minds of the class on whose behalf Lord Carson was going to appeal a feeling of the most profound uneasiness as to their present position and their future prospects. They see that the tide of disorder, far from ebbing, appears to be flowing more and more strongly, while their prospects of obtaining redress seem to be more and more remote. In these circumstances, it is surely natural that the Question should be raised in this House, and the time seems an opportune one, because we are approaching the moment which will mark the close of this, the first, chapter, so to speak, in the great revolution to which we are committed, the moment when, within the compass of the next few days and with very scant opportunities for debate, the seal of Parliamentary sanction will be set to a transaction which even those who wish to see it carried through admit frankly to be one of the most hazardous to which this country has ever been committed. It is natural that at such a moment we who have suffered, or are liable to suffer, under this reign of terror should ask how we stand, where we come in. We are tempted to ask whether we are likely to fare better or worse under the new Government than we did under the Government which has just left office.
Your Lordships will recollect more than one discussion in this House in regard to this question of compensation. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time by quotations, but I think I am giving a correct account of what took place when I say that we had it from the noble and learned Viscount opposite, not once but, I think, on more than one occasion, that while the primary responsibility for these post-truce malicious injuries was to rest with the Irish Government, His Majesty's Government did not exclude the idea that if, owing to any combination of circumstances, the Irish Government should make default—should be unable or unwilling to deal adequately with this question—then the ultimate responsibility would rest with
54
His Majesty's Government. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Viscount does not take exception to that statement. I think we had it also from the Minister who was the immediate predecessor of the noble Duke below me, that at some period or other there would be a great and final financial settlement between His. Majesty's Government and the Government of Ireland; that when that settlement took place there would then be taken into account any outstanding questions which required adjustment between the two Governments, and that that would be the opportunity when any failure on the part of the Irish Government would have to be made good by the Government of His Majesty. I hope I am not wrong in supposing that this undertaking still holds the field.
I listened attentively to what was said by my noble friend the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, whom many of us, may I say, are very pleased to see sitting where he is on the front Bench. The noble Marquess reminded us of the obligation into which we had entered in regard to Ulster, and also of the further engagements into which we had entered with the Free State Government under the Treaty which is now going to be formally ratified. I was rather, I confess, in hopes that he would have added a word as to the satisfaction of the many promises and engagements which have been given to the Southern loyalists at various times, but although the noble Marquess left that out from that part of his speech, he went on to say, I think quite distinctly, that with regard to this question of compensation he also, like his predecessors in office, admitted the ultimate responsibility of the Government of the King.
Now, we who are interested in these matters attach immense importance to this subsidiary guarantee given by His Majesty's Government, because, to speak quite frankly, we are not quite sure whether we can accept the undertakings of the Free State Government at their face value. I do not say that for a moment in an offensive sense. I have no wish to impute want of good faith to Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues. I was always ready to give credit to Mr. Collins and Mr. Griffith for the sincerity of the pledges which they gave at various times, although, as I think my noble friend, Lord Midleton, knows quite well, several of those pledges have remained unredeemed. But, to use an expression which was used both by the

55
noble Viscount and by my noble friend, the noble Marquess, although I am quite ready to believe that Mr. Cosgrave intends to do his best to give effect to the obligations under which his Government lies, just as one questioned the ability of Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins to do what used to he spoken of, in the jargon of the day, as "delivering the goods," so some of us may be allowed to have doubt whether Mr. Cosgrave, in his turn, will he any better able to deliver the goods than his predecessors.
He is in charge of an utterly demoralised country, a country which in ordinary circumstances is not too favourably disposed towards law and order and the punctual fulfilment of obligations, and our tear is, while giving Mr. Cosgrave credit for the best possible intentions, that he may find it out of his power to do that which His Majesty's Government expect him to do. I think we ought to be careful how we are too sanguine in our anticipations with regard to these matters. The late Government and the Provisional Government alike showed themselves optimistic to the point of fatuity in the manner in which they treated these subjects. A year ago the then Prune Minister was telling the people of this country that by this Agreement which we were going to enter into with the Irish Government, we were going to win the passionate and abiding loyalty of the Irish people. I do not think we have seen very many signs of this passionate and abiding loyalty up to the present. That was the moment when we were constantly reminded of the written assurances given to prominent Unionists by the Provisional Government—written assurances to the effect that life in Ireland was to be made hereafter not only possible but attractive for people who thought as they did. Your Lordships are able to judge how far life has lately been attractive to the loyalists of the South of Ireland. In the month of June of last year the Provisional Government addressed an official letter to the Cabinet Committee which dealt with Irish affairs. In that letter they expressed their confident anticipation that normal conditions would be restored within two months. That was in June. Your Lordships can form an opinion as to the extent of the prevalence of normal conditions in many parts of Ireland.
Lastly, and this is the only other quotation I will make, the Minister who preceded the noble Duke below me announced in the
56
month of August last, just before the end of the session, that in his belief the operations then in progress would he brought to a satisfactory conclusion before Parliament reassembled. I mention all these things because they seem to me to be a proof of the extraordinary danger of these confident and hopeful anticipations. What a complete undeception it has been. How completely have the cloud-built castles and golden dreams of those days been dissipated. According to my estimate of the situation in Ireland the area of disturbance does not tend to diminish; the intensity of the trouble has not grown less; military operations are directed in a fitful and spasmodic way; important positions are taken and evacuated within a few days; prisoners are taken and allowed to escape; whilst all over the country there is going on a hideous sabotage, under which roads, railways, bridges, public buildings, everything that can be destroyed, is being recklessly destroyed by these people.
In case your Lordships should think that I take an unduly alarmist view of these things, let me read to you some lines from the judgment delivered a few days ago by the Master of the Rolls on the Childers case in Dublin. The Master of the Rolls used these words—
"I know also that railways have been torn up, railway stations destroyed, the noblest mansions in the country burned down, roadways made impassable, bridges blown up, and life and property taken in almost every county in Southern Ireland."
After that confirmation I do not think anybody can complain that I am stating my case too strongly. The Master of the Rolls ended by saying that in Ireland the ordinary law was now silenced by the bomb and the pistol shot.
There is another symptom which, to me, is most alarming, namely, the manner in which the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has lost its hold upon the people. The Church at this moment is being constantly flouted and insulted. I wonder whether any of your Lordships noticed a statement that appeared the other clay of an occurrence in a cathedral of which I have some knowledge in the South of Ireland. The Archdeacon had read from the pulpit a Pastoral, issued by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, strongly denouncing these outrages and crimes. When the service was over he left the document from which he had read in the pulpit, in order that the curate, who was to come shortly afterwards

57
and to take the afternoon service, might in his turn read it to the congregation. No sooner had the Archdeacon left the pulpit than a woman from the congregation ran up into the pulpit, tore the Pastoral into small fragments before the congregation, and scattered it to the winds. It is interesting to note that this lady was a national schoolmistress of the locality.
We have heard that of late the Irish Government has set up what is known as the Civic Guard. I hear from some quarters rather a good account of the physique and appearance of this Civic Guard, but the members of it are mostly inexperienced and young, and quite unused to discipline. It is to be noted that when they were the other day addressed by General O'Duffy, who is the Commandant of the force, he explained that they were not to be provided with arms—I presume because they really could not be trusted with them—so that these boys (for they are little more than boys) unarmed, will have to hold their own against the gunmen armed with revolvers who are to be found all over the South and West of Ireland. General O'Duffy must be a man who has the courage of his opinions, for at the end of his allocution lie went on to warn his hearers against the evil of drunkenness, and animadverted upon the fact that in a great many Trish districts public houses were open virtually all clay and all night, and ended by this remarkable dictum—
"Ireland was never more drunken than she is to-day."
I quite admit that of late the Provisional Government has not only used strong language in denouncing these outrages, but has resorted to strong measures; but what I wish to impress upon the House is that the conditions which I have described are the conditions which Mr. Cosgrave has to face.
Therefore, when we express a doubt as to his ability to hold his own and to carry out his pledges, we merely recognise what are the inherent facts of the case, namely, that he has before him a task so difficult that even a much stronger man might not be able to cope with it. I do not think we could do a greater disservice to Mr. Cosgrave than to minimise the extent of the obstacles which he will have to face. He is surrounded by conditions which obviously must make it extremely difficult to set up stable government, to enable the Courts of
58
law to function, awl to enable rates to be levied and liabilities to be punctually met.
I am not altogether reassured by the attitude of the Dail in reference to these questions. I notice that if these outrages are condemned they are condemned not on account of the abominable character of the crimes perpetrated, but because the whole thing is bad business, and is likely to run I the country into such an amount of expense as to make its ultimate bankruptcy not impossible. I noted another rather ominous statement in the Dail the other day. The President expressed his opinion that these claims, amounting to many millions, were mostly exaggerated, and that in a great many cases the claimants would probably be amply satisfied if they received 10 per cent. of the amount which they claimed.
And I noted yet another somewhat ominous observation, which was this, that his hearers were to take it from him that these awards would have attached to them what he called a rebuilding condition. What t hat was taken to mean is this, that if an unfortunate man who has had his house destroyed receives, say, £5,000, he is not to receive it except on the condition of rebuilding his house exactly where it stood before. A condition of that kind might operate with barbarous cruelty. Then are many parts of Ireland in which it would be impossible for the claimant to get a house built for himself, and equally impossible for hint to live in that house, supposing he got a house built. Some of those who have lost their homes in Ireland no doubt cherish the hope that, even if they are not themselves allowed to return to them, their children or those who come after them will be more fortunate. But your Lordships may depend upon it that there are many people in Ireland who, after long months of cruel persecution, have been driven away from their homes and have left them swearing a great oath that nothing will ever induce them to expose the sanctity of their homes, the safety of their possessions, or the honour of their women, to the kind of treatment that they have experienced during the reign of terror which has prevailed in many parts of Ireland. In fairness to Mr. Cosgrave I must add that I saw another reference of his to the same subject which, I think, shows that he is disposed to relent and to admit that in some cases this rebuilding condition was not one upon which it would be reasonable to insist. I trust that we

59
shall have from His Majesty's Government an assurance that this point will be very carefully watched by them in future.
Can your Lordships, then, be surprised if we entreat His Majesty's Government very earnestly not to wash their hands of these poor people? I hope they will repeat as explicitly as possible the pledges which have been already given, and I hope they will go a little further and give us some idea, some indication, of the direction in which they are disposed to look for some kind of security for the fulfilment of these pledges. A very interesting correspondence took place a few months ago, in the month of July last, between the Provisional Government and the Irish Committee of the Cabinet. Let me read two or three lines from a letter addressed by the Irish Committee of the Cabinet to the Provisional Government. The letter runs thus—
"His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of the duty to see that such claims are met equitably and as promptly as unavoidable difficulties allow.…"
And then I ask your Lordships to note this. They went on to invite the Provisional Government to indicate to them "some special and effective measures for dealing with such cases so that they—that is, His Majesty's Government—may in their turn be able to reassure those who have appealed to them." I dare say the noble Duke will be able to tell us whether any reply was ever received to that letter, which is a very important one, and, if so, what kind of reply it was.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me before I sit down to say one word as to the direction in which some of us would, I think, be inclined to look for special and effective measures for dealing with such cases. The dominating consideration seems to me to be this. If the ultimate responsibility for dealing with these claims rests, as is stated in that letter, with His Majesty's Government, surely they have the right to invite the Irish Government to give an undertaking that all these cases shall be dealt with by competent tribunals and that the awards shall be punctually paid without the addition of any vexatious restrictions. I understand that the proposal is that these claims are to be heard by the Irish county courts. The Irish county courts, I believe, in many parts of Ireland are not functioning and are not allowed to function; but, assuming that they are sitting, we shall have to see how they are
60
manned and how they deal with their work. Many people will feel, I think, that it is rather a strong thing to expect a court of this kind to deal unassisted with cases of this sort, cases of extreme difficulty and delicacy, involving not hundreds or thousands, but millions of pounds and, perhaps, a large ultimate charge to the British taxpayer.
One would have been tempted to suggest that in a case of that kind some appeal should be allowed, but I know, and I think experience has shown us, how very difficult it is in such cases to allow a general right of appeal upon facts. Appeals upon points of law are, of course, quite a different thing; but I recognise that there might be immense difficulty in allowing a general appeal. Is there any reason why, without going so far as that, you should not do something to create and to strengthen public confidence in the court of first instance? Would it be impossible, let us say, to attach to these county courts some officials, who would be in the position, I suppose, of assessors, who would hold what one might call a watching brief for the claimants and who would, perhaps, be in touch with some of the agencies which have been set up in this country for recording and co-ordinating the claims as they are received? A good deal might be said, I think, for some arrangement of this kind; the more so, because I gather from a speech of Mr. Cosgrave that the Irish Government themselves propose to attach to the courts some special officials whose duty it will be to watch the proceedings in order that the Irish Treasury may not he unfairly treated. Surely, if it is desirable to attach an official to the courts to look after the interests of the Irish Treasury it would not be less reasonable to attach to the courts someone who will see that a claimant's case was properly put before the court and properly heard. The dominating factor all through this argument is that the ultimate responsibility, as is now admitted, rests with His Majesty's Government. That being so, it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to watch these proceedings from start to finish so that the business may be conducted in the most reasonable and equitable spirit.
I have said all that I wish to say to your Lordships except, perhaps, this. I was in some doubts whether I should speak upon this subject at all. As your Lordships are aware, it is one which, for personal reasons, touches me very nearly, but I felt that it would be almost cowardice, to hold

61
one's peace if one could contribute anything to the knowledge of the facts or the arguments. I may say this of myself. I have been driven from a home which was precious to me beyond words, more precious probably than any other spot upon earth, but I have at any rate another home to go to, where I can end my days in comfort and safe from molestation. But how many are there of those whose homes have been destroyed lately who have no other home to go to, who have lost everything that they had, the work of a lifetime, everything that they most valued? It is for them that I plead, and I trust that we shall be told by His Majesty's Government that they will leave nothing undone to see that these poor people receive fair play.
VISCOUNT BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I understand from the noble Duke that it would be convenient to him if the very few observations I ask leave to make were made before he replies to the speech which has just been delivered by the noble Marquess. No one could have listened without being deeply moved to the concluding passages in the speech of the noble Marquess who has supported, with serene and almost silent composure, cruel hardships and the breach of the great sentimental and historical traditions in his home. I realise as clearly as any one else realises that blows of that kind, which are of the mind and of the memory, inflict wounds almost as deep and almost as lasting as those of the other cases to which the noble Marquess adverted, those who have lost the only home that they possessed.
I had intended confining the few observations that I made to-day to the specific subject matter of Lord Carson's Question. Like the noble Marquess, I regret Lord Carson's absence to-day, and the cause of it. The Question of which he gave Notice was a specific one. The speech of the noble Marquess has travelled more widely. He has examined the existing situation in Ireland, and he has formed, and stated, an extremely gloomy conclusion. I am not sure that it is very helpful at this moment for all of us to express publicly a doubt as to whether Mr. Cosgrave will be able to carry out that which he has undertaken to carry out. His difficulties are, as we know, overwhelming. The noble Marquess has spoken of the excessive optimism, as I gather he thinks it, with which the late Prime Minister, a year ago, spoke of the prospects of the Irish settlement. It is
62
true that those hopes have been postponed, and yet, again postponed. It is true that, when this Treaty was first signed most of those who made themselves responsible for it, with all the incalculable consequences of the settlement, believed that it would have reached a happy issue long before the present moment. To be premature in despair is at least as grave a fault as to be too facile in hope.
Let us, at any rate, remember this. The convulsion which has shaken Ireland for the last two years, which has destroyed for the moment—let it be frankly faced—almost the whole of that which we count civilisation in Ireland, is, if you measure it by the extent of its incidence for the Irish citizens, a profounder convulsion and a greater interruption of the national life than were the Wars of the Roses in this country. Nations pass through periods of extreme testing, and sometimes, as it seems, of destructive crises, and you are to measure the result which may be gained not by a period of twelve months you are to measure the results that may be gained in long perspective. The noble Marquess has lived, I think, seven decades. I have lived five. You are not to judge as to whether what everyone has admitted to be a great, a bold, even a dangerous experiment—you are not to reach a clear conclusion as to whether that experiment has failed or not as the result of an experience of two or three years.
If I may add another word upon the general observations made with so much moderation by the noble Marquess, it would be this. Are there no symptoms observable to-day which make for encouragement? Are there no signs discernible by a cool mind which may suggest that, after all, sixteen Ministers of His Majesty's present Government were right in the view which they took that this settlement was a well-conceived and wise one? I am bold enough to think that I detect many such symptoms. Let me name one or two. Is it nothing, in the first place, that in a General Election appeal to the constituencies of Ireland, held in circumstances in which coercion and intimidation were rife, in circumstances which made it more difficult to ascertain the true will of the people than any Election which has taken place in my contemporary recollection of political life—is it nothing that in those circumstances some 80 per cent. of the Irish people, with everything against them, pledged their votes in favour of this

63
settlement? Is it nothing that the minority was a minority of only 20 per cent. which has since continued to intimidate Ireland, and to maintain there a reign of terror which at moments seemed likely to destroy the whole of this civilisation? That circumstance of itself is a remarkable one, and I have heard no one of all those who have criticised the policy of the Treaty who has maintained that if tomorrow an Election took place in Ireland, if to-morrow you could guarantee as partial a freedom from intimidation as existed at the last Election in Ireland, the majority in favour of the settlement would not he increased.
If that is the situation in Ireland, are not those who risked so much to bring about this settlement entitled to ask that the people of this country should examine side by side with that the admitted situation in England? And what is the admitted situation in England? So far as I know only ten candidates in these Islands were found willing to go to their constituents and condemn this settlement and say boldly that they would, if they could have their way, uproot the settlement. The situation then would appear to be this. Unless my premises are too bold, you have in Ireland a majority overwhelming, and you have in England a majority which practically covers the whole of the constituencies of these Islands saying that the time has come, whatever the cost may be, to give a final test to the great experiment which was attempted two years ago with the approval of the whole of His Majesty's then Ministers and a very large number of His Majesty's present Ministers.
I would ask leave to conclude my observations upon the general question with this remark. Are there not to be discerned now proceeding in Ireland many events of the gravest moment which may make those doubt who are here to-day to say that this settlement was an unwise one? Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins are no longer among us to continue and forward the work to which they set their hands. Their place has been taken by Mr. Cosgrave. Many will have read, not without some emotion, the observations made by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons, confirmatory of what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in debate in this House a few days ago. The Prime Minister said that as Mr. Cosgrave parted from him at No. 10, Downing Street he said—deeply affecting the Prime
64
Minister by his sincerity—"Those of us who to-day are responsible for carrying through this change may fall out by the way, but if we do there are others to take our place as we in our turn took the place of Collins and Griffith." I say plainly that a tribute of high admiration is due to this man and his colleagues for the risks they are running and the acts they are doing to-day.
Let me ask this further question. No one, I imagine, who listens to me will doubt that there is no prospect whatever of peace being restored in Ireland unless and until those men who have banded themselves together in wicked and desperate opposition to the law have been put down by a strong hand. This may be a long process; it will be a painful process both to those who break the law and to those who are vindicating the law. In the course of the last fortnight four men have been executed, and within the last few days we learn of the execution of Erskine Childers. I do not pause to speak at length now of that strange, inexplicable, and tragic career. A man of great literary talent, a man who fought with distinction on the side of this country in the Boer War, a man who fought with distinction on the side of this country in the great war; yet a man in whose mind some strange and unexplained perversity ranged him not only in implacable antagonism to this country but in an antagonism, no less bitter and no less sustained and desperate, to the Free State Government to whom the Treaty now gives the responsibility of government.
It was a strong decision on the part of his late colleagues to be a party to his execution. Great mischiefs can only be extirpated by stern and bloody measures. But I would ask: Is there any one listening to me who does not rejoice that that decision had to be taken, and was taken, by an Irish Government, and was not taken, and had not to be taken, by an English Government? Is our position the stronger or weaker in Ireland, in England, and in the world, that that stern sentence was uttered and was carried out by men whose whole lives have been spent in asserting the cause of Irish self-government and who by every act and word are proclaiming to the world that so far as they are concerned the English debt has been fully paid?
I cannot think that there is a single noble Lord who does not rejoice at this moment that these criminals are not being

65
hunted by British troops over the Bills of Ireland, that that responsible duty is being undertaken by those upon whose shoulders it properly falls, and that we are able to claim clearly and boldly to the world that we have given to Ireland a settlement and a solution which 80 per cent. of the Irish nation have accepted at the polls. I have been betrayed into these general observations, which are a little alien to the purport of the Question, because the noble Marquess himself discussed the more general issue with some fulness.
I come now to the more particular issue raised by the Question; and that is, what is the position of the loyalists in respect of the material loss which they have sustained; and what is the ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's Government? The noble Marquess was good enough to recall, by way of a general paraphrase rather than by a precise quotation, observations which I made when dealing with this matter from the Woolsack. I did not, in fact, use any sentence quite so precise as the noble Marquess has put into my mouth, though it matters little, because I am freer now and I can speak with much greater freedom than when I sat on the Woolsack.
The difficulty I always had when speaking with responsibility for the Government upon this subject was that it seemed to me most unwise that any representative of the Government should say plainly, in language which to-morrow would be telegraphed to every Irish newspaper, that whatever happens, whatever the extent of the material damage, in the last resort if the Provisional Government does not pay the British Government will. It always seemed to me that to give that degree of encouragement to men who were reckless and profligate enough in destruction was exceedingly unwise. I did attempt to convey, with as much vagueness as my desire to safeguard the country from that particular peril rendered desirable, my own general view as to what the fundamental nature of the case meant and what the responsibility of the British Government might be. I always resolutely refused to arm the leader of any marauding gang in Ireland with the power of saying, "Here is another old house, let us burn it down; the British Government have announced that they will pay for it." That was an unwise course, and I avoided it.
To-day I am in a position of greater freedom, and I say plainly—an expression
66
of my own individual opinion binds no one; it does not bind the Government—that I have never been under the slightest delusion as to what the ultimate liability of this country might be. The only point on which I differ from the noble Marquess is this. I think it most unwise that we should throw the slightest doubt on the intention or the power of the Provisional Government in Ireland to carry out what they have repeatedly admitted to be their clear obligation in this matter. If it prove that they cannot carry out their obligation, if it prove that so great has been the material loss, so great the decline in the taxable value of Ireland, that these great losses cannot be paid out of the resources available, I say plainly what I was only able to hint at in former days. It is, of course, inconceivable that this country, which made this arrangement which produced, in my judgment for an adequate purpose, a state of chaos and destruction, can turn round and say to those who have suffered loss and who come forward with proved losses: "We provided you with a debtor, and if he cannot pay you that is not our matter." I do not believe any British Government, however constituted, can adopt such a position.
My own view is that for our own purposes, national and Imperial, we made this Treaty. There has followed, perhaps as a condition precedent to the success of this Treaty, the last outbursts of destruction and savagery. This is a necessary consequence of that policy which we recommended, which we carried out, and which Parliament is now to sanction. I see no reason at all to doubt that, with the reconstruction of confidence and prosperity in Ireland, the recovering financial resources of the Irish. Free State will suffice to meet even these heavy burdens, but I have not and never have had the slightest doubt that the ultimate position of this country, by whatever quasi-legal terms you may attempt to describe it, must be that of a guarantor to a liability which was incurred in pursuance of Imperial interests.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to join in the expressions of regret and sympathy with Lord Carson in the indisposition which prevents hint from being in his place to-day, and in the hope that he will very shortly be able to take part

67
once more in the debates in your Lordships' House. Before I proceed to answer the Question printed on the Paper, may I be allowed to give your Lordships a general assurance that, sympathetic as the late Government may have been with many cases which have been revealed to-day, His Majesty's present Government are no less sympathetic, and we shall consider it Our bounden duty to see that in every possible way full and adequate assistance is rendered to those who have suffered as the consequence of the terrible struggle which has been going on in Ireland during the past two years?
Suggestions have been made by my noble friend behind me of various methods which might be adopted. I regret that I am not in a position to-day to give a categorical answer to those suggestions. I can only say that they will be most carefully considered by myself and my advisers, that every effort will be made to meet, so far as lies in our power, the suggestions which have been made, and that I trust we shall he able, in conjunction with the Provisional Government, to bring these very difficult problems, so far as is possible, to a final and satisfactory solution.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I have to snake rather a long statement in reply to the specific Questions on the Paper. The arrangements made or being made for the assessment and payment of damages for malicious injuries in Ireland fall into two classes, damage to persons and damage to property; and each class is divided into two periods, pre-truce and post-truce. If I may, I should like to take these classes and periods separately. As regards pre-truce injuries to the person, the British Government and the Provisional Government agreed, shortly after the signing of the Treaty, that each Government should be responsible for the payment of compensation to its own supporters. The British Government decided to pay in full and without revision all decrees awarded by the Courts to those for whose compensation they were responsible. The total sum so awarded was £2,600,000, and of this sum £2,207,000 has already been paid, leaving a balance of £393,000, which I hope will be paid within the next few weeks. The delay in the payment of this balance is due to the fact that assignments or other charges have been made in respect of the awards concerned, and it is necessary to clear these before final payment can be made. In most, if not all, of such cases,
68
however, advances have been made to the victims or their dependants. There remains a small class of cases not covered by the agreement to which I have already referred, namely, the cases of persons killed or injured who could not be claimed to be supporters of either Government. The compensation payable in these cases is estimated to amount to approximately £240,000, and the two Governments have agreed that the liability in these cases should be equally divided between them.
As regards pre-truce injuries to property, the arrangement made between the two Governments is, as I think your Lordships are aware, that all such injuries, whether or not they have been the subject of a decree under the Malicious Injury Acts, should be assessed by what is known as the Shaw Commission, and that the sums awarded by that Commission should be paid by the Provisional Government, who will be entitled to recover from the British Government so much as is attributable to damage done by Crown forces. But your Lordships will be chiefly concerned to know what progress has been made in the work of the Commission, which was appointed in May last, and especially what progress has been made in paying the awards of that Commission. It will, I think, be easily understood that, in a task of the magnitude of that which the Commission had to perform, it is the first steps that are the most difficult and the slowest. At the outset the Commission received no fewer than 30,000 claims, and the work of registering and classifying these, and of selecting for early hearing such as might be expected to afford some guidance in subsequent cases, was so formidable that, by the time Parliament rose in August last, it had been possible to hear only nine claims.
Since that time, however, very rapid progress has been made by the Commission. A fuller appreciation of the nature of their task has enabled them to revise the machinery necessary for the preliminary investigations of claims, and to reject a number which do not come within their terms of reference. Twenty-eight assessors have been appointed to assist the Commission. The result is that, out of some 20,000 claims, which, it is expected, will be found to be within the terms of reference of the Commission, awards amounting to a total of £l,041,354 have been made in 1,250 cases. I understand that the Commission have good reason to expect that they will be able still further to expedite their pro-

69
cedure. I regret, however, to inform your Lordships that Lord Shaw, whose services in starting the work of the Commission have been of the greatest value, has found it necessary to resign the chairmanship of the Commission. A successor has not yet been appointed, but meanwhile the work of the Commission is proceeding without interruption.
As regards payment of the awards, a difficulty has arisen, owing to the fact that, in a considerable proportion of cases, assignments and other charges have been made on the original decrees awarded by the county courts, and in these circumstances the Provisional Government have been advised that it is necessary for them to advertise their intention to pay in every case, and to allow a reasonable time after the advertisement to enable persons who have charges against the awards to enter their claims. The actual sum paid by the Provisional Government to date in respect of pre-truce damage to property is £460,000, but I must explain that of this stun £330,000 is a lump sum payment to a number of British insurance companies and underwriters, who had either made payments under policies of insurance on injured property or had made advances against decrees. In addition to this sum of £460,000, the Government have advertised their intention to pay further awards amounting to £267,000, and it is expected that payment in these cases will be made almost immediately. I also understand that of the 1,250 cases dealt with by the Shaw Commission to which I have already referred, a number, the awards in which amount to approximately £500,000, were only reported by the Commission to the Provisional Government on the 25th instant, and that intention to pay in these cases will be advertised at once. I may acid that on the 17th of this month the Irish Parliament passed a vote of £5,000,000 for payment of compensation in pre-truce cases. This therefore is the sum which the Provisional Government expect to pay on this account during the current financial year.
Your Lordships have already been informed, during the previous session, that His Majesty's Government, recognising that in some cases great hardship is involved in the delay which must inevitably occur, both in the hearing of claims by the Commission and in the payment of awards, is prepared to make advances in cases where real hardship does, in fact, arise. The
70
total amount of such advances made up to date in respect of pre-truce decrees is £31,110.
As regards post-truce injuries to the person, I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that the Provisional Government have agreed that where members of the British forces have been killed or injured in Ireland since July 11, 1921, in circumstances which amount to breaches of the truce entered into on that date, the Provisional Government will be responsible for the payment of compensation; and thay have suggested that Messrs. Howell, Thomas and Dowdall, the members of the Shaw Commission nominated by the two Governments, should be asked to undertake the task of assessing the compensation payable in such eases. The British Government have agreed to this proposal, and for their part have given a corresponding undertaking that, if any such crimes committed by their servants are brought to their notice, they too will be willing to submit any such cases to the same tribunal. This agreement, it will be observed, relates only to personal injuries inflicted upon or by members of the British forces. Other post-truce personal injuries will, it is understood, be dealt with in the same manner as post-truce injuries to property.
As regards the last class of case, namely post-truce injuries to property, which is, of course, the largest and from some points of view the most important class, I regret I am not able to speak with the same precision as in the other classes. Your Lordships will recognise that the problem presented by the enormous material damage which has taken place in Ireland since the truce is one of very great magnitude, and will hardly expect that a new and inexperienced Government, engaged moreover in a struggle for its very existence, could produce an immediate and complete solution of such a problem. I wish to make it clear at once, however, to your Lordships, that I have been deeply impressed by the fact that the Provisional Government do undoubtedly and sincerely intend to provide as complete and as satisfactory a solution of this problem as is possible, and have made considerable progress in the necessary steps to that end. From the first, not only the Government, but the leaders of every Party in the Irish Parliament, have recognised that the liability for compensation to every class of sufferer rests upon the Irish people and the Irish people alone.

71
On September 22 last the Provisional Government moved, and the Parliament carried, a Motion—
"That, while this Dail is of opinion that a proportion of the compensation which will be recoverable in respect of damage to or destruction of property, inflicted since July 11, 1921, being the date of the truce between the forces of Great Britain and Ireland, should, under approved conditions, be borne as a national liability, nevertheless a date should be determined as from which such liability should remain wholly a burden of the local authorities now primarily responsible for the same—"
and in the considerable debate which followed, while there was some disagreement with the proposal that any of the liability should be borne by the local authorities, and it was maintained in some quarters that the whole should be borne by the State, there was at no time any suggestion that anything less than full and reasonable compensation should be paid.
On October 6 last, as Minister of Finance, informed the Parliament that he was in a position to say that a comprehensive scheme for dealing with claims was in an advanced state of preparation, and would, he hoped, be announced at an early date. On November 16 Mr. Cosgrave moved a vote of £5,000,000 for estimated payments during the current financial year for compensation for post-truce injuries—this vote was, of course, in addition to the vote of £5,000,000 for pre-truce injuries to which I have already referred—and pointed out that the sum of £5,000,000 in question was only an estimate of the amount of money that would be assessed and would have to be paid up to March 31 next in respect of post-truce damage, and that large further sums would he required after that date. The scheme in its final form has not yet been produced by the Provisional Government, but from various statements made by their Ministers and from Decrees passed by the Irish Parliament, it seems clear that what is intended is that the damage should be assessed by the county courts—that is, by the same courts and by the same Judges as under, the British régime—and that the cost of the compensation so assessed should be borne in part by the local authorities, but in the main by the State.
I have given to Your Lordships as full information as I can at present. In his Question the noble Lord asked if a statement could be published showing the position as regards compensation. Inasmuch as in regard to the most important part of
72
the Question, namely post-truce injury to property, the information which I am able to give is not yet sufficiently definite to enable it to be embodied in the form of a Parliamentary Paper, while the figures which I have given regarding pre-truce damage are, I hope, sufficiently precise to render unnecessary the expense of further publication, I do not know whether the noble Lord will wish to press this part of his Question. If he does, I shall, of course, be glad to meet his wishes as far as possible.

INDIAN PUBLIC SERVICES.
LORD SYDENHAM LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Secretary of State for India—
1. Whether the so-called O'Donnell circular which appeared to suggest the cessation of British recruitment for the Indian public services was submitted to him for approval before being issued, and
2. Whether he would consider the desirability of appointing at an early date a non-political expert Commission to report upon the present position of these public services, the prospects of obtaining recruits of the necessary high standard, and the effects of the present shortage upon the administration in India, and especially upon the maintenance of law and order.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my excuse for bringing forward this Question in this short session is its urgency owing to the very serious situation which has arisen in India. The O'Donnell circular seemed to suggest that all British recruitment for the Indian Civil Service should cease. Of course, in that circular reasons were forthcoming against this course, but I think anybody who reads it from beginning to end would be justified in coming to the conclusion that the Government of India favoured the course of complete cessation. The effect was to alarm the public services and European population in India, and still further to discourage recruiting in this country.
I am sure that the noble Viscount could not have approved of the issue of this circular, because just at this time the late Prime Minister made one of the soundest and most accurate speeches he ever delivered. These are the memorable words he used—

73
"Britain would in no circumstances relinquish her authority in India.…if we were to withdraw, it would be the greatest betrayal in the history of any country.…The British Empire must, at all costs, continue to discharge that sacred trust and fulfil that high destiny."
Then he rightly described the civil servants as the "steel frame" which held the whole structure of India together—a most happy simile which extends also to other services, especially the police. He went on to declare that the services "were entitled to every word of support, they were entitled to every deed of support that this imperial Parliament could give them." The suggestion in the circular violently conflicts with that remarkable speech, and also with the Montagu-Chelmsford Report, and with the spirit of the Government of India Act.
Meanwhile, the great services of India are steadily crumbling away, and they are not being replaced as fast as is necessary. The result is that lawlessness and crime are rapidly increasing everywhere throughout India. I will give some little idea of what is happening in that direction. In the Punjab, in one month, there were as many dacoities, which are gang robberies, as there were in the whole year before the advent of Mr. Montagu. In the Central Provinces the number of riots increased from 266 in 1920 to 398 in 1921. In Bengal, in the second quarter of this year, there were 325 dacoities against 229 in the corresponding quarter last year, and 591 riots against 399. That means an increase, comparing one year with another, of 10 and 50 per cent. That explains how the situation in India is becoming very serious. The public knows nothing about these things, and the general belief is that India is now perfectly happy and tranquil. But the fact is that India is going straight back to the days of the Pindaris and to the darker days which lie still farther back, and we are not fulfilling our "sacred trust" to the people of India in maintaining law and order in that country.
In the Punjab the police force is now so depleted that out of twenty-nine districts fourteen have got not one single British officer, and the effect on the moral and the discipline of that very important force can easily be imagined. In Mooltan with 1,000,000 people, and with a city of 100,000, mostly very fanatical Moslems, of fifteen magistrates only one is now British, and in the very serious riots which broke out in Mooltan last month no British police officer was present. And the very coura-
74
geous, ports, prompt and firm action of the single British magistrate undoubtedly saved a general massacre and looting in Mooltan. The significant thing is that when the riots were over both sides, Hindus and Mahomedans, petitioned that British officers should be brought to investigate the causes of the riots.
The humble suggestion in the second part of my Question rests upon a very good precedent. In 1913 President Wilson decided to try a great experiment of self-determination in the Philippine islands, and that was a very favourable place for his experiment, for it has only about 12,000,000 or 13,000,000 people. They are mostly homogeneous, there is no caste system, and the population generally have a much higher standard of education than the people of Julia. In accordance with this experiment the Government was handed over to the Philippine people, and only four per cent. of American officials were retained. The result was complete chaos and corruption on a large scale.
This is what an American wrote from the Philippines after having looked into the situation—
"The Islands have gone to the dogs. There is complete lapse of government; a political dictatorship holds iron rule; there is scandalous corruption; there is shocking inefficiency; there is political favouritism, nepotism, factional politics in everything; the Treasury and the Government Bank have been looted and big private fortunes made by the 'politicos' and their friends. Payrolls have been padded. The public roads are jugged with holes. Mails and telegrams are delayed, and often lost. One cannot get a building permit, or have a shipment of cargo put through the Customs without a bribe."
With such a state of things as that it became necessary to do something, and what was done was this. A very small non-political expert Commission was set up under General Leonard Wood, who is one of the best and most experienced administrators that the American people possess. The result was that very quickly it issued a Report, of only twenty-five pages, and it said this—
"We have in many instances, by the rapidity of our procedure, overtaxed the ability of the people to absorb, digest, and make efficient practical use of what it has taken other nations centuries to absorb and apply".
That is exactly what is happening in India. But the Philippine question is, of course, bagatelle compared to the enormous difficult, which we have created for ourselves in India.
The general conclusion of this Commission of General Wood's was this—
"Under no circumstances should the American Government permit to he established in the Philippines a situation which would leave the United Mates in a position of responsibility without authority."
But that is exactly the position into which we are rapidly coming in India. It is for that reason that I hope my noble friend will follow the excellent lead of President Harding in a case in which the circumstances were almost exactly the same as the circumstances in India.
As regards the rapid Indianisation of the services which is going on, I should like to quote the opinion of an Indian pensioner at Amritsar. He says he expresses—and be probably does express—"the views of the ignorant and dumb masses of the Punjab." He wrote a letter to Mr. O'Donnell, the signatory of the circular, and said—
"People think that God curses where native officer holds charge of a district in capacity of Deputy Commissioner. It is an admitted fact that Indian officers have elegant and fluent tongue to convince, and facile pen to ply in writing Reports; but they lack tact to control, to be impartial to all communities, regardless of creed and caste. Prompt action among Indian officers remains still to be learned."
Of the engineering service he writes—
"It is great misfortune to zemindars community to find native officers in the Canal Department in capacity of superintending engineer and executive officer. Zemindars beat their breasts in despair.…They say that the worst English officer is twenty times better than the best Indian officer. Indian officers, instead of doing good to poor peasants, try to squeeze their blood in various ways."
There may be a good deal of oriental imagination in what I have quoted, but from my own personal knowledge I can ay that the ryots in India have very much that feeling in regard to their confidence in British officers. I earnestly hope that my noble friend will be able to say something which may reassure the services, and also tell us that he recognises the urgency of the situation, and feels that something will have to be done, and done quickly.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in order to associate myself with the plea which has been made by my noble friend, and particularly to emphasise the urgency of the question to which he alluded, of which receive almost daily fresh proof. As one who has had the great privilege to serve in
76
a high position in India I am deeply sensible of a duty which, as it seems to me, devolves upon me, and always will devolve upon me, so long as I have any opportunity—the duty of never neglecting any reasonable occasion of making myself, so far as my humble judgment permits, the spokesman of people in India, whether they be Englishmen or Indians who, in my opinion, are working for the good of India, and of supporting their reasonable claims and representing in Parliament and elsewhere their grievances, so far as they seem to me legitimate.
Most particularly do I feel that duty towards the members of the great public services in India, to whom I owe a personal debt of gratitude for the wise and able co-operation I received from them. Towards them I feel an obligation of honour not to neglect any opportunity of representing their legitimate and just grievances. I am one of those who are firmly convinced that there has been no more noble achievement in the whole history of civilisation than the work which is being accomplished by British rule in India and by those fellow-countrymen and fellow-countrywomen of ours in every branch of the service who have carried it out.
Two or three years ago a man of great eminence and undoubted authority, whose name for the moment I forget, made a yen, remarkable statement. He said that the only really dangerous unrest in India at that time was unrest among British public servants. The full meaning and significance of that statement was hardly appreciated at that time, and the existence of the danger was even denied. But now the existence of that danger is fully admitted, I think, by everybody. It is even admitted by my noble friend Lord Meston. I hope I may allude to him in his absence, because it happens that in the club last night I picked up the Contemporary Review, and found there an article from his facile pen, entitled "Common Sense in India." I naturally read it with all that attention which is due to the opinions of a man of his great experience and achievement, and of one who is as responsible as anybody for the present state of affairs in India.
It appeared from this article that Lord Meston thinks that common sense is the remedy for those troubles of which nobody denies the existence. And the first thing

77
that occurs to me is this. Is it quite kind or polite to suggest that common sense is lacking among those capable and courageous fellow countrymen of ours who are complaining that their present position is intolerable? My noble friend, Lord Meston, himself seemed to have some doubt on that point, because there is in his article a passage which I copied, and in which he says this—
"Common sense must come to the rescue; for India has plenty of it and she will not consent to be made ridiculous in the eyes of her comrade nations by a succession of foolish failures."
But is common sense the remedy? How can common sense help men who have to choose between the two alternalives—I am not putting it too strongly—of starvation at home and humiliation in India? Which choice of those two is indicated by common sense? There are such things as manly pride and a sense of honour.
My meaning may, perhaps, become clearer if I suggest to your Lordships an example, with which every one of us must have been familiar at one time or another, from one of the public services at home. Supposing an officer of the Royal Navy or of the Army finds himself in circumstances in which his authority is not upheld or in which he is superseded, perhaps unjustly, perhaps for reasons which are not for the good of the Service, by an incompetent subordinate; is that officer to pocket his pride and to stay in the Service? What advice would your Lordships give to such a man? Would you not rather commend him, if he showed a sufficient sense of dignity and pride, to say: "No, I will face retirement, with all its poverty, its inconvenience and disappointment, rather than submit to treatment of this kind." British public servants in India are just as much Englishmen as public servants in this country. Their feelings, their sentiments, and their rights are exactly the same.
In reading that article, which suggested that all that was wanted was just a little common sense, I could not help remembering one of the proverbial utterances of the great Anglo-Indian poet, Mr. Rudyard Kipling, which are full of pregnant significance for most circumstances of Indian life. It was this—
"The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each toothpoint goes.
The butterfly above the road
Preaches contentment to that toad."
It is too late for common sense in this particular matter. Had we had a little
78
common sense sooner this particular trouble might have been avoided. And it is a common saying that prevention is always better than cure.
I could multiply instances in exemplification and illustration of what my noble friend Lord Sydenham has said, but I do not want to take up your Lordships' time or to confuse a perfectly simple issue. The noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India has before him a Question which is very much to the point, and a suggestion which I venture to think is, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable. The Question is whether the O'Donnell circular, inconsistent as it is with the utterances of the late Prime Minister and the other spokesmen of the late Government, represents the attitude and indicates the policy of the Imperial Government, or whether British public servants in India may derive encouragement, the encouragement they need, from the wholly admirable utterances of the late Prime Minister which were quoted by my noble friend. I have not got them by me, but I refer to those speeches in which the late Prime Minister spoke of the public servants of India as the "steel framework," and said in the most emphatic terms that we must support and uphold our fellow countrymen who are public servants in India.
It seems to me that the Question admits of an easy and unequivocal reply, that part of the urgency is that that reply should be given and that those who are now affrighted and disappointed—which is not too strong a way of putting it—may get a little encouragement and may be told that the attitude of the Imperial Government is not that which they were led to suppose by the issue of the O'Donnell circular. I said that there was a Question asked and a suggestion made by my noble friend. The suggestion is that an impartial non-political inquiry should be made into the nature and extent of the grievances. Surely it is in that direction that common sense lies. In medicine diagnosis must invariably precede remedial treatment, and a similar principle naturally applies to the body politic.
May I once more, in spite of his absence, quote from the article of my noble friend Lord Meston, because, taking a totally different view from that of Lord Sydenham and myself, he may carry weight if I say what he said on this particular point. He writes as follows—

79
"Above all there must be no relaxation of our efforts to induce young Englishmen of the best type to enter the Civil Service and to take a hand in building up an honest and healthy system of self-government and in teaching the electorate how to use their powers."
I agree most heartily; but what is the best way of making those efforts? Surely, it is by convincing young Englishmen that they are still wanted in India; that the time has not come when they will be told: "We want you no more"; that there is still good and great work for them to do in India that they will be supported and upheld in the rightful exercise of the authority entrusted to them, which is not the case at the present time; and that they will be fairly treated not only in matters of pay and pension, but in what is more important, in those matters which touch their personal honour.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Sydenham, has asked me two specific Questions, to which I shall he very glad to give him a definite answer. But he has also raised a very large question of policy connected with India; that is to say, the whole question of Indianisation and the extent to which Indians shall cooperate with us and we with them in the government of their country. That is a question with very wide implications, and I am sure he will not ask me to deal with that very large question this evening, which, in fact, embraces the whole question of the policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government under the new system set up under the powers granted by the Act of 1919. He has, moreover, raised generally, as I think my noble friend, Lord Ampthill, has also done, the whole question of the position of the services and the attitude of the Government towards the services. That, again, is a very wide question, and I should not be justified in dealing with it generally on so comparatively narrow an issue as has been raised by my noble friend this evening. In fact, I was rather surprised that Lord Sydenham did not deal at all with the Question he raised; it was Lord Ampthill, I think, who put it in a rather more pointed way, as to the effect which the O'Donnell circular might have on the minds of civilians in India, already disturbed by circumstances with which we are only too familiar.
I would like, if I may, to give your Lordships very shortly the history of this par-
80
ticular circular because, in view of the importance of the question of recruitment for the services and the fact that a debate was expected to take place in the Legislative Assembly in regard to it, the Government of India made a preliminary inquiry by telegraph from my predecessor, and the Government of India were expressly authorised to consult Local Governments on this general issue of the position of the services. Obviously, it was a topic on which it was necessary for the Government of India to obtain the opinions of the Local Governments. I never saw this circular until it was published, nor was it submitted to me. I do not think that the Government of India were under the necessity of submitting it to the Secretary of State, because they had already obtained general authority to act in that way. I do not think there was any obligation upon them to submit to the Secretary of State over here a circular document trying to get information from the Local Governments, which was issued as the result of an authority obtained from the Secretary of State over here.
I should like to give in a few words my own view upon this circular. I think that this letter might have been put in a somewhat different form, and in terms less likely to cause anxiety to members of the services to whom its contents might become known. But I wish to say this—and really my reservation is of great importance. This circular was a Government document. It was not intended for publication; it was intended primarily to test the opinions of the Local Governments. Its publication was a breach of faith. Its unauthorised publication gave it the character of a declaration of policy, and thereby entirely altered its application. I feel bound to express the very strongest disapproval of the course taken by those who were responsible for publishing the circular, and consequently for creating a false impression of the Government's intentions. I need hardly say—and I repeat it as emphatically as I can—that there was no question of a declaration of policy. However it was worded, the circular was only intended to obtain information from the Local Governments.
I should like to say another word as to the position of the Government of India upon the subject. With reference to my noble friend's description of the circular as appearing "to suggest the cessation of

81
British recruitment for the Indian public services," may I say that the Government of India have since explained to me that they had reason to believe that a feeling in favour of the stoppage of European recruitment was prevalent among members of the services themselves? Those feelings, according to their information, had existed for a considerable time prior to the issue of their circular letter, and had been brought to the notice of the Viceroy within a few weeks of his assumption of Office. The Government of India regarded it as essential that the extent to which this view obtained among the services, and the grounds underlying it, should be ascertained and considered, and it was this that prompted their reference to it in the circular. I would add, in face of what was stated by my noble friend, Lord Ampthill, that there is no difference of opinion, and can be no difference of opinion, as to the great importance of getting the best type of young man from this country to enter the Indian Civil Service, and of the great importance, at this time of change and transition in India, of securing those young men who are able to assist Indians and train them in the best possible way in developing this very difficult Constitution which has been granted to India by the Act of 1919.
A further point was put to me by my friend as to the desirability of appointing, at an early date, a non-political expert Commission to report on the present position of these public services. I am rather sorry that my noble friend is so anxious to exclude politicians from any inquiries of this kind, but I should like to assure him that I have been for many months past very anxiously considering the whole situation of the public services in India, and have a very full appreciation indeed of the very serious issues involved. I am not at present in a position to make a full statement upon the subject, but I should like to say that the suggestion as to the appointment of a Commission is an alternative which has been, and still is, engaging my attention.

COMPENSATION ARBITRATORS.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I beg to move for a Return showing the names Of persons appointed as special arbitrators for England and Wales, and for Scotland, under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment
82
of Compensation) Act, 1919, and with respect to each, his salary and term of office, the number of cases determined in each financial year or part since his appointment, and the amount of the fees paid or payable to the Exchequer in respect thereof.
The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act was passed in August, 1919, and therefore there has been considerable time during which there has been a fair chance to ascertain the methods of work and the number of cases determined under it. In Committee of this House on July 31 of that year there was considerable debate, during which difference of opinion was expressed regarding the special arbitrators to be appointed under the Act. The discussion was as to whether they should be whole-time arbitrators or not. Finally, the Act laid it down that they should be whole-time arbitrators. It was stated that they would have a great deal of work to do, and that their salaries would, be about £3,000 a year. Difference of opinion existed as to whether there would be many cases to Le determined under the Act, but the then Lord Chancellor stated that he believed the number of cases to be tried and pronounced upon by the arbitrators would be very great indeed. A Return of the kind for which I now move would enable ordinary persons to see what money has been expended under the Act, and whether these special arbitrators have had so many cases as to justify their devoting the whole of their time to the work, and being pa id the salary which has been mentioned. I beg to move.
Moved, That there be laid before this House a Return showing the names of persons appointed as special arbitrators for England and Wales, and for Scotland, under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and with respect to each, his salary and term of office, the number of cases determined in each financial year or part since his appointment, and the amount of the fees paid or payable to the Exchequer in respect thereof.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the Return asked for by my noble friend shall be prepared. It will, I hope, be presented to the House during the course of next week.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LIST OF THE LORDS TEMPORAL.
Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the First Session of the Thirty-second Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
ROLL OF THE LORDS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY'S PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Scottish Widows Fund and Life Assurance Society—Was presented by
84
Viscount Novar; read la; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, section 7) deemed to have been read 2a, and reported from the Committee.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Edinburgh Corporation—Was presented by Viscount Novar; (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed.
[From Minutes of November 27.]
The Lord Bishop of Chester—Took the Oath.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.