Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 21: debated on Tuesday 7 February 1911

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 7th February, 1911.

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

Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath, and several other Members made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law.

Private Bills

Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table a Report from the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with Lord Balfour of Burleigh, acting as Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords—namely:

  • Aberdare Urban District Council.
  • Afon Lwyd Valley Sewerage Board.
  • Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway.
  • Ashborne and District Gas.
  • Barry Railway.
  • Bedwellty Urban District Council.
  • Brighton District Tramways.
  • Brighton, Hove, and District Railless Traction.
  • Cardiff Railway.
  • Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chinley, and District Gas.
  • Chesham and District Gas.
  • Chester Water.
  • City of London (Various Powers).
  • Croydon and Southern District Railless Traction.
  • Eastern Valley (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board.
  • Ely Rural District Water.
  • Enfield Gas.
  • Great Western Railway.
  • Great Yarmouth Port and Haven.
  • Harrogate Corporation.
  • Hastings Corporation (Water and Finance).
  • Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation.
  • Lloyd's.
  • Local Authorities (Combined Drainage).
  • London and South-Western Railway.
  • London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway.
  • London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Steam Vessels).
  • London Cemetery Company.
  • London, Tilbury, and Southeud Railway.
  • Luton Gas.
  • Luton Water.
  • Macclesfield and District Railless Traction and Electricity Supply.
  • Malvern Electric Traction.
  • Manchester Corporation.
  • Manchester Ship Canal.
  • Matlock District Railless Traction.
  • Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Water.
  • Metropolitan Water Board (Hertford Sewerage).
  • Metropolitan Water Board (New Works).
  • Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways.
  • Midland Railway.
  • North Eastern Railway.
  • Oldham and Saddleworth District Railless Traction.
  • Oystermouth Urban District Council.
  • Paddington Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions).
  • Penllwyn Railway.
  • Poplar Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions).
  • Rhondda Urban District Council.
  • Rhymney Railway.
  • Rhymney Valley Water Board.
  • Rochdale Market.
  • Saint Mary Prestwich Rectory.
  • Saint Mary Radcliffe Rectory.
  • Shiel's Charity.
  • Sidmouth Gas and Electricity.
  • Slough Urban District Water.
  • Star Life Assurance Society.
  • Swansea Gas.
  • Swinton Urban District Council.
  • Thorney Drainage.
  • Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Railless Traction.
  • Whaley Bridge Gas.
  • Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply).

National Gallery

Return ordered of Copy of Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1910, with Appendices.— [ Mr. Hobhouse.]

Supreme Court Of Judicature (Ireland)

Account ordered of the Receipts and Payments of the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, in respect of the funds of suitors in the said Court, including therein funds to the credit of Lunacy Accounts, in the year to the 30th day of September, 1910, together with a statement of liabilities and assets, and particulars of securities in Court on the 30th day of September, 1910.—[ Mr. Hobhouse.]

Brewers' Licences

Return ordered of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several collections of the United Kingdom licensed as brewers for sale, i.e., common brewers, victuallers, retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises, retailers of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and brewers of beer not for sale, particularising each class in each collection; and of the number of licences issued to victuallers and retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises and not to be drunk on the premises; and stating also the quantities of malt, un-malted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent in syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes, used by brewers of beer for sale, and of malt and sugar used by

brewers not for sale, from the 1st day of October, 1909, to the 30th day of September, 1910.

Of the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st day of October, 1909, to the 30th day of September, 1910, distinguishing brewers for sale from other brewers.

Of the number of brewers for sale (i.) who use malt and hops, or hop substitutes only, and (ii.) who use malt with substitutes for same and hops or hop substitutes paying for licenses, from the 1st day of October, 1909, to the 30th day of September, 1910, separating them into classes, according to the number of barrels of beer charged with duty calculated at 1·055 degrees gravity, viz.: under 1,000 barrels; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000; 20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000 and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 400,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 450,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 600,000; 600,000 and under 700,000; 700,000 and under 800,000; 800,000 and under 900,000; 900,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,000 and under 1,500,000; 1,500,000 and under 2,000,000; 2,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately, in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes used; and stating also the number of bulk barrels of beer produced, and the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class.

And, of the number of barrels of beer exported from the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to, from the 1st day of October, 1909, to the 30th day of September, 1910, distinguishing England, Scotland, and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 32, of Session 1910.)—[ Mr. Hobhouse.]

Trade And Navigation

Return ordered of accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1911.—[ Mr. Sydney Buxton.]

Pauperism (England And Wales) (Monthly Statements)

Copy of Statements ordered for each month of the year 1911, of the number of paupers relieved in England and Wales (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 54, of Session 1910.)—[ Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

Business Of The House

May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice—whether, in order to enable Members who are successful in the ballot to-morrow, to find dates for their Bills, he will inform the House if the Fridays before Easter will be taken for Government business, and what dates between Easter and Whitsuntide will be available for private Members?

As I intimated yesterday, I am afraid it will be necessary for the Government to ask the House to give them Tuesday and Wednesday evenings and Fridays up to Easter. As I further said, I hope—but cannot pledge myself to the statement—that we may be in a position after Easter to recur to the normal state of things. This would allow private Members Wednesday evenings and Fridays between Easter and Whitsuntide, and the usual two Fridays after Whitsuntide.

Dates Probably Available

Wednesdays: 19th, 26th April; 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th, 31st May.

Fridays: 21st, 28th April; 5th, 12th, 19th, 26th May; 2nd June.

After Whitsuntide

23rd and 30th June.

May I ask whether the two last dates in June clash with the Coronation, the two Fridays at the end of June?

Are we to gather from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that it is the intention to sit during Easter week?

May I ask whether we are to understand it is possible, if not probable, that after Easter there will be no dates available for private Members?

Ballot For Bills And Motions

That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot, and that all Members who desire to ballot, whether for Bills or for Motions for Tuesday, 14th February, and Tuesday, 21st February, and Wednesday, 15th February, and Wednesday, 22nd February, do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House on Monday, 6th February, or Tuesday, 7th February, and that a copy of the Notice of such Bill or Motion be handed in at the latest during the sitting of the House on Wednesday, 8th February:

That the ballot for the precedence of the said Bills and Motions be taken on Wednesday, 8th February, at a convenient time and place, to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and that the presentation of Bills on Thursday, 9th February, be taken immediately after Questions.

May I point out, in the first place, that this Motion is retrospective, referring to what the House was to or should have done yesterday; and, in the second place, that it asks us to ballot for Motions on the 14th, 15th, 21st, and 22nd February, dates upon which the Prime Minister has just informed us Government business only will be taken? It seems to be a little pleonastic.

I made inquiry before putting down the Motion, and I understand that it is entirely in accordance with the usual formalities and practice of the House. It is entirely formal.

Is it entirely formal to take the whole time of the House from the commencement of the Session?

The Prime Minister said that 19th April will be the first Wednesday available. That is the Wednesday after Easter, so that the House is going to sit in Easter week?

Might I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury should postpone this proposal until the Prime Minister has moved his Motion taking the time of the House? It is evidently absurd that we should ballot for days which may have no value. The whole conception of the ballot is that you are going to move a Motion. If you are not to have an opportunity to move a Motion, the ballot is an exercise which has not even an athletic interest.

moved to leave out the words, "or for Motions for Tuesday, 14th February, and Tuesday, 21st February, and Wednesday, 15th February, and Wednesday, 22nd February."

The Motion is quite in order as it stands. The Motion taking the time of the House is not yet passed. The House might reject that Motion, and then the days would be available for private Members.

Would it be open to Members successful in the ballot to take any other day which the Prime Minister has indicated may be available?

In view of the answer which the Prime Minister has given, the suggestion made just now ought surely to be considered. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that until the Motion taking the time of the House is carried this Motion cannot become operative or effective in any way. Surely the proper course would be to postpone this Motion until after the Motion taking the time of the House. As I think that is the proper way to deal with a very remarkable situation, I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

Division No. 2.]


[3.15 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)Bowerman, Charles W.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Brace, William
Adamson, WilliamBeale, William PhipsonBrady, Patrick Joseph
Adkins, W. Ryland D.Beauchamp, EdwardBrigg, Sir John
Armitage, RobertBenn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Gee.)Burke, E. Haviland.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert HenryBirrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineBurns, Rt. Hon. John
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.Booth, Frederick HandelBurt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

If the ballot is postponed, there will be nothing whatever to prevent hon. Members from bringing in their Bills at once, and the hon. Member who is first in with his Bill will get the pick of the days without balloting. If I might be allowed to say so, I would strongly deprecate altering the old system, which the House has adopted on previous occasions, of setting up a ballot on the third day of the Session. It is only because hon. Members anticipated that that ballot would be set up that they refrained from bringing in their Bills yesterday or today. If that system is to be altered, we shall have a rush of Members to the Table on the first day of the Session, and the Member who is in first will get the pick of the days without going through the formalities of the ballot.

I understand that it is open to Members to ballot now for days which they will get, if they are fortunate, after Easter. But as the Motion stands now, even that will be taken away from them, because the first sentence relating to Bills is absolutely clear. No Bills other than Government Bills are to be introduced in anticipation of the ballot. As to the particular dates fixed, they refer only to the particular ballot for a particular day. If the House were now to pass this Motion, it would not be in the power even of the ordinary Member to bring in a Bill and ballot for a day after Easter, because the first sentence excludes all those Bills—"That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot." If private Members are to have their rights of balloting for Bills at a later period of the Session it seems to me that the first clause of the Motion, as drafted, prevents it. This is in direct contravention of the intention of the Prime Minister as expressed by himself within the last few minutes. As no one in the meantime is asking him to "toe the line" I trust he will see his way to carry out his intention to the House.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 124.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)Helme, Norval WatsonPearce, William (Limehouse)
Byles, William PollardHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Henry, Sir Charles S.Pointer, Joseph
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Hinds, JohnPower, Patrick Joseph
Cawley, H. T. (Lance, Heywood)Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Chapple, Dr. William AllenHolt, Richard DurningPrice, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Clancy, John JosephHudson, WalterPriestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Clough, WilliamHughes, Spencer LeighPringle, William M. R.
Clynes, John R.Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)Raffan, Peter Wilson
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)John, Edward ThomasRea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Johnson, WilliamReddy, Michael
Condon, Thomas JosephJones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Corbett, A. CameronJones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Redmond, William (Clare)
Cotton, William FrancisJones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Richards, Thomas
Cowan, W. H.Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Crawshay-Williams, EliotJowett, Frederick WilliamRoberts, George H. (Norwich)
Cullinan, J.Joyce, MichaelRoberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Keating, MatthewRobertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeRobinson, Sydney
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)Kelly, EdwardRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)Kennedy, Vincent PaulRoche, John (Galway, E.)
Devlin, JosephKing, Joseph (Somerset, North)Roe, Sir Thomas
Dewar, Sir J. A.Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)Rose, Sir Charles Day
Dickinson, W. H.Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Dillon, JohnLansbury, GeorgeScott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Donelan, Captain A.Lardner, James Carrige RusheSeely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Doris, WilliamLawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)Sheehy, David
Duffy, William J.Leach, CharlesSmith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Levy, Sir MauriceSoares, Ernest Joseph
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)Lewis, John HerbertSpicer, Sir Albert
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)Lundon, ThomasStanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)Strachey, Sir Edward
Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)Sutherland, John E.
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)MacGhee, RichardSutton, John E.
Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Maclean, DonaldTaylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Essex, Richard WalterMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftTennant, Harold John
Esslemont, George BirnieMacVeagh, JeremiahThomas, James Henry (Derby)
Falconer, JamesM'Callum, John M.Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Farrell, James PatrickM'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)Thorne, William (West Ham)
Fenwick, CharlesM'Micking, Major GilbertTrevelyan, Charles Philips
Ferens, Thomas RobinsonMarshall, Arthur HaroldVerney, Sir Harry
Field, WilliamMason, David M. (Coventry)Wadsworth, John
Fitzgibbon, JohnMathias, RichardWalsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Flavin, Michael JosephMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)Walton, Sir Joseph
France, Gerald AshburnerMeehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Gelder, Sir William AlfredMenzies, Sir WalterWardle, G. J.
Gibson, Sir James PuckeringMolloy, MichaelWason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Gill, Alfred HenryMolteno, Percy AlportWason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ginnell, LaurenceMond, Sir Alfred M.Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Glanville, Harold JamesMoney, Leone G. ChiozzaWhite, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)
Goldstone, FrankMontagu, Hon. E. S.White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)Mooney, John J.Whitehouse, John Howard
Griffith, Ellis JonesMorrell, PhilipWhitley, John Henry
Guest, Major Hon. C H. C. (Pembroke)Munro, RobertWhyte, A. F. (Perth)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.Williams, John (Glamorgan)
Gulland, John WilliamNeedham, Christopher T.Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Hackett, JohnNeilson, FrancisWilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)Norman, Sir HenryWilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Hancock, John GeorgeO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)O'Doherty, PhilipWilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)O'Dowd, JohnWinfrey, Richard
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)O'Grady, JamesWood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Shee, James John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

Haworth, Arthur A.O'Sullivan, Timothy
Hayden, John PatrickParker, James (Halifax)


Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.Beckett, Hon. William GervaseCassel, Felix
Aitken, William Max.Beresford, Lord CharlesCecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)
Anstruther-Gray, Major WilliamBigland, AlfredChaloner, Colonel R. G. W.
Archer-Shee, Major MartinBottomley, HoratioChaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Astor, WaldorfBoyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.Brassey, H. Leonard CampbellCooper, Richard Ashmole
Baird, John LawrenceBurgoyne, Alan HughesCraig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)Burn, Colonel C. R.Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Balcarres, LordCampbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorCampion, W. R.Craik, Sir Henry
Barnston, HarryCarlile, Edward HildredCrean, Eugene
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Dixon, Charles HarveyLloyd, George AmbroseRoberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Doughty, Sir GeorgeLocker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Rolleston, Sir John
Fell, ArthurLocker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Fleming, ValentineLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Forster, Henry WilliamLong, Rt. Hon. WalterScott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Gilhooly, JamesLonsdale, John BrownleeScott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Goldney, Francis Bennett-Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Goldsmith, FrankMackinder, Halford J.Spear, John Ward
Goulding, Edward AlfredMacmaster, DonaldStanier, Beville
Gretton, JohnM'Calmont, Colonel JamesStanley, Hon. G F. (Preston)
Gulney, PatrickM'Mordie, RobertStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Hall, Fred (Dulwich)Magnus, Sir PhilipStewart, Gershom
Hambro, Angus ValdemarMalcolm, IanSykes, Alan John
Hamersley, Alfred St. GeorgeMason, James F. (Windsor)Talbot, Lord Edmund
Healy, MauriceMoore, WilliamThompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)Valentia, Viscount
Hillier, Dr. Alfred PeterMorrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)Walker, Col. William Hall
Hoare, Samuel John GurneyNewman, John R. PWalsh, J. (Cork, South)
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Norton-Griffiths, J.Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)O'Brien, William (Cork)White, Major C. D. (Lancs. Southport)
Horner, Andrew LongOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Ormsby-Gore, Hon. WilliamWilloughby, Major Hon. Claude
Ingleby, HolcombePaget, Almeric HughWilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)Worthington-Evans, L.
Kerr-Smlley, Peter KerrParkes, EbenezerWyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir ClementPease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)Yate, Col. C. E
Kirkwood, John H. M.Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Knight, Capt. Eric AyshfordPeto, Basil Edward
Kyffin-Taylor, G.Pole-Carew, Sir R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Helmsley and Viscount Castlereagh

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Lewisham, ViscountRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

I beg to move to leave out the words "Wednesday, 8th of February" ["at the latest during the Sitting of the House on Wednesday, 8th February"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "Monday, 27th of February."

As the Motion at present stands the notice of a Bill or Motion has to be handed in at latest on 8th February, but on that date we shall not know whether the Government is going to take the time of the House or what days will be available. If, on the other hand, the 27th is substituted, it would be much better. It does not prevent us giving notice earlier if earlier days are available, but at present we have not the opportunity of knowing what days are to be taken by the Government.

I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment, which I hope the Government will accept. It is absolutely impossible for the Prime Minister to expect the whole House to continue in the attitude of patient expectancy, which he seems to anticipate. The date proposed in the Amendment could be perfectly well substituted, and if it is we will then be in a position to know what the Government propose to do.

I submit that this Amendment is inconsistent with the decision at which the House has just arrived, because we retained the dates, Tuesday, 14th February, Tuesday, 21st February, and Wednesday, 15th Febru- ary, and Wednesday, 22nd February, yet the hon. Member proposes this Amendment.

That is quite true, but it seems to contemplate that these days shall not be available; the House has decided they shall be available, and therefore it would be almost absurd to carry this Amendment.

It is not absurd; it is quite in form. Any hon. Member may, if he choose, put down a Motion earlier. As the Motion stands it prohibits anybody putting down a Motion after to-morrow. Conceive the position! Hon. Members will have to go through a course of telepathic psychology to know what days the Government will take, and whether the House will sit during Easter week or whether it will sit up to Whitsun and then adjourn. And having done all that an hon. Member would have to reckon which of the days would be best on which to put down his notice. The much simpler and more businesslike way would be to wait until the Motion taking the time of the House has been debated and decided upon, and until it is decided what time is to be left to private Members, and how it is proposed to divide that time. Is there not an old proverb about catching the bear before you divide his skin? It would be much more reasonable to wait until the House pronounces how much time is to be available before attempting to divide it up. Here we are going to cut up the bear's skin before we know how large the bear is. It is much better to leave the date open, so as to enable us to put down Bills as soon as may be convenient. I do not think, in all the circumstances, so early a date is convenient. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is customary."] A great many things are customary which are not convenient—for example the custom of Ministers giving evasive answers to questions. That is an old custom, but not an admirable one. I hope, therefore, the Government will accept the Amendment, which is both businesslike and sensible.

I hope the House will not alter the Resolution in any way. A lot of criticism has arisen in consequence of the statement made yesterday with regard to the intentions of the Government before Easter. The Prime Minister has further taken the House into its confidence and informed private Members that any of them who are successful in the ballot will do well not to put their Bills down for any Friday before Easter. In return for that act of courtesy Ministers are pestered by amendments of this sort. I cannot conceive any greater outcry than would have been evoked had the Prime Minister allowed the House to proceed with this ordinary Resolution, and after the ballot took place, then next week announced that the Government intended to take the whole time of the House before Easter. I can conceive no greater and more reasonable outcry for Members who had taken the trouble to ballot for resolutions and the Bills if that course was taken. I consider that the Prime Minister in difficult circumstances has shown the greatest of courtesy to us private Members, and I hope we shall all support the Resolution before the House.

I am always ready to give the Prime Minister credit for being courteous, but I do not think it is a striking instance of it that at the beginning of the Session he should give notice to private Members to take away all their rights. I asked the Prime Minister just now if it was proposed to sit through Easter week, and he replied "No," and he afterwards said they might. If this proposal is carried hon. Members will find themselves in a very difficult position tomorrow. Take the first two who are suc- cessful; one of them may wish to move a Motion on 19th April and the other on 21st April. What position will they be in? It will be a matter of absolute speculation whether their Motions will be taken on either of those days. I think it is only fair to private Members that the Prime Minister should now say definitely whether the House will sit on those two days or not. With regard to Fridays after Whitsuntide, the third Friday will be the second day allotted to private Members, and that comes on the very day after the Coronation. Does that mean that the House of Commons is going to meet the very day after the Coronation.

There seems to me to be some doubt as to what the position of an hon. Member would be if he chose a certain Friday after Easter and then found, in the exigencies of public business, the Government deemed it advisable to take that day—I am speaking of Fridays. If the Government deemed it necessary to take that Friday, of course I should be the first to support them. I think, however, that the businesslike course to pursue in this matter would be to give those who win the ballot an order of precedence so that they may be quite sure that opportunities will be given for bringing their Bills forward.

May I point out that unless this Amendment is accepted it leaves the choice in the hands of the Government as to whether they will take away a date which may be chosen by an hon. Member on this side of the House and reserve only the dates chosen by hon. Friends who support the Prime Minister. In support of the possibility of such a contingency arising I would quote the glaring instance of favouritism shown last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim was successful in the ballot at an early date, and intended to bring forward a Bill dealing with the reform of the Poor Law in Ireland. As soon as my hon. Friend put down his Bill the Government took that particular Friday, although they preserved the other days which had been chosen by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS, "No, no."] What I have stated is the fact. I think it will only be treating the House fairly to allow the Amendment to be carried so that the dates properly promised by the Prime Minister to enable Bills to be brought forward, or Notices of Motion, will not be interfered with, no matter what the exigencies of public business may be. We are now being robbed of all the privileges of private Members before Easter, which is a large order. With the glaring instance of partiality on the part of the Prime Minister last year before us, I shall certainly vote for this Amendment, which will uphold the rights and privileges usually accorded to private Members before Easter.

In reference to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, it is quite obvious that if this Amendment were carried it would not in the least meet the difficulty complained of. As a matter of fact, the Government would still be able to appropriate the days fixed by the Ballot if the exigencies of public business seemed to require it. The carrying of this Amendment would not meet the difficulty. I have been asked whether I will give something in the nature of a pledge as to what the order of business will be after Easter. I think I should be most unwise if I did anything of the kind. Hon. Members must take the ordinary risks. If I were a private Member, I certainly should not choose the 19th April as the date for bringing in my Bill, because there is a strong probability that as that date will be in Easter week the House might adjourn for the Easter recess. Again, if I were a private Member I do not think I should ballot for the 23rd June, the day after the Coronation. All these difficulties occur every year, and hon. Members must exercise ordinary penetration and prevision in selecting their dates. I think I have given the House full information as to the intentions of the Government.

The Prime Minister talks of hon. Members taking ordinary risks. May I point out that the risks we run this year are not the ordinary risks, but are quite new, and, as a matter of fact, unexampled risks. It would be improper for me to discuss at length the amazing suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman threw out yesterday—a course which, so far as I know, has never been taken in the Parliamentary life of any hon. Member I am now addressing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]

The right hon. Gentleman may be right in quoting his own pre- cedent, but there is no other. Neither his Government nor the Government of Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman nor any other Government which I remember has taken the Fridays before Easter unless on occasions for financial business which had to be passed in order to keep the law. But that is not the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is going to take them. He is going to take those days for the ordinary legislative programme of the year, and to talk of that as being ordinary risks to which private Members have to submit is really presuming upon the ignorance of the new Members of the House and the tolerance and forgetfulness of the old Members. The patience with which this suggestion has been received in quarters which used to be very impatient at far smaller invasions of the rights of private Members certainly fills me with interested astonishment. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of the party which he leads—which I thought contained three parties—I really think he is right, and I am inclined to think he does lead them. He appears to be the leader not only of the orthodox Radical, but of the unorthodox Labour party and the Irish Nationalist party. The indifference now shown to a perfectly unexampled invasion of their rights as private Members fills me with regret when I think how much I suffered in the past from the very different treatment meted out to me when I occupied the post which the right hon. Gentleman now fills. These are not the ordinary risks of private Members, and let it be distinctly understood that the Government are making an unexampled invasion for an unexampled reason, for a reason which could never have been treated as an example on any previous occasion—upon rights which private Members certainly thought were secured to them when the reforms were passed some years ago in this House, and which it is reserved to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends to take away from them. I know perfectly well that Governments must have an object in passing the great Bill of the Session, and, if this was done in order to make it possible to get through this House the Government's great Bill of the Session, I should not say a word. I might protest, but I should not take the line I am now taking. But no such allegation can be made. No such reason exists, and no such reason can be pretended. Therefore, I must say, if I do not anticipate what we may have to say at even greater length on a subsequent occasion, that, when the right hon. Gentleman says in his benevolent manner to the outraged unofficial Member that he must take the ordinary risks, he is merely adding a polite insult to a very substantial injury.

I do not know whether, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be considered in order to discuss in detail the proposal for taking the time of the House which has yet to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. Certainly, the speech to which we have just listened was confined entirely to the merits of that Motion which has not yet been moved and which is not yet before the House. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the taking of the time of private Members because, he says, it is not to be taken for the purpose of passing the necessary financial business of the year, but for the passing of the ordinary legislative business. If the right hon. Gentleman were correct in saying that the time of private Members was to be taken for what he could properly call the ordinary legislative work of the Session, I for one would protest against this private Members' time being taken. But what hypocrisy it is! What sham and hypocrisy it is for the right hon. Gentleman, after his experience in the country at the last two elections, and after all that has happened, to come down here and talk of the Parliament Bill as being the ordinary legislative work of the year! No, sir, it is not the ordinary legislative work of this Session, it is a great measure affecting the whole future of the Constitution and of this House. It is a great measure that has received twice the sanction of large majorities of the people. If the Government, after that experience, came down to this House and did not use every expedient, putting aside all other business, to push that Bill immediately into law, they most undoubtedly would appear in a very discreditable light before their own followers in this country and elsewhere. It is for the purpose of enabling the will of the people as expressed at the last two elections to be carried out, and to prevent the possibility of its being frustrated and thwarted either by obstruction or dilatory tactics of any kind that my colleagues and I are heartily in favour of the Government taking every possible opportunity of pushing this Bill immediately into law.

The hon. Member has lifted the debate into a different atmosphere, because, according to him, the question whether we are going to have the right to ballot up to 23rd February affects the question whether you are going to carry out the will of the people.

The hon. and learned Gentleman must excuse me. I did not say one word with reference to the particular Amendment. Why? Because the Leader of the Opposition did not say one word. If I might be allowed with respect to say so, in my more humble judgment, the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was out of order on this occasion, and I was only justified in making my speech, because he was allowed to make his.

The hon. Member has confessed that none of his remarks were addressed to the Amendment. No, Sir, I think everybody will admit that that is probably true, and he was probably giving his usual dictation to the Government benches. It seems to me that the whole of the adoption of this Motion is simply a nullity upon the part of the Government, and it is to try and minimise that, and in order that we may get the most extended time we can for raising this ballot, that we are moving this Amendment. The only way, I think, in which this Motion can be justified at all is that the Government think, because the whole programme of the Session is to take away certain rights of the House of Lords, they ought also at an early stage proceed to take away certain rights of the House of Commons, and become themselves, with the assistance of hon. Members below the gangway, the arbitrary tribunal. The whole object of this Amendment is to minimise what the Prime Minister intends to do, outraging the rights of private Members. No answer has been given as to why, if we are to have opportunities after Easter, which I very much doubt, we should not have an extended time from 8th February to 23rd February in which to hand in Bills or Notices of Motion for the purpose of having them balloted for. The truth of the matter is that at this early part of the Session it is quite plain the Government have made up their minds to respect no rights whatsoever of private Members; and I can assure them the moment we appreciate that, we shall make up our minds and shall in no wise respect the feelings of the Government.

Division No. 3.]


[3.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)Ferens, T. R.M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)Ffrench, PeterMarshall, Arthur Harold
Adamson, WilliamField, WilliamMason, David M. (Coventry)
Addison, Dr. ChristopherFiennes, Hon. Eustace EdwardMasterman, C. F. G.
Adkins, W. Ryland D.Fitzgibbon, JohnMathlas, Richard
Armitage, RobertFlavin, Michael JosephMeehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert HenryFrance, Gerald AshburnerMeehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)Gelder, Sir William AlfredMenzies, Sir Walter
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)Gibson, Sir James PuckeringMolloy, Michael
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)Gill, Alfred HenryMolteno, Percy Alport
Beale, William PhipsonGinnell, LaurenceMond, Sir Alfred M.
Beauchamp, EdwardGlanville, Harold JamesMoney, Leone G. Chiozza
Beck, Arthur CecilGoldstone, FrankMontagu, Hon. E. S.
Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)Morrell, Philip
Birrell, Rt. Hon. AugustineGriffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)Munro, Robert
Booth, Frederick HandelGuest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.
Bowerman, Charles W.Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)Needham, Christopher T.
Brace, WilliamGulland, John WilliamNeilson, Francis
Brady, Patrick JosephHackett, JohnNicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Brigg, Sir JohnHall, Frederick (Normanton)Norman, Sir Henry
Brunner, John F. L.Hancock, John GeorgeO'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bryce, John AnnanHarcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Burke, E. Havlland-Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)O'Doherty, Philip
Burns, Rt. Hon. JohnHardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)O'Donnell, Thomas
Burt, Rt. Hon. ThomasHarvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)O'Dowd, John
Buxton, Noel, (Norfolk, North)Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)O'Grady, James
Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Byles, William PollardHaslam, Lewis (Monmouth)O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.Havelock-Allan, Sir HenryO'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)Haworth, Arthur A.O'Shee, James John
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)Hayden, John PatrickO'Sullivan, Timothy
Chancellor, Henry GeorgeHelme, Norval WatsonPalmer, Godfrey Mark
Chapple, Dr. William AllenHenderson, Arthur (Durham)Parker, James (Halifax)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.Henry, Sir Charles S.Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Clancy, John JosephHinds, JohnPease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Clough, WilliamHobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Clynes, J. R.Holt, Richard DurningPickersgill, Edward Hare
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)Pointer, Joseph
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)Hudson, WalterPollard, Sir George H.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.Hughes, Spencer LeighPonsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Condon, Thomas JosephHunter, William (Lanark, Govan)Power, Patrick Joseph
Corbett, A. CameronJohn Edward ThomasPrice, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.Johnson, WilliamPrice, Sir Robert J.
Cotton, William FrancisJones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)Priestley, Sir A. (Grantham)
Cowan, William HenryJones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)Prlestlev, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Crawshay-Willlams, EliotJones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)Pringle, William M. R.
Crumley, PatrickJones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)Radford, George Heynes
Cullinan, JohnJones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)Raffan, Peter Wilson
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)Jowett, Frederick WilliamRea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)Joyce, MichaelReddy, Michael
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)Keating, MatthewRedmond, John E. (Watsrtord)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)Kellaway, Frederick GeorgeRedmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Delany, WilliamKelly, EdwardRedmond, William (Clare, E.)
Devlin, JosephKennedy, Vincent PaulRendall, Athelstan
Dewar, Sir J. A.King, Joseph (Somerset, North)Richards, Thomas
Dickinson, W. H.Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Dillon, JohnLansbury, GeorgeRoberts, George H. (Norwich)
Donelan, Captain A.Lardner, James Carrige RusheRoberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Doris, WilliamLawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Duffy, William J.Leach, CharlesRobertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)Levy, Sir MauriceRobinson, Sydney
Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)Lewis, John HerbertRoch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)Lundon, ThomasRoche, John (Galway, E.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)Lyell, Charles HenryRoe, Sir Thomas
Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)Rose, Sir Charles Day
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid.)Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)Rowlands, James
Elverston, HaroldMacGhee, RichardRowntree, Arnold
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)Maclean, DonaldSt. Maur, Harold
Essex, Richard WalterMacNeill, John Gordon SwiftSamuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Esslemont, George BirnieMacVeagh, JeremiahScanian, Thomas
Falconer, JamesM'Callum, John M.Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Farrell, James PatrickM'Laren, H. D. (Leices.)Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Fenwick, CharlesM'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)Sheehy, David

Question put, "That the words 'Wednesday, 8th February,' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 151.

Shortt, EdwardThorne, William (West Ham)Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)Trevelyan, Charles PhilipsWhyte, A. F. (Perth)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)Verney, Sir HarryWilliams, John (Glamorgan)
Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)Wadsworth, JohnWilliams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Soares, Ernest JosephWalsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)
Spicer, Sir AlbertWalton, Sir JosephWilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Strachey, Sir EdwardWard, W. Dudley (Southampton)Wilton, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Summers, James WoolleyWardle, G. J.Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Sutherland, John E.Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)Winfrey, Richard
Sutton, John E.Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Tennant, Harold JohnWhite, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)Whitehouse, John Howard


Aitken, William MaxGoldney, Francis Bennett-Norton-Griffiths, J.
Anson, Sir William ReynellGoldsmith, FrankO'Brien, William (Cork)
Anstruther-Gray, Major WilliamGordon, JohnO'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Astor, WaldorfGoulding, Edward AlfredOrde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.Gretton, JohnOrmsby-Gore, Hon. William
Baird, John LawrenceGuiney, PatrickPaget, Almeric Hugh
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)Hambro, Angus ValdemarParkes, Ebenezer
Balcarres, LordHamersley, Alfred St. GeorgePease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)Harris, Henry PercyPeel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)
Banbury, Sir Frederick GeorgeHarrison-Broadley, H. B.Peto, Basil Edward
Baring, Captain Hon. Guy VictorHealy, MauricePole-Carew, Sir R.
Barnston, HarryHelmsley, ViscountPretyman, Ernest George
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)Quilter, William Eley C.
Beckett, Hon. William GervaeHill, Sir Clement L.Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Beresford, Lord CharlesHillier, Dr. A. P.Remnant, James Farquharson
Bigland, AlfredHoare, Samuel John GurneyRice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan
Bottomley, HoratleHope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)Horne, Wm. E (Surrey, Guildford)Rolleston, Sir John
Brassey, H. Leonard CampbellHorner, Andrew LongSamuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Burgoyne, Alan HughesHunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Burn, Colonel C. R.Ingleby, HolcombeScott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Butcher, John GeorgeJardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.Kerr-Smiley, Peter KerrSpear, John Ward
Campion, W. R.Kimber, Sir HenryStanier, Beville
Carlile, Edward HildredKinloch-Cooke, Sir ClementStanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.Kirkwood, John H. M.Starkey, John Ralph
Cassel, FelixKnight, Captain Eric AyshfordStaveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Castlereagh, ViscountKyffin-Taylor, G.Stewart, Gershom
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)Sykes, Alan John
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.Lewisham, ViscountTalbot, Lord Edmund
Chambers, JamesLloyd, George AmbroseThompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. HenryLocker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)Touche, George Alexander
Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)Walsh, J. (Cork, South)
Cooper, Richard AshmoleLockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)Long, Rt. Hon. WalterWheler, Granville C. H.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)Lonsdale, John BrownleeWhite, Major G. D. (Lancs. Southport)
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Craik, Sir HenryLyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Crean, EugeneMackinder, Halford J.Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord NinianMacmaster, DonaldWolmer, Viscount
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)M'Calmont, Colonel JamesWood, John (Stalybridge)
Dixon, Charles HarveyM'Mordie, RobertWood, Samuel H. (Derbysh., High Peak)
Doughty, Sir GeorgeMagnus, Sir PhilipWorthington-Evans, L.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-Malcolm, IanWortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.Mallaby-Deeley, HarryWyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fleming, ValentineMason, James F. (Windsor)Yate, Col. C. E.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)Moore, WilliamYounger, George
Forster, Henry WilliamMorpeth, Viscount
Gardner, ErnestMorrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Gastrell, Major W. HoughtonMorrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

Gibbs, George AbrahamNeville, Reginald J. N.
Gilhooly, JamesNewman, John R. P.

The Prime Minister has cleared away some of the mystery overshadowing this Motion with regard to Wednesday, the 19th of April, but is he able to give a quotation to cover the risks of the House not sitting on the following Friday, 21st April?

Original Question put, and agreed to.

In pursuance of the Resolution which has been adopted by the House, I appoint Committee Boom No. 10, at Twelve o'clock noon to-morrow, as being a convenient time and place for the ballot for Bills and Motions to be taken.

Business Of The House

Resolved, That the proceedings on the Address, in answer to His Majesty's Speech, shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day, and of Notices of Motions, at all Sittings for which they are set down.—[ The Prime Minister.]

His Majesty's Gracious Speech

Debate On The Address—Second Day

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament." —[ Mr. Harold Baker.]

Debate resumed.

Mixed Marriages In Ireland

The unusual brevity and corresponding obscurity of the Gracious Speech with regard to the programme of legislation for the ensuing Session have given rise to a good deal of doubt and a good deal of speculation as to the exact nature and extent of that programme. Not very much additional light is thrown upon it by the reticence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday, but if we are to look for guidance in this matter I think we naturally would look to the declarations and speeches of the responsible leaders of those various sections of the House upon whose continued allegiance this present Government must depend even if it is to survive the first week of the Session. Anyone reading between the lines of the Speech delivered last night by the hon. Member who now leads the Labour party in this House (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) must have recognised that lie was speaking with more than prophetic instinct when he asserted his confidence that the Government would deal in this Session not merely with the question of the Payment of Members, but with the question of the Osborne Judgment. Curiously enough, there is nothing in the Speech to lead to any such conclusions, but I am quite certain that the hon. Member had very good reasons for the confidence that he ex- pressed. In the same way, no one who has studied the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), who leads the Irish Parliamentary party in this House, and no one who has considered the action of himself and his colleagues up to the present can have any doubt that the attitude is to be continued which they pursued in the previous Session, as the result of the understanding or bargain, by which, in consideration of the assistance of himself and his friends in the Division Lobby, this House was exposed to what I consider the ignominious position of conducting its whole debates and its entire legislation on lines dictated and controlled by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is perfectly plain that state of affairs is to continue.

I am quite sure that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been very glad to have escaped from this position, and it is in this connection that I wish to call the attention of the House very briefly to the attitude adopted and the position taken up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite immediately before and during the early days of the recent General Election on the question of Home Rule. I would rather imagine—I think it is a rather reasonable suggestion—that in their anxiety to escape from the position in which they had been placed during the previous twelve months the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have gladly welcomed either a decisive victory or a decisive defeat, because either of those would have saved them from coining back and putting themselves once more in the position to which I have already referred; because I can hardly conceive anything more galling to men with a high sense of political honour than that they should be once again placed in the same alliance—a position in which they would be coerced to admit that the great interests of the country and the great business of this House were to be carried on and controlled, not according to the interests and wishes of the Empire, but according to the views and requirements of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Waterford. That probably is the explanation of a very extraordinary coincidence in the election addresses of several of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the election address of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Postmaster General, and some others, there was absolutely no reference of any sort or kind to the question of Home Rule, and the election had progressed for some days in this country—up to a stage which made it pretty evident there was going to be no real change either way in the state of parties—before these responsible leaders of public opinion ventured to let the electors know, even in their own Constituencies, what was the sort of view they had as regards Home Rule and what were the intentions of His Majesty's Ministers in respect to it. Finally, on the 7th of December the Prime Minister, speaking at St. Andrews, said:—
"I have spoken of Ireland, because the else of Ireland is one that is prior in point of time and urgency, but do not we here in Scotland feel, are we not made to feel perpetually, the incapacity of the Imperial Parliament, not from want of will, but from want of time and from the competition of other business and other concerns, to give us in Scotland what the Scottish people need. It is the same thing in Wales. It is the same tiling for my own poor and despised country of England."
In a subsequent speech the right hon. Gentleman said—and it will be seen that he is giving the keynote to his followers—the idea being to suggest that after all, just like this Constitutional revolution that he proposed to carry out, this question of Home Rule was going to be a very simple and trivial matter. Here is what he said on 12th December:—
"That was a very simple policy, and that was to maintain undivided and undisturbed the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and, subject to that condition, to give to their Irish fellow-subjects the power by legislature and by an executive of their own to deal according to their own ideas with matters which were of purely Irish concern."
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary thought it was even a simple matter. Here is the way he put it on 10th December:—
"It would free the British House of Commons from a mass of petty details, which would be far better settled locally, and the representatives of the nation would be left free to deal with the great questions of real magnitude and importance."
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also defined his views as regards Irish Home Rule with the following remarkable proposal, which is from a speech delivered on 5th December:—
"Irish Home Rule when it came would be part of a great reconstructing of the House of Commons in this sense, that there would be a redistribution of seats according to the numbers and population. Ireland, when it had Home Rule and when the House of Commons was left free for Imperial matters, would have fewer members in the House of Commons than it had to-day. Under a scheme of Devolution, England, Scotland and Wales, as well as Ireland, would each of them have more scope for dealing with their own local affairs."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer made even lighter of it, I observe, when he in his speech at Bangor on 9th December said this:—
"After disposing of the Veto of the House of Lords the first thing will be to reconstruct our present. Imperial machinery in such a way as to free the House of Commons from trivial local and provincial details, which can be attended to so much better in the district concerned, in order to leave Parliament untaxed for the purpose of attending to the immense Imperial questions that are awaiting consideration."
That is the way in which responsible Ministers proposed to deal with the question, and as we suggest at the dictation and under the control of hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway, they are rushing this great constitutional revolution with the intention and desire that in the interval, while the Second Chamber and its power are in abeyance they will, with the assistance of their Friends below the Gangway, force upon the unwilling electors of this country those Home Rule proposals which on two occasions the intelligence and good sense of the electors have signally defeated and rejected. The only other commentary upon that to which I would like to refer is the very remarkable statement that was made at Bristol by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He made it on the 1st of December, and it seems to have been one of those rare intervals of political fortitude which he reserves for English platforms. He seams to have regretted it ever since, because he has given a variety of explanations of it culminating, in a suggestion that he meant the very opposite of what he said. Here is the prophetic statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

I am reading from the report of "The Times" of the 2nd of December:—

"Home Rule was one of the questions which ought to be left, and should be left, to the judgment of the whole people. If they thought that they could smuggle a Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons three years following, all he could say was that their ignorance was beyond all conception."
The right hon. Gentleman has been at pains ever since to emphasise the use of the word "smuggling," and he suggests that all he was referring to there was any suggestion about smuggling.

It is all I have got. It is more than enough for my purpose, and ought to be more than enough for his, because some of his friends in Ireland telegraphed to him to know whether he was correctly reported, and stating that very curious and very startling results were supposed to flow from this utterance of the Chief Secretary. A friend had written to him:—

"The following conclusions are drawn from your statement:—1. That it would be improper for the Government to introduce a Home Rule Bill within three years from now. 2. That you are of opinion that Home Rule is not being adequately submitted to the judgment of the whole people at the present election. 3. That any Liberal scheme of Home Rule would exclude finance from the purview of the Irish Parliament."
Here is the right hon. Gentleman's reply, as telegraphed and as published in the "Freeman's Journal":—
"I repudiate the three statements as untrue and misleading Mistake is possibly due to the use of the word 'smuggling.' No big" Bill can be smuggled through the Commons "
As far as I know, that is the only attempt to repudiate the meaning of the passage that I have read, and up to the present I have never heard on the part of the right hon. Gentleman any repudiation of the correctness of the extract I have given from his speech. I pass from that, because it is only interesting as leading up to the present position of this question in Ireland. Matters have been developing there in a very remarkable and a very startling way. For some months there has been an attempt in the English Press and on the English platform to provide for Irish loyalists promises and pledges of toleration under a Home Rule Parliament; but while these attempts have been made, and made by gentlemen who neither have the power to redeem these pledges nor any authority to fulfil these promises, there is going on in Ireland contemporaneously the assertion of the law of the League, and it is keeping its hand alive and in use by occasional outrage's, by occasional cattle-driving, and by occasional boycotting. But, perhaps, the most awkward reminder of all in reference to these pledges of political toleration, is to be found in the extraordinary scenes of intimidation and violence which prevailed in many parts of Ireland during the last General Election. There were many constituencies in which freedom of opinion and the exercise of the franchise was accompanied by personal risk. Organised mobs intimidated voters, who had to be escorted to the poll under the protection of the police, and scenes of the most discreditable character occurred in many parts of the West and South of Ireland. In the city of Cork alone, as the result of the election fight there, no fewer than 1,400 individuals were treated in the public hospitals for external wounds and injuries.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that as far as I know, being personally present all the time, there is no foundation for that statement. If it was made I am certain it was made in error, and, at any rate, I say, without fear of contradiction, that there was no more disturbance, no more violence, no more damage done in that contest than in any contest in this country, and that as a result it cannot be shown that any single person was seriously hurt.

I am sorry my senior colleague is not present to corroborate the statement of the hon. Gentleman. A more peaceful election than that which took place in Cork did not take place throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

I am very glad to hear the statements made by the hon. Gentlemen who have intervened. All I can say is this: The statement I have made in reference to the 1,400 individuals who were treated in these institutions appeared in the public Press, and not only that, but actually applications came in for extra grants to these institutions owing to the extra trouble and labour imposed upon their staffs. I have a very distinct recollection of a telegram published by the senior Member for Cork as regards the intimidation and violence which he alleged prevailed in the contest which he went through in the county of Mayo. Be that as it may, all I can say is that those who at the time were living in Ireland, and know what was going on, are not likely to receive any very great reassurance on the subject of political toleration under any system of Home Rule.

But this whole question has been rather rudely shaken and interfered with by the recent issue of the Ne Temere decree. It is to this matter particularly that I wish to direct the attention of the House. In April, 1908, the Vatican promulgated a decree, now notorious as the decree Ne Temere from the opening words of the document, by which the Vatican claimed over the Roman Catholic Church the right to declare illegal, with all ecclesiastical consequences, any and every marriage in which one of the contracting parties either was, or ever had been, a Roman Catholic, unless celebrated according to certain con- ditions to be attached by the Roman Catholic Church and by this decree. At the time of its introduction it was dealt with at a meeting of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, whose bishops and laity denounced it as an attempt to invade the civil liberties and rights of the people of Ireland. It passed for some time without much criticism under the belief, I should imagine, prevailing in this country, as well as in Scotland—because this decree applies both in England and Scotland as it does in Ireland—that it was going to be a mere ornamental decree, and that no one would have the courage or the audacity to attempt to enforce it as against the civil and religious status of any individual in the Empire. Speaking for myself, I can only say that even if this decree in its operation had been confined to the members of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, I should have bitterly resented it, because I do not think it is in the power or duty or right of any Church to super-add its own conditions to what the law considers to be sufficient in the case of civil marriage. Therefore, as a layman, I should have resented it. But it became intolerable when it was sought to apply it in the case of mixed marriages, and to assert ecclesiastical jurisdiction and control over a married couple in any and every case in which either of the parties to the marriage contract was, or ever had been, a baptised Roman Catholic.

It was not very long before a concrete case of the application of this decree arose in Ireland. The circumstances connected with it have aroused such alarm and such a sense of indignation and anger throughout the length and breadth of Ireland that I must ask the indulgence of the House if I explain minutely and in some detail the facts and features of this remarkable case. I can do that best by reading the account given by the person who in this particular case was made the victim of this decree, and this account is contained in a memorial or petition which was addressed by the woman in question—Mrs. McCann—to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This statement of hers has been public property for many weeks. It has never been challenged in any particular as to its accuracy, and an important and influential committee, non-political in its character, of gentleman in Belfast have taken the trouble to verify it in every detail, and they have assured me that I can stand over every statement that was made in it. I will read it for the benefit of the House without comment. She says:—
"May it please your Excellency, I pray your Excellency's assistance under the following circumstances: I am the daughter of a small fanner in County Antrim and a Presbyterian. I was married in May, 1908, in a Presbyterian church by my own clergyman to my husband who was and is a Roman Catholic. Before our marriage, he arranged with me that I should continue to attend my own place of worship and he his. After our marriage, we lived together for some months at my mother's house in County Antrim, but work called my husband to the West of Ireland, where I joined bun and we lived some months there. Afterwards we came to Belfast where my first child (a boy) was born, in June, 1909. During all this time there never was any difference between us about religious matters, and our boy was baptised by my own clergyman. My husband on Sundays would take care of the baby when I was out at church. A short time before our second baby (a girl) was born, in August last, my husband spoke to me about changing my faith, in consequence, he told me of the way the Roman Catholic priest was rating him, and I was visited on several occasions by this priest who told me I was not married at all, that I was living in open sin and that my children were illegitimate, and he pressed me to come to chapel and be married properly. I told him that I was legally married to my husband, and that I would not do what he wished, and on one occasion my husband and I besought him to leave us alone-that we had lived peaceably and agreeably before his interference and would still continue to do so if he let us alone. He threatened me, if I would not comply with his request, that there would be no peace in the house; that my husband could not live with me and that if he did his co-religionists would cease to speak to him or recognise him. When he found he could not persuade me he left in an angry and threatening mood.
"From this time on, my husband's attitude to me changed, and he made no secret to me of the way he was being influenced. Our second baby was taken out of the house by my husband without my leave, and taken to chapel and there baptised. My husband also-began to ill-treat me, and told me I was not his wife, that I was nothing to him but a common woman. I bore it all, hoping his old love for me would show him his error. But the power of the priests was supreme, and on returning to my home some weeks ago, after being out for a time, I found that both my dear babies had been removed, and my husband refused to tell me where they were beyond that they were in safe keeping. I did everything a mother could think of to get at least to see my babies, but my husband told me he dare not give me any information, and that unless I changed my Faith I could not get them.
"A day or two after this, on pretence of taking me to sec my babies, he got me out of the house for about two hours, and on my return I found everything had been taken out of the house, including my own wearing apparel and underclothing, and I was left homeless, and without any means or clothing beyond what I was wearing. My husband left me, and I could not find out where he went. I subsequently saw him at the place he was working. He was very cross with me, refused to tell me where the children were, or to do anything, and told me to go to the priest, in whose hands he stated the whole matter was, and also said unless I was remarried in chapel I would never see the children. I subsequently saw the priest who said he could give me no information, and treated me with scant courtesy.
"I have tried to find my husband, but have failed, and cannot now get any information of his whereabouts or that of my babies, and I do not know even if they are alive. My heart is breaking. I am told the police can do nothing in the matter, although if it was only a shilling was stolen they would be on the search for the thief; but my babies are worth more to me than one shilling. In my despair I am driven to apply to you as the head of all authority in this country for help. I am without money, and but for the charity of kind friends I would be starving. I want to get my children, and to know if they are alive: and I have been told, kind sir, that if you directed your law officers to make inquiries they could soon get me my rights.
"Will you please do so, and help a poor heartbroken woman, who will continue to pray for the Almighty's blessing upon you and yours? "
Now, I ask hon. Members to notice two matters in that petition. In the first place, I think it is a great tribute to the courage and spirit of this poor woman that, sooner than admit that she had been living in a state of concubinage, sooner than turn her first-born into a bastard, she declined the intervention of this reverend gentleman, and refused to submit to their degrading conditions. In the next place, what I wish to emphasise is the double complaint that letter contains. In her absence her humble home had been raided, and every little possession of hers in the world, all her personal belongings, had been stolen from the house. That was the first matter mentioned in the petition to the Lord Lieutenant. The second was this, that her husband had disappeared, that she could find no trace of him, and that her children had been buried away in some institution or place unknown to her and by hands she could not trace, and in these piteous terms she appealed to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, as the fountain of law and justice in Ireland, for advice or assistance. Now let us see the extraordinary way in which this matter was dealt with by the Executive. That letter was sent on 2nd December and reached his Excellency on the 3rd. On the 3rd, the following telegram was sent to the Lord Lieutenant:—
"The Belfast Presbytery have unanimously resolved to support the case of a woman who has been deserted by her husband and deprived of her children. The legal adviser proposes to institute proceedings. Would like the police to help in finding whereabouts of husband, so that he may be served"
Following up that telegram, a letter was written in these terms on 3rd December:—
"May it please your Excellency,—In confirmation of my telegram of to-day, I write to say that the Belfast Presbytery, at the special meeting held yesterday, expressed its sympathy with the woman, a member of Townsend Street Presbyterian Congregation, who has been deserted by her husband and deprived of her children, and we have unanimously resolved to support her in her efforts to have justice done in the case. A committee was appointed, with myself as convener, to take whatever steps they may consider necessary under the guidance of our solicitor, Mr. MacDowall. Mr. MacDowall has been consulted, and he advises that legal proceedings should be instituted against the husband, but the difficulty is to find him. It would be a great help if the police gave all the assistance they could in the effort to find out the husband, so that he might be served with the necessary legal documents."
On the day that letter was written the Lord Lieutenant wrote to this poor woman the following letter:—
"I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your letter referring to your regrettable domestic difficulties, and I am desired to ask you to be good enough to mention for his Excellency's information the name of the church in which the marriage took place, and the name of the clergyman who officiated."
She had already stated that in the Memorial. The letter continues:—
"His Excellency would also be glad to have some further particulars with regard to your maiden name, and your father's residence, your husband's late residence, and the name of the parish and of the priest referred to."
The lady, in reply, sent a letter, of which no copy was kept, and therefore I cannot give the exact contents, but I am assured that the contents were substantially these: The answer gave the particulars asked for, so far as she knew them. She gave the name of the clergyman who married her, and the name of the church in which the marriage took place. She gave her father's name, and her father's residence. She said she did not know the name of the priest who told her she was living in sin and not married, but that he was on the staff of the clergy of the church to which her husband belonged, and that she could identify him if she saw him. Now, what was the answer sent after all this process of red-tape on the part of the Executive? Let the house not forget this. On the face of her petition she set out an act of common theft on the part of those who were responsible for raiding her house and plundering her little goods and chattels. If it was the woman's husband who did this, he was as great a thief in regard to those articles as any thief in the land, because, under legislation passed by this House, a married woman has as good a title and claim to any article of that kind as any of us have to any article in our possession. In the case of a husband who interferes with any articles of that kind coming under this description, he is as liable to be prosecuted for theft as the commonest thief in the land. Therefore, in the first place, his Excellency had called to his notice the fact that a theft of this kind had been committed under circumstances of grave outrage. The woman was enticed from her home, and while away some persons, presumably acting on the instigation of the husband, came and carried off all she possessed. Her two children were also taken, one of them an infant only a few months old, who was almost literally torn from the breast of the mother. Her husband's whereabouts were unknown, for steps had been taken to secrete him. Her application was that the Executive would authorise the police to assist her in dis- covering where her husband was, because until she knew she could not take any steps to recover either her property or her children. You cannot take proceedings for any habeas corpus to recover the custody of children unless you are in a position to give the name of the place where the person from whom you intend to recover is located. You have to serve documents, and you must have the residence of the person you propose to make the defendant. Therefore, you must have some place in which the documents will find him. This poor woman was absolutely without remedy or redress of any kind, unless and until she ascertained the whereabouts of her husband, or the exact locality in which the children were. One would have thought that the heart-breaking letter she sent would have at least elicited a letter of sympathy, if not of support, from the quarter to which it was addressed. Here was the final and only reply, dated 5th December:—
"Sir,—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of Saturday, and also your letter of that date received to-day. His Excellency also received on Saturday morning a letter from Mrs. McCann alleging that her children had been removed from her by her husband, who has also deserted her. In the absence of any evidence that a criminal offence has been committed his Excellency is advised that there is nothing to warrant his intervention or the interference of the police. So far as can be judged from the very general statements submitted to his Excellency the matter appears to be one altogether for a civil action, and his Excellency notes that the Belfast Presbytery propose to institute legal proceedings, presumably on behalf of Mrs. McCann."
That letter ignores the whole point of the request made by the woman and made on her behalf, namely, the assistance of the police as a condition precedent to the institution of these proceedings. It ignores that altogether, and in doing that it betrays the elementary duty of the Executive, because under our Constitution, as always understood and as always enforced in practice, if any member of the community loses the smallest article of property, not to say his or her children, but even the smallest article of property; if a dog strays, if an umbrella is lost, and the loser gives information to the police, they will not say "it is a trivial matter," they will not say "it is not a criminal offence," but they will endeavour to trace the lost, stolen or strayed property. But in this case, where there was an outrage of this kind, which was not merely an outrage on common humanity, but in direct violation of civil and religious rights, in this particular case the Lord Lieutenant, forsooth, says he is glad to hear that civil proceedings are going to be instituted and that it is entirely a civil matter. I say that that was a direct violation and an abandonment of the duty of the Executive. There was no ambiguity about the facts. The facts in that document which I have read are as clear as any poor woman, under the circumstances, could make them. She gives details of the raiding of her house, of the abstraction of her property, even of her clothing. She gives minute details of the kidnapping of her children, and informs the Executive that her difficulty is that those who are responsible for all this have succeeded in covering up their steps, and that she does not know where her children are living, and she cannot find the residence or address of her husband, and all she asked for, the only appeal she made to the Executive was that the police should be directed to do for her in this great trial and calamity what the police would voluntarily of themselves and without direction do for the humblest individual in the land who came to them with any complaint either of stolen or lost property.

These are the facts of this remarkable case, and the commentary remains that all that has to be done, even under our boasted constitution and civilisation, in the case of any persons in this country who are legally married according to the second law of the land is that the emissaries of any Church—I do not care what church it may be, or the clergyman of any church take possession of the children, bring them away to some place where they cannot be discovered, and then calmly defy the law. That will be, and must be, the position if the attitude taken up here on behalf of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is sound either constitutionally or politically. Once you seek to cover up your tracks, once you make it impossible for the outraged father or mother to ascertain the exact place in which the children are, once a thing of this kind is done in the absence of the mother or father, the whole thing is complete, and there is no redress. The parties have no redress and can get no redress civilly, because there is no person on whom they can serve the necessary civil document, and these children are now, as far as we can see, for all time lost to the unhappy mother. She is not only homeless, but she is husbandless and childless. Thank God, she is not helpless, because kind friends have come to her aid, and everything is being done so far as charity is concerned to relieve her in her position. But it is a very striking warning, and a most extraordinary case to occur in this century, and under so-called constitutional Government, under a responsible Imperial executive. It may be said, if this has occurred under an Imperial executive, and while an Imperial Parliament is sitting, what argument is that against Home Rule? I only say this in reply: if anyone is misguided enough to raise that contention, that we have no Imperial executive in Ireland, nor have we had since the year 1906. I say deliberately that the whole function of Imperial Administration and Government in Ireland has been allowed to drift from the hands of the responsible Ministers and agents of His Majesty, and has been transferred into the hands of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and his colleague, the Member for the West Division of Belfast (Mr. Joseph Devlin). Now, that is not my statement. I am not making that statement on my own responsibility. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in the month of September, 1909, told his audience in America that ever since 1906 the United Irish League had been running the whole Government of Ireland.

I did not say that. I did not say since 1906; I said for years before that date.

Not on the occasion that I am referring to. He did not extend it in any sense that would have conveyed to anyone that he was referring to any period except that one.

But in another speech he made his meaning even plainer, because on the occasion of his last visit to America, that is 1910, he repeated the same statement, but he gave us this piece of additional information, which was not news to Irishmen but might come as a revelation to Englishmen, namely, that his colleague the hon. Member for the West Division of Belfast, was the de facto Chief Secretary of Ireland. Therefore it is idle to say that the Imperial Executive took any responsibility in this matter. They have abrogated their position in Ireland; they have handed it over to their allies and Friends below the Gangway, and of course they, under any system of Home Rule that the ingenuity of man would ever devise, would take the controlling position in the happy days when Home Rule arrives. At least this case of Mrs. McCann is a solemn warning to those of us in Ireland who feared such results, and I can assure this House that it has strengthened the unalterable determination of Loyalists and Protestants in that country that at any sacrifice or at any cost they will struggle to retain what they believe to be the only guarantee for the continued enjoyment of their civil and religious rights, that is that they should live under laws that have received the sanction of this Imperial Parliament. I have stated the whole case and nothing but the case as regards Mrs. McCann so far as I know, and I have kept nothing back from the House. I have told every single fact in connection within my knowledge or that of those who have been communicating with me. But I wish to make this one other observation in this connection. It would be much more valuable indeed and much more consoling to those whose future welfare and rights depend upon the state of affairs that may develop in Ireland if instead of prophetic assurances as to what would or would not happen under a system of Home Rule the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his colleagues would occasionally take the opportunity of going down to the country and visiting the localities in which from time to time outrages upon person and property occur and denouncing them there, a course which they have never taken. And so long as they abstain from doing that, so long will they fail to delude us by any of these paper assurances or paper guarantees. And in this connection I venture to say it is not unworthy of remark that although the facts of this case are notorious, and have been notorious in Ireland ever since they occurred—that is to say, in the early part of December last—so far as I know no expression of repudiation and no expression of reget for them has come from any quarter represented by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway from Ireland. All I can say is, that so long as oases of the kind are possible, so long will it be the duty of those who represent the interests of the Loyalists in Ireland to call the attention of the House to matters of this kind. I do not know how the Government propose to meet the position. This much I can assure them: if they attempt to deal with it in any way that will fail to give justice to this unfortunate woman, that will fail to place at her disposal the resources of the Executive in order that she may trace out not merely her children and recover them, but also that she may bring to justice those who are responsible for this great outrage, so long will we continue to arraign the Government, if not at the bar of this House, at least at the bar of public opinion in this country, until we have obtained in this particular case the justice that we demand, and until we obtain a still greater requirement, and that is the suppression or withdrawal of this intolerable decree.

5.0 P.M.

I may say I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. H. Campbell) should have thought fit, in the disquisition which he has given in the time at his disposal, to smother up the circumstances of this McCann case, which, I agree, are of a distressing character, with matter and imputations which, I think, might have been left to some of those other very frequent occasions that arise in our political life. I certainly do not propose to reply to the earlier part of his speech, and I am well content to leave the reference that he made to my own observations at Bristol in the very fair way in which he left it. I think it must be apparent to everybody in this House what I meant, and indeed what I said. I am perfectly well content to leave that matter where it is because I am in a position intellectually and morally totally different from the impression left by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; for I am well persuaded that when my observations are read by any intelligent man it will be perfectly obvious not only that I meant what I said, but that I said what I meant. What I said was, you never could smuggle any great measure through this House. About this other matter the right hon. Gentleman was a long time in coming to his statement, but I knew it was there, and I waited patiently. The right hon. Gentleman introduced this Ne Temere decree of the Pope of Rome. He did not read it to the House, but it can be read in all its details by anybody who cares to obtain a copy from Messrs. Brown and Nolan, printers and publishers in Dublin. All I have got to say is that they have nothing to do with this matter. Mrs. McCann is the lawful wedded wife of Mr. McCann, according to the laws of this realm. She is entitled to every legal right that flows from her status as a married woman. With her, for my part, the matter rests, and must rest. The right hon. Gentleman in Dublin laid great emphasis upon the fact that she is a married woman in the eyes of God.

Of course, and man—in the eyes of God and man; and the Pope of Rome is of opinion that a Roman Catholic who marries should be married in a Roman Catholic chapel, and, if he does not so marry, in the opinion of His Holiness, the persons are not validly married according to the law of that Church. The right hon. Gentleman differs—we have a Pope and an Anti-Pope—as to what is marriage in the eyes of heaven. That is a matter upon which it is within Mrs. McCann's legitimate sphere to say that it is just possible that neither one nor the other authority knows or is entitled to speak upon that subject. All we know is that these people are married. To every Court in England. Ireland and Scotland and throughout this Realm, they are married people, and married people they must remain. Mrs. McCann is entitled to her remedies and her rights as a married woman; and, if she comes into a court of law and justice, this decree will not be available to be raised or considered by counsel or judge. My sympathy—I say this quite frankly—is with Mrs. McCann, and undoubtedly so. The case has not been tried out, but I am well content to base my sympathy on the fact that she has been deprived of her children of tender years, and that she does not know at this moment where they are. That is quite enough to excite my sympathy. The memorial which the right hon. Gentleman read was, of course, not of her composition; it was that of Mr. Corkey, who admits it himself. All I can say is, if she had written it herself, if she had not asked for the interposition of a clerical scribe, I am quite satisfied I should have been moved even more to the depths of my heart than I was by the style of that composition. I am prepared to take it in this way, that she has been deprived of her children by her husband, and, by the laws of this country, her Husband is entitled to the custody of his children. To speak of it as a case of kidnapping is obviously not correct. Kidnapping it was not. In my own opinion it was a wrong and a cruel act on the part of this man, about whom I do not say a single word, however.

I know nothing of the circumstances of their married life. It is enough for me to know that they were married, that she had children of tender years, that she came home one day and found they had been taken away, and that she does not know where they are. This happened a long time ago—several months ago. After a lapse of time it came to the knowledge of a number of influential persons in Belfast, who were interested, as indeed who would not be interested, in the story which this poor woman laid before them. All I can say is that they seem to me to have given the most extraordinary advice. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that nothing can be done, that this woman has no court and no chance unless she can lay her fingers upon her husband. That is not so. She could have obtained the means of applying to the Court of Chancery, and have made them wards of the Court on the ground that they had been taken away from her.

Your contention is that unless she can lay hands on this man for all time, this poor woman has got no chance and no opportunity of discovering where her children are.

With all the wealth of Belfast behind her and of all these important bodies, nothing would have been easier for her—I am perfectly well satisfied of that—than to obtain in a Civil Court all the remedies she requires. No difficulties would have been put in her way. Do you suggest that this decree would have been available in the Court of Chancery?

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest in what way she could have made the Civil Law amenable so long as she could not find her husband or the place in which her children were detained.

I am perfectly satisfied that the mother of the children, upon an affidavit stating the facts—I presume they are the facts read out by the right hon. Gentleman—could have obtained in that Court of Chancery the protection of her children which she requires, and they would have entitled the Court to use all its powers to find out where they were and who had the custody of them, and to issue a Habeas Corpus to have them brought up. I decline altogether to believe anything of the sort suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. At all events, some attempt might have been made during these three months. It is quite obvious and apparent to anybody that the interests of this woman were sacrificed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame," "Withdraw."] You have only got to read the speeches made by a number of clergymen. One Presbyterian, who thanked God for this case, and another said that Providence had arranged that it should happen just at this time to show the good people of England and Scotland what would happen if a Home Rule Government ever came into office. The point that I make is that it would be perfectly easy, without waiting for the discovery of this man, to have taken proceedings. This, at all events, is a view which I confidently contend for as a lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman very much complained that the Castle had not perceived the point about the petty larceny which had been committed.

Gross outrage is not a legal term. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman was that the father had removed these children, and that, although entitled by law to their custody, he was not entitled to the clothes in which they were wrapped up or the clothes of his wife, which it was alleged he had taken away. The point was not in any way brought to the notice of the Castle. It was neither in the letter or the telegram of Mr. Lowe.

The point was not raised that the assistance of the police was required in order to bring to justice somebody who had committed a theft. That was an after suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, one which he made with very great force in his speech in Dublin. The view taken by the Executive, I believe, is the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, which he is quite prepared to justify, that it was not a case for the police at all, inasmuch as the woman had behind her the whole of the Presbytery of the North of Ireland, and Dr. Lowe was the person who wrote the letter to which the right hon. Gentleman read the letter in reply that they had the best advice that a civil remedy was the true remedy. With regard to the state of facts as they are, it came to my knowledge a very short time ago that the father Mr. McCann—a man about whom I do not say a single word—has himself disappeared; he has gone, and he is no longer the custodian of his children. I think that makes a very great difference.

I do not know. As soon as it became clear to me that the legal guardian of the children, who was entitled to have them in his custody, had disappeared I thought the time had very properly arrived when it was the duty of the police to find out where the children were. So long as they were under Mr. McCann, and so long as he was looking after them, it was not a case for the criminal law. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the police could be invoked, but you cannot invoke them in every case. They may be asked to find a pocket-handkerchief or an umbrella, but that is not a case which would give rise to litigation, or discussion, or consideration. But to say the police are to be invoked to provide detectives to find out the position of children who are assumed to be living with their father, their natural guardian, and in his legal custody, is a proposition which I cannot agree with. But as soon as the father had gone—I do not know where he is, I am told he is gone. I have no certain knowledge—and that the children were left without their natural guardian, the mother was obviously entitled to their custody and to complete access to them. That being so, the police are instructed to find out where they are. I hope they will prosecute their inquiry with the utmost zeal. So far as I am personally concerned, if any subscription were necessary to provide Mrs. McCann with the means of obtaining her legal rights and position, I should be the first, myself, to subscribe.

No, you do not want it, and you never did want it. You do not want it; I want it. I think it is a most painful state of circumstances for Mrs. McCann, and I confess I am thinking only of her. I do not care very much for the angry voices of Gentlemen opposite. If the address of these children can be ascertained, and if they can be brought back and placed under her control, that is the object I have in view. That the police could have interfered at an earlier stage is not a suggestion which can be supported. They are inquiring now as best they can, and I am sure that after the debate in this House, they will inquire with all the greater fervour and zeal. I am not at all sorry that the matter should have been brought under the notice of this House. I am glad it has been brought forward, but let us have none of the quarrelling and wrangling like that described in "Ginx's Baby"; do not let us be quarrelling about irrelevant points, but let us discover where these poor children are, and return them to their mother.

I cannot but think, having regard to the very serious way in which this case is looked upon by all coreligionists of Mrs. McCann in Ireland that the majority of people in that country who have any sympathy with her will think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is not only absolutely disappointing, but really, so far, is no answer at all, while that attempted to be given shows how disgraceful and scandalous has been the conduct of the Executive in Ireland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither sarcasm nor jokes will dispose of this case. The people who have taken it up—namely, the Presbytery of Belfast, where rights have been violated, are not the class of men to be deterred from doing what they believe they ought to do, as Members of a Christian Church, towards one of their congregation, by any sneers or by any jokes, or any ridicule by the right hon. Gentleman, who never recognises any responsibility in his office except it be to his masters below the Gangway. The facts of the case have not been denied. They cannot, I suppose, be controverted, and what the right hon. Gentleman has solemnly laid down in this House under the British Constitution is this, that a woman who has been legally married by the law of the land can be so interfered with that her children can be abstracted from her, hidden away from her, that her husband can leave her upon the plea that she is an immoral woman and that her children are bastards, and that when her house is raided in her absence, and her petty goods taken away, and when she can no longer find her children, then that the British Constitution knows of no remedy under which the Executive would be entitled to give assistance. I venture to dispute the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's law, and I can only say if it is the law, as he has laid it down, I would venture to think that the time of the House had been better taken from this time to Easter to set right such a monstrous law.

What does the right hon. Gentleman say? Does he mean to tell me that if this poor woman had gone to Scotland Yard and said that her children had been taken away, that she could not find them and did not know where they were, does he mean to tell me that she would be told: "Go to the High Court of Justice and file an affidavit and go into the Court of Chancery; we do not want women like you here"? Would the police say that, and would they say, "Go away; you have the whole Court of Chancery open to you; but the last thing we will allow you is that the police, who would go and look for your stolen dog or cat, should for a moment concern themselves about your children"? Yes, Sir, and all the more forsooth that is the law as regards the interference of the Executive, and as to why it cannot be applied. Why? It is because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is only a case of Pope against anti-Pope, which is right or wrong, as to where the woman ought to be married. What a way to treat a serious question! The right hon. Gentleman says all you have to do is go and file an affidavit in the Court of Chancery. What good will that do? I will assume for a moment you can do that, although I am not at all sure that you can. Supposing you go there, what is the Court of Chancery going to do if you cannot tell them where the children are? What are they going to do if you cannot tell them where the husband is? "Oh!" he said, "get a habeas corpus." But direct it to him where, to bring up the children before the Court. [Mr. Birrell made an observation which was inaudible.] What is the good of that when you neither know where the husband is or the children are, and when you will not direct the police to go and do their duty and find out. That, Sir, is the gravamen of the charge against the Government. I venture to think His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant would have been doing much better service if he had applied himself strenuously to this case instead of writing about the great benefits Home Rule would confer upon Ireland, when we have got Home Rule and when this Imperial Parliament will not be able to interfere in such a case as this. The right hon. Gentleman gives some tardy hope to this lady. He says he now has found out in some way or other, which I do not know, that the husband has gone too. When did he find that out?

It is in the woman's petition to the Lord Lieutenant as far back as the 2nd December. Who told him this man had gone away? Was it his police? What right had they to be interfering in the case? Now he tells us because the husband has gone away he is interested in the children. Has the husband taken the children with him. What, then, is the difference in the situation?

No more than he knew at the time of that petition as to whether the husband had still custody of the children. He put forward the plea here that the husband-in-law has the right to the custody of his children—that is, children of infant years of this kind. He did not know, and he does not know, whether they were in the custody of the husband. It never occurred to him at the time to inquire, before he was refusing the use of the police, as to whether they were not abstracted away, and in the hands of the reverend gentleman who had gone there and broken up that home. But now, when Parliament has assembled—yes, Sir, the Imperial Parliament to which we appeal, when that Parliament is assembled it suddenly strikes him that, after all, those children may not be in the custody of their parents, and that he may show a little interest. I say the whole proceeding in this case, from the beginning to the end, is a grave public scandal, and I say that if one part of that scandal is more grave than another it is the action, or rather the inaction, of the Irish Executive, and if anything could aggravate that inaction it is the conduct and methods and manner of the right hon. Gentleman to-day.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. J. H. Campbell) before proceeding to what constituted the indictment in his impeachment referred to outrages recently in Ireland, but referred especially to the scenes of disorder that took place in one of the southern constituencies, in certain of the southern constituencies, but he did not give a single argument or fact to bear out the statement he made to the House. Two hon. Members who were engaged in the conflict in Cork have both denied his allegation, and I suppose all his other allegations would be equally denied if there were hon. Members here to take them up It is unquestionably true that there were outrages in Ireland during the recent General Election. But when the right hon. Gentleman was delivering his lecture to the party, to which I belong, and saying that the Members of it ought to go down to the south of Ireland and lecture their constituents on the desirability of observing law and order as he conceives it ought to exist, why did he not ask some of his colleagues to go down to Belfast and deliver such a lecture to his friends there? I know of only one striking outrage that took place in Ireland during the recent electoral conflict, and that was in the city of Belfast, when a bomb was thrown, not, let me remind the House, not at a Nationalist Member or a Nationalist gathering or at a Nationalist hall, but which was flung at the hall of the Independent Orangemen in Belfast. The Independent Orangemen constitute a class who have torn themselves away from the wretched religious bigotry which has been the stock-in-trade of hon. Gentle-men above the gangway. The Independent Orangemen represent the enlightened spirit of Ulster Protestantism, the Independent Orangemen are men who have endeavoured to tear themselves away from privilege and ascendancy, and to associate themselves with the fortunes of their fellow workers in the capital of Ulster. How were those independent Orangemen treated, by having a bomb thrown into their hall, by the lives of the workers, who constituted that body, being made intolerable in the public works, by being threatened that their lives would be made intolerable in the city of Belfast if they continued to advance along the lines of democracy. I can call the attention of the House to another instance that took place at the election of last January (1910). In one of the divisions of the city the managing director of the great firm of Harland and Wolff stood as a Parliamentary Candidate. A Unionist he declared himself to be and a Free Trader, and, standing, as he was entitled to do as a citizen, for the representation of one of those great divisions, the "Northern Whig," the organ of the gentlemen who have organised all this scandalous transaction, which I will expose in a moment or two, the "Northern Whig" declared that if Mr. Carlile, who was the managing director, as I have stated, of one of the largest industrial concerns in the world, did not withdraw his candidature and stand down, that his life ought not to be worth twenty-four hours in the city. Those are the gentlemen who come here, and from their lofty positions as representatives of the Unionists and as Front Bench statesmen, to lecture the Irish Parliamentary party, and the representatives of Ireland, as to how they should demean themselves in the pursuit of the cause of law and order.

I listened with great attention to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman on this case. It was not precisely the same type of speech which he delivered in Ireland. He confined himself as far as he could to facts which he thought could not be denied. He says the accuracy of the charges contained in Mrs. McCann's memorial have not been denied. Who is to deny them? From the moment this case was first mentioned in the public press until even now, with all the privileges of Parliament to defend them, they have not told the House who the priest was. I challenge him in the face of this House to let us know the name of the priest. I tell him further, to my knowledge the priest against whom these sinister insinuations have been made is prepared to take him, or any of his impeachers, into the Public Courts. He (the right hon Gentleman) says that there is no tribunal before which this question can be tried.

Let him come out and make a charge openly against this or any other priest as having been associated with this trans action in the manner he declares, and then the tribunal before which that action will be tried will test the worth of the melodramatic performances which have been carried on in this House to-day. This has been, to my knowledge, the whole stock-in-trade upon which Ulster Toryism has depended for its existence during the last six months. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason he could not name the priest was that Mrs. McCann did not know him. Let the House mark this. Documents have been published and statements have been made in which the priest's name has been published as "Father C——." His name has never been given in full. I can produce documents which have been published in which "Father C——" appeared, if not several times, at any rate once or twice. But if the woman does not know the name of the priest, who got the name of the priest, and why is it not mentioned? The right hon. Gentleman said that it was one of the priests in the district in which the woman lived.

The right hon. Gentleman made himself responsible for all the declarations contained in the woman's statement—the touching, elaborate, and pathetic statement of this illiterate woman, written six weeks or two months after the incident took place, written five days before my election in West Belfast, written and printed before the Lord Lieutenant ever received it, and sent in shoals into England and Scottish constituencies in order to affect the minds of Nonconformist electors. That was the statement; that was the condition which existed. I regret the necessity for my intervention. I say that it will be proven that it is a wretched domestic quarrel between these people, and one of the lowest, meanest, domestic quarrels that was ever brought into an ordinary court, much less submitted to the high judgment and inquest of this great Parliament of the Empire. I have asked that statements should be sent to me for this Debate from the clergymen in this district, and the only definite declaration made by any of these clergymen is that Mrs. McCann herself sent for this priest in order that he might exercise his undoubted influence as a priest in bringing peace into the family, in trying to assuage whatever trouble might exist, and in bringing domestic peace and happiness into the home which we are told the priest entered for the purpose of kidnapping the children. The right hon. Gentleman has not declared that the priest kidnapped the children, but his friends have. I was told that I myself kidnapped the children. I was asked by the Tory and Unionist Press in Belfast in their leading articles during the progress of my contest, to produce the kidnapped children. The priest has been charged with kidnapping the children. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman repeat that charge here? He has not dared to do so. Posters were placarded on the walls at Belfast, saying, "Will you vote for Devlin and have your Protestant children kidnapped by the priest?" Mrs. McCann has been the greatest asset of the Ulster Tory party since the days of King William III. I will read the declarations of the three clergymen in whose district the McCanns lived. This is the declaration of the first clergyman:—

"Mrs. McCann, residing with her husband at 167, Cavendish-street, Belfast, called on me at the beginning of October, 1910, to see if I would come to settle some difference between herself and her husband. I went to her house at once, and with pleasure, in the hope of being able to do some good. This was my first visit. I found that their life was unhappy, that disputes had been frequent, and carried so far as to call for the intervention of the police. I listened to their charges, and councilled peace. …. Contrary to certain statements that have appeared persistently in the Press, I wish to add—
  • (1) That it is absolutely false to say that I or any other priest took the children away;
  • (2) That I never once accused Mrs. McCann of being a "common woman "or living in" concubinage";
  • (3) That before any priest in Belfast called on these people, their domestic life was anything but happy;
  • (4) That the police had to be called in frequently owing to their quarrels."
  • I would have preferred that the Chief Secretary had told us something as to the reports of the police in regard to the domestic quarrels of this family, because I understand that the intervention of the police was a more constant occurence than the intervention of the priest.
    "(5) That while they had what has been referred to as a 'happy home,' in Barton Street, before meeting the priests, Mrs. McCann left her husband in consequence of their disagreement and took lodgings in Buckingham Street."
    Now I come to the statement of one of the curates:—
    "In my capacity as priest in charge of the district in which the McCann's lived, I visited them for the first time in January, 1910. Neither then, nor on any subsequent occasion, did I inform Mrs. McCann that she was not properly married, nor did I tell her that she was living in sin, nor that her children were illegitimate.… Neither directly nor indirectly have I had any part in breaking up the home of these people, or in bringing about a separation."
    Now I come to the statement of the third priest. He says:—
    "I never called on Mr. or Mrs. McCann at their house, and only met them once under the following circumstances. On Sunday, 9th October, 1910, I attended in church here as usual to baptise any children that might be brought to the font. Among others, Alexander McCann came carrying his own infant child in his arms for baptism. As this was rather an unusual thing I inquired the reason, and was told that his wife was not a Catholic, and that any of the women in the neighbourhood who would otherwise have brought the child were afraid of her. I asked a young woman who happened to be present in the church to act as sponsor, which she did.
    "I was just proceeding to baptise the infant when Mrs. McCann, who had also come to the church, rushed forward, evidently with the intention of attacking the young woman who held the child. Mr. McCann stood in the way to prevent her, and as he did so she attacked him most violently, using both hands and feet."
    I am afraid she would use her hands in this direction more than in drafting a pathetic epistle to the Lord Lieutenant:—
    "She made a very unwomanly exhibition which I prefer not to describe, her actions and language being very disedifying. The sacristan managed to remove her and her husband from the church, but I understand that she continued the display outside. This is the extent of my personal connection with the McCann case."
    I received this morning by post a letter from a friend of this man McCann. I have the letter here. It was written by McCann to this friend, who has forwarded it to me. It is, I believe, all in McCann's handwriting, and it tells a most tragic and sorry tale of domestic misery. I do not want to attack Mrs. McCann; the whole thing is to me absolutely repellant; but, after all, I think that Members of the House ought to know something of the particulars that are stated. Every statement in the Memorial is denied. I have not had time to read the document all through, but I would say to hon. Members that, before they believe one side of a sordid and sorry domestic story, they should read the other side of the story; they would then find out for themselves that irreligion, and not religion, was responsible for all these troubles. I am willing to give this letter to any two Protestant Members of the House. They may then take the statements contained in the Memorial and other documents which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, and form for themselves a judgment as to whether this is not one of the most scandalous political dodges ever known. All these incidents occurred in October. We have heard of the touched hearts of the Presbyterian ministers, of the leaders of privilege in Ulster, and of the men who constitute the Ulster Unionist party, who slander and libel a nation, dragging a miserable domestic conflict into the arena of Parliamentary discussions for their own scandalous and party ends. The matter occurred in October, but their hearts were not touched until the eve of the election in Belfast. Why from October until December were not the right hon. Gentlemen and his merry men engaged in pursuit of these children and of this man McCann? They had all the facts in their possession for six weeks.

    Your adviser had—the man who supplied the brief. Who was the lawyer who drafted the memorial and prepared the case and presented it with such irresistible force to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? It was Mr. Alexander McDowell, of Belfast. Mr. McDowell is the unelected pope of the Ulster Unionists. He prepared the case, and during the General Election here is what he wrote in a letter—which was not intended to be published, but which somehow did find publication—to one of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentlemen when on these benches. After denouncing the Ulster Unionists, and saying that they were very difficult people, that they were very stupid and hard to understand, he said:—

    "I have found a tit-bit at last which will raise all the dormant enthusiasm for the Unionist cause and for the banner which you carry." (An Hon. Member: "That is a stolen letter.")
    I suppose the hon. Gentleman thinks that I stole the letter as I kidnapped the babes. I assure him that I have the most profound respect for him. I do not think there is anyone in this House who has less political or personal offensiveness than he has, and I am not going to read any lecture, as did the right hon. Gentleman as to the way we ought to conduct ourselves throughout our Constituencies—in the course of that lecture telling all the peculiarities of the people represented. You know in Ulster you do not understand the people if you are an Ulster Tory Unionist. You only come there and curse the Pope.

    Everybody knows the hon. and learned Gentleman would not curse the Pope. Everybody knows that the Pope is the best asset he has in Portadown. The hon. and learned Gentleman's methods of electioneering are not by cursing His Holiness, but by using a blackthorn stick with his coat off. What did this Mr. McDowell, this simple lawyer, this gentleman, who, I understand, did not get a knighthood from the last Government, but expects to get one from this? I hope, by the way, the right hon. Gentleman opposite will take a note of that. Mr. McDowell says:—

    "I suppose you saw yesterday's 'Whig' and 'News-letter' in relation to the kidnapped children. It is having a tremendous effect here. I am told it will have the same tremendous effect in Scotland. It ought to be useful to you in the shape of stiffening the waverers."
    It is not to assuage a sorrowing mother. It is not to bring back the long lost babes. It is not to impeach the wandering and degraded father; but it is to bring back and stiffen the waverer!

    The House will perhaps wonder why this is being made so tremendous an issue in Belfast. I have already stated that the embers of religious bigotry are dying there. The democracy, once the instrument of a faction who never thought of the people, but only of themselves, are coming nearer and nearer to the light. They have begun to read and think for themselves. Last year, though they differed from the Irish party on the question of Home Rule, the great mass of them were in hearty sympathy with the Liberal party on all those great social reforms to which the Liberal party has committed its honour and its name. These people in Belfast are a class of the community who are really good and genuine at heart—a hard-working and an enterprising people. They are not, I admit, Home Rulers, but they will be Home Rulers by and bye when they come to understand. Recently, in Belfast, Dr. Bailie, the Public Health Officer, an ex-Unionist member of the corporation there, for the first time in his life—as for the first time in the lives of the Tories of Belfast—came into contact with the social and economic conditions that exist in this great big and wealthy city. He drafted a report of his experiences. That document was presented to the Public Health Committee. It was a very simple document, largely composed of statistics, but it was a very human and tragic document, because under all this veneer of wealth and greatness which the people boast of in this House—out of it all, I say, we see labour conditions for which there is no parallel. The report says:—
    "I am called upon to state that the women are compelled to make children's pinafores at 4½d. per dozen, women's aprons at 2½d. per dozen, men's drawers at 6d. a dozen, men's shirts at 10d. a dozen, ladies' blouses at. 9d. a dozen, and ladies' overalls at 9d. a dozen. From these very low rates of pay must be deducted the time spent in visiting the houses for work, the necessary upkeep of the workers' sewing machines, the price of thread used and almost invariably provided by the worker. After these deductions are made, the amount left to the worker is so extremely small as to make one wonder if they are benefitted at all by the work. The same is found among the workers in the various processes of the linen trade. These workers constitute the larger proportion of the workers in Belfast. A penny per hour——"
    Let the House listen to this:—
    "A penny per hour is the ordinary rate, and in many instances it falls below a penny per hour."
    Then Dr. Bailie goes on to say:—
    "It cannot be too frequently and strenuously insisted that such underpaid labour must inevitably cripple and In great part nullify the good effects of any schemes of social reform. The underfed and overwrought physique of the sweated worker, with his weakened stamina, lacks the resistance necessary to combat disease, and is undoubtedly one of the main causes of the high death rate,"
    Then listen to these sorrowing mothers—the mothers who have called forth the sympathy of these gentlemen. Dr. Bailie says:—
    "The sweating evil injures more than those immediately concerned. Practically the whole of these underpaid workers are mothers, and the evil effects of unremitting and under-remunerated toil must be transmitted to the next generation …."
    I attended the meeting in Belfast of these sweated women and their sympathisers. It was a crowded gathering. There was not a single clergyman in the hall—not one of the gentlemen who met on the platforms when this question of Mrs. McCann was the battle cry of Unionism. One Christian clergyman, like a voice crying in the wilderness, wrote a letter and said:—
    "I wish the manufacturers of Belfast would pray less and pay more."
    The popular indignation was aroused. The pathetic faces of these women were being mirrored in the feeling of indignation that was burning in the hearts of every section of the widespread population. The workers were beginning to think what this meant. They had stood by these party political adventurers and upheld a system which makes women work for 4d. a day, and by which they receive a shilling for making a dozen shirts. Yes, Sir, there was not a single clergyman there. But when Mrs. McCann's case came on there was a crowded meeting in the Ulster Hall. Who were on the platform? The crushers of the poor, the manufacturers who sweated women, and the responsible agents for the pinched faces. These were the men who came there for wretched political capital, and had not a single voice to raise on behalf of the toiling women who were doing so much to build up the greatness of the city, and advance the material interests of their masters in Belfast. Nine-tenths of the audience were Protestants. I am a Catholic, and I was the only Member of Parliament present. They thought they have well switched off discussion and examination of all these crimes against democracy by catching at an isolated case, and by using some domestic incidental instance to prevent light being cast upon the economic conditions they impose. They will not do so so long as I am a Member of this House. Of course, if Mrs. McCann's case could have helped it, I would not have been a Member of this House.

    I happen to be the Lord Mayor of the City of Belfast. I was hoping for an opportunity to speak here this evening, and I was in the hope that I would get the support of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). The hon. Member has somewhat widened the basis of the discussion. I can tell him that there is no such thing as sweating in the city of Belfast. The matter came before me in my official capacity. I told gentlemen interested in the city that, having regard to the outdoor trades and in view of the Government in power, that they should have no difficulty whatever in getting an inquiry if there was any sweating in Belfast. I would not be a party to any such disgrace in Belfast. I asked gentlemen who complained to ask for the inquiry; I entreated them to do so. I know there is no sweating; it is impossible that there should be any. I also happen to be chairman of an association whose efforts are to spread the industrial prosperity of this district over a wider area in Ireland. Some of the members are termed Tories, others are Home Rulers, and there are also Catholics and Protestants.

    6.0 P.M.

    And I could tell the hon Gentleman who has spoken that Father C. referred to in his speech is a member of that association, and I will tell him what happened at the last meeting at which I had the honour to be present. There is only one trouble in Belfast in regard to industries at present, and that is that we need 2,000 women, and cannot get them. There are 1,000 looms idle, and there are 1,000 other vacancies because there are collateral industries. The question we put to Father C. at that meeting about getting these women into Belfast, but he was doubtful whether he could do it. Sweating is an utter impossibility in Belfast. That matter can be investigated, and I promise, if the Chief Secretary will arrange it, we will have a sworn inquiry into the matter.

    There is prodigious prosperity in Belfast and in the best, and even in the second class industries women workers get wages reaching as high in some cases as 22s. a week. There is no such prosperity in any town in England or Scotland, and the reason is simple. The trade unions arrange the wages, and that is a matter of fact which can be ascertained by anyone who takes the trouble to write a letter on the subject. The worker in Belfast has a cheaper house by 3s. a week than he would get in any town in Great Britain, with the possible exception of Barrow-in-Furness. The 4s. 6d. house in Belfast is 7s. 6d. in England, and workers on this side of the Channel are perfectly delighted to get away to Belfast. I have been applied to by numbers of men in England to get them situations in such a perfectly prosperous town as Belfast, and that, although we have to pay carriage on corn, iron and flax, because we cannot induce our Nationalist friends in the south and the west of Ireland, where they have the beautiful land that we have not got, to grow flax, and therefore we have to import it from Belgium and Holland, It is perfectly absurd to suggest that there is any difficulty in Belfast other than that of getting the people to come into work. I hope Father C. will consider that matter, and I hope we will get the women who work for 5s. and 6s. a week all over Ireland to come to Belfast, where they may make 12s., 15s. and as high as 22s. a week. That is admitted, and I hope the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) will support us in the attitude we are taking up.

    I am in a position to say that there is perfect unanimity among the laity in Belfast, and I include the laity for whom the hon. Member speaks on the subject matter of this debate. The women, including the women in that large community represented by that hon. Member, are speaking to the Protestants in the streets of Belfast and asking them can they not stop this. The condition is appalling. It is perfectly well known to all of us here that this matter has been the subject of correspondence in the newspapers of Belfast and Edinburgh, and other places. And I particularly observed a correspondence carried on in a very interesting paper, and one for which I have a great respect, although it happens to be a Home Rule organ—the "Yorkshire Post."

    Oh, then, I am wrong, but I happened to see the correspondence carried on in that journal. Correspondence has been going on for several months, and there never has been a suggestion made in Belfast, Edinburgh, or Leeds that there was one particle to be said against Mrs. McCann. Not only that, but Father Hubert, in a public speech, and other priests who have written to the papers on the subject, have taken up the position from the beginning that the clergyman in this matter was right. We do not know the clergyman, that is admitted.

    I say to the hon. Gentleman again, what I said before, that a document was published in the Press with the words "Father C." following it, and that that was the name of the priest, although the full name was never mentioned.

    It was never suggested that Father C. interfered. It was suggested that he was the Parish Priest, and that the man who did this—it is perfectly well known over the town—was one of his curates.

    If anyone could give his name I should think it would be the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) or perhaps the Chief Secretary, who may be better informed still. Mrs. McCann does not know him. It is perfectly well known that Father C. is the parish priest and no one wants to say an unpleasant word about Father C, but knowing the character and organisation of the community to which they belong we know that no curate would do what was done in this instance without the approval not only of the parish priest, but of the bishop.

    The question of the breaking up of the home seems to be a small matter, and to afford humorous reflection to some people, though it does not so strike those terrible persons in Ireland who are in favour of the connection with Great Britain. The documents read by the hon. Member for West Belfast are very interesting, but they would be more interesting and would be more likely to be accepted as valuable evidence if they were produced some time ago. I do not attach the least importance to any one of them. They will not stand investigation and are no answer to the charges made. The sacredness of the home has been the one thing in England that has been carefully guarded. It is not open to anyone, whether a lawyer or a doctor to go into a home and use peculiar influence in order to break it up, and the man who would do that—if he was a lawyer, I take that instance as I happen to be one myself—would be a base criminal, or if he acted as some particular person is said to have acted. I say that a man who would desert a woman in these conditions should be dealt with in such a way as that he never could perpetrate such a fraud upon another woman.

    I cannot conceive any action worse, because a woman cannot protect herself. She may protect herself from violence, but not from desertion, and if there is one sacred duty binding upon every man it is to protect his partner. If the woman is deserted she has not the power to arrange-her future as the man has. A ruffian like McCann may go to New South Wales or the United States, change his name and marry again, but a woman in these circumstances is utterly lost if once deserted. The Chief Secretary seems to have some anxiety about protecting the woman. There is no difficulty whatever about that matter if one could assume that the Chief Secretary is speaking for the Prime Minister also. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman an-excellent way. If the man McCann were a Protestant he could be traced down within ten days and his children could be traced. We have good police in Ireland, I believe they are the ablest body of police in Europe, but it so happens that the children and the father cannot be found. I know the police cannot find them. But I will tell the Chief Secretary how they might be found. If the Chief Secretary-wrote a letter or sent a telegram of six words—and I will tell him to whom—he would have the children in forty-eight hours. The form of the telegram would be: "Have McCann's children in Belfast in forty-eight hours." Let the Government take powers to inspect and investigate the conditions prevailing within all buildings in Ireland and England and you will get the children.

    I will tell the right hon. Gentleman privately. If it is sent to a gentleman whom I know, and, if the children are in Ireland, you will get them in twenty-four hours. If the Government, with their large majority, will not stand up for the rights of individuals, if they will not protect the rights of ordinary citizens in these islands, nothing can be done. If the suggestion I have made is carried out you will get the children. I offer the Government all the help I possibly can from the few men who are members of the Ulster Unionist party, and if they act for themselves in this matter they will save a lot of time. If they do not act, I intend to act myself by sending such a communication as will secure some attention and get the children. The Government are supposed to look specially after the poor, and it is remarkable that they have not evinced the least interest in this particular case. I assume if the man in this case had been a Peer, if it had been Lord Shaftesbury, or Lord Londonderry, and those children had been taken out of the house, we should have bad screams all the way from Dublin across here to Westminster, but because this has been done by a clergyman, there is dead silence. I am perfectly satisfied that there is a horror of the whole situation in the minds of my fellow-countrymen. Probably the course I suggest would inconvenience hon. Members below the Gangway and they would perhaps lose their seats. Now it appears that it is right for the Government to protect the oppressed all over the world, with the exception of the case of this poor woman in the city of Belfast.

    I do not wish to dwell at any length upon the details of this extremely sad and pathetic case. I hope the children will be speedily found, that every effort will be made to discover the father, and, if he exists at all, the priest against whom these charges have been made. I venture to prophesy that if all that is done, and the case is properly brought before a Court of Law and tried, it will be discovered and proved to the satisfaction of every fair-minded man that at any rate the ecclesiastical authorities of my Church have had no share whatever in the gross and brutal conduct of this man. We have heard a good deal of what the Church is supposed to have done with regard to this case, but we have not heard anything as to what the Church actually does in such cases. To my own knowledge, what happened is this: It is true that my Church lays down conditions as to how a Catholic must be married. It is true that no Catholic can be married in accordance with the law of our Church unless he is married in a Catholic Church, by a Catholic priest, and in the presence of two witnesses. Those are the conditions laid down by the Catholic Church. We have cases of mixed marriages, and cases have occurred quite recently in this country where a Catholic has married a non-Catholic, and, either wilfully or through ignorance, has married, not fulfilling the conditions of the Church. Subsequently the Catholic party of the Union has either discovered his or her error, as the case may be, or has repented of the sin committed against his Church. What does he do? He goes to a priest and explains the situation. He says: "I have unwittingly (or on purpose), knowing I was doing wrong against the law of my Church, contracted this marriage. I regret it, and I want to have it put right in accordance with the laws of my Church. What am I to do?" The priest tells him to bring his wife and agree to be married again by a Catholic priest. If that is done, and both parties consent to it, then the matter is happily arranged; but supposing you have a case where the non-Catholic refuses, and says: "No, I have already been married, and I am not going to bother about being married over again; I don't care about your conscientious scruples in this matter, and I decline to be bothered by going through another marriage ceremony in accordance with your religion." Such a case as that is provided for. The Church looks after the interests of its own members, and the duty of the priest in such a case as that is to report to his bishop that here is a case where the Catholic party, either through a mistake or ignorance, or through culpable error, has not obeyed the marriage laws of his Church, and wants to get the matter put right, explaining that the non-Catholic party will not consent to be married by the priest. In a case of that kind, the bishop of the diocese, either by a general authority granted to him to deal with such cases, or by an authority which he can obtain for dealing with a special case, can pronounce that marriage valid from the date on which he is satisfied that the the two parties concerned wish to continue in the matrimonial state. Cases of that kind have occurred and been so arranged and dealt with within the last two years. That legitimatises in every way the children born of such a union. I thought it advisable, considering the great interest aroused by this very sad case, that I should be allowed to state to the House exactly what does happen, and how these matters, when they do occur, are dealt with by my Church.

    On many occasions in the past, I have differed from the Noble Lord who has just spoken, but I hope I have never said anything personally offensive to him. I thank him now for the opinion which he has expressed. The Noble Lord has stated that he is of opinion that it will be found that his own Church has not been concerned in this matter. Whether that is so or not, the Noble Lord has been frank enough to say that this woman has been subjected to a gross and abominable outrage. That contrasts and differs very much from the opinion expressed by another Roman Catholic Member below the gangway, who made use of his position in this House to vilify, attack, and insult this woman whose statement has been declared to be true by the Chief Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

    I said the admitted facts, namely, that the children were taken away, and that she does not know where they are. That is enough for me.

    The Chief Secretary categorically replied that the statements made in the memorial to the Lord Lieutenant were true.

    If I did, I made a mistake, because an ex parte statement like that cannot possibly be admitted by any one.

    Yes, hon. Members below the Gangway have a habit of denying all inconvenient facts.

    They have been examined by a committee of representative respectable gentlemen in Belfast, members of the Presbyterian Church, who took this question up.

    The woman herself says she is unable to identify the Priest, and I think I might have been spared that question.

    The woman says she does not know the name of the Priest, but if she were introduced to him, she would have no difficulty in identifying him.

    In the present state of her knowledge, the woman cannot identify the Priest. Of course, if you produce the Priest, it will be easy for her to do so. Up to the present the Priest has not been produced, and never will be produced. When this case is brought before the House by my right hon. Friend, who vouches for the accuracy of it, after an inquiry, it is interesting to see the reception this case meets with from hon. Members below the gangway.

    I will tell the House why. If self-government is granted to Ireland, hon. Members below the gangway will be the sole authority in an Irish Parliament to deal with the case of a Protestant like Mrs. McCann, who has run contra to the Canons of the Roman Catholic Church by marrying her husband otherwise than in the presence of a Roman Catholic priest. This is the Tribunal to which one will have to go then, and, when one sees to-day the reception of her case, absolutely devoid of all sympathy, and every opportunity taken to throw mud at her, and to sneer at her, and to have the whole thing minimised, as, in the words of the hon. Member for West Belfast, "merely a domestic incidental circumstance," as if one were accustomed to have his home broken up and his children torn from him every day in the week; and when we know that this treatment is likely to be repeated, and that they will be our masters in the Home Rule Parliament in Dublin, it is not a promising outlook for the Irish Protestants. I see signs that the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. John Dillon) is going to speak. I put this categorical question to him. There is a conflict between the law of the Roman Catholic Church on marriage, which is the law of the majority of Ireland, and the British law as we know it in this House. Under the decree of the Council of Trent, every marriage all over the world between Christians of any sort is absolutely void if not celebrated before a priest and two witnesses, and it lies with the Pope to put that decree in force in any European or continental country if he pleases. He has refrained from doing so in Germany because the Germans will not stand it. He has put it in force in the last two years in this country, but he has kindly restricted it only to those cases where a Roman Catholic has married a Protestant. It is, however, in the power of his Holiness to-morrow, by the stroke of his pen, if he sees fit, to apply it to every marriage that has taken place between Protestants in the United Kingdom.

    It would not affect me very much as a matter of conscience, but it would affect me very much if you had a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland, and if you had a Roman Catholic majority, who are devoted adherents to their own church, for which I give them every praise, and if that majority elected to follow the law of their own church and to assimilate the law of Ireland to it. Where would Protestants come in then? That is how it affects me. I am quite prepared to take my share of the rough things of this world, but I do not want my children denounced as bastards. I put this categorical question. It has been put to hon. Members below the Gangway again and again, and they dare not answer it in the Constituencies, because they know what the priests would do to them, the priests who preside over the meetings at which Nationalist Members are selected, and at which no one is allowed to have a free voice. They would not have the support of the clergy if they gave an answer. I want to know if you have a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland whether the Protestants of that country who have entered into mixed marriages will be governed by your legislation according to the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church, or according to the law of the land, as we know it now. The hon. Member for Mayo will answer that, I have no doubt.

    I have already answered that as a Protestant representing a Catholic Constituency.

    The hon. Member is a professing Protestant, I know, and hon. Members below the Gangway are very glad to get gentlemen of the character of the hon. Member, who is well-known in literature, but I should be hardly willing to regard him as a very robust theologian. I want to know about these inquiries. The husband of this woman in Belfast has been spirited away, or, perhaps, he has gone away of his own will. When the hon. Member for West Belfast was speaking, he said he had a letter in his possession written by him. I wonder he did not give us the address.

    It is the address of the writer we want. If that address were given he could be served with civil proceedings to-morrow, and I can hardly believe the hon. Member for West Belfast could not facilitate the inquiries of the Chief Secretary by giving him the address of this man for whom the police are now hunting. Looking at the position of this family—the children are very young, and the husband has disappeared—I should say, on the whole, it is probable the children are in some charitable, religious, or philanthropic institution in Belfast. I do not think that is straining deduction very far. If they are, there is one gentleman in Belfast—he is a fair-minded man—who would give the information at once. Will the right hon. Gentleman write to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese and ask him are these children in any school or institution within his diocese? The police cannot search convents. I think they ought to be able to do so, or there ought to be some Government inspection. I have always voted for it. What is the good of turning a thousand police out into the streets of Belfast to search for these children if they cannot enter the convents? The whole thing could be done politely if the right hon. Gentleman would write to the Bishop of Belfast and say: Will you kindly say whether these children are in any school or institution in your diocese?

    I am glad to hear that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will state the answer he receives to the House. I think it will be a fair proof of the bona fides of all the persons concerned in the case. I think it is a most unworthy suggestion that the case has been got up for political purposes, but, considering the source from which it came, I am neither shocked nor surprised. I should like, as we are on this matter of how far Irish Protestants will be affected under the proposed legislation which this present Parliament is supposed to be leading up to, to give the House an instance which has lately come to my knowledge, a very nice instance of the toleration which is being preached on many platforms, chiefly intended for British consumption, because we do not experience it at home. There was a gentleman appointed as a High Sheriff of county Cavan. He was absolutely illegally appointed. I beg leave to say that in the presence of my learned friend the Attorney-General. Under the Common Law a man can only be appointed as High Sheriff if he is one of three names returned to the Privy Council. This Gentleman, Dr. Smith, was not one of the three names returned in 1910, and I say, after full consideration, and after looking into the law, that the Lord Lieutenant absolutely exceeded his jurisdiction. I understand that the High Sheriff is a friend of an influential Member of this. House. The Lord Lieutenant absolutely exceeded his jurisdiction when he departed from the three names on the list, and appointed Dr. Smith on the excuse that his name had appeared in the previous list. It was an absolutely unfair and illegal excuse. I should not mind that so much if the whole thing had not been part and parcel of a plan to pander to the desires of hon. Members below the Gangway, and I bring it before the House as a very excellent illustration of how administration will be carried on in Ireland if hon. Members below the Gangway are put in possession of all the powers they seek. I put this merely from the point of view of an Irish Protestant. Dr. Smith is a Nationalist, a Roman Catholic, and a Home Ruler. I do not say he is any the worse for that, but his first act as High Sheriff was to dismiss the Under-Sheriff, a gentleman called Forbes, who has been Sub-Sheriff for the past fifteen years, and who has served every Sheriff in Cavan—Protestant and Roman Catholic—during that time. It is practically the only employment an Under-Sheriff has when he takes up that profession. It is a mistake, I think, in our law, that he should be at the mercy every year of some incoming stranger, and, as a matter of fact, all over Ireland it has generally been the custom to continue the Under-Sheriff who knows his work in his office. That, however, was not good enough for this Roman Catholic High Sheriff, Dr. Smith, and the first thing he did was to give the sub-sheriff notice, without having received any complaint from the county.

    The next thing he did was to dismiss the Protestant Returning Officer, and, as in the case of the Sub-Sheriff, where he appointed a Roman Catholic, he appointed a Roman Catholic also as Returning Officer. I think that was a hard case, too, but there was a Court housekeeper who had been a sergeant, and was an army pensioner or perhaps a constabulary pensioner, and whose remuneration for the work would be £15, or perhaps £20 a year. He is a small man, but, when you put a Nationalist and a Home Ruler of the sort of Dr. Smith in power he hits the small man just as much as the big man, and this unfortunate caretaker of the court house was turned out of his house on 31st January, his crime being that he was a Protestant and perhaps an Orangeman. Now you have a Roman Catholic High Sheriff, a Roman Catholic Under Sheriff, and a Roman Catholic Returning Officer in Cavan, and there will be a Roman Catholic in the courthouse within a week, if he is not in it now. I do not say that in local administration you have not a right to elect whom you like, but I do say it is a hard thing that you should exercise local powers to turn people who have a fixed position like the Under Sheriff, who in this case had been Under Sheriff for sixteen years, adrift in the world merely because they are Protestants and replace them by Roman Catholics, and I do believe the fairness of the hon. Member for Mayo would lead him to denounce that if he finds the facts as I have stated. It is not tolerance, but it is one of the instances happening under our eyes. It happened this very year in Cavan, and, if this is going to be a specimen of the administration which awaits Protestants under Home Rule, it will only stiffen our backs and nerve our arms all the stronger to fight against it. It is quite possible this matter may lead to trouble in Cavan, because if this Sheriff is not properly appointed it seems to me that any executions or seizures by him can be challenged in law. That would paralyse justice in the county, and, if so, it is the fault of the Government and of the Lord Lieutenant in perpetrating such a job. I would not complain had it not been for the manifest intolerance which flowed from it. It cannot be denied that the case happened, but is there any person in this House who in such a case would not have used it in a political campaign should an election be pending? Would anyone refuse to make use of it? I know the report of the Medical Officer of Health contains certain statements. But what did the hon. Member for West Belfast do, in view of the fact that an election was pending and in view also of his desire to make political capital out of the matter? He called a meeting in St. Mary's Hall. He designated it a meeting of workers—not of Nationalists—and he there denounced the iniquities of the employers of Belfast, all this occurring in the few weeks preceding the election. The hon. Member talked largely about the democracy of workers, but I would take leave to say that any observer could see that he made electoral capital out of the report of the Medical Officer of Health, although the statements in that report as to sweating were not verified. One would imagine, when hearing the hon. Member talking about democracy, that we on these benches are not allowed to represent any democracy at all. Now I represent some 5,000 artisans in the towns of Lurgan and Portadown, and if they are not a democracy I do not know what can be. The hon. Member, however, seems to think that we here only represent the landlords. I wonder whether we could find enough landlords in the Division to fill a hall like St. Mary's Hall.

    That may be so, but I would point out that there was a contest in South Belfast in which my hon. Friend the Member for that Division showed that in eleven months he had considerably increased his majority. In East and North Belfast the Unionist Members were returned unopposed, while in West Belfast, which the hon. Member himself represents, the majority of the democracy in the same period fell 25 per cent. It is the Radical and Nationalist game to represent the Unionist forces in Ireland as either divided or weakening, but the last election showed that the direct contrary was the case. They are neither weakening nor divided. And I may say that we are prepared to give the utmost resistance by every means in our power which the Constitution permits—and under the Constitution we are entitled to defend ourselves—we are prepared to give the utmost resistance in our power to every proposal which will cut us off from the impartial protection of the Imperial Parliament.

    When the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh arose I thought we were concerned with the case of Mrs. McCann, but the greater part of his speech was devoted to a subject of which we had heard nothing before in the course of this debate, and which, in fact, had nothing whatever to do with it, namely, the grievances of certain officials in county Cavan owing to the intolerance of a new High Sheriff appointed, in the opinion of the hon. Member, irregularly. If the hon. Member can substantiate his assertion that the new High Sheriff dismissed every Protestant who held office and substituted Roman Catholics, I for one would condemn that action. But may I ask the hon. Member if he will follow my good example and give us information as to how many Catholics are employed by the High Sheriffs of Antrim and Down?

    No; the Roman Catholics never had a chance of appointment. Here you have an example of the toleration shown in those counties. You see that Roman Catholics have no chance there at all. But what are the facts as to county Cavan? May I say, in passing, that if the hon. Member will challenge me, on a suitable occasion, to debate the question of religious tolerance by Catholics in the South of Ireland, as compared with the tolerance shown by his co-religionists in the North, I am prepared to meet him, and I think I may promise him more than he bargains for. In the county of Cavan, under the late and the previous High-Sheriffs, no Catholics were appointed. Yet it is a Catholic county, as 80 per cent. of the population are Catholics. So-tolerant was the attitude of the High Sheriffs that no Catholic had a look in at all. How about another department of civil administration? For instance, in the county council of Cavan, out of the paid officers 53 per cent. are Catholics and 47 per cent. Protestant, appointed by the representatives of the people. Is that intolerant government?

    The hon. Member's figures are entirely misleading unless he looks at the dates when these officials were appointed. I take leave to say he will find that of the 47 per cent. he has quoted there have not been 10 per cent. appointed since the people have had the power under the Local Government Act.

    I will pass away from that subject. It is really irrelevant. I come to the case of Mrs. McCann. But may I observe that if at any time before the House rises, the hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to raise this issue, which is a very important one, I admit, I am willing to meet him. I am not afraid of the reputation of the Catholics in the South of Ireland, when it comes to the question of the practice of the virtue of toleration. Now let me deal with the facts in the McCann case. I should like to call attention to a sentence in the speech of the senior member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson). It was a furious speech, it was one of those impassioned forensic efforts for which the right hon. Gentleman is noted. He said that the facts had been stated and that they had never been challenged. Well, I deny the facts as stated I say that there is not one shred of evidence before the House to support any of the alleged facts, except the disappearance of the children.

    I am speaking of the facts contained in this memorial, on which the right hon. Gentleman sought to secure the sympathy of the Members of this House, and, I repeat, that there is not one single shred of evidence produced in support of the statements beyond the story of the woman herself. I venture to assert that the right hon. Member for Trinity College in a court of law would deal with such a statement as that which is now relied upon as merely an ex parte statement. Instead of being the statement of the poor woman herself, it turns out to be a statement drawn by one of the ablest Presbyterian clergymen in Belfast, and it was drawn, not so much with the intention of recovering the children as of influencing an election which was pending In connection with this McCann case two separate issues are raised. One is the broad and general issue of the decree Ne Temere. The whole debate has turned on the particular case of alleged hardship brought before the House. There was an expression used by the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College which was of a most extraordinary character. He said that the Catholic Church, by attempting to lay down conditions under which members of her communion could be conscientiously married was coming into collision with the law of the land and with the civil rights of the subject. He said the Synod of the Church of Ireland protested against such a claim as an attempt to invade the religious and civil rights of the people. We Catholics say that the church, so far as the members of its own communion are concerned, has a perfect right to lay down its own requirements. But it is a very different thing for a church to assert the right to deprive anyone of their civil rights. No attempt has been made in this case to interfere with any of the civil rights enjoyed by Mrs. McCann. The Chief Secretary said that this lady has been all along, and is at the present moment, in the full enjoyment of her civil rights. The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh challenged me to answer a question which he said that neither I nor any of my friends would ever dare to answer. The question was whether, in the event of our having Home Rule, we should feel compelled to alter the law in such a way as to make bastards of children born of marriages such as that of Mrs. McCann. I say "No." I do not believe there is the slightest risk of any alteration of the marriage law in Ireland which would inflict the smallest injustice or civil disability on anyone not a member of our own church. If there were Home Rule in Ireland to-morrow the present conditions would remain, namely, that those who elect to be in communion with our church would be obliged to observe the laws of that church. Can any civil Government interfere with that? I say that no power and no civil Government could say that a man bound to a church should cease to give conscientious obedience to the law of that church?

    7.0 P.M.

    You cannot interfere with conscience in that way, and his position would be just the same. Whatever are the laws and customs of marriage in our church they would be observed by those who belong to the church and those who refuse to obey the laws and customs of their church would have their own remedies which have been described; that is to say, they would be outside the church, or temporarily not in active communion with it. Is there not a terrible lot of hypocrisy in the indignation and excitement of the hon. Member for North Armagh and others upon this question of the decree Ne Temere. I know of people now living who were made bastards by the law of England, although their parents were properly married in the churches of our religion in Ireland. The law has not been altered so long ago. It is not long since it has been repealed. People had been living together as mart and wife for years, they had been married properly according to their church, and their children were bastardised and they were not only so, but they were made bastards in the eyes of the law and the inheritance of their fathers. They are living in Ireland to-day with the memory of that injustice by the law of this country, and is it not hypocrisy and humbug to talk so much about the danger of injustice arising from this decree. The fact is that all these matters belong to a period which has passed away.

    Let us be quite frank and fair about this matter. All churches and all religions, and even some who have no religion, were unjust to each other in the past. The Protestants of this country have done just as intolerant things as I am afraid our own church has done on some occasions in this and in other matters. The day for all that is passed. The public opinion of Europe and Western civilisation would not tolerate such a condition of things as existed in the past. Now, let me come to the case and to the facts, or rather to the facts as they are alleged to be. The facts are not notorious, as was stated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. No facts have been established except that in the first place the children were taken away. It has been alleged that the children were spirited away by a priest, and the word "kidnapped" has been used. I do not believe there is a word of truth in that suggestion against the priest. I cannot pretend that I know, but I have reason to believe that the children were taken away by their own father. I am not defending him in any way. I know nothing about the character either of Mr. McCann or of Mrs. McCann except their own statements, but I do believe that the children were taken away by the father, and I have good reason also to believe that the priest had nothing to do whatever with the taking away of the children. The main fact is that the removal of the children, if it were done by the father, was perfectly legal, and, although it may have been cruel on his part, the Lord Lieutenant could not interfere so long as the children were in the custody of the father, and, as I understand the law, the law could not interfere. So long as they were in the custody of the father, though they might condemn it, what could the Government do? There has been nothing whatever said in this Debate to prove that they were not removed by the father, or that he had not a perfect right to do so. The next fact, or alleged fact, is the desertion of the wife by the husband. That is the only fact which seems to be admitted except that the children were taken away. Everybody seems to admit that McCann has deserted his wife. It is alleged that he deserted her under the orders of the priest who had broken into a family that had been living peacefully together, and had almost persecuted the husband and wife. But there is not a shred or tittle of evidence in support of that statement.

    Surely it is a monstrous thing that for a political purpose—because it is admitted that the speeches have been more for a political purpose than in the interests of Mrs. McCann, and that for that purpose this Debate was inaugurated—it is monstrous to have this discussion without a shred of evidence to prove this serious allegation. The next allegation is, that the priest not once but repeatedly went to the house, and was the means of breaking up the family. But Mrs. McCann does not know the name, and none of these Belfast gentlemen who have interested themselves in this case know the name of the priest. I do not believe that anything can be said in support of that. I believe that, on the contrary, the name of the priest is thoroughly well known to all these gentlemen, and they are afraid to state it for fear of a writ. I am in a position to state that if they were to-morrow to name the priest a writ would be served, and the machinery would be put into motion to bring about an investigation of this case to the bottom, and in all its details much more effectually than by means of a debate in the House of Commons. I will now turn to what is a rather painful aspect of this case—and really I must protest against the statement that because we give such evidence as is placed in our hands rebutting the charges made against Catholic people of Ireland by this case, we should therefore be held up as attacking and hounding down this unfortunate and wretched woman. We are no more hounding down the woman than you are hounding down the man. Hon. Members come into this House and read an ex partc statement made by this wife charging her husband with every form of cruelty and outrage, and yet if we give some statement on the other side then we are told we are acting in a most ungenerous, unchivalrous and cruel way towards the woman. The people who are acting cruelly and ungenerously are the people who drag the sordid, wretched case of this family dispute into the Press and into this House. Here is a letter, which I am told and believe is in the handwriting of McCann himself. The hon. Member for North Armagh challenged me to say why the hon. Member for West Belfast, having the letter, did not give the address. The letter is here, and we are prepared to give the letter into the hands of hon. Members who desire to investigate the case. It was handed to my hon. Friend by a friend of McCann, and the address had been carefully torn off. It is a long document, giving a horrible history of a sordid, disgusting, family life. I do not intend to read it, but I really must give one or two passages in order to show that there is another side to this story. If the House of Commons is sought to be turned into a court to try this question and the statement of one party is read, and it is an ex parte statement, it is only fair to read something from the statement of the other party. In the very first sentence the husband says:
    "As the husband of the woman in the recent Belfast trial, I desire to say that the priest had no more till do."
    [Laughter.] He means "to do"; it is in the Belfast language; it does not happen to be edited by a Protestant clergyman.
    "The priest had no more till do with the case than the editor of the 'Irish News,' and to show you how utterly impossible it was for me to live in the same house with this woman——"
    And he then goes on to give a hideous picture of their life for several years. He found it impossible to live with her. He says:—
    "Her letter, or what is supposed to be her letter, to the Lord Lieutenant is all or nearly all a pack of lies. I am not a cruel-hearted man as the Presbyterian minister would have people to believe."
    And he is as well entitled to be heard in this House as she is, although I do not think either of them is entitled to have these ex parte statements read here. He goes on:—
    "She says I asked her to change her faith on account of the way the priests were ratting me. I never did anything of the kind. I did ask her to get married so that we could live like Catholics. She says that during the first thirteen months there was never a dispute about religion, but there was never a day passed without a dispute. For instance, she would have meat ready for me on Fridays. She would put back the clock and make me late for Mass. She ridiculed the priest and religions cursed the Pope and sang hymns all day."
    I must say that Mr. McCann's letter sounds to me more genuine than Mrs. McCann's. He claims that he is neither a drinker nor a smoker, that he gave up smoking because his wife would not allow him to smoke; that he paid her all his wages every week except a shilling or two, and yet his wife abused him for not giving her enough. She also accused him of keeping another woman. She attacked his mother and father, and called them most opprobious names. She went into the country to her mother's to be confined. When he went there she told her husband that the child was stillborn, and asked him to go for some drink, but when he returned she told him that the child was alive. That is only an ex parte statement, but I say it appears to me, although I do not vouch for the accuracy of one word of it, to be more naturally written than Mrs. McCann's letter. Finally we have the evidence of the priest, confirmed by this letter, that when the unfortunate man took the child in his arms and brought it to be baptised this delightful woman followed him into the Catholic Church and pulled away the girl whom he had got to hold the child as godmother, and when he interposed she got hold of him in the church and pounded him with her fists and dragged him out into the street, and it turns out that she went home and broke the windows of her own house. That is not a picture of a home of happiness and peace into which this diabolical man, this Mephistopheles, the Catholic priest, entered, and for the first time was the cause of disturbance and dispute. My conclusion in this matter is this, that here you have a sordid domestic tragedy dragging on for years, and into which I do not intend for a moment to enter to adjudicate, upon the relative merits or demerits of Mr. and Mrs. McCann. They seem to have been an ill-mated pair, and had an unhappy home, and we have the evidence of the priest to show that,' like many a man who went as peacemaker, when he went there to try his utmost to make peace he failed. Therefore it is a gross and scandalous invention to say that the priest interfered in this happy home and broke it up, and brought war and discord where peace had reigned before. I most sincerely say, whatever may be thought about the merits of the case, that I believe thoroughly that it is an electioneering case, and that neither the House nor the public of England would have heard of the McCanns and their grievances had it not been for the letter of the Tory agent read by the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin), and in my deliberate judgment, and I believe I am speaking the opinion of most of the Members of these benches, as well as those opposite, it was nothing short of an outrage to bring the case at all before the House of Commons.

    I think it will be the general opinion of the House that the extremely painful incident which has been under discussion for some time past might, for the present at any rate, be considered closed. Remembering, as it is almost difficult to do, that we are discussing a Motion for an Address in answer to His Majesty's Gracious Speech, I ask permission of the House to call its mind back to the comparatively prosaic subject of the political situation in which we find ourselves at the commencement of the Parliament. I do so as a detached Member of the House, and if I seek any higher title than that for demanding the indulgent attention of the House, it is that as a London Member, I occupy the unique position of holding the balance between the two official parties of the State. There are, I understand, sixty-one Members for London, thirty of them calling themselves Tories, or whatever may be the equivalent phrase, and thirty Liberals or Radicals. Therefore, thirty of the London Members exactly equalise the other thirty, and I occupy the proud position of being the representative of the Metropolis. Speaking with a full sense of the responsibility which that position puts upon me, I ask permission of the House to view the present situation not from the point of view of a party man, on one side or the other, but from the commonplace attitude of a plain, blunt, common-sense man of business, who thinks that from that point of view, there are one or two considerations which might with advantage be respectfully submitted for consideration.

    I base my views, such as they are, upon this fundamental principle, that the days of political revolution in this country, at any rate, are ended. When we see, as we do every day of our lives, hungry men and women content to bear their sufferings patiently, waiting for the evolution of the social system, or the reward hereafter, which they are taught is their chief hope, they are not likely to storm the Bastille, because of a temporary dispute between the two Houses of Parliament. I have listened attentively to the discussion, and I hope it is not an unparliamentary phrase to use, when I say that it struck me as being characterised by a large amount of unreality. I see two distinguished Members of this Assembly spending their summer vacation together in the pristine freedom of a private yacht, performing their marine ablutions together day by day, and subsequently being the common guests of one of the ducal families of this country, walking arm-in-arm home at night after their deliberations here, and filling up their spare time on the one hand, by abusing the aristocracy, and on the other always by abusing each other, then I am tempted very much to the repetition of the historic phrase of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, which I need not further particularise. When I see Members on this side vehemently condemning the hereditary principle, I glance at the roll of Junior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and wonder to what other cause they attribute their high position in this House. Therefore, I say there is to my mind a certain sense of unreality in this discussion. I do not consider it necessary to use any strong or abusive language towards either political party, or even towards the other place, at the other end of the corridor. I have always entertained a respect for that lady of whom we have all heard who was in the habit of bowing her head in church whenever the name of his Satanic Majesty was mentioned, and when called upon for an explanation, replied, "Politeness costs nothing, and you never can tell." We, on this side of the House, never can tell. It may become a patriotic duty at any moment, at short notice, in the cause of true democracy, to don a coronet and robe, and take part in the deliberations of the other House, and therefore I shall endeavour to observe moderation of language in view of the present political situation.

    I observe with pleasure the presence of the Prime Minister, and I am going to be obtuse enough to respectfully put to him a question which was asked by a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and the answer to which I followed, but have not yet been able to mentally digest. We are told we are here at the commencement of a new Parliament, and the question asked was, "Why a new Parliament"? I have never been able to understand it. I can understand that the Prime Minister found, after the failure of the Conference, that the hope of carrying the Parliament Bill was remote in the extreme, but I cannot understand why the Bill was not sent to another place—it was almost ready to go—and why we could not have then submitted it, rejected as it might have been by the other place to the judgment of the people. I endeavour to look these questions plainly in the face, and I am going to suggest that perhaps some such consideration as this, weighed with His Majesty's Government. If we send that Parliament Bill to another place with its preamble staring that place in the face, instead of ignominiously rejecting it, that other place may possibly take hold of that preamble and say, "we will consider favourably your Veto restrictions, but we will give effect to the preamble of your Bill, and we will send it back to you with some scheme of reformed constitution of our House attached to it," That would not have suited some of the advanced Members as they are called on this side of the House.

    Another point I want to ask on this subject is this: Calling myself, as the Leader of the Opposition says we may all call ourselves to-day, a democrat, I felt extremely embarrassed, having a complete set of Hansard in my possession, and having occasionally dived into its musty pages, at having to explain to my constituents why we were appealing to them in the very last days of the year, on an expiring register, when new registers had been made up, and were almost available for use in the election. The Prime Minister yesterday used this phrase: He said "to expedite the register was impracticable." I want to know why by common consent a little Bill of one clause, making all Parliamentary registers come into operation, there and then, could not have been passed in the last few days of the last Parliament, and why we could not then have placed ourselves in the position, which I say with great respect it is pure cant to say that we are in, of having the best possible reply of the people to the question submitted to them at the last election. The Prime Minister said he wanted some kind of emphasis of the policy embodied in the Bill, therefore he again submitted the principle of the Parliament Bill and its embodiment to the electorate. I thought that was a phrase of some significance, because there is a very large section on this side of the House who are bitterly opposed to any kind of reform, at the instance of the Government, of the House of Lords. It does not lie in the power of the Prime Minister, after using that phrase, to withdraw from the Bill its most important preamble, and I am one of those who firmly believe that to leave the House of Lords as it stands and to limit its Veto is a grotesque method of dealing with a great constitutional question.

    The Prime Minister says we have the embodiment of that policy in that Bill, therefore I suppose the House may assume that when it is reintroduced it will again contain the preamble in favour of reform of the House of Lords. That being so, I press with great humility upon the Prime Minister—after all, all that a private Member can do now is, with humility, to make casual and occasional speeches—for permission just to throw out this suggestion. The Prime Minister said yesterday he hoped to get this Bill through, passed and completed, before the Coronation. That is a vain hope, utterly without any foundation or probability. It is too much, human nature being what it is, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords being what they are, to expect such a consummation as that. I want to suggest, as I have suggested elsewhere, that there is a practical solution of this question, well worthy of consideration. The embodiment of the policy that the Prime Minister submitted to the electorate declares for a reformed Second Chamber and a limited Veto. Whilst we are considering the question of the Veto, the other House might well be engaged in seriously considering some measure of reform, the two Bills might automatically change Houses for consideration, and, instead of trying to force an agreement before the Coronation, which is utterly hopeless, you could appoint a joint committee of the two-Houses to consider these two measures, with a view to bringing forward after the Coronation a consolidated Bill, dealing both with reform of the Lords and the limitation of its Veto. That is a practical, statesmanlike proposal, though emanating from a private Member, and I am quite certain nothing short of this will meet the case, and that failing it, His Majesty will be greatly and gravely embarrassed in the early days of his reign, by being called upon to go through that solemn ceremony of the Coronation, with the whole country seething in political and party ferment.

    I want now to refer to one matter on which I feel very deeply. I want to know a little more as to the intention of the Government about depriving a private Member of the small remnant of Parliamentary usefulness and existence that is now left. Why is all our time to be taken till Easter? If the Prime Minister said, "Give us your time, and we will undertake to make it up to you in some way after Easter," I could understand the bargain. But we may find ourselves, even after Easter, asked to sacrifice such few rights as we possess. The position of any self-respecting private Member of this House is becoming intolerable; I do not know what we are here for. The old theory was that we were here to control the public purse. We are now mere automata. I cannot help likening myself and the average private Member to the vermiform appendix of the body politic, with no nobler functions than that of being operated upon.

    We have no vital function to perform. We might as well stay at home, and send a gramaphone here to say, "Hear, hear," when a Minister gets up. I do feel that the whole power of the private Member is being taken away. The whole control over the Executive is gone, and yet the average party Member sitting on this side or on the other side of the House, is content to come here simply to register the decrees of the official Cæsar. I for one am not prepared to submit to it, and so far as the rules of this House will permit, I will raise my voice and use every means in my power to resist the proposal to filch away the rights and privileges we have as Members of this House. The mover of the Address yesterday used one phrase in referring to the Estimates which appealed very much to me I hope it was inspired. He said he hoped that the Estimates, before being submitted to this House, would undergo some kind of business examination and revision. Heaven knows we have little enough control over the expenditure of public money. We have a Committee called the Public Accounts Committee, which is not very useful, because it simply has to sit in judgment upon money after it has been spent, and it is invariably induced to agree with the official view in regard to expenditure. Last year I pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter and received great hope and encouragement from him as to the appointment of a Standing Estimates Committee from among the Members of the House, in order that before the Estimates are submitted they may undergo revision by business Members of the House, who would report on the adequacy, extravagance, or insufficiency of the Estimates. May I ask the Prime Minister's attention to a statement made by him just before he assumed office in 1906. Addressing his own Constituents, he used these words:—
    "With regard to the voting of public money the theory of the constitution is that the people's representatives are sent to Parliament to control expenditure, but what is the practice? In 1904 under supply closure thirty-one millions of money were closured, not one item of which was ever discussed, and this year (1905) the amount rose to fifty millions sterling. This is a most serious state of things, It amounts to nothing more nor less than a creeping and progressive paralysis of the Parliamentary organism."
    The Prime Minister has been in power some years. Is he going to permit this creeping and progressive paralysis to become chronic? I was horrified one day last year when the Prime Minister, in answer to a question—I am sure it must have been written by one of the officials—told me that Ministers and heads of departments are responsible for their Estimates, and that the only control of the House is limited to discussions in Committee of Supply. I do hope that when we are appointing the Public Accounts Committee their power will be extended to examine the Estimates before they are submitted, or else that we shall have an independent business Committee of the House to examine and report on the Estimates. When we are defying the other House to put a finger on any item in the. Budget because we are the guardians of the public purse, is it not hypo- crisy that fifty millions or sixty millions of public money should be automatically voted every year without examination or discussion by a single Member of this House? I ask the Prime Minister to take that view into his consideration. I hope we may shortly have an assurance that there is to be a restoration of the business control of this House over the expenditure of public money. When that is accomplished, it will be one good thing done.

    We have an extremely oracular Speech from the Throne, and we have been encouraged by the hon. Member who moved the Address to read into it anything congenial to ourselves. I do hope with regard to Naval and Military matters that we are going to take the plunge which I see some Members of the Cabinet are preparing themselves to take. I hope we are no longer going to tinker with Naval and Military Estimates, but that we will consider the big question that is behind, namely, that a supreme Navy is essential, and that certain improvements and developments have to be faced in order to keep pace with the spirit of the time. Is it not well to recognise that we ought to have one comprehensive Military and Naval loan, the money for which would be subscribed a thousand times over, and for which the interest would be three millions less than you are proposing to spend on increased Naval Estimates for the year. You would then have a huge fund at your disposal to use as occasion requires. Do not discuss in this House or elsewhere exactly what you are thinking in regard to naval or military equipments. There are not half a dozen Members in this House who have the remotest conception of the meaning of these things. Do not invite military attachés to come and witness your manœuvres. Have a large fund in hand for the purpose of providing what you require, and which would involve a much less charge on the taxpayer than under the present system. I thank the House for permitting me to throw out these suggestions. I only hope the Government will give some little encouragement by restoring to Members of the House some kind of real and live existence, and that they will not enforce, to the growing impatience of the country, the Party system which has led one of the most brilliant men who sat in the last Parliament, Mr. Hilaire Belloc, to express the result of his experience in a book recently published. He says:—
    "The Party system is in the last stages of decay. It is no longer really alive. The necessity of getting rid of it is like the necessity one is under of being rid of a great dead body in one's neighbourhood when it has begun to putrify."
    My view of the Party system is that it is the reductio ad absurdum. Unless you vote straight you get a bad mark from the whip, from whose dominion I am happy to be temporarily released. We are told that there is nothing else for it if you come here than to be good boys. We may then be made peers, or something of that sort in the good time to come. I earnestly, respectfully and sincerely beg the Prime Minister's kind consideration of the suggestions I have thrown out.

    I am glad that one hon. Member speaking below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Bottomley) has been found to comment upon the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves. Early in the afternoon we were discussing the order moved from the Government Bench. It was suggested that there was some precedent for the action which the Government were now taking. I venture with great confidence to say that there is no precedent for this present case. There is one precedent—namely, the action taken by the Government themselves last year. But the circumstances then were entirely different. Parliament last year met much later, and Easter fell much earlier, and the Government were compelled to make the Motion they did. Although the circumstances now are different, we find ourselves, as the hon. Gentleman opposite said, deprived in the most ruthless and wholesale way of the time in which private Members can make proposals, suggest legislation, or indeed play any other part in the business of this House than register the opinions and decrees of the Government. I remember when it fell to the lot of my Leader to make proposals for taking the time of the House, and the indignation of hon. Gentlemen who are now below the Gangway and who were then on this side of the House was apparently very real. At all events it was very loud, it was frequently and vehemently expressed. It is interesting to observe that during this debate only one hon. Gentleman opposite has been found to comment upon the action of the Government. The Chief Secretary blamed my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Campbell) for introducing one particular incident on what he called a political matter, and he reproached him further by saying that it was unnecessary to do it inasmuch as we would have many other opportunities of laying our views before the House. If the Chief Secretary were present, I would ask him to specify one of the numerous opportunities to which he refers. The Prime Minister told us that he hoped full time would be given for the discussion of the Address. We have had hopes of that kind expressed from the Government Bench more than once. We were told last year that this House would have full opportunity to discuss the Veto Bill, and we have had no opportunity at all. I should be very much surprised if we did not find the Prime Minister rising at some later date and telling us that his hopes have been dashed to the ground and that he is compelled to ask the House to come to a close on the Debate on the Address, and we shall have no opportunity in which to raise any of the questions in which we are interested, and when the Address is over until the Government find themselves in an easier position than they are in at present we are not to have one single moment in which by any of the usual modes, or even by adjournment, we can call the attention of the country in this House to any single question.

    We have been discussing, so far, the question raised by my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. H. Campbell). I have no knowledge of that question except that which has been gained from newspapers. I have no means of verifying it because, as we have heard it debated today, it is impossible to go beyond the statement which has been made. But when I am told that this is a political dodge which is being got up for a political purpose, I can only say that I absolutely decline to believe that there is any foundation for a charge of that kind, knowing, as I do, and in spite of the inclination of some hon. Gentlemen to talk of this trouble having been raised in Belfast, that one of the largest meetings ever held in Ireland was addressed by clergymen and laity, and, being, as I am quite certain that none of those gentlemen would have lent themselves to advocating by their speeches and by their presence at that meeting that which was not in reality a grievance and which was only a political dodge. But there is something else to be said in answer to that allegation. We had the Chief Secretary dealing with the question himself earlier in the evening, and he went so far as to express his profound regret at the circumstances, and did not attempt to deny that the occurrence had taken place. All he did, and, as it seemed to me, with very ill-effect, was to try to prove that he was unable to deal with the case and unable to secure justice for this unfortunate woman. I do not believe that the great ecclesiastics who have expressed themselves in the strongest and unmistakable terms in Ireland upon this question have done so without satisfying themselves that there is good foundation for it, and I regret, profoundly, that the Irish Government have not taken action, as they could have taken action, to secure some measure of justice for this unfortunate woman. Everyone who is conversant with the Government of Ireland knows that the Government and the police in Ireland do a great deal of the work that is done by the private individual in England and Scotland. They have constantly to intervene in order to see that justice is done and that crime is punished. Surely that is a pathetic passage in that woman's petition, in which she says that if a shilling had been stolen the whole forces of Government would have been employed in order to find the criminal, and see that punishment was meted out to him, and that justice was done as far as possible to the person who had been injured. Surely if that is true—and no one has sought to deny it—then is not it equally true that the full forces of Government ought to have been employed to do justice to this unfortunate woman, and make it improbable, if not impossible, that there should be a recurrence of anything of the kind? But it is useless to carry the matter further. The Government have boasted of their impotence, and they are determined not to act on any statement we make or any entreaties we may address to them, and any criticisms we may pass evidently fall on deaf ears.

    There is another subject to which I wish to refer. The fact that we have no time at our disposal after the Address is over will make it impossible for those who belong to His Majesty's Opposition to obtain from the Government any information on certain points. I am not very confident that we shall be successful now, but at all events we will make the effort. Why is it that the whole time of the House is being taken with the general assent of those independent Members who, in other circumstances, would have protested loudly against this action of the Government? It is, we are told, because they are united in the determination to support the Government in passing the Parliament Bill. And why is it that the Parliament Bill is being pressed upon us? It is pressed upon us because it is well known that without some special powers of that kind, without some change in our procedure such as is indicated in that Bill, the Government cannot pass some of the measures that they want to pass, notably Home Rule for Ireland. What a farce it is to suggest that this new procedure is required for such measures, for instance, as education or licensing, or any of the other abortive schemes of His Majesty's Government during the last two Parliaments. We have not heard anything lately about the Education Bill or about the Licensing Bill, and we all know perfectly well that the Government realise that those were measures which had not got the support of the country. And they do not propose to re-introduce them because they know that the country would not back them in doing it. But they are in a difficulty. The Prime Minister boasted in his speech yesterday that he had behind him a majority as large as any majority that had backed his precedessors, at any rate for a long time. That is perfectly true as far as numbers are concerned. I am not going to discuss the question which has been raised in some quarters that a majority ought not to count because it is a composite majority. I am only going to point to the fact that that majority, depending as it does almost entirely upon the votes of the Nationalist Members for Ireland, makes it inevitable that the Government should put itself in a position to pass Home Rule, and that therefore we are called upon to submit to the filching away of our Parliamentary liberties in this House, in order that a Bill may be forced through, in order that Home Rule may be forced upon this country and upon Ireland. That is the actual position in which we find ourselves. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University quoted from a speech made by the Chief Secretary to his constituency in Bristol in which the Chief Secretary told his constituents and the country that Home Rule is a question which ought to be assented to, I think he said referred to the people. What steps is the Government taking to bring about this result? My right hon. Friend quoted from the speeches of one or two Members of the Government. He called the attention of the House to the references they have made to their Home Rule proposal. Surely if it is idle to ask the Government to do what I believe ought to be done in the interests of legislation, namely, to present the Bill to this House in order that it might be fully understood by the country before they attempted to pass it into law, if we cannot ask them to do that surely it is not too much to ask that they should tell us in general terms what the proposals are.

    If I am met by the answer that they have got no proposal at present, then I call as witnesses Members of the Government who, during the election, spoke on this subject. More than one of them, notably the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Haldane) referred in explicit terms to that scheme which the Government have for Home Rule. It is quite evident that in their minds if not on paper they have some scheme or some proposal for dealing with this question. And is it too much that we should ask to be taken into their confidence at all events so far as the general principles of the scheme are concerned? How is it possible for the country to do that which the Chief Secretary says it ought to do, namely, consider this question, if it is to be dealt with in this way? What is going to take place during the next few months? Obviously, I imagine it is almost certain that the ordinary accidents will happen, and that there will be from time to time vacancies in this House. At every election which is being fought the Government prefer to take refuge in this most undignified position. They prefer to leave their proposals absolutely nebulous, so that nobody can lay their finger on this or that part of the scheme and criticise it, so at this moment among the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are prepared to vote for Home Rule and who are clamouring for it, there is not one of them who would get up here and say clearly what it is that this Government scheme is likely to be. Not only are the Government failing to give us any general information, but further than that the statements they do make are startlingly inconsistent in themselves. The Foreign Secretary, whose absence we all deplore, not only because we are always glad to see him here, but because of our profound regret that a tragic death has deprived him of a brother and us of a distinguished Englishman, referring to this question, more than once talked in what seemed to me to be, for so distinguished and clear a man, a very loose way. More than once he referred to the intentions of the Government to grant Home Rule to Ireland as it was given to the Boers. That is a strangely loose statement to come from so distinguished a man, and I venture to say that South Africa offers no precedent whatever and no parallel for the case of Home Rule for Ireland.

    What happened in the South African case? We are asked by the Foreign Secretary to believe that the ideal of the Government—I do not take it any further than that—is that Home Rule should be granted as it was granted in South Africa. Nobody knows better than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Seeley) that the South African case is not only no precedent for this case, but is precisely the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. But in South Africa you had got two Parliaments already in existence—in Cape Colony and Natal. What this Government did was to grant not Home Rule to South Africa but representative government to the two other colonies which were at that time Crown Colonies. What followed from that? What is the great event on which hon. Gentlemen congratulate themselves and the country, and which they say ought to be the precedent followed now in Ireland. It is exactly the reverse of the proposal of His Majesty's Government in Ireland in order to pass which we are asked to surrender our liberties in this House. No sooner had we granted representative government to these two other colonies than the Secretary for the Colonies agreed to do what?—To abolish the four Parliaments, the four different Governments, and to form one Government. For what purpose? I am not quoting textually, but I am giving with substantial accuracy the eloquent words of the distinguished statesman who is now Prime Minister of South Africa. He claimed that South Africa should be united in order that in all great questions affecting the Empire South Africa should speak with one voice. Can any hon. Gentleman deny that the policy which led to the abolition of four Governments and the creation of one Government is no precedent for the policy which the Government now recommends?

    I said that the union in South Africa could not possibly come about without the granting of Home Rule to the other two colonies.

    What the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are always putting before the country as the great advantage is not the original granting of representative government to these smaller colonies, but the ultimate coming together of the four colonies into one, and the merging of four different Parliaments into one Parliament which enables South Africa to speak with one voice. I take it a step further. Surely what South Africa did is what we did 110 years ago in Ireland and some 200 years ago in Scotland.

    8.0 P.M.

    We had three Parliaments, the Scotch, the Irish and the English Parliaments, and we merged them, and South Africa is following our example. To quote the South African case as justification of or a proper illustration of what the Government now propose to do is to fly absolutely in face of the facts. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) has taken the country into his confidence in a variety of speeches which he has made, and in one very interesting article which he wrote to a magazine edited by the hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). In reading those speeches and that article, and having some small amount of knowledge—I go no further than that—on the subject of Ireland, and her past history, I confess I am unable to understand whether the hon. and learned Gentleman, in taking the case of Canada as a precedent, puts Ireland in the position of the Dominion, or in the position of one of the provinces of Canada. There is all the difference in the world between the two. In considering the South African case it is extremely interesting to remember that when the South African people met in convention to discuss what should be the form of the new Government of their country, the first scheme they had under consideration, and which they took into the convention, was a scheme of federation. This, I understand, to be the proopsal which unites the greater number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They laugh at the idea of separate Parliaments; at the same time, it appears convenient for them to forget that the leader of the party, who himself says separation is not proposed by the Irish Nationalist party, has never withdrawn, but stands by to-day the language which was used by his predecessor, and which has been used by himself, namely, that no man can put a limit to the march of a nation. Consequently, when he denies that separation is wanted, it must always be remembered that there is that limitation to the hopes held out to hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway. The federal scheme, I understand, is the scheme that evokes the sympathy of hon. Members below the Gangway, and makes many of them supporters of Home Rule, but they would not support Home Rule if they had not a federal scheme before them. In the South African case, they started with the idea of a federal scheme, but when they came to contemplate the structure, and to a large extent had created a federal scheme of Home Rule, they realised that if you were to give reality to the provincial Parliament, the result would be that there would be practically nothing for the central Imperial Parliament to do. The result of their federal scheme would leave to the Federal Government a very moderate amount of work, a very small amount of dignity, and very little chance of making their country what they properly desired it to be, and what they constantly hope and believe they will make it, now they have got the chance.

    I wonder how many realise what the effect of a federal scheme would be. After all, in this great Imperial House of Commons, are we not often reproached with the fact that we take too much time over, and pay too much attention to, what are called domestic affairs, rather than our great imperial affairs? I do not think, however, that that is the fault of this House; but I ask hon. Gentlemen who have pledged themselves, as it seems to me, rather hastily, to this scheme of a Federal Parliament, to realise what may be expected. On all those questions which come home to the minds of the people, on all those questions materially affecting their well-being, their daily lives, their own home concerns, each of those Members of this Parliament who proposes to have a Federal Parliament, and who contemplates, I presume, sitting himself in that Parliament, is delegating the duties of the most important Parliament to the less important Parliaments, and is thereby depriving himself of any power or right to take part in legislation which is often very important and lies nearer to the hearts of the people than anything else that is done in their behalf. When the people of South Africa realised what was the meaning of federalism, they abandoned it and tore up their scheme, and founded the present scheme of unification, which has enabled them to speak with one; voice as part of the Empire. What is it I have asked the Government to do? Surely it is not very much, and surely it is not unfair, to assume that if they have thought this thing out, and clearly made up their minds what they themselves intend to propose, they ought not to be so afraid of their own scheme, so frightened at their own shadow, as to be unable to tell us whether it is the Australian or Canadian model, or the still looser federation of Australia which they have in their minds, or whether Ireland is to play the part of Canada, or the part of one of the provinces of Canada, or one of the Parliaments of Australia. We are entitled to believe that they have some fairly definite notion what it is they mean to propose. Why is it that they propose to keep the country in the dark?

    How often have we heard hon. Gentlemen perorating to their Constituents and talking about government by the people for the people? What has become of that ancient Liberal and Radical doctrine? This is not government by the people for the people. This is government by the Government of the day, with power to require that they were to do nothing in respect of their scheme except to say "Yes" or "No." What has become of these Liberal and ancient theories? Why is it that the Government will not take the people into their confidence? Why is it that they will not adopt the advice of the Chief Secretary and say to the country—"This is our proposal; we want you to consider it, in order that we may have your authority to pass it into law." The answer is quite obvious. The Government know perfectly well that the moment they open their minds, the moment they take the country into their confidence, their scheme will very soon be torn to ribbons, and their own position will be materially weakened, if not destroyed. Therefore, from the point of view of this House, I hold that in a change so great and vital as this one which you are proposing, by which you will undoubtedly break up the United Kingdom, it may be for evil, it may be for good—I hold, and others hold with me, that you ought to take the country into your confidence and tell it what it is you mean to do, and give an opportunity of examining your proposals. I do not wonder that we never hear a reply. The Government having gone through the terrors of an election, and having, as they say, come back triumphantly with a majority emphasised although decreased—a curious way of emphasising—they will run no more risks, and they will keep the secret locked up in their bosom, divulging it to nobody, although they know by doing this they are-asking the country, without any previous knowledge, to give their assent to a great scheme of legislation which may be fraught with the direst consequences to the country. I know that any appeal I make-is not likely to move the Government to tell anything more than they have told us—and that is nothing. We live in a state of profound ignorance as to their intentions. Their friends have advocated different schemes, and then the Government will suddenly produce a scheme to the country and ask that it should be accepted in a hurry, without any of the knowledge that it ought to possess. I think the Government are treating the country as badly in this respect as they are treating the House badly in taking all its time. I think they are treating us with the greatest unfairness. I believe myself that the inevitable consequence will follow that when the proposals which they are framing, or have framed for this revolution, are made public and the country is taken into their confidence, they will find that it is opposed to their scheme of Home-Rule. The country will not have it. The country has refused to have it before. Therefore, while I blame them for not taking the more heroic and better course, yet I do not blame them for adopting a course which tends to their own security. It is because they believe that they have not got the country at their back, and that this scheme of Home Rule is not one which will be accepted, that they have adopted the course which to them is one of greater wisdom, but which is not that which they ought to take in the interests of the country and in fairness to this House.

    I listened with a good deal of interest and admiration, I must say, to the words that fell from the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), who says, truly from his point of view, that he is the Member for London. I must honestly confess that I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the views which the hon. Member expressed. I have had the honour during the years I have been a Member of this House to listen to a good many Gracious Speeches from the Throne. During all these years I have never for a moment intruded upon the House at so early a period of the Session. I am led to do so on this occasion for one reason only—that the only thing that a private Member has got to do is to speak as early as possible in the Session, as there is a very great chance that he will not have an opportunity afterwards. There was a time when it was said, and when it was really true, that we were the representatives of the people. Not only was it the case, that the majority of our constituents must agree with our views, or they would not have returned us, but at the same time, we had the power of expressing on their behalf, what their views were, nay more than that, we had the power very often, of initiating for them, different things, which they thought would remove grievances from which they suffered.

    From the words we heard to-day, from the Prime Minister, I think there is very little doubt, that the last remnant of power or of individual action that remained with the ordinary private Member 5s to be absolutely taken away from us. We shall have no longer the power of either expressing the views our constituents hold, nor shall we have the power of putting them into action. In private measures, we are deprived of our power, and in public measures, closure by compartments and time closure have taken away from us, the opportunities we used to enjoy. I would like to ask the House whether this is really a time when it is advisable to deprive us of that power? It is the present intention of His Majesty's Government to very largely curtail, if I may so put it, the criticising power of another place. In addition to that, they now propose to take from the private Member his power of criticism. Therefore I venture to think that the Government intend to deprive themselves of the pleasure of listening to any criticism at all as to any of the measures of which they approve. It seems to me that the present Government, instead of being, as it poses to be, a democratic Government, holding its position from the people, are turning themselves into a more autocratic form of Government than we have ever witnessed in this country in our time, an autocratic Government that declines to brook any opposition or to brook any criticism of any kind or sort as to its actions. So much shall I say for the woes of the private Member. After all, anybody who has been in this House for a great number of years has, I suppose, some little right to look back on the past, and to rather pride themselves upon the individual liberty that was granted to the men who were the representatives of the people.

    I would like to express the very deep regret I feel as a London Member, that London, which is, after all, the capital city of this Empire, has not received the smallest mention in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. London is suffering at the present time from one or two very serious grievances. One has been so much before the eyes of the public lately, that I hardly intend to say much about it, and that is, shall I call it, the insurrection that has taken place in the East End of London recently. The alien question has been with us for a great many years. I recollect as far back as 1889, when I had the honour of being a Candidate for a West London Constituency, that I brought before the then Prime Minister, the very serious condition that prevailed in that Constituency. We had there a very large influx of exactly the same character as that which resulted in the insurrection in Sidney Street. Therefore, it is no new thing, but it has been growing worse and worse. There are two different features of the alien question entirely separate and entirely apart from each other. There is, first of all, the industrial question, and, secondly, and it becomes an infinitely more serious question from another point of view, that is as to the people who come into this country, and who are against law and order in all its forms. Leaving aside altogether the industrial question, I do ask whether the time has not arrived when we in London, at all events, should be free from any such sample of disorder as we have been witnessing very lately in Sidney Street. I must confess, and I believe all my colleagues who represent London Constituencies on this side of the House, feel very keenly, indeed, that His Majesty's Government have not thought fit to advise that there should be something to prevent it, and that there should be no allusion to it in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

    There is another matter, which is almost as serious as the alien question, I mean the financial position in which London is, at the present moment. There is no question about it that as the years roll on, we Londoners find it more and more difficult to, if I may so put it, live under the difficulties which at the present time surround us. There is no doubt of the fact that living in London becomes more and more expensive every year. We find as well that the Government themselves are assisting to create the very difficulties from which we suffer. First of all there is an enormous number of empty houses in London just now. Empty houses arise from a variety of causes. Firstly, I should say, there are very many people who cannot afford to pay the excessive rates which prevail in London, and the more empty houses you have the heavier the rates become. The last Budget passed by His Majesty's Government undoubtedly has very heavily, and must very heavily, increase the burden of the rates. There is not a shadow of doubt that various licences have been extinguished, and that a very large number of the men who are engaged in that trade are bound, unfortunately, to close their houses. The result of it unquestionably is to add very greatly to the increase on the rates. In addition to that, recent decisions in the Law Courts have laid it down that the assessments of those houses will have to be lowered on account of the increased duties that have to be paid. All those things very largely add, and must very largely add, to the rates which we Londoners have to pay. I can only say for myself that I think it is hardly fair that we should have the large decrease in Exchequer grants that has taken place at the present time. Surely we must be treated with some little fairness in London. You have a very large number of hon. Members who make up the composite majority at the disposal of the Government, who are not much interested in London, or I doubt if they are much interested in England. Their interests lie in other parts, which are more subservient and more at their disposal for the objects they have at heart.

    I ask, and I think I am entitled to ask, that in the interests of those who are endeavouring to do their best in this great City, that His Majesty's Government shall pay some little heed, at all events, to the things we are suffering from. It will be apparent to every man who moves about this great City that the increase of traffic is becoming almost impossible for us to be able to control it. That, I think, is an open secret. The police themselves say that it is becoming a danger for the public, and one which must have some strong remedy, or otherwise it will become a very serious matter. This, of course, you will say, is a minor matter, but I am inclined to think that the safety of the public is not a minor matter at all. I do ask in all seriousness that since His Majesty's Government have not thought fit to treat this subject as serious enough for a reference in the Gracious Speech, a subject which has been very seriously reported of by a Commission, I do ask that in the interests of those whose daily work lies in perambulations of this great city, that some little heed should be taken of the question so that those who are least able to protect themselves, our wives and children and women folk, shall be able, at all events, to move about this great city without the danger they incur now. I have ventured to take the Debate away from the great Imperial subjects that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, but, after all, I venture to think that perhaps some domestic matters are really worthy of our consideration. In these circumstances I can only express my thanks to the House for giving me their attention.

    South Wales Coal Strike

    After the most interesting speeches that we have heard I may be pardoned for introducing another subject. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has departed from the other side because I might express the view we hold with regard to the present conduct of the Government. We think that if they did anything but that which they are doing they would scarcely be worthy of the position that they hold. To continue passing legislation in this House, and sending it up to another place to be either thrown out or mutilated would indeed be a humiliating position for any Government to hold. In their endeavour to make this House an effective legislative House I believe the Government have a right to say that the workers of the country will support them. As to the remarks of the last speaker, we have full sympathy with him in reference to London traffic; but, as practical men, we think that the streets could be easily relieved if there were a good number of fine boats on the river. So that Londoners have the matter in their own hands if they have the courage to do what is necessary.

    But I rise particularly for the purpose of once more asking the Government to appoint a Special Committee or Commission to inquire into the charges made against the police in connection with the recent trouble in that portion of South Wales known as Mid-Rhondda, or better known in London as Tonypandy, and also an inquiry into the liability for the personal injuries and losses sustained in that calamity. I do not propose to enter now into the history of the actual casualties which took place during that unfortunate trouble, though some of my friends will do so, there being some notable facts which it is necessary to bring before the attention of the House; but, personally, I shall leave that side of the matter for them to treat, because they can do it much more ably than I can with my Welsh tongue. What happened is well known; it can never be denied or blotted out; and we are really anxious to find out, if possible, who were the real culprits. We are honestly of the opinion that the guilty persons are not yet found out. I do not want to find fault unduly with the police. They probably pursued what they thought to be their duty, amid many difficulties, and perhaps under some provocation. But we who have taken the trouble to make inquiries in our own way, on our own behalf, and on behalf of the men we represent, are strongly convinced that the police did many things which they ought not to have done, and that they treated very severely some of the men even when they were only attempting that which as pickets they had a perfect right under the law to do. In my opinion, a plain statement of that kind, made conscientiously, after some trouble has been taken to find out the truth, is sufficient to justify the inquiry for which we are asking.

    We believe that the granting of that inquiry would be in the interest of the police themselves. Not simply the miners of Mid Rhondda or the miners of Aberdare who are so nearly connected with the matter, but the miners of South Wales as a body, think that the Government stand in their own light in not granting this inquiry. The Home Secretary will believe that we are intensely interested in finding out the facts. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman is in full sympathy with us. If he wants to clear the character of the men of the Rhondda and of the police, as I believe he does, there is but one way to do it, and that is to grant this inquiry to see who really caused the disturbances. If the inquiry is not granted, there are over 100,000 miners who will continue in the belief that the police force have done great acts not only of indiscretion, but of cruelty, in their treatment of these men. If that can be proved to be untrue, it will be a pity to allow 100,000 men to continue in the belief that it is true. Therefore, I ask the Government in the interests of the truth to grant this inquiry, so that we may know who really is implicated. We believe it would be ten thousand times better that the matter should be cleared up. The Home Secretary may find amongst those we represent the guilty parties. If so we shall not spare them any condemnation. But, believing that they are not the guilty parties, we cannot sit down under the imputation, nor can we allow the question to remain as it is without doing all we can to ask, to beg, to pray, yea! to demand from the Government that an inquiry will take place into this matter. I have been a representative of these men for thirty-five years. I have had the honour to represent them in this House for fully twenty-five years. You will understand then that their interests are dear to me. I have been recognised as the leader of these men. I have represented them in their conferences with the employers, doing what I could for them. During that time we have had strikes and lock-outs; but disturbances like this, never! And I cannot believe that the men I represent are the creators of this trouble. Hence the House will bear with me when I am pleading for this inquiry in order to know who the guilty parties are. Although I do not do justice to this matter with my Welsh tongue, I appeal earnestly that justice may be done in the interests of the men whom I represent, in the interests of peace and righteousness, in the interests of the police, and in the interest of the Government itself. I ask that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) will now see his way clear in the matter. When he did not see his way clear before to grant this inquiry, in his favour it should be said that he did not slam the door against us; he did not even close it. He held it so far open that we have the hope that it may be opened wide. My appeal is that the door may be kept open, that this inquiry will, be granted, and that the desire of South Wales will be allowed.

    I rise to associate myself with the pathetic appeal made by my right hon. Friend. If that does not bring a response, then I am afraid that anything I would like to add will not produce much effect upon the official mind of the Home Office. It would be as well for hon. Members to remember that this question has two aspects. First of all there is the question of the character of the Welsh collier. He has been stigmatised all over the country as a wild, riotous, and disorderly fellow, who requires extra police, backed by the military, to keep him in order during trade disputes. Yet, as my right hon. Friend has just been saying, until this present occasion there has been no disturbance in the Welsh coalfield during strikes or lock-outs. The second aspect of this question is: What are the rights of the citizen as against the police? What has happened in the Welsh coalfield has a very direct bearing upon that question, as I hope to show very briefly in the course of my remarks. There was a further point which was touched upon by my right hon. Friend—the question as to whether anyone, or any authority, is responsible for injury sustained by inoffensive and peaceful citizens at the hands of the police even during a disturbance. Since the question was last before the House in the closing days of last Session two attempts have been made to have the matter raised and disposed of in a court of law. The case was taken before the local stipendiary. It failed. Since then an application has been made to the High Court, before the Lord Chief Justice, for permission to raise an action against the superintendent who was in charge of the police in order to have this matter sifted to the bottom, and the responsibility for this disturbance fixed. That application also failed. Therefore, in again asking the Home Office for an inquiry, it cannot be said that we have not taken every step in order to have the matter tested and probed to the bottom. May I remind the Home Secretary that on this occasion the issue is narrowed down to the two particular points I have named. If he will be good enough to refer to the Amendment to the Address which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Abraham) he will find it set out in these words:—

    "And further, we humbly desire to express our regret that Your Majesty's advisers have not seen fit to recommend the appointment of a special committee or commission to inquire into the charges made against the police in connection with the recent trouble in a portion of the South Wales coalfield, and the question of liability for personal injuries sustained in connection therewith."

    We are leaving out of account the bringing of the military. We are leaving out of account other extraneous matters. We are concentrating exclusively upon the action of the police in connection with the alleged disturbances. May I, before passing on, say that I associate myself very fully indeed with the statement of my right hon. Friend that we do not blame individual policemen for the incidents which took place, and which we deplore and complain about. I think the Home Office must bear a very large share of the responsibility. When men are brought a very long distance in the midst of winter; when they are turned adrift amongst the Welsh hills without proper provision being made for housing, for feeding, even for clothing; when they are kept on duty for intolerably long hours, it is not to be wondered at that they get irritable and commit acts which, in their cooler moments, they probably regret. This whole question of the attendance of the police under special circumstances is one that requires attention. It was not only in the Welsh coalfields that this neglect to which I am referring occurred. It occurred also at the recent case at Stepney. I hold in my hand a letter which appeared in "The Times" of the 16th of last month, written by the Rev. Lionel S. Lewis, of St. Mark's Vicarage, White-chapel, in which he explains that at the Sydney Street affair also the police were kept without provisions for a period of time which must have exhausted the men on duty. I will read just a few sentences; he speaks of the men having been on duty from 4.30 a.m. some of them to 5.30 p.m., during which time they received no food or refreshment of any kind. He refers to others who were on duty twenty and twenty-two hours, exposed to a blizzard and in the most wearying excitement, and he goes on to add—and this is the gravamen of the charge:—
    "At 1 p.m., realising the state of things, I telephoned to a generous friend and asked that she would supply a cart of provisions from Lyons, if I could get permission from the authorities. She gave me, carte blanche, to order anything necessary up to £10. I immediately went to the headquarters of the district. The superintendent or chief inspector were on the scene of action. The inspector in charge, refused the offer, without communicating with Scotland Yard, on the ground that it was not necessary; that the police often had such long hours and that some of the men had been relieved and that others were going to be relieved, but the facts are as I have stated above. Such red tape will lead to disaster and is cruel."
    My point in reading that extract is to show that if, in the City of London, constables can be kept on duty fourteen and twenty and twenty-two hours at a stretch without food, and if the offer to provide them with food from private sources was refused, one's mind fails to picture how the men must have been treated on the bleak hillsides of Wales, where they were sent in reference to this dispute. The matter ought to be investigated. We bring no general charge against the police, we want to see them well eared for, and looked after, and it is possible that if the facts could be known, it would be found that this treatment of the police was to some extent responsible for the incidents to which we refer. I do not want to enter at length into the cases charged against the police, the particulars of which I read out to the House in the closing days of the last Session. On this occasion, I will only quote two or three cases. They refer to what happened at Aberaman on the 22nd November On that occasion, about 6 o'clock in the evening, the police, for some reason or other, thought fit to have the streets cleared. So far as we can ascertain, there was no riot, but it may be that the police apprehended riot or disturbance and cleared the streets. Some four hours later, this incident occurred—and if I only read three cases altogether it is not because there are not other cases, because I hold in my hand some twenty affidavits that were read in the High Court when application was made before it. I only take three as showing the kind of thing of which we complain and the justification we have when we ask for an inquiry into the facts of the case. This is one of them:—
    "I, William Wile, of 6, Gamblyn Terrace, Aberaman, make oath and say as follows: I am twenty-two years of age. On Tuesday, 22nd November, I had been to Mountain Ash, and came back to Aberaman by the 10.40 train. I left Aberaman station to go home, and when I got in the Cardiff Street, near Mason Street, a Metropolitan policeman caught me by the arm and said, 'Where are you going,' I said 'home.' He gave me a shove. There were twelve Metropolitan policemen at the bottom of Mason Street, six mounted, towards whom he kept pushing me. One of them said, 'get out of this' and struck me on my left cheek bone with his fist and another kicked me on the left hip bone. I ran into a garden three doors down from Mason Street, and stayed there some time and then started home. At 11.20 or thereabouts, I had to go by Powell's, the drapers, at the bottom of Lewis Street, when I saw a group of about twenty-five Metropolitan and other policemen. Superintendent Gill was in charge of the police, so I went up to him and said, 'I have been assaulted after having been away all day.' He replied, 'Go home before you get another.'
    When this was read out in the court the comment of the Judge was," It was very good advice that he should go home." A peaceful citizen, coming home from the railway station makes a complaint to a superintendent of police of being assaulted by policemen and he gets no consolation given him than being told that if he did not go home he would probably get more.
    "James Bowen of 14, Commerce Place, Aberaman make Oath and says as follows:—On Tuesday, the 22nd November, I had been to Aberdare, and with Mason. Probert and Harry Kierl, and on our return we met George Taylor on the Brakestone Square opposite the theatre in Aberaman shortly after 11 p.m. Before I got to Taylor I saw about twenty Glamorgan policemen in Lewis Street. The street opposite the theatre contained the usual number of people. On the square were about thirty or forty Glamorgan policemen. I went clown the street with the rest and about six yards from the square I saw twelve to fifteen Metropolitan policemen coming up the street. When we came up to them they said 'move on.' We said 'we are going home.' One of them hit Taylor in the back and, on Taylor saying something, hit him in the eye. Taylor ran away followed by the policeman, who kept hitting him with his fist. I continued walking on and one stopped me and I fearing him to be hit I turned my back to the wall and objected and said I was going-home. While I was talking some five policemen came up and one of them hit me on the back of the head with his baton. I tried to protect myself but was knocked down. When on the ground they continued striking me with their batons and kicked me."
    This man had to have his wounds sewn up in several places. There are other cases of a like kind, but the only other I will trouble the House with, is where an attendant of the local theatre was standing on the steps of his theatre, as the people were emerging. He was attacked by the police and driven back inside his own building, although he told them who he was. Those are the type of cases on which we base our demand for an inquiry. I know it will be said by hon. Members opposite that these are small matters to make a noise about, and they will tell us that if they had occurred in Ireland they would have thought themselves lucky in getting off so easily. That is very likely true, but we do not want Irish constabulary methods introduced in this country, and we desire to nip this thing in the bud. The police constable is a public servant, and he must be taught to act as the servant and not the master of the public. A constable has no right to use more violence than is justified by the actual facts of the case. In the case I have mentioned there was no riot or disturbance, but simply a peaceful man going home, and he was assaulted. The Home Secretary should appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate all the facts of the case, not only as my right, hon. Friend has said, to put the responsibility upon the right shoulders, but in order to prevent a recurrence of this kind of thing. If the same kind of thing goes on unchallenged, as has happened in South Wales, the working section of the public will lose confidence in the authority and will regard the police as acting in the interests of the masters and helping to keep the men in subjection.

    In regard to responsibility, in a riot or disturbance of the peace, property, when damaged, requires to be compensated for from public funds, but if in connection with a dispute of this kind a perfectly innocent man killed, he has no claim against anybody. On the other hand, if a man gets his windows smashed by a riotous crowd or a policeman's truncheon, he can obtain compensation from the authorities, but if a man gets his head smashed he has no claim against anyone. Surely that is an anomalous state of things which should be inquired into with a view to being remedied. Property is no doubt very valuable, but it is no more valuable than life and limb, and if the law pays compensation for damage to property, it ought to pay compensation to damaged persons, unless it can be shown that those persons have actively participated in the trouble. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda said, when this question was last before the House the Home Secretary did not absolutely refuse an inquiry The Home Secretary said on 24th November last:—
    "When the whole of this story is complete, as I hope it will be at no very distant date, and when peace and order are restored in the Welsh Coalfields, and the strike has been settled, it may very well be the time to go into these matters. I do not prejudge them at all."
    9.0 P.M.

    In the Aberaman district the strike has long been settled, the police and the military have been withdrawn, and there is no longer any ferment of public opinion. There the conditions laid down by the Home Secretary have all been complied with, so far as the Aberdare valley is concerned, whatever he may say as to Tonypandy, where the dispute is not yet settled. For these reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will institute a searching inquiry into the occurrences at Aberaman. Practically every Liberal candidate in South Wales who was questioned upon this subject during the election said the Home Office had guaranteed an inquiry after the dispute was over. The dispute is now over, and let us have the inquiry. Do not let us have an honest law-abiding, self-respecting class of workmen any longer held up to the stigma of having been riotous when we who know the men and know the place are aware that had the matter been left in the hands of the local police, not one single disturbance of a serious kind would ever have occurred. We ask for an inquiry in the first place as to whether unnecessary violence was used by the police, and if so what action ought to be taken to safeguard the public in the future; and, secondly, what is the law as to compensation for innocent persons injured. There have been two inquiries into similar disturbances in the past. Various points of law have been cleared up, but these two points still remain unsettled. The High Court has decided that the superintendent in charge of the police is not responsible for the action of the men under him. On a dark night it is quite impossible to identify individual men, and, therefore, the public are helpless when an occurrence of this kind takes place. Surely that is a con- dition of things which ought not to be allowed to continue, and which the Home Office should see is made the subject of an inquiry with a view to finding a remedy as soon as possible.

    I only wish to offer a few observations in regard to the appeal which has been made to the Home Secretary for this inquiry. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that practically every Liberal candidate in South Wales during the last General Election stated that the Home Secretary would grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police. I stood for a constituency where a large number of the men involved in the trouble were electors. It is perfectly true that I was pressed with probably 300 or 400 questions from partisans of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil to give such a pledge, but I absolutely declined to allow on any platform of mine, either by questioner or by speaker, the slightest political capital to be made out of the industrial trouble to which allusion has been made. We have had a different tone assumed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil to-night. The suggestion now is a mild appeal, as the trouble is now nearly over, for an inquiry; but long before the trouble was over, in the very white heat of the dispute, the hon. Member was clamouring for this inquiry. Why? Because he has always made a point whenever an industrial trouble is taking place, while a Liberal Government is in power, of attacking the Government. I can recall in my experience, my personal and intimate experience, of industrial troubles during the last twenty-two years, troubles where the military have been called in during the existence of a Conservative-Government when no single suggestion emanated from the hon. Member that there should be an inquiry. What of the great dock trouble in Southampton at the time-when I was an official of the Dock Labourers' Union? At that time men were shot down to the right and left of me, but, though the hon. and junior Member for Merthyr at that time was acting in the cause of Labour, never a breath and never a suggestion that there should be an official inquiry. Here to-day many will be surprised, as I am surprised, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda (Mr. W. Abraham)—than whom there is no-man more respected in the whole of South Wales, or in this House—has been induced to put in this plea. How? Why? When? In his absence a meeting of the Labour party, at the instigation of the hon. Member for Merthyr, passed a resolution that as troubles had occurred in the Rhondda Valley the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda should raise the matter, and, loyal as he always has been to his colleagues, he, of course, took upon himself the duty.

    I trust in this matter the Home Secretary will not be induced to grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police until every semblance of the dispute is at an end, and then I shall join, and join earnestly, in asking that the fullest and the most absolute inquiry shall be held into the conduct of the police and also into the conduct of those irresponsible speakers who, without taking responsibility in the immediate locality have, by their speeches, had such an effect upon the minds of the unfortunate men engaged in those troubles. It is a difficult position for me to occupy, but I desire to say that the view of the thousand miners whom I represent in East Glamorganshire is that the Home Secretary—it is not always that I have agreed with him—in regard to this dispute has behaved with a magnificent discretion which they very much appreciate. Exactly in the same way, as we know, there are certain perfectly irresponsible hangers-on of every movement, so it is possible there were individual policemen who used undue force. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Merthyr is that there was no responsibility on the part of individual policemen. He has not the pluck to attack the individual policemen, and he suggests it is a mere matter of the system. As a matter of fact, those who were responsible—men like Captain Lindsay, the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire—behaved with perfect discretion throughout the whole of these serious troubles. It is perfectly true there were incidents which shows conclusively that certain individual policemen did use undue force. At the proper time and on the right occasion that will be seen. But in the meantime I desire to say, as one who has taken probably a great deal more part than the hon. Member for Merthyr in the conduct of industrial disputes, that in my view the police behaved with wonderful care, wonderful discretion, and wonderful forbearance. He suggests that if only the local police had been left to look after things there would have been no trouble. As a matter of fact, the grave Tonypandy riots took place before any outside police arrived, and the only alternative—and this is where I particularly desire to emphasise the facts to the Home Secretary—to the importation of police to take charge of the districts where the riots occurred was that the military should be sent in. We know that police methods permit of every degree of force from the placing of the hand upon the shoulder to the using of the baton; but, once the word is given with regard to the military, then it is a matter of life and death. If it had not been for the importation of the police and for the magnificent discretion and magnificent forbearance they showed under exceedingly great provocation, not from the great body of strikers, we all know that, but from certain irresponsible wild elements on the fringe, we should have had the hon. Member for Merthyr attacking the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for War for having caused grave bloodshed on the South Wales coalfields. I shall join, and join earnestly, in the request that there be a full, frank, and exhaustive inquiry, but that it shall not take place until every semblance of the dispute has been removed.

    Very regretfully, and I hope very briefly, I join once more in this request for an inquiry. I join in it this time with all the more earnestness because the demand for it has been put by the hon. Member for the Rhondda temperately and in a manner that I am sure must attract the utmost possible attention. The hon. Member who has just sat down is the Member for a neighbouring constituency, and not the constituency where the disturbances happened, and where the police were called in and committed the alleged outrages upon the people. I can quite understand that the hon. Member truly represents his constituents, but he finished by saying that be would be quite prepared to support an inquiry once the disturbances are all finished. He therefore agrees with me that the time has arrived to support an inquiry as far as the Aberdare district is concerned. The first time this matter came before the House I ventured to put as clearly as I could the essential difference between these two districts. I am going to say nothing about the Rhondda. Unfortunately, though the disturbance has gone, the men are not yet back in work. It was in the Rhondda, represented by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion, and in Tonypandy in particular, that the riots happened. The fact that riots happened in Tonypandy was no excuse at all for creating a panic in Aberdare with two ranges of mountains (between. It might as well have been a panic or a riot in Yorkshire. What I want to press on the Home Secretary is this, that these are different districts, they are different disputes, and a different set of occurrences. The men are now at work in Aberdare, and everything is going on excellently. There was no serious riot there. There was but one little disturbance after the police had come on the scene, and we want an inquiry into the circumstances there Seeing that we have now got peace in the district, I say the time has come when an inquiry can be held without any difficulty whatsoever. The last hon. Member who spoke can, I think, support this request, Several persons are assuming—I hope the Home Secretary will not assume that we are here necessarily condemning the police. We do nothing of the kind, and our request for inquiry should simply be regarded as a request for information. It is in that sense, at any rate, that we make it. There are all sorts of rumours in currency.' The Home Secretary, on the last occasion, gave certain particulars which he had obtained from his source of information. I am not here to dispute those particulars, or to say that they are coloured or unfair What I want is an inquiry to establish whether or not the alleged charges which have been made against the police are Tight. I cannot see any objection to the granting of such an inquiry. The result may be to give the Home Secretary a complete answer to his critics. It may transpire as a result of the inquiry that the police were justified in all they did. If so, that will be a good thing for the police. It may happen that the Commissioner will attribute the blame to certain sections of the strikers, and that he may be able to put his finger upon groups which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda Valley is anxious to detect. That also would be a very good thing At any rate, I am confident, as one born among the people and living amongst them, that the result will be to establish the character of the Welsh collier as that of a man willing to suffer and to fight his battles without resort to violence and the destruction to property. It is for the sake of re-establishing these people in the eyes of the country, and to put an end to the slanders which have been cast upon them by the exercise of the imagination of London pressmen, who went down there in a hurry, that I press most sincerely and earnestly for the grant of this inquiry, at any rate so far as Aberdare is concerned.

    I would not have interposed in this debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan. I cannot think that he is well acquainted with the facts. If he had been, he would not have made himself responsible for the statements he has made in this discussion. My right hon. Friend, the Member for the Rhondda Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil have raised this question not upon their individual responsibility, but because they were instructed to do so by their Constituents and by the vote of the Federation of which I am a member and an official. The general sense of the whole of the Welsh miners is in favour of a close investigation, not because they have any grievance against the Home Secretary, but because they want him to have an opportunity of giving his reason for having such a large number of military and police drafted into the South Wales coalfield. Like the hon. Member who spoke last, I represent the colliers. I am kept by them. I am paid by them, and they are a body whom I am proud to represent. I do not for one moment think that they are guilty of the charges levelled against them, and, in common honesty, we are entitled to ask in their name for the fullest investigation. I regret to say I am not, personally, closely in touch with the facts of the case. When these unfortunate occurrences took place I happened to be out of the country, but I was back in time to fight my own Parliamentary election, and the first question which was put to me when I got into the Rhondda Valley was: Are you in favour of asking the Home Secretary to grant an inquiry into the conduct of the police on this matter? Seeing that it was a reasonable and proper question, I undertook to support such a demand, and I can only say that if the Home Secretary feels it is a right thing to wait until the dispute in the Rhondda is settled before beginning the inquiry, I will not object, provided that he will at once commence the investigations at Aberdare, where there is now no dispute. The people there are law-abiding, highly respectable citizens, and, in their name, I would make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to grant this inquiry.

    I have certainly no reason to complain that this subject has been raised in the course of the Debate on the Address, for I have been the object of a good deal of severe criticism directed upon me with equal good will from opposite points of view, and I have not, until the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda Valley, had any formal opportunity of making any general statement upon the subject to the House of Commons. The action of the Government in this affair has been assailed with very different views. From this side of the House we have to-night listened to the very moderate and courteous speeches of the right hon. Member for Rhondda, the hon. Members for South and East Glamorgan, and from the senior Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rees Jones). We have also listened to a very moderate, restrained, and dignified statement from the junior Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Keir Hardie), and I only say this, that I very much regret that he has not afforded the House, this evening, an opportunity of judging the kind of oratory which I understand he has been pouring out through the country at the unreported meetings which he has so freely addressed on this subject.

    May I ask what foundation the right hon. Gentleman has for saying that I have addressed unreported meetings on this subject. It is my misfortune they were not reported, not my fault.

    I think it is the misfortune of us all that the hon. Member was not reported, because if all I have heard is correct a verbatim transcript of his remarks would have been of great interest to all parties in this assembly. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and friends have criticised the action of the Home Office from his point of view, and that has been answered to some extent in the very courageous speech of the hon. Member for East Glamorgan. But I was yesterday the subject of attack from no less a person than the Leader of the Opposition, and he has attacked me, not for the excessive amount of force employed, but for not employing sufficient force—for not sending military instead of police—for not sending military soon enough, and the right hon. Gentleman devoted so much time in the important speech which he delivered at the beginning of this Session to this subject that I am really surprised that in the course of this Debate, though I waited to give full opportunity for it, no Member of the Opposition has risen to support the charges which were made against the Government and the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. Let me just read to the House what the right hon. Gentleman says. He said:—

    "Many of these deplorable occurrences might have been avoided had he not at a critical moment refused to carry out decisively and effectively the measures which he contemplated. Had he not held back the military and not shown some doubt and hesitation at a critical moment, much destruction of property, many unhappy incidents, and many circumstances which all whatever their opinions, must look upon as a great blot on the procedure of civilised society, might have been wholly avoided."
    That is, I am sure, a very serious charge, and I have waited expectantly to see whether it would be supported seriously and in form by the party who follow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. As the charge has been made, I think it is right that I should be entitled to reply to it, and I should like to tell the House exactly what happened at the beginning of this most anxious and difficult affair. The Home Office received no information of what was proceeding in South Wales and in the Rhondda Valley until about ten on the morning of 8th November, when the following telegram reached us:—
    "All the Cambrian collieries menaced last night. The Llwynypia Colliery savagely attacked by large crowd of strikers. Many casualties on both sides. Am expecting two companies of infantry and 200 cavalry to-day. Very little accommodation for police or soldiers. Position grave. Will wire again."
    This is from the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire. The cavalry and infantry, sent for by the Chief Constable on Monday night, were not asked for from the Secretary of State for War or from me. But they were sent, pending instructions by the General Officer commanding the Southern Command, and it was not until ten the next day that I was informed of what was taking place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War came over to me at the Home Office, and, with the Adjutant-General who was called in, we had a long discussion upon the situation, with the result that we decided definitely, as a matter of public policy, that we would deal with this difficulty by police in the first instance and not by soldiers, and that if soldiers should be used at all they should only be used in support of the police, and every precaution should be taken not to bring the military into direct collision with the crowd of strikers. We sent also for the officer who should go down to take charge of any soldiers who were sent into the district, and a distinguished officer of high rank at the War Office was placed at my disposal, General Macready. I venture to say that no more accomplished or tactful person could ever have been selected for this kind of duty, and I am sure all who know the district will bear witness to his natural and unaffected impartiality throughout towards capital and labour and to the good relations which, in spite of the difficulties of his task, he maintained with the men's leaders and with all parties in the district. We did not leave it to the chance of whatever officer happened to be summoned to supply the grave decisions which have to be reached when soldiers are brought into contact with the people. We picked a special officer, and we imparted to that officer a full knowledge of what his duty was, namely, to support the police if necessary, but to avoid, if it was in human power to avoid, any direct collision between the soldiers and the people. General Macready started at once for Pontypridd, and I sent the following telegram at half-past one on 8th November:
    "Your request for military. Infantry should not be used till all other means have failed."
    I distinguish between infantry and cavalry because cavalry can use their horses, but infantry can only fire or charge with their weapons.
    "Following arrangements have therefore been made. Seventy mounted constables and 200 foot constables of Metropolitan police will come to Pontypridd by special train, leaving Paddington 4.55 p.m., arriving about 8.0 p.m. They will carry out your directions under their own officer. The county will bear the cost. Expect these forces will be sufficient, but as further precautionary measure, 200 cavalry will be moved into the district to-night and remain there pending the cessation of the trouble. Infantry, meanwhile, will be at Swindon. General Macready will command the military, and will act in conjunction with civil authority as circumstances may require. Military will not, however, be available unless it is clear that police reinforcements are unable to cope with the situation. Telegraph Home office and say whether these arrangements are sufficient."
    Shortly after that message had been despatched I was fortunate enough to establish clear telephonic communication with the Chief Constable, and he informed me that if the Metropolitan Police I was sending were to reach him that night they would be sufficient, and that as there was very little accommodation for police and military, and especially for mounted men in the district, he would not need the cavalry squadron immediately. In these circumstances I told the cavalry, through the War Office, that they should check at Cardiff, where they were travelling continuously all the time. But orders were also sent to General Macready, who was also travelling down to Cardiff, that if any further request of special emergency reached him from the Chief Constable on the spot he could use his own discretion about going forward with the cavalry that evening. What the cavalry could have done in the night was never very clear. At the time I understood that the cavalry were not needed that night. I hoped it might be possible for them to remain at Cardiff, but the Chief Constable also suggested to me that I should give him a message to read to the strikers with a view to impressing upon them that the Board of Trade were at work and would move, and that their grievances would be the subject of conciliatory intervention. My right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Abraham), who came to see me at that time at the Home Office, was good enough to approve of the message which I sent, and to give me his advice that it would have a good effect upon the best men in the mining community. I have every reason to believe that fair words spoken to men in these matters, who are, after all, only conducting trade disputes are a perfectly proper means to employ, especially when proper authority is not hesitating to support the law by adequate force. About eight o'clock telephonic communication was received that there was rioting in progress, and we immediately telegraphed to General Macready to move into the district with his squadrons, only one of which had up to that time arrived at Cardiff. He had already received authority to do so, and had, in fact, acted in anticipation of that message half an hour earlier.

    I should like to point out to the House upon this point that the forces which the Government sent at the request of the Chief Constable and the local authorities in the Rhondda Valley were in every respect more suitable to the work which they were likely to have to do than the force of infantry which had been asked for in the morning. Policemen accustomed to handle crowds are from every point of view more effective in these matters than soldiers, especially infantry, and we were sending as many foot constables and a considerable number of mounted constables as well in place of the two companies of infantry which had been asked for, and we were sending in addition, to be in support, two squadrons of cavalry. Therefore, no charge could be made against the Government that adequate forces were not sent to the scene, or that suitable forces were not sent to the scene. On the contrary, the forces sent were larger and more suitable than those which were asked for. I think they were also amply sufficient for the work which they would have had to do, but unfortunately the special train carrying the Metropolitan Police was not up to time. A small accident delayed it upon the road, and instead of arriving at 8.0 or 8.30 as we expected, it did not arrive till about 10.0. In consequence of that, rioting at detachments of Metropolitan Police sent to the aid of the Chief Constable had arrived upon the scene. The Chief Constable, however, with the local police, completely drove the rioters from the colliery which they were attacking, and made his position good. It was only when the rioters were foiled in their attempt to take the colliery that in a perfectly unreasoning fury of resentment, on their way back they smashed the windows and looted some of the shops of their own friends, the little tradesmen who were giving them credit, in the main street of Tonypandy. That is a deplorable incident, I agree. It would not have been prevented if there had been soldiers at the colliery instead of only local police. It might have been prevented if the Metropolitan Police train had arrived at the hour it was expected. It was a deplorable event, but do not let us be led by exaggeration into pretending it was a scene of civil war or a horrible outbreak of barbarism, which in the words of the right hon. Gentleman was a blot upon the procedure of civilised society. Writing on 14th November, the Chief Constable said:—
    "Had it not been for our bad luck on the night of Tuesday the 8th inst., I should have been able to give a more satisfactory report of the present state of affairs than I now can. If the train bringing the 200 Metropolitan Police to Tonypandy had been up to time the strikers would have been met and crushed in Tonypandy (after being defeated by us at the colliery gate), instead of being encouraged by their success in the streets. I cannot speak too highly of the splendid assistance given me by General Macready and all the military and police officers and men sent here. This strike is totally different to any one that I had previously experienced and I could not have done without their advice and assistance."
    That is my answer to the charge of not adequately supporting the local authorities in their request for aid and to the charge of having been guilty at a critical moment of hesitation and vacillation. Whatever we were guilty of, there was no vacillation. Obstinacy perhaps, but vacillation no. The decision was never departed from to use the police as a cover and shield for the military. What I had in my mind as the principal subject of apprehension was the idea of the arrival in the night of a body of soldiers hurriedly sent by train from a long distance, disembarking under conditions of excitement at a station and moved out of the station into direct collision with an angry mob, who were not at all accustomed to see the soldiers and were perhaps not at all acquainted with the weapons they carried or with the limitations attendant upon military action. That I was resolved to guard against, if it were possible to do so, while maintaining law and order. Some days later, in daylight and in cold blood, when there was no rioting, we moved troops into the district. We considered that was quite a different matter. In fact the soldiers, once they were moved into the district, got to know the general position, and their officers got to know the general position, and they did not look upon the whole body of strikers as if they were wild beasts, as they were described in so many of the London newspapers to be. The soldiers, on getting into the district, soon established friendly relations with the strikers. In a week they were playing football matches with them, and though they remained, there was not throughout the whole business any danger of direct contact between the soldiers and the strikers. That is the policy which the Government has pursued. That is the policy which I am prepared to be held most directly responsible for. After the 8th November the troubles continued, and many hundreds of Metropolitan police were sent in and the force of soldiers were placed in reserve behind them. I do not gather that any charge is made from any quarter that the disorder was not effectually dealt with from that date. That is my reply to the House in regard to the attack made upon me by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I say I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda for giving me the opportunity of replying to it, which would not, I think, have been afforded by the temerity of any other hon. Gentleman opposite.

    I turn from that aspect of the case to the criticisms which have been made by hon. Members below the gangway and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rhondda. I address myself to the appeal which he has made to me for an inquiry into the charges against the Metropolitan Police. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I am only concerned with the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. I am not responsible for what was done by the Bristol police, or the Cardiff police, or the Glamorganshire police. I have every reason to believe that they did their duty, and did not do more than their duty, but whether they did or did not is a matter which concerns the local authorities who sent them and employed them, and the whole question of their conduct can be raised at any meeting of the County Council of Glamorgan or any meeting of the Standing Joint Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda knows perfectly well that the influence of the miners in that district is sufficiently strong to secure the fullest discussion of these matters at the meetings of either of these bodies. I am concerned only with the Metropolitan Police, for whom I have accepted much more direct responsibility than has usually been accepted by Home Secretaries on questions of public order. The Metropolitan Police were only employed on two occasions to deal with riots. They did not arrive, I can assure the House, on the night of the 8th until the disturbance was all over, but they were there from the 8th onwards. On 21st November they were employed in dealing with disturbances which began at Tonypandy and continued along the whole of the road or street until it reached Pontypridd. On 22nd November another body were in contact with rioters at Aberaman. I am satisfied, after making careful inquiry, that on both occasions the Metropolitan Police did not use their truncheons until it was absolutely necessary for them to do so. At Tonypandy, on the 21st, they were subjected for a long time to stoning before they took any steps in return. And then the first step they took was not to draw their batons, but to take off the heavy rolled cloaks they wear and to clear the streets by means of these. I am bound to say that they are not at all ineffective for the purpose. It was not until they were exposed for a long time to stone-throwing, and several men were hurt—and one seriously hurt—that they used their batons. I have seen the officers who were in charge at Aberaman myself personally, and they assure me that they had twelve men knocked out by stones, heavy pieces of metal, and pieces of bricks which were thrown at them before they drew their batons. The junior Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Keir Hardie) has read some private papers to the House, and I will follow his example in this respect, and read some other statements by persons who were present at these proceedings. They give very credible evidence. I am not going to mention the names of those persons.

    The statements I read were not private statements. They were made in public affidavits.

    I have every reason to believe that the statements I am going to read were made by credible, substantial, and reputable persons. They were made voluntarily, and were not solicited by the authorities. One is signed by a Member of the Mid-Rhondda Free Church Council and Vigilance Committee. It was written to the head of the Metropolitan Police sent down to South Wales. He says:—

    "I feel in duty bound to thank you for coming here to restore order. I am exceedingly sorry you were not here a day earlier. Personally I have nothing to complain of as to the conduct of your men. I have always found them courteous and gentlemanly whenever I came in contact with them. On two occasions I have appealed for protection on behalf of those who feared their homes would be ruined by the men who have taken the law into their own hands. I wish to thank you for the promptness displayed. I think we should be thankful we had special officers sent there to protect our lives and property."
    Here is another letter from a railway official at Tonypandy station. Referring to the rioting on the 21st, he gives a long account, in the course of which he says:—
    "When I was standing in the signal box, I saw a surging mass of people proceeding up Bridge Street, and heard much hooting and shouting, and I could see several policemen in the centre of the crowd. On my return from the signal box, a crowd were first booing and shouting at the corner of Bridge Street, and then in Trealaw side, and appeared to be attacking the police, first one side and then the other, and stones were flying around the station to such an extent that a large number of passengers were prevented by me from passing over our bridge, as I feared some of them would be struck and some of them were afraid to leave until 11.30 p.m. Between 9 and 11 p.m. stones continually fell about our station. Throughout the time mentioned in the preceding statement, I have had many opportunities of witnessing the conduct of the police, and in my opinion they, if anything, have erred on the side of leniency. They have always behaved coolly and well under difficult circumstances, and I am certain that the police could have had nothing to do with the starting of the row on the 21st. The whole tone of the strikers throughout that day was one of aggression, and they appeared determined to do as they chose."
    I personally have always preferred to use the word rioters. It is not right to identify rioters with strikers. They are not the same body of men. The letter goes on:—
    "I saw no signs of insobriety on the part of any individual in the police force, of whom I saw a great number."
    Here is a letter from a minister:—
    "I hereby testify that in my opinion the police during the recent riots at Tonypandy acted with great patience under extraordinary provocation. This is also the opinion of all persons who have any responsibility whom I have consulted. The only fault on the part of the police in my opinion was that they refrained too long a time in using severe measures."
    A mechanical engineer in Tonypandy says:—
    "Several stones were thrown and struck the police. No truncheons were drawn. As to the coolness and tact of the officers and men I cannot speak too highly. I have never seen anything to equal it. With regard to the drinking——"
    That was the charge brought by the hon. Member—
    "I have not seen anything of it. I can only congratulate you on the discipline and courtesy show'n to all by officers and men."
    Here is another letter from a man who explains that he is a butcher, and who writing about the 23rd says:—
    "Although the police were being stoned they had not got their truncheons drawn, but were behaving splendidly."
    And he described how the police cleared the streets several times without their truncheons. He says:—
    "It is a pure invention on the part of anybody to say that the police were under the influence of drink It seemed to me that they were well disciplined and under complete control of their officers. I freely give this statement because it is a true statement of what I witnessed."
    Here is another statement by a brake proprietor in Tonypandy:—
    "I have never seen a single instance of improper conduct on the part of the police, and certainly no case of drink has come under my notice. If any of the police had been under the influence of drink I should have seen it as I have had so much to do with them. I can give no information as to any disturbance in the district, hut I do know from conversation I have had with many of the inhabitants that the Metropolitan Police have conducted themselves well in every respect, and the people here look upon them as gentlemen. I am sure you will go away with a very high opinion of the better class people in this district. It is very unfair that complaints should be made against them without foundation."
    Here is another which is written by a porter in Tonypandy station. He says:—
    "I had ample opportunity of observing the condition of the members of the Metropolitan Police, and I can safely say without fear of contradiction, that I did not observe any one under the influence of drink or approaching such. I think the police acted with great forbearance and leniency towards such a disorderly mob, and only acted when it became absolutely necessary. This is a voluntary statement on my part, and I can swear to anything I have said as I was a witness of what occurred."
    Here is another one from one of the tradesmen of Penygraig:—
    "I think it my duty to report to yon that the statements made concerning the police on the night of the 21st November are absolutely unfounded, I saw the rioting from start to finish, and are in a position to state that the police acted admirably under the circumstances, and their behaviour was in every way most gentlemanly. With reference to their being under the influence of drink I am again in a position to refute that as I personally attended several of the Metropolitan Police for injuries received during the night."
    10.0 P.M.

    I have a great many more cases with which I do not wish to weary the House, but when we hear many letters read accusing the Metropolitan Police of making unprovoked assaults and "battering the heads of innocent and harmless people sitting round their own firesides" (to quote from a statement read by the junior Member for Merthyr Tydfil when he last addressed the House on this subject), and making attacks upon peaceable people at great distance from the disturbance, women and even children, without any cause of justification, when we are asked to believe that these men throw aside all the habits which we usually associate with them the moment they enter the district of the Rhondda Valley, when we are asked to believe all this, I think that a number of perfectly authentic documents voluntarily given in answer to charges made against the police by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil in the last Parliament should be made public and should be placed on record.

    I would like to remind the House that the Metropolitan Police suffered a great many injuries and casualties in the course of these proceedings. Of course, there were very rough and violent proceedings on both sides. When people start throwing great pieces of iron and brickbats and arm themselves with pick handles with nails driven through the heads, and when the Metropolitan Police, who are a stalwart body of men, are finally forced to make charges to clear the street, people will get hurt. It is in the nature of things that they will get hurt, and spectators who mix themselves up in the course of things with rows, and who are on the spot, must take their chance of anything which may happen to them at the time or be said about them afterwards. I am not going to read out the detals of the injuries which the police received, but nine or ten men of our force, of whom not more than 200 were employed in these disorders, were seriously hurt, and remained a long time on the sick list, and thirty or forty men still carry the marks of the injuries they received. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil is greatly concerned with the fact that some persons were struck by the police, and that they cannot bring home those injuries to the individual police who struck the blows. I am somewhat concerned that so many policemen were struck by persons unknown to whom we cannot bring home the seriousness of the injury inflicted. I have just to add that I have not only read these statements, and I have referred to the casualties received by the police, but I have very carefully considered all the evidence that has been tendered to me on this matter. I, personally, examined some of the officers who were in charge of the different police parties, and I have discussed the whole matter with General Macready, who certainly brought to bear on it a more impartial eye than anyone else in the whole of the district, and I see nothing whatever to justify any of the charges of misconduct against the Metropolitan Police, and unless there is something to justify a general charge of misconduct against these men there are no grounds whatever for a general inquiry into their conduct.

    No prima facie case has been made out, and I submit to the House that the evidence is all the other way, or that the preponderance of evidence is the other way. The Metropolitan Police, in going to South Wales, have rendered a valuable service to the Government and to the public. They have rendered, I think, a special service to South Wales, for they stood between the strikers and the use of firearms. They stood between the miners of the Rhondda Valley and the insensate and lunatic fellows who would have committed the folly of filling up the pits with water to the brim, so that when peace was restored they would have had before them months of starvation, while their families would have had to wait until the means by which their daily bread could be earned could be again restored and put into order. We know the high character of the Metropolitan Police and the honoured place they hold in the esteem of all classes in London, and I am not prepared, while I am responsible, to place such a body of men who have just returned from a service of danger, discomfort, and difficulty, upon their trial, without just and proper cause. I respectfully submit to the House that no just, proper, or sufficient cause has been offered to us, or is in existence in fact. I have, however, a great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. W. Abraham)—a great respect for him, and a great respect for those whom he represents, and I am prepared to say this: First, that if any case of misconduct is reported against an individual officer, and I am satisfied that prima facie evi- dence is forthcoming, I will have it investigated in the regular way. Secondly, if it can be shown prima facie that any person was batoned in a house by the Metropolitan Police, or attacked by them when separated by a reasonable distance from the scene of the riots, or that any child—for I understand that is one of the charges—has been injured wantonly and deliberately, if I see any credible evidence of that, and I shall wait to see that it is forthcoming, the case shall be thoroughly inquired into and justice shall be done to the injured parties. That I am prepared to say in response to the appeal which has been made to me, but I cannot consent to a general inquiry into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. As far as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil is concerned I know that he, at any rate, will not be satisfied with anything I or anyone else on this Bench can say. As far as he is concerned, I am prepared to suggest to him a remedy which he told us, on the last occasion he addressed the House on this point, he intended to adopt. The hon. Member said, speaking on 24th November, on the Motion for the Adjournment:—
    "I just want to add that whether the Home Secretary agrees or not he will not be able to cover this matter up. If the Home Office refuses to take action then it will be taken into the law courts, where all the facts will be dragged into the light of day."—[OFFICTAL-REPORT, 24th November, 1910, col. 415.]
    Well, the courts are open.

    I cannot control the courts. I understand the hon. Gentleman failed to establish his case to the satisfaction of the court. But the courts are open, and the law is, that if a policeman acts illegally or in excess of his duty, he is just as much punishable, whether in the civil or criminal courts, as anyone else. The ordinary law in the ordinary courts will punish illegal action by the police, just as they do when it is done by an ordinary citizen. As I have said, every special case shall be investigated if there be sufficient evidence before us. Apart from these, the courts are open, and the Government will welcome any legal procedure which enables the facts to be ascertained on oath, and beyond doubt or dispute. That concludes the story I have to tell to the House on this subject. I may add that I am prepared, if desired—I daresay I will be—to lay papers containing the statements which I have made this evening. I do not propose to give the names of persons who have written them. I object to do that, and I propose to ask the House to support me in not doing it. But I am quite willing to lay the statements which I read on the Table of the House and the papers generally upon the subject. I have only two more observations to make. First of all, I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Rhondda that the rioters of Tonypandy did not represent the mining population of South Wales. The mining population of South Wales are, as the House knows, a well-educated, peaceable, intelligent and law-abiding class of men, and have often, I may express the personal opinion here, been very hardly tried in more ways than one during these troubles, for which, in my judgment, they are not the only people to blame. In my opinion the riots were largely caused by rowdy youth and roughs from outside, foreign to the district, and I think it only just to place that on record in fairness to the miners of South Wales, who have been attacked in a general way by people who know nothing at all about the matter. Local authorities and private employers are very ready sometimes, and from insufficient cause, to call for troops. Troops cost them nothing, police cost money to the local authorities; and there is a very general disposition in some quarters to suppose that the whole British Army is always to be available, irrespective of the circumstances, upon the demand of any local authority. The local authority sends for troops, and they think that troops should always be sent, very often not thinking of the effect of military weapons or the difficulty which surrounds military action. Law and order must be preserved, but I am confident that the House will agree with me that it is a great object of public policy to avoid a collision between soldiers and crowds of persons engaged in industrial disputes. All such collisions attended, as they must be, by loss of life and by the use of firearms, do great harm to the Army, which is a volunteer Army, and whose relation with the civil forces of the country must be carefully safeguarded, and they also cause feuds and resentments which last for a generation. For soldiers to fire on the people would be a catastrophe in our national life. Alone among the nations, or almost alone, we have avoided for a great many years that melancholy and unnatural experience. And it is well worth while, I venture to think, for the Minister who is responsible to run some risk of broken heads or broken windows, to incur expense and an amount of inconvenience in the police arrangements, and to accept direct responsibility in order that the shedding of British blood by British soldiers may be averted, as, thank God, it has been successfully averted in South Wales.

    Persian Affairs

    I ask the attention of the House to transfer them from the somewhat turbulent discussion of events in South Wales to the scarcely less turbulent atmosphere of international politics at the present time. I very much regret the necessity of having to refer to any matters of foreign policy when the Foreign Secretary, under such lamentable circumstances, is unable to be here to-day, but in view of the curtailment of the privileges of private Members, which have been alluded to by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) in terms which I very cordially agree with, this is the only opportunity during this Session probably when we shall have the opportunity of getting any statement from His Majesty's Government with regard to their policy in Europe and in Asia. I cannot help feeling convinced that the time has now come when it is very important that we should have some clear reaffirmation of the continuity of our foreign policy, with the object of allaying the anxiety which is very palpably existent in Europe, and which cannot be allayed without some very determined statement on the part of His Majesty's Government. I think many of us on this side of the House have read with dismay, or at any rate with great disappointment, the allusion to the Persian trade routes and the Government's policy with regard to them. I myself feel that, although the paragraph is a very short one, it is, if I may say so, almost humiliating in character. Many of us have for a long time past regretted the action which the Foreign Secretary took with regard to the intervention in Southern Persia. We have regretted it because, however excellent it was in its object with regard to securing the disturbed trade in those regions, the course of action which he took was one which was extraordinarily difficult to enforce without arousing those suspicions in the minds of the Persian Government, which the whole of our recent policy there has really attempted to eradicate. But what is the truth with regard to Persian trade routes at present? The statement is not only one in which no one can take any pride, but it is entirely misleading. Is it to be supposed that the action of the Government has really produced any security on the Persian routes? By no means at all. It is not in the power either of the Persian Government or of our Government at home, by any actions they may take at the present time, to secure that security for our trade which we so anxiously desire. The facts are very simple. The facts are that it is only in the power of one man, the head of a turbulent tribe, namely, the Sowlat of Kashgai, who has lately found it to his advantage to restore peace on those routes, and who, I venture to predict, may at some future time, when it suits him, not give that measure of order which he now gives. Perhaps before many months are over he will revert to those lawless methods for whose extinction the Government now take credit as resulting from their policy.

    After all, these matters in Southern Persia and the trade routes, which are referred to in the King's Speech, are not nearly as important as other matters which are not referred to at all in His Majesty's Gracious Speech. There can be, at the most, only a temporary disability or temporary inconvenience upon the steady flow of British trade which passes up from the Persian Gulf into markets of Persia, but there is another movement that is going on, imperceptibly, perhaps, to many people, but none the less steadily, of which mention is studiously avoided, and which I, for one, think most certainly should have been mentioned and laid great stress on at the present time. It is in the knowledge of this House that for many years past there has been a scheme of a trans-continental railway which will link Constantinople with the head waters of the Persian Gulf, and which is steadily advancing into a sphere of influence which has been regarded, and which is still regarded, I believe, in all quarters of the House, as a sphere of influence which, if not exclusive in character, is, at any rate, of paramount and peculiar importance to us. I do not wish to enter to-night into any discussion of the merits or demerits of the Bagdad Railway scheme. If I were to do so, for my own part, at any rate, I should condemn it utterly; and still more should I condemn it from the point of view of Turkey herself, who, I believe, would unquestionably suffer, financially and politically, from the very adverse terms to which she submitted under the old regime some years ago when the concession was granted. This, after all, is a matter for Turkey to decide in her own interest. Sympathetic as I believe the whole of this country is towards the steady and wise development of railways in the Ottoman Empire, I for one hope that England will never smirch her fingers with the kilometric guarantee system which is peculiar to another of the great Powers of Europe.

    But I wish to allude to that part of the scheme which must concern us, whether in the future we become participants in the scheme or whether we do not; I refer to the project as regards the outlet on the Persian Gulf. I need not remind the House of the special position which we hold in the Persian Gulf, or of the necessity of maintaining the paramountcy of that position at all and at every cost to (his country. This latter position has been affirmed by Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India; it was reaffirmed by Lord Lansdowne as Foreign Secretary; it has been recognised in no unhesitating terms by the present Foreign Secretary. These affirmations were made by men who knew it to be necessary, to affirm that position, not in any offensive manner to any of the Powers concerned, but to affirm it in no uncertain language, because they knew that the safety of India itself, and nothing less, depended upon our maintaining that paramount position; they had looked back upon history and knew that every nation that had lost its paramount position in the Persian Gulf had also very soon lost its paramount position in India. As it was then, so it is now, and so it probably will be all our lifetime.

    It is useless for us to expect, in the present condition of affairs in Europe, that the rest of the world will go on acquiescing without increasing reluctance in the special position which we have built up in the Persian Gulf. The world narrows daily; and as it does so the recognition of special claims becomes more and more difficult, and more and more keenly contested. The moment the Persian Gulf becomes the centre of world politics and of international interest—a time which I think will very rapidly arrive—our claims are likely to be called more and more in question. Our record of achievement will probably be forgotten. It will be forgotten that only England kept the peace in the Persian Gulf for more than a hundred years; forgotten, too, will it be that we alone made it possible for trade to exist, and that we stilled the turbulent tribes on the borders of these waters; forgotten, too—more important than anything else—will be that splendid policy of territorial self-denial for a period of over 100 years; forgotten the international trade that has sprung up under the protecting ægis of the British flag in the Persian Gulf. That time of difficulty, that time when our claims are likely to be more and more keenly contested, is, I believe, drawing very near indeed. Already there is a disposition in Turkey itself to discuss these matters, a disposition, I should say, that cannot be too much deprecated by all those staunch friends of Turkey who are looking most eagerly—as I have been looking—for her success and the consolidation of Turkish interests to make her a strong and united empire. The more do we regret any disposition to discuss our special and recognised interests in the Gulf when we consider the battle that is going on to-day in Arabia, a battle that is for the very life of Turkey, a battle which, if unsuccessful, will separate Turkey from the holy places, and perhaps throw into jeopardy the position of the Caliphate on which the power of Turkish sovereignty so largely depends. I think if I ask to-day from the Government, at the commencement of another Parliament, some reaffirmation of the continuity of our Persian Gulf policy, I shall not be considered to be asking for too much, or, indeed, anything not urgently necessary, when we consider the difficult situation of international and Imperial politics at the present time. I am one of those who believe that our foreign policy should not be cast into the vortex of party conflict, but it is only on the understanding that it is agreed and understood that there is continuity in the principles of our foreign policy. It is on that understanding that the foreign department in this country is not made liable to these attacks which other departments are liable to. Therefore, when we ask from time to time for a reaffirmation of that continuity of policy it is only just that we should get it in no unhesitating terms from the Foreign Office. I would remind the House that these principles generally have not been reaffirmed for some years now. As regards the Persian Gulf they were only reaffirmed —and then not strongly enough—on the conclusion of the Anglo - Russian Treaty two or three years ago. Inevitably there arises out of these matters the question as to how these Mid-Asian issues are going to be approached by the Powers that make up the Triple Entente to-day. Both France and Russia have their own commercial interests in these regions, and in addition, of course, they have such political interests as arise out of the guardianship of their trade interests in these regions. But neither for France nor Russia, I submit, is the Bagdad Railway question so grave in a purely political sense, as it is to England. We ask the Government to-day what is the position of the Triple Entente or even of the Dual Entente in regard to the Bagdad Railway question; and I ask a definite question, Is the Bagdad Railway question included, or is it excluded, from the scope of these understandings? What do we understand by a Triple Entente? I conceive it actually to mean a group of three great Powers who have come to an understanding on certain matters which had before that understanding proved a source of friction and difficulty. That is what I conceive the Entente as existing to-day to mean. But I suggest to the Government that the Entente should mean something more than that, and I should like to know whether, in their view, it does mean something more than that. Many of us on this side condemned the serious, and, I believe, unnecessary sacrifices of British interests in Central and Southern Persia in connection with the Russian agreement. But these sacrifices were only defended on the ground of broader interest, and that future value would result in European and international politics from the conclusion of that Entente. The Entente then did refer—must have referred, I suggest—not only to past policy but to a future policy. Will' the Government now inform us what were the questions, not all, because that would be difficult and unnecessary, and perhaps unwise, but what are some of the main questions included in the Entente, for I, for one, am getting rather weary, as large international questions crop up and vital matters of the future interests of this country, of being told continually that this particular question is entirely and, of course, always was, out of the scope of any Entente we may make. I think it would be more satisfactory and, I think, would tend to consolidate and strengthen the Dual and Triple Entente—and I speak with knowledge of the prevailing opinions upon the other side of the Channel with regard to this question, I believe it would be to the strengthening of the Entente if it was made pretty clear that certain main issues were included and not excluded from the purview or understanding of what is known as the Triple or Dual Entente. We were informed beforehand of the subjects to be discussed by Russia when she paid a visit to Potsdam. Monsieur Pichon the other day, in the Chamber, gave a categorical statement that we were informed by Russia of the subjects to be discussed before that visit was paid, but what M. Pichon did not inform us of, and what I ask the Government to inform us of, whether in such case we were informed not only of the subjects to be discussed but of the policy that would be adopted with regard to the subjects that were going to be discussed—a very different and a very important point. Let me precise that remark. Do we, in fact, pursue another policy of mutual interest, or do we only have a common, and I must say I think rather unsatisfactory, information exchange bureau? It must be one or the other. I think, really, the time has come when, for the sake of the peace of Europe and our own interests, and even for the sake of British interests, we should understand clearly where we are in regard to this matter. If I have refrained from mentioning many matters on which I disagree with the Government in their foreign policy it is because I wish, under the particular circumstances of the present time, to say nothing which might be construed into the nature of an attack on the foreign policy of the Government, but rather to ask for some reaffirmation, strong and determined in character, of the position of the Government with regard to the Triple Entente and the paramountcy of our peculiar and important position in the Persian Gulf. The Prime Minister only yesterday used a phrase which has a peculiar importance. He spoke of the non-exclusive character of our Ententes. No one, I think, will quarrel with that phrase or the friendly sentiments obviously intended to be conveyed by it, but I submit that it has a dangerous side and is somewhat misleading. Dismissing, as we may do for our momentary purpose, the sincere phrases of courtesy to Powers outside the Triple Entente, it is, I think, obvious to everyone that it is the existence of the Triple Alliance which has called into being the Triple Entente, but it cannot be supposed for a moment that a country so weighty in the councils of the world as England can perpetually add to the number of her Ententes without either weakening them all or without disturbing the balance of power in Europe. I make that point because I think we can go too far in perpetually reaffirming the nonexclusive character of our Ententes unless we also reaffirm from time to time the particular cases in which we consider ourselves bound to act together with no uncertainty and no hesitation. Without going any further, I ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to give us some clear indication to-night of the policy of the Government. Do they continue the foreign policy as laid down by Lord Curzon and Lord Lansdowne with regard to the Persian Gulf. Perhaps the hon. Member will also give us some reaffirmation of the policy with regard to the Triple Entente, which I believe would be considered in all parts of Europe as of great importance and of great value at the present time.

    I ask for the indulgence of hon. Members while I refer to one passage in the King's Speech which is entirely new, and which I do not think has been discussed up to the present moment. It is a matter which is causing the gravest concern in the breasts of a large number of workers and small capitalists in this country—I refer to the announcement that legislation will be introduced with regard to insurance against sickness and invalidity, and also against unemployment. I would like to inform the House that a very large branch of business is concerned. I am not wishful to anticipate what the measure will be, but I wish to make an appeal on behalf of 80,000 persons connected with industrial insurance societies in this country. I venture to say that one of the greatest matters of pride to us all has been the growth of thrift among working men and the building up of those colossal institutions which have not been matched in any other country on the globe. I am afraid these gentlemen and their interests are not having that full consideration in the preparation of those measures which I should like. I want to appeal to the House to give these men their most careful consideration at the right time. I feel confident hon. Members will do so. These are working men who have trained themselves specially in this branch of industry. It is a complicated branch of industry, and only those of us who have been acquainted with it know how intricate it is, and how many are the pitfalls which will beset any legislator who seeks to deal with the matter. These men go from door to door inculcating habits of thrift among the working classes. They have acquired an interest in their books. If they were sold at the ordinary market price—I hope hon. Members will accept my figures—they would run into a sum of many millions of pounds. Some of the books are saleable at £20 and some at £200 or £300. They are the result of the thrift of these working men, and I venture to hope that, in addition to the consideration which should be paid—and I believe will be paid by the Government—to those insurance associations with enormous funds, with huge capitals, and large organisations, the Government will not forget the working men who in tens of thousands throughout the country have by their own industry and by an honourable calling built up their own little propertied interests. May I appeal to hon. Members who sit upon the Labour benches that they will not forget some of their fellow-toilers at the right time? May I trust that hon. Members opposite will not expend the whole of their sympathy upon the landed classes and upon the holders of licences? I am sure I can appeal at the right time to them, and that they will show, at any rate, the same sympathy and justice to these toiling working men who are not represented in quite the same force in this House. I only just make this plea. It is feeble, but I felt it my duty to make it. I beg pardon of the hon. Member who spoke before me for introducing a different topic. It is not out of any discourtesy to him, but I felt that the only point I could usefully touch upon was this on which I claim to have some special knowledge and information.

    I must apologise to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lloyd) for having been absent at the beginning of his speech, but I thought the debate on the Home Office would have lasted somewhat longer. The hon. Member was very anxious that we should reaffirm the policy of our Ententes, but I confess I do not see on what ground he desires us to make that reaffirmation. There has been no change in our policy in that respect, and no new circumstances have arisen which renders a reaffirmation at all necessary. With regard to the arrangements which Russia is making with Germany, those arrangements deal only with the rail ways in its own sphere of interest in Northern Persia. They do not affect our interests in the South of Persia, and I can reassure the hon. Member that our sense of the importance of British interests and British trade——

    I believe the hon. Gentleman referred to our interests in Northern Persia. I beg to state I think he is mistaken. I think he meant Central Persia.

    I was talking about Germany and Russia, and said Russia was making its own arrangements with regard to its own interests, and was not interfering with our interests in the other part of Persia. In regard to the Persian Government, I can reassure the hon. Member that our position is the same exactly as it has always been. The hon. Member told us he had no desire to deal with this in a party spirit, or to make any attack on the foreign policy of the Government. I am not quite clear why he used the phrase "humiliating paragraph" if his intention was entirely amiable. Where is the humiliation in the paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne? We say simply we are extremely anxious that the Persian Government shall take such steps as will secure order and get rid of brigandage on the Southern roads, the trade upon which is a matter of interest to us. I do not see any humiliation in that, nor do I see any humiliation in our saying that we are anxious that Persia should do this herself. The very object of the Entente is to maintain the integrity of Persia, and to provide that there shall be no conflict between the interests of the two great countries so largely concerned—Russia and ourselves. The hon. Member has invited me to make a sort of declaration of faith about our attitude to all the European Powers. I confess I can see no advantage for my attempting to do so. These Ententes are not exclusive or directed against other countries. Their object is to secure common action with regard to certain purposes, and in this case the common action with regard to Persia is not directed with a view to hostility against other countries. I do not think it desirable on my part-in the regretted absence of the Secretary of State—that I should enter into details of the objects to be secured—objects which are well known to the House, and with which the hon. Member is well acquainted. These Ententes are in exactly the same position as for some time past. There has been no weakening at all; the position is satisfactory. We have been informed by the Russian Government what it is doing. I do not think it is advisable to enter into the discussion of details, because the negotiations are not complete, and therefore we should be dealing with information which must, in the nature of things, be inadequate. The hon. Member may rest assured that no change has taken place such as he seems to fear.

    Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned "—[ Lord Balcarres]—put, and agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[ The Prime Minister.]

    Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven o'clock.