I beg to

I beg to move, "That this House do sit To-morrow."

I think that I am right in saying that this is the first guillotine Resolution which has been proposed in the House of Commons since the outbreak of the War. —[An HON. MEMBER: "This is the Motion to sit to-morrow."] — I know, but it is for the purpose of working the guillotine that it is being made. It is nothing short of indecent to propose to throw the discussion of the whole of this tremendous question—and it is a tremendous question—of applying to Ireland this great measure of Conscription in its; present shape, which has taken England two whole years of discussion to elaborate, and to apply it to Ireland in the course of I one Friday sitting. That is the object for which this Resolution to sit to-morrow is proposed to the House, and, under the guillotine Resolution, as will be seen by anyone who looks at the Notice Paper, I one day is set aside for the whole of the Irish Debate. The Government are not content with the outrageous proposal of confining the Irish Debate to one day, which really beats the record of guillotine proposals, considering the character and far-reaching consequences of the Bill, but they actually make that one day a Friday, though Friday has always been looked upon as half a day, and is treated as half a day in Supply and in other proceedings of the House. I therefore desire, at the outset, to raise my voice in the most emphatic way that I can against this proposal. How can it be justified? It can only be justified by the lame, the halting, and the impotent speech delivered by the Director of National Service last night. He was evidently staggered by the badness of his case.

If you had kept order last night, the man would have made a better case.

The point which he endeavoured to make was that days were of importance in this matter of bringing these old gentlemen to the Front. Their vigour and military efficiency must be something marvellous if they can rush to the rescue of the present critical situation in France in such a way that even one or two days in the date on which they are enrolled will make any difference. I have a very special reason, apart altogether from the case to which I have just alluded, why the discussion regarding the application of the Bill to Ireland should not be taken to-morrow. On the opening day of these proceedings the House was undoubtedly deeply impressed by the case that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) made in moving the Adjournment of the Debate why the Irish discussion should not be taken until we had the Report of the Irish Convention before us. The Prime Minister himself said that Report would be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. That was yesterday morning.

The papers published It.

I went to the Vote Office yesterday and again just now, and the Report has not come.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware—

I am coming to that in a moment. The Leader of the House, in reply to a question that I put to him, laid all the blame for the delay upon the Dublin printers, to the great amusement of hon. Members above the Gangway. As a matter of fact, we who know the facts know that is a preposterous excuse supplied to him by those who, in my opinion, are deliberately withholding the Report. The Report has been in print in Dublin for several days, I am informed, and the Government could have had it any moment they desired. The delay must be intentional. I allude to this because it throws a curious light upon the whole of these proceedings, and, I must say, forces one to the idea that the Government are deliberately withholding the Report so that it will not be available for Members when the Irish discussion comes on to-morrow. I put a question to the Leader of the House just now whether a secret instruction has been issued forbidding the newspapers to publish the Report, and continuing the Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act, which makes it a penal offence for newspapers to publish anything in regard to the Convention or to comment upon its proceedings. We all understood that the Regulation was to expire on the day on which the Convention reported. The right hon. Gentleman's reply, which will be fresh in the minds of hon. Members, was that he knew of no such Regulation. What do we hear now? We hear that the Tory newspapers of Belfast have been suppressed. It will be interesting to hear what hon. Members above the Gangway will have to say now that they have felt the lash from which we have suffered so long. Those newspapers have been suppressed and the issue seized, so I am informed, for publishing a portion of the Report of the Convention.

According to the very good information which is at my disposal, this secret instruction has been issued. I assume, of course, that it has been done behind the back of the Leader of the House and without the sanction of the War Cabinet. It has been issued by some mysterious back stair influence, and apparently the Government are determined for some mysterious reason to withhold from the House the Report and prevent the Members of the House discussing it. I never raised a single word of objection or made any protest against the original provision, though a good many people objected to it, and though it was a severe provision, prohibiting the newspapers under a penalty under the Defence of the Realm Act from commenting upon what took place at the Irish Convention, but now that the Convention is over, what conceivable objection can the Government have in continuing that Regulation? This House is accustomed to being treated with contempt and to having information withheld from it. The House has settled down under that treatment, and it looks for its information to the "Daily Mail" or to the "Times," where important matters are first published. But the public of this country are entitled to know, and to know before we embark upon this most momentous discussion which it is now sought to bring on tomorrow, what have been the proceedings of the Irish Convention, and the Press of this country are entitled to be set free to discuss the Report of the Convention. Under these circumstances, I am strongly opposed to proceeding with this Bill to-morrow, and I suggest that the consideration of the Bill ought to be postponed until to-morrow. I shall, therefore, oppose the Motion in the Division Lobby.

The speech of the hon. Member would have been relevant to the Resolution with regard to the Military Service Bill, but I cannot see how anyone at a time like this can suggest that it is out of place to ask the House of Commons to sit on a Friday. A great deal of the speech of the hon. Gentleman seemed to me very wide of the mark. I would like to make it perfectly plain that he is mistaken on one question of fact. I said that the delay in printing the Report was due to the fact that the printers had not them ready.

The Dublin printers?

But the hon. Gentle man did not do me the justice to add that I said at once, in reply to a supplementary question—

The House laughed, and they enjoyed your joke.

Exactly. When I saw the meaning that was attached to my statement, I said at once that I did not on that account blame the printers. I thought it was probably due to the general difficulty felt in that class of work in all parts of the country. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have myself seen the gentleman in connection with the Government who is doing this work. He told me a few days ago that he had been sending telegram after telegram and doing everything in his power to get them as soon as possible, and he did not think that it could be done before to-day or to-morrow. Certainly nothing has been done on our part to prevent the Report being circulated. With regard to the suggestion that an Order has been given prohibiting the publication of the Report, I know nothing about it, if such an Order has been given, and I do not think that such an Order has been given.

Oh, yes, it has !

May I ask, if there has been no such Order given, why the Belfast papers have been suppressed for publishing a summary of the Report of the Convention after the Prime Minister has said that it was being laid upon the Table of the House, and why the "Daily Chronicle" was allowed to publish it?

I was going to give my impression as to the meaning of that. My right hon. Friend, can judge whether it is right or not. I think it would have been quite a reasonable thing, and this may have happened, for the Government to have said that they would rather that the first official Report should be circulated to the Members of the House of Commons.

That is a new idea!

Have you suppressed the Dublin evening paper?

Have you suppressed the "Daily Chronicle"?

What I have indicated would have been a not unreason able proceeding. I am not aware that any such step has been taken, and I do not think that it has been taken. With regard to what my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) has said, of course, without knowing all the facts, I am not in a position to judge, but it seems to me that the explanation may be this: The Order in regard to the Convention is still in force, and it is possible—until we know the facts we cannot judge—that the reason for the suspension of these papers is not the publication of the Report, but the publication of something that happened in the Convention. That may be so, but, until we know the facts, we cannot judge. Clearly, that would be illegal under the Order which is now in force. To come back again to the subject with which we are dealing—

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there was a specific Order sent out yesterday, a new Order, forbidding the newspapers to publish the Reports? Does he deny that?

I cannot deny that, because, as I have said. I know nothing about it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible that an Order of this character could be issued yesterday, when the Convention had completed its proceedings, and when we were told that these documents were in the hands of the Government, without the War Cabinet knowing it; and can he say who was responsible, as we now give him an assurance, which we can prove, that such an Order has been issued?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him, if it is a fact, that these copies are not available, how it was. that a London paper was able to publish a résumé of them?

The last question, I think, is an absurd one.

Why?

Beaverbrook!

The Reports of the Convention must be in the hands of at least 100 Members who were members of the Convention, and why it should be suggested that it is only through the Government that the Reports can reach newspapers, I do not know. As to the question put by the hon. Member for West Belfast, I have said that I had no knowledge that such an Order had been issued. I do not believe it has. I think there is some mistake. More than that it is impossible for me to say.

As the suppression of a newspaper is a very serious matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he knows nothing about it, who has the power to deal with these things in Ireland?

That really is not a question I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to ask. It is obvious that if the law is broken the Department which deals with such matters has the right to take action without coming to the War Cabinet. Whether that has happened, I cannot say. As I have already said, I know nothing about it, and the House cannot expect me to say more. Now, as regards the subject of the Motion. It really seems to me out of the question, even from the point of view of the most extreme opposition, to suggest that at a time like this, and dealing with a subject like this, the House of Commons should not sit on Friday when it is asked to do so. That is all I would say about it. As regards the question of the urgency of the need, that is a suitable subject for discussion on the next Resolution; it does not arise here. But, of course, the whole of our case, right or wrong, is that there is an urgent need. It is very easy for hon. Members to say that a day's time does not matter. If that were so, the Bill itself would not be justified; but it is because we believe that days do matter that we have brought forward the Bill and that I am moving the Resolution which stands in my name.

I wish to call the attention of the Leader of the House and of the House itself to the fact that to-day is an Allotted Day, however late we really get on to the business of the day. It may be that a number of Amendments and prolonged discussion will carry us to a late hour after dinner upon the guillotine Motion. That will have the effect that the whole of the Committee stage on Clause 1 may be shoved into one hour, or possibly two houra— most unreasonable proceeding.

That is more relevant to the guillotine Motion.

Then I will conclude by making this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that if we consent to sit on Friday—[Laughter]—well, if we agree to sit on Friday—let us try to do a few things by mutual agreement—will he promise us that he will make to-morrow the first Allotted Day? That will have the advantage that Clause 1 will come on a short day, and we shall have a long day for the most contentious Clause about Ireland.

That can come as an Amendment to the guillotine Resolution.

Speaking in support of a Friday sitting, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it would not be possible, by sitting on Saturday and Sunday, to give English Members of the House an opportunity of saying what, in the interests of their Constituents and the country, it is very necessary to say on this Bill, having regard to the fact that up to now we have heard, whatever its merits, nothing but Irish opposition. I hold very strong views on that matter. Are the whole of the English population to suffer whatever they have to suffer without having had a voice in this very important matter? In these circumstances, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be fair to this country that we should so inconvenience ourselves as to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule, so that those who are prepared to work for their Constituencies should stop until two or three in the morning if necessary?

If I understand rightly, the question now before the House is the simple point whether the House should or should not sit to-morrow to get on with the work which is absolutely essential and vital to the prosecu- tion of this War, to do the work for which most of the Members of the House are given payment, and to do their simple duty. The measure which is at present before the House is a vital one for the War and for our men who are lining the trenches abroad. [AN HON MEMBER: "Were you ever there?"] I was; I only came back on Monday night. I spent most of the first two years in the trenches. I left only at eleven o'clock on Monday morning, and I shall probably return there to-morrow morning. Our enemies abroad will not wait for us. It is a matter of profound indifference to myself and those of my Constituents, and to all our Constituents who are at present serving abroad what day is an Allotted Day, or what day is a suitable day for particular legislation. The only thing that is necessary is that this House should sit tomorrow, or the earliest possible day, and every early possible day, to get on with this particular measure to obtain the men who are absolutely vital owing to the present critical emergency abroad. There are Members of this House who arc seeking already, many of them honestly, with a desire to find out where the blame lies for the trouble that has occurred. There are others who are already endeavouring to lay the blame anywhere so long as it is away from themselves, away from the work they have done in they past, and from the way in which they have not prepared this people for the emergency which was likely to arise. They are people who treated our Regular Army before the War as a kind of gladiatorial show.

I would ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Motion before the House.

I do not wish to stray away from the subject, but merely wish to call attention to the fact that our constituents, our brethren, our relations abroad, who are getting their daily papers, are reading what we are doing in this House, and when we go back to them, as many of us have got to do and are glad to do, they will say to us, "You have been home on special leave; you have listened to all that has been said and you have not lifted a finger or said a single word to urge them to get on with the War to the exclusion of everything else and at once."

The last two speeches have convinced me that the English really ought to get a Parliament to themselves. It is a most unfortunate thing that we should be brought here to interrupt English business with the affairs of Ireland, in which you do not take the least interest. I speak almost apologetically when I get up in this House to speak about a distant Ireland which you have never seen, and about which you do not care a curse, but which sends you £100,000,000 a year in the shape of goods and pays you £22,000,000 a year in the shape of taxes. If we say a few words about our own affairs, we are at once thrown over by a reference to some Dublin printers or something of that kind. But when you are going to coerce the country, when we are discussing matters of life and death, blood and money, we are told, as we were told the other night, that we are speaking humbug, and every possible form of direct, innuendo and direct insult is poured upon us and our country. I do not complain of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Ganzoni). I quite sympathise with him. In a case of this kind every Englishman's blood ought to be on fire. I venture to tell him I have every sympathy with his gallant countrymen at the front. Having said that, I hope he will see our point of view. We do not want to be here. We are told we are getting £400 a year, but you are getting our £22,000,000 a year. As this Parliament is said to be the United Parliament, the Imperial Parliament, and to have its Imperial ears always distended to the wrongs of Ireland, we are entitled to get a plain answer to the plain question which has been put to the right hon. Gentleman, who has thrown the blame on the Dublin printers. It seems that the Belfast printers were too previous. They were engaged in committing an illegal act and have been brought to book. The Dublin printers are not in time enough.

We were promised yesterday by the Prime Minister, as I understood him, that before we were engaged on this Bill we should have the Reports of this Convention. The Leader of the Irish party, or what remains of it, has asked the right hon. Gentleman whether we shall have these Reports before to-morrow. That is a most pertinent and vital question, because two things hang upon it. One is the genuineness of the promise that Conscription is going to be alleviated by a Dublin Home Rule Parliament, and the other is the very important point which was put by the hon. Member for West Belfast, namely, that a particular Report of this Convention has a direct bearing on the issue of Conscription. Accordingly, whether we sit to-morrow does not matter. I have no objection to sitting to-morrow or on Saturday or Sunday. I remember sitting on a Sunday to pass the Coercion Act of 1881. I have no objection to sitting on a Sunday or Saturday, if it be necessary; but with regard to sitting to-morrow to take the Irish Clause, it is of the essence of the case that we should know whether these Irish Convention Reports, both upon Conscription and upon the other subject, will be in the hands of Members before we are called upon to debate it. I should also like to take this objection. We are asked to consider to-morrow, on one day, the whole of the thorny and contentious question affecting the application of Conscription to our country which occupied the English Parliament for English and Scottish Conscription something like two or three weeks, and that is done in reference to a matter as to which, naturally, we are extremely interested. I will make this suggestion.

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."