Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 37: debated on Tuesday 30 April 1912

House of Commons

Tuesday, April 30, 1912

Private Business

Private Bills [ Lords ] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [ Lords ].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

Private Bills [ Lords ] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [ Lords ].

Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

Penwortham Bridge Bill [ Lords ] (by Order),

Read a second time, and committed.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cambridge, Coalville, Darlington, Kington, Prescot, and Shifnal (Rural)." Presented by Mr. Herbert Lewis; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 To 1900

Copy presented of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Metropolitan Police

Accounts presented of the Metropolitan Police and the Police Pension Funds for the year ended 31st March, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 111.]

National Health Insurance (Joint Committee)

Copy presented of Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee under Section 78 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, relating to the constitution of its Advisory Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908

Copy presented of Account showing Receipts and Expenditure on account of Proceedings in connection with the winding up of Companies under the Act during the year ending 31st March, 1912" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (Proceedings)

Copy presented of Account showing the Receipts and Expenditure on account of Bankruptcy Proceedings during the year ended 31st March, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed-[No. 112.]

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND COURT OF APPEAL, Erc

Copy presented of Accounts showing the Receipts and Expenditure in respect of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal during the year ended 31st March, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]

Royal Assent

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,

1. Army (Annual) Act, 1912.

2. Central Argentine Railway, Limited, Act, 1912.

Oral Answers to Questions

Questions

Italy and Turkey

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Italian Government has caused to be landed arms and ammunition on the Arabian coast of the Red Sea; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps to prevent the wholesale distribution of arms of precision among the tribesmen of Southern Arabia?

I do not know that the Italian Government have taken any such action as that to which the hon. Member refers, and, so far as I am aware, there has been no "wholesale distribution" of arms in Southern Arabia.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that there has been any such distribution of arms?

No, Sir; no information has reached me showing there has been any necessity to take steps, or any grounds upon which we could take steps.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state if recent negotiations for bringing to an end the war between Turkey and Italy have had any result?

The general character of the replies received from both the Italian and Turkish Governments have now appeared in the Press. I am not in a position to say what further steps the Powers may be able to take in the matter.

asked whether there now is any interruption in the light services in the Red Sea, and, if so, where?

So far as I am aware, none-of the Turkish lights originally extinguished in the Red Sea have at present been relit.

No, Sir. My answer was I am afraid none of the Turkish lights originally extinguished have been relit.

Savings Banks (Egypt)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the allegation that Lord Kitchener's efforts to promote savings banks in Egypt have led to the mudirs or local governors compelling the fellaheen to put money into the savings banks, even if they have to borrow at 100 per cent, to find the money; and whether he will inquire into this allegation?

Crete

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information on the present situation in Crete?

A revolutionary administration has been set up in Crete, and deputies have been elected to represent the island in the Greek Assembly. The protecting Powers have already warned the Cretan Government that they will tolerate no modification of the status quo, and these deputies will not be allowed to take their seats. The Powers are in consultation as to the steps to be taken in view of certain acts of the revolutionary administration, tending to a disregard of the status quo, and as to the adoption of effective measures to prevent attacks on Mussulmans in the island, of which there have recently been some instances, and nineteen deputies who were proceeding to Greece have been stopped and detained by the warships of the Powers.

Russia and Persia

asked the Secretary of .State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a full official report of the bombardment by Russian troops on 30th March of the mosque and shrine at Meshed, in Persia?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that from unofficial sources both at Shustar and Teheran information has come, and why should there be so much delay in getting the official report?

The official report, coming through the ordinary sources, will take some time to come through. There are no British subjects, so far as I am aware, affected.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the official report is likely to come?

Congo State (British Travellers)

asked whether two British travellers recently crossed from British territory into the Congo State and were followed by a British official accompanied by a body of soldiers; whether this officer, or the soldiers under his command, shot and killed the senior traveller; whether the British official has returned to British territory; whether the surviving traveller is still imprisoned by the Belgian Government; whether Mr. Consul Lamont has addressed a formal apology to the Governor of the Congo for this regrettable incident; and whether there is any information upon this matter?

In July last an American subject named Rogers, accompanied by two Englishmen, illegally entered the province of Mongalla, and contravened the regulations with regard to elephant shooting and sleeping sickness. They were followed in October by a Soudanese officer, accompanied by soldiers, who, in following them inadvertently, crossed the frontier of the Belgian Congo. Mr. Rogers was shot by natives of the Congo, not by the Soudanese officer (who was not present at the time) or by the soldiers; the officer at once returned to the Soudan; I was informed, when the news reached me in January, that one of the British subjects employed by Rogers was arrested by the Belgian authorities, who said that he would not be unduly detained; I have as yet received no further report, but I will have inquiry made on this point. Mr. Lamont, His Majesty's representative at Boma, in conversation with the Governor-General of the Congo, expressed regret that the Soudanese officer, accompanied by armed soldiers, had crossed the frontier, and the officer himself explained matters to the local Belgian authorities, who accepted his explanation as satisfactory. The greater part of this information was given in my answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Herts on 22nd February.

Is it a fact that the presence of a British officer in the Congo State had anything whatever to do with the shooting of Rogers?

Rogers was an American subject, not a British subject, and he was shot, not by a Soudanese officer or by soldiers under his command.

Was a Soudanese officer or Soudanese soldiers under his command present at the time of the shooting?

I understand some of the soldiers were there; but he was not shot by one of the soldiers, nor were they responsible for the shooting.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the two English subjects detained?

The report is one full of detail. In my answer I said I was informed that one of the British subjects was detained. I will make inquiry as to whether he is still detained or not.

Silver Purchase and Coinage (India)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he can say what is the percentage of profit on the purchase and coinage of silver by the Government of India, and if it is put to gold standard reserve or treated as revenue; and, if partly regarded as revenue, what is the proportion so treated and what variations have there been in the practice since 1900?

The percentage of profit necessarily varies with the price at which silver is bought; the average rate of profit on silver coined since 1900 has been about 42 per cent. Down to 1907 the whole profits were credited to the gold standard reserve. In 1907–8 and 1908–9 half of the profits—that is, somewhat over a million sterling were applied to capital expenditure on railways and irrigation; no part of them has ever been treated as revenue.

Gold Standard Reserve

asked if the hon. Gentleman can say what is the highest amount the gold standard reserve has ever reached, and at what date; also what is the lowest sum it was afterwards reduced to by the sale of drafts on London to maintain exchange, and at what date; and what is the amount at which it now stands?

The highest amount reached by the gold standard reserve is that at which it now stands, namely, £19,118,946, made up as follows:—

Gold Note Act (India)

asked if the hon. Gentleman can say on how many occasions since the introduction of the Gold Note Act, giving dates, has the Government of India refused to give rupees in India by telegraphic transfer against sovereigns tendered in London at 1s. 4 5–32d. (the bullion point), and the reasons for such refusal, seeing the profit on the operation; and what were the amounts of the rupee currency reserves and the note circulation at these dates, and what are they now?

Since the introduction of the present currency system I can trace only one occasion on which the Secretary of State has refused to sell telegraphic transfers at 1s. 4 5–32d. the rupee, namely, on 10th January, 1900. The reason for the refusal was that there was a danger of the stock of rupees in the possession of the Government of India being reduced below the limit of safety. At the date mentioned the rupees in the Paper Currency Reserve amounted to 754 lakhs and the note circulation to 2,587 lakhs. The corresponding figures for the latest date for which full information is available are, rupees in Paper Currency Reserve, 1,245 lakhs; note circulation, 5,823 lakhs,

Indian Mints

asked if the hon. Gentleman can say for how long the Indian mints worked overtime prior to and when the Government refused to sell telegraphic transfers at the bullion point of 1s. 45–32d. on receipt of gold in London owing to shortness of currency?

On the occasion mentioned by the hon. Member which occurred, as I have just said, in January, 1900, there was no coinage of rupees in progress, and therefore no overtime at the Indian Mints.

Military Force, India (Sir W. Nicholson's Committee)

asked whether the hon. Gentleman is able to give an approximate date for the issue of the Report of the Committee, presided over by Sir William Nicholson; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Report prior to any action that the Government may propose to take as a result of the Committee's deliberations?

It is hoped that the Committee may finish its labours in the late autumn. I take this opportunity of communicating to the House the terms of reference to the Committee. First, to carry out a comprehensive survey of the various circumstances requiring the use of military force which may arise out of the external and internal situation of India under the conditions which now exist or may probably arise during the next few years. Secondly, to consider and report on the numbers and constitution of the armed force which should be maintained in India to meet these obligations. Thirdly, to consider and report whether any, and, if so, what, measures for the reduction of military expenditure are compatible with the efficient maintenance of that force. With regard to the second part of the question, I think it will be clear to hon. Members from the terms of reference that the subjects to be dscussed are of such a nature that it would not be in the public interest to debate the Report in this House or to make it public.

Are we to understand from the hon. Member's answer that however sweeping the changes proposed there will be no opportunity given in this House for their discussion.

The Report will be made to the Government of India, and it is not proposed to make the terms of the Report public.

Imperial Conference, 1907

asked whether the representation of the India Office at the 1907 Imperial Conference may be taken as a representation of the Indian Government or only of the views held by the Liberal Cabinet; and whether in the Debate on preferential trade Lord Inchcape's interpolation was representative of the views held by the Indian Government or only of the views held by the Liberal Cabinet?

Lord Inchcape (then Sir James Mackay) attended the 1907 Conference as the representative of the Secretary of State for India, and in that capacity he took part in the discussion of the subject of preferential trade. The Secretary of State for India in Council is responsible for the fiscal policy of India, but the hon. Member will find an expression of the views of the Government of India in Lord Curzon's dispatch of 22nd October, 1903.

If the hon. Member will study the answer I have given, I think he will find that I have already answered it.

Are we to consider that Lord Inchcape's speech represents the views of the Indian Government and not the views of the Liberal Cabinet?

Lord Inchcape's views were the views of the Secretary of State for India in Council, who is responsible for the fiscal policy of India. If the hon. Member requires any more information I would recommend him to read the dispatch I have quoted.

Will the hon. Member kindly say whether the views of the Indian Governor in Council represent the view of the Liberal Government of the day? That is the point.

The Secretary who presides over the deliberations of this council is a member of the Liberal Cabinet of the day.

asked whether the Prime Minister in his opening address at the Imperial Conference of 1907 referred to the presence of Sir James, Mackay (now Lord Inchcape) by saying that if any question should arise with regard to India the Conference would have the advice of a most distinguished Member of Council, Sir James Mackay; whether Lord Inchcape was present at every meeting of that Conference; whether Lord Inchcape represented the views of the Indian Government or the views of the Cabinet; and, if neither the views of the Indian Government nor the views of the Cabinet, what views did he represent?

According to the record of the proceedings in Cd. 3523, Lord Inchcape appears to have been present at all the meetings except at that of the second day. He attended on behalf of the India Office, and spoke in that capacity on the tenth day.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what questions relating to India came up after the day when the question of preference was. debated?

Importation of Indians (German South-West Africa)

asked whether the hon. Gentleman has any official information showing that the Luderitz Bay Chamber of Mines has decided to import a thousand Indians to work in the diamond mines of German South-West Africa; if so, whether he will state the conditions under which it is proposed that these Indians should be imported into South-West Africa; and whether the Government will afford an opportunity to the House of Commons to discuss the conditions before the Indians leave India or their indentures are signed?

asked if the hon. Member has any official information showing that the Lüderitz Bay Chamber of Mines has decided to import 1,000 Indians for the diamond mines; if he will state if the Indian Government have consented to such action; and if the conditions relating to Indian coolie labour will be similar to those prescribed in the West Indies and Demerara and enforced by British officials?

The Imperial German Government has not as yet made any proposal to His Majesty's Government with reference to an importation of Indian labourers into German South-West Africa. Unless such a request is received it would be premature to discuss details, but speaking generally, the Secretary of State is indisposed to encourage any new scheme for indentured emigration from India to places outside the British Empire. Indentured emigration from India to German South-West Africa is not lawful, and could not become lawful unless the Governor-General of India in Council were satisfied that the Government of the country has made such laws and other provisions as he thinks sufficient for the protection of emigrants during their residence therein. In any event no steps could be taken unless a Convention had first been concluded between the German Government and His Majesty's Government whereby full provision was made for the supervision of the emigrants' welfare.

I have already stated that the Secretary of State does not look with favour upon any such proposals. No such proposals have yet been made, and I think the hon. Member had better wait until they have been made.

Will the conditions prescribed be enforced by British officials and not by the officials of a foreign Government?

It is difficult to give an answer to that question until proposals are made by the German Government.

Royal Plying Corps

asked the Under Secretary of State for War how many officers of the Royal Flying Corps are at present engaged upon aeroplane work; and if he will state the types of the sixteen aeroplanes suitable for military purposes at present in the possession of the War Department?

No officers have yet been gazetted to the Royal Flying Corps, but there are now ten officers engaged on aeroplane work and ten officer fliers receiving instruction in observation from captive and free balloons and airships before undertaking similar work from aeroplanes. The aeroplanes in possession of the War Department are:—

In view of the fact that it is desirable that as many officers and machines as possible should be available for the purposes of the manœuvres, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to increase the number of officers at present undergoing aeroplane instruction?

The whole subject will assume a new aspect when the Royal Flying Corps come into existence early next month. We are taking every step.

West African Frontier Force (Service Medal)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman can say whether it is under consideration to make recognition of the services of the troops of the West African Frontier Force employed on expeditions and patrols in Southern Nigeria since 1907, corresponding to the grant of the African general service medal awarded for similar operations in Somaliland and elsewhere; and whether, in considering the matter, there will be taken into account, in addition to the ordinary hardships of active service, the unhealthy climate, the protracted and tedious nature of many of the operations, the trying conditions of guerilla warfare in a barbarous and unexplored country, and the fact that, as a result of these operations, several thousands of square miles of rich and populous country have been brought under effective administration, and cannibalism, human sacrifices, fetish rights, slavery, and inter-tribal wars have been suppressed?

All the reports of operations carried out in Southern Nigeria since 1907 have been carefully considered by the Inter-departmental Council on rewards, but only two of the expeditions were considered of sufficient importance to justify the publication of the dispatches in the "London Gazette." For these two operations, namely, the operations near Sonkwala and the Ogwashi-Oku Patrol, the African General Service Medal was granted.

Master-General of Ordnance (Horse or Field Artillery)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what was the date of the conclusion of the last period of service of the Master General of the Ordnance in the Horse or Field Artillery?

The date was early in 1884, when he joined the Artillery College, now the Ordnance College.

Reserve Officers

asked whether facilities may be given for officers of the reserve of officers who are desirous of keeping up their military knowledge to be attached to Regular units during the drill season or preferably at manœuvres?

; It is not proposed to invite these officers to attend as suggested, but any application to do so will be considered on its merits.

Mechanic Apprenticeships (War Office)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what period must elapse before a young mechanic who served his apprenticeship in a Government Department under the War Office is placed upon full journeyman's rate of pay?

The full rate is given to a young mechanic on reaching the age of twenty-three if his skill then justifies his being recommended for it.

Special Reserve

asked whether the Special Reserve on 1st October, 1911, was about 28,000 less in numbers than the Militia on 1st October, 1905?

asked whether, when recruits are enlisted for the Special Reserve, any attempt is made to ascertain their real ages, or is the word of the recruit accepted as sufficient evidence of his age?

The word of the recruit is not accepted as sufficient evidence of his age. Steps are taken with a view to ascertaining the real age?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are taken to find out the real age of recruits?

Careful steps are taken. I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 102 of the Recruiting Regulations of 1907, Sub-section ( c ). I will send the hon. Member a copy.

There is a paragraph of about eighteen lines describing the steps taken to get the character, references, and so forth.

asked the minimum height at which a recruit is accepted for the Infantry of the Special Reserve?

Are we to understand that recruits are never accepted at the height of 5 ft. 1 in. or 5 ft. 2 in. 1½in any part of the country?

I say the standard height is 5 ft. 2 in. If the recruit is normally well developed in other particulars, that might be taken into consideration.

We take any recruit likely to become an efficient soldier. Very small men have been very great soldiers, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Service Debts

asked if it is the habit of the War Office to refuse to pay a service debt if the claim be made six years after the debt is due, although the delay in making the claim is due to a misunderstanding; and by what law or custom such procedure is authorised?

The Preamble to the Pay Warrant lays down that pay or other pecuniary advantages not claimed within a period of twelve months shall be deemed to be forfeited, unless under such special circumstances as shall be approved by the Army Council. It is the practice of the Army Council in the exercise of its discretion under the Warrant to refuse any extension of the twelve months beyond six years.

Defences of Malta

asked whether, in view of the undermanned state of the defences of Malta consequent on the removal of the Mediterranean Fleet from Malta to Gibraltar, it is proposed to increase the garrison at Malta by raising the establishment of the Maltese Artillery and Infantry, or by stationing additional British troops in the island?

Military Forces (Separation Allowance)

asked what ranks receive separation allowance, respectively, in the Regular Army, the Special Reserve, and the Territorial Forces?

The following ranks receive separation allowance:—

Regular Army.—All ranks from Warrant Officer downwards when on the married roll.

Special Reserve.—During annual training all married non-commissioned officers (including unpaid lance-corporals within the regulated establishment of unpaid lance-corporals).

Territorial Force.—During annual training all married non-commissioned officers (including unpaid lance-corporals within the regulated establishment of unpaid lance-corporals), and all married privates who train for the full camping period.

On mobilisation all married Army Reservists and all married non-commissioned officers and privates of the Territorial Force are granted separation allowance.

May I ask why the Territorial Force, who are drawn from a rather better-off class and only do a few days' training, get more separation allowance than the Special Reserve, who are drawn from a poorer class and do longer training?

That is a question of policy, and I should like notice of it. It might be it ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

May I ask whether it is not a question of finance, and not of policy?

Sandown Barrack Battery

asked if the War Office can see their way to grant the application of the Sandown Urban District Council for permission to licence the erection of tents during the summer season on the shore in front of the Sandown Barrack Battery, especially as since April, 1906, it is understood that no firing has taken place during the months of July, August, and September from the above battery?

The application is receiving careful consideration, and the hon. Gentleman shall be informed in due course of the decision reached.

Have not the applications been receiving careful consideration for nearly a year?

Yes, Sir, and it is a very difficult question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman we will continue to give them careful consideration, and a decision will be arrived at shortly.

British Columbia

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the wives and families of Sikhs, settled in British Columbia, are now allowed to join their husbands; and whether the promise to this effect, given on the 21st January, 1912, by the hon. Mr. R. Rogers, Canadian Minister of the Interior, is now being acted upon?

I have no information as to the alleged promise by Mr. Rogers or as to its being acted upon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the case of Houssein Rahim, a British subject of Hindu descent, who for over two years has carried on business as a real estate agent in Vancouver; whether Houssein Rahim has been arrested and held to bail for 10,000 dollars for having voted at a recent election; and whether, in view of the indignation occasioned by such proceedings among our fellow-subjects of the Hindu race, he will make inquiries and, if necessary, urge representations upon the British Columbia Government?

My attention has not been called to the case referred to, but the law of British Columbia disqualifies Hindus from being placed on the register of voting. Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the Imperial Conference last year explained that Indians had not and could not hope to obtain the right of voting.

Ontario

asked whether, while men of Syrian, Galician, Armenian, Polish, and Chinese descent may become registered voters in the province of Ontario, men of Hindu origin, however wealthy, respected, and long-settled in the Colony, are debarred from voting; and whether, with a view of allaying mutual suspicion in different parts of the British Empire and removing any sense of injustice, he will communicate with the Government of Ontario on this matter?

I am not aware that Hindus are disqualified from becoming voters in Ontario.

Nyasaland

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will take steps to prevent the slaughter of game in Nyasaland until there is more definite proof of the alleged facts that glossina morsitans actually communicates sleeping sickness to human beings, and that glossina morsitans can be exterminated by the slaughter of the game?

Game in Nyasaland is adequately protected by the Game Ordinance of 1911. My opinion on the question of relaxing the restrictions of that Ordinance in connection with the problem of sleeping sickness will be gathered from the reply which I made to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire on the 16th of April.

Uganda

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that native chiefs in Uganda, persuaded to contribute to the rebuilding of the cathedral at Kampala, are compelling their native subjects to provide the money, and that these natives are complaining of the new tax which they erroneously believe to have been imposed by the Government; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Board of Trade Standard Weights and Measures

asked the hon. Member for St. George' s-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the Board of Trade standard weights and measures were last examined with the specimens preserved in the House of Commons; whether he will consider the desirability of a further comparison being made; and whether Members of Parliament will be afforded the opportunity of witnessing the examination should it take place?

There is a set of Parliamentary standards deposited in the wall of the Committee Staircase. They were last compared with the Board of Trade standards in April, 1892. There is no Statute requiring such a comparison to be made, but the First Commissioner will consult the President of the Board of Trade as to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Government of Ireland Bill

Initial Loss to British Exchequer

asked the Prime Minister whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, the initial loss to the British Exchequer would be diminished not only by any growth of Irish revenue due to greater prosperity in a larger population in Ireland, but also by any growth of Irish revenue due to an increase of Imperial taxation levied upon Ireland?

Civil Service Committee

asked the Prime Minister, whether he can state the Act of Parliment or Order by virtue of which power can be exercised by a body known as the Treasury to appoint a member to serve on the Civil Service Committee, as proposed to be constituted by Clause 34 of the Government of Ireland Bill; and if he will indicate what officials of His Majesty's Government constitute for the time being the above mentioned body?

As regards the first part of the question, Clause 34 (2) provides that one of the members shall be appointed by the Treasury. As regards the second, I beg to refer the hon. Member to Section 12 (2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889.

May I assume that for the purposes of the Clause the Prime Minister and the Treasury are identical entities?

Protestant Representation

asked the Prime Minister whether he has had the opportunity of reading a speech delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty at Belfast on 8th February of this year; whether he is aware that the statement was made that the Irish Parliament would be so constituted as to be fully and fairly representative of the Irish nation, of Protestants as well as Catholics, of minorities even more than: majorities; and whether he can indicate in the Government of Ireland Bill the Clause or Clauses which will ensure to the Protestant and loyalist minority in the three southern provinces a fair or any representation whatever in the Irish House of Commons as proposed to be constituted by the Bill?

My hon. Friend was, I understand, referring to the; Irish Parliament as a whole, and not to; the Irish House of Commons only. The other matters raised in the question would be more suitably dealt with in Debate.

Irish Cabinet

asked whether, under the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill, the heads of certain Irish Departments, with others as may be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, termed in Clause 4, Sub-section (4), the Irish Ministers and the Executive Committee in the succeeding Sub-section, can, for purpose of Debate in this House, be held to constitute the Irish Cabinet?

For the purpose suggested the answer is in the affirmative.

House of Lords

asked if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, with a view to the constitution of that House on the lines of the Irish Senate, as provided for by the Government of Ireland Bill?

I am not at this stage prepared to indicate what the proposals of the Government will be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to carry out the Preamble of the Parliament Bill?

Irish Land Acts

asked whether, under the Government of Ireland Bill, it would be possible for the Irish Parliament to impose such taxes on land as would virtually have the effect of varying the intention of the Irish Land Act, 1903?

I fail to see how taxation could be imposed which would have this effect.

asked whether, seeing that the estimated cost of land purchase, as given in the Memorandum on the financial provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill, covers the whole expense of the Land Commission, including that of fixing judicial rents, the subjects reserved to the Imperial Government by Clause 1 (iv.), under the words the general subject matter of the Acts relating to land purchase in Ireland, includes not only land purchase proper, but the subject matter of all the Acts relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant in Ireland?

The answer to the question is in the negative. It is not the case that the estimated cost of land purchase, as given in the Memorandum, covers the whole expense of the Land Commission.

Questions

Great Britain and Germany

asked what is the present position and the prospects of the negotiations for an amicable understanding with Germany reaching a successful conclusion?

The relations between the two Governments are on a footing that enables them to discuss in a frank and friendly way matters of mutual interest. If this is what is meant by an amicable understanding it has been already achieved and will, I trust and believe, continue. I cannot at present say more.

May I ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House as to the negotiations between this country and Germany and Turkey with regard to the Bagdad Railway?

University of London

asked whether it is still proposed to constitute a body of trustees to receive gifts offered in connection with the proposed site for the University of London, and, if so, who is making the appointment of such trustees; whether the Senate of the University of London, as constituted by the Act of 1898, are empowered to receive gifts offered for the purpose of providing for the accommodation and needs of the University as part of their duties as the supreme governing and executive body of the University; and whether the Royal Commission on University Education in London, now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Haldane, has other than advisory powers?

Although certain sums of money have been offered for the purchase of a particular site for a reconstituted University, no body of trustees has yet been effectively appointed. Nothing that may be done in anticipation of the needs of a reconstituted University is any bar to the present Senate exercising the power which it has under the Act of 1898 to receive gifts for the purpose of providing for the accommodation and needs of the present University. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

I could not answer that question without notice. I have no personal knowledge of this question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows how much of the money already collected has been allocated to the proposed site in Bloomsbury, described by Lord Haldane as an ideal site.

Betting Telegrams

asked the Postmaster-General whether, when Post Office servants or others are prosecuted by his Department for attempts to cheat bookmakers carrying on horse-racing or football betting business from abroad, the expense of such prosecutions is borne by the public funds or by the bookmakers?

The cost of such prosecutions is paid partly out of county funds and partly by the Post Office.

Do I understand that while the Government provide money for the prosecutions they also afford facilities for their servants to commit these frauds?

The Post Office bears part of the cost, and it prosecutes its own servants who commit the frauds.

But does it not also provide facilities for its servants to commit these crimes?

No special facilities are provided, but unfortunately in the operations of the Post Office there are opportunities for fraud on the part of its servants, which, I am happy to think,, are very seldom availed of.

asked the Postmaster-General whether cash deposits on bets are sent to bookmakers in Switzerland through his Department; whether such bookmakers are allowed coded telegraphic addresses in the United Kingdom by which their business is facilitated; and whether any representation has been made to the Swiss Government?

The facilities afforded by the Post Office for the transmission of money to foreign countries as well as the use of abbreviated telegraphic addresses are open to all members of the public in the United Kingdom. No representations have been made to the Swiss Government.

The Post Office does not exercise any censorship in regard to abbreviated, registered, telegraphic addresses.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the General Post Office in London, dealing with telegrams which are sent daily during the flat-racing season to the leading credit bookmakers in London, have made special telephone arrangements whereby all telegrams are first telephoned through to the offices of those bookmakers and subsequently delivered in bulk by telegraph boys; whether such bookmakers pay for those special facilities; and whether he proposes to take any steps to discontinue such facilities?

Any telephone subscriber who has a registered telegraphic address can make arrangements for his telegrams to be delivered by telephone, and for written copies of the messages to be sent in daily batches by post or singly as express letters on payment of express fees. No special facilities are afforded to bookmakers. The charge for a registered telegraphic address is one guinea a year.

When these telegrams are delivered by telephone—by word of mouth that is—does not that constitute the bookmaker's office a "place" within the meaning of the Act?

Telephone Service

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that since the transfer of the National Telephone service to the Post Office there has been a deterioration in the efficiency, not only of that service, but also of the Post Office telephone service, and that the public and the business community are thereby suffering inconvenience and loss; whether he has received from all parts of the country an increasing number of complaints of inefficient service, alleged to be due to an attempt to economise; and whether, if so, he will, in the public interest, take steps; to prevent efficiency being sacrificed to economy?

For the whole of the transferred system outside London the written complaints during the first quarter of the present year were considerably less than during th corresponding period of 1911, although the number of telephones working had increased. No figures are available for the provincial Post Office exchanges, which, however, include a comparatively small number of subscribers. In London more serious difficulty occurred through the transfer of exchanges owing to the termination of leases, to the necessity of providing in some cases more modern systems of working and for substituting underground for overhead lines at the same time. The effect of these transfers was more felt in February than in March, and still less during the present month, and a continuous improvement is being effected in the service. Although an economical administration of the service is, of course, desirable, its efficiency is of first importance, and it is certainly not the case that there has been any attempt to economise at the expense of efficiency. Considerable increases in the number of the staff taken over from the National Telephone Company have been sanctioned, and the application of the Post Office scales of pay has involved an increase in the wages of the operators. The work of extending the company's plant, which had fallen into arrear before their licence came to an end, is being actively proceeded with, and provision is being made for the expenditure of about £2,600,000 in the extension of the trunk and local systems during the present financial year. I would add that new telephones are being provided in London alone at the rate of between five and six hundred a week.

How can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the Post Office service throughout the country—I am not referring to London—is to-day infinitely worse than it was before the National Telephone Company's service was taken over?

I cannot account for a fact of which I do not recognise the existence. So far as London is concerned I have given certain particulars, but with respect to the country at large I do not think there is evidence of any real difficulty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman only impressed by the number of written complaints? Surely he must be aware that complaints are made at every exchange daily throughout the country.

I do not think the telephone service has ever been perfect either in this or any other country, but I fancy the number of written complaints is a fair measure of public irritation.

Murrough (Clare) Postal Arrangements

asked the Postmaster-General if a petition has been received from the residents of the parish of Murrough, Burren, county Clare, asking for a letter-box to be erected at some central point between the post office at Murrough and Dereen; and if he will have this done for the convenience of the district?

I have received the petition, and have authorised the erection of the box.

Post Office Mail Contracts

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange to publish the contract with the London and North-Western Railway Company for the new service which commenced on 1st October, 1883, entailing a payment of £63,000 a year; the contract for acceleration of the night-mails which commenced on 1st April, 1897, involving an additional payment of £5,150 a year; the contract for the acceleration of the day-mail service, which commenced on 1st August, 1898, providing for an additional payment of £6,500 a year, paid directly by the Treasury; and the contract, which commenced on 1st April, 1908, securing an additional payment by the Post Office of £5,500 a year?

It is contrary to practice and not in the interests of the public service to publish contracts made with railway companies in respect of the conveyance of mails, and I regret that I am unable to make an exception in the case of the contract which has been recently negotiated with the London and North-Western Railway.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of ascertaining whether this railway company has kept its contract?

I shall be only too glad to answer any specific question about these contracts, but were the terms made public it would greatly embarrass the Post Office in their negotiations with the company.

Under the present contract is not the company bound to run its trains to time?

I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any particulars he asks with regard to the London and North-Western Railway in that regard.

Is it not the law of the land that no railway company can run its mails at less than the proper speed without giving six months' notice to the Postmaster-General?

Post Office Bicycle Contracts

asked the number of orders under contracts for bicycles for the Post Office service given out during the three years ending 1st December last; the number of bicycles ordered in each year; the number ordered from contractors in England, including Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, in each year; whether there was any and, if so, what difference in the average price per machine of those ordered from the contractors in England, including Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, giving such difference in the average price, if any, for each year separately; and whether the bicycles ordered from contractors in each country were made wholly, or to what extent, in that country?

Three contracts were placed in 1909 and three in 1910—all with firms in England. In 1911 four contracts were placed—three in England and one in Ireland. The number of bicycles ordered in these three years was 2,606, 3,753, and 3,900, respectively. Of the 3,900 ordered in 1911, 400 were from Ireland, that being about the number required for use in Ireland. The bicycles obtained under the Irish contract cost 5s. 6d. each more than those obtained in England, so far as initial cost is concerned; but if the cost of maintenance parts be included—and this is the truer comparison —the extra cost of the Irish bicycles is 25s. 3d. each. The bicycles ordered in England and Ireland were made wholly in the respective countries, with the exception of the tyres, which were made partly in England and partly in Scotland; and certain accessories (such as chains, saddles, etc.), which it is the practice of cycle manufacturers to buy from specialists, were made in all cases in England.

Engineering Staff (Post Office)

asked the Postmaster-General whether the transference of the engineers' headquarters from Birmingham to Nottingham has yet been fully effected; what are the numbers of the staff employed in the respective departments of the superintending engineer and the surveyor, respectively, in that district; and, if it is desirable to assimilate the areas of the two departments, whether he will consider the possibility of transferring the surveying staff to Birmingham?

The superintending engineer's headquarters were transferred from Birmingham to Nottingham before the close of last year. The staff employed in the superintending engineer's office is forty-five, including three temporary clerks, three youths, and two messengers. For surveying purposes Birmingham, with the surrounding towns, already forms a separate district, under the control of a postmaster-surveyor with headquarters at Birmingham. The staff of the surveyor of the North Midland District cover the same district (with the exception of Birmingham) as is controlled by the superintending engineer stationed at Nottingham. Their headquarters are at present at Leicester, but they will be transferred to Nottingham as soon as possible. I am not prepared to transfer this staff to Birmingham, which is not included in the North Midland District.

Distribution of Disloyal leaflets to Soldiers

asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that a leaflet addressed to soldiers and urging them not to shoot is being still handed to soldiers In uniform in public; and, if he is taking no steps to prosecute, will he give instructions to have the prosecution of Mann and Crowsley dropped and have Guy Bowman set at liberty?

Since the institution of criminal proceedings against Crowsley, the efforts to distribute this class of literature have been so trivial that no importance is attached to them. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that tens of thousands of similar leaflets written by the late Count Tolstoi are being circulated daily throughout the length and breadth of the land?

Flintshire Schools

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will say how many of the eighty-nine Welsh schools formerly managed by Church of England managers which have been, since the 31st March, 1903, closed or transferred to local authorities, are situated in Flintshire?

Four Church of England schools have been closed since 31st March, 1903, in Flintshire, and one has been transferred.

Aberporth (Provided School)

asked whether the Board of Education have sanctioned the erection, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act, 1902, of a new provided school at Aberporth; and, if so, what is the reason for the Board's decision?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The proposal of the local education authority to provide a new school at Aberporth was based upon a memorial received by them from householders and inhabitants of the two parishes which the school was intended to serve, and upon a public inquiry held by a committee of the education authority. I received an appeal against the authority's proposal from ratepayers of the two parishes. In several instances the same persons signed the appeals both for and against the provision of a new school. I directed a public inquiry by ah officer of the Board to be held locally, and on the facts reported to me I was satisfied that the proposal was in accordance with the wishes of a very large majority of the parents of the children attending the existing school. Voluntary contributions which have been made, amounting to upwards of £500, towards the total cost of the school, estimated at £910, will considerably reduce the burden upon the ratepayers, and in the circumstances I determined, having regard to all the considerations mentioned in Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, that the proposed new school was necessary.

Will the report of the officer appointed by the right hon. Gentleman be laid on the Table, or otherwise published?

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry into the strange cases of people who signed petitions both for and against this school?

asked the amount of the salaries paid to teachers in the Aberporth non-provided school and in Penyparc provided school, and the number of children in average attendance at each school?

The staff at the Aberporth school consists of a certificated teacher (not college trained) at a salary of £85 per annum, an uncertificated teacher at £40 per annum, and a supplementary teacher at £25 per annum. The average attendance for the last completed year was seventy-eight. The staff at the Penyparc school consists of a certificated teacher (college trained) at a salary of £105 per annum, two supplementary teachers at £30 per annum, and one supplementary teacher at £20 per annum. The average attendance for the last completed year was seventy-five.

British Merchant Ships (Freeboard Tables)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the consent of Parliament was given to the deeper immersion of British merchant ships in 1906?

Provision is made in Section 438 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for the modification of the Tables of Freeboard. The latest revision took place in accordance with this Section in March, 1906, after careful consideration by the Board of Trade in conjunction with the best expert authorities on the subject. The consent of Parliament is not required by Section 438.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some opportunity of discussing the effect on the life and limb of crews which have been involved in this alteration?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the exact date on which the Order was made changing the load line, and say what Government was then in power?

Is the set of experts who gave this advice to the Government the same who gave the advice that no boats would be required?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the number of missing ships since the alteration in the deep load line made by his Department in 1906; whether he is satisfied that, considering all the other factors which should tend to diminish the percentage of such casualties, the figures do not indicate any true increase due to the alteration referred to; whether he has any record of the number of accidents to the crews of vessels in the same period; whether any, or many, of them are due to the too great immersion of cargo vessels under the new rule; and whether he will form a committee to inquire whether the alteration in the deep load line has caused overloading to the danger of British merchant shipping and crews?

During the five years since the revision of the load-line tables in 1906, sixty-six vessels have been reported to the Board of Trade as missing, compared with ninety in the previous five years. The number of masters and seamen lost by being washed overboard during the same period was 150, compared with 193 in the previous five years. These figures furnish no support for the suggestion that the revision of the load-' line tables has tended to increase the number of casualties.

Passenger and Cargo Vessels (Certificated Officers)

asked what steps are taken by the Board of Trade to ensure that passenger and cargo-carrying vessels are provided with sufficient certificated officers?

The requirements of the law as regards the carrying of certificated officers by British merchant ships are contained in Section 92 of the Act of 1894, and Section 56 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. The Articles would not be allowed to be completed unless the certificates of the officers were in order. As the hon. Member is aware however, I have recently introduced a Bill with the object of extending the requirements as to certificated officers to home trade cargo ships, and I hope this measure will be passed into law during the present Session.

Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield (Case of Rumbolt)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a man, named Rumbolt, was recently certified to have met his death from inhaling dust while employed as a grinder at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield; and whether he can see his way to have the well-recognised disease resulting from the inhalation of dust or grit scheduled as a disease under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

I The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to this question. Yes, the attention of the Department has been called to this case. The question of scheduling under the Workmen's Compensation Act the disease known as fibroid phthisis was very fully considered by the Committee which inquired into the subject of the application of the Act to industrial diseases in 1907, and they recommended, on the grounds stated at length in their Report, that this disease should not be scheduled. The position in this respect has not altered since the. Committee reported, and I do not think anything would be gained by reopening the question now. I may point out that disablement caused by the disease will now be covered by the provisions of the Insurance Act.

Loss of Steamship "Titanic."

Steamship "Olympic."

May I ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given private notice, whether the owners of the White Star Line have asked the Board of Trade to assist the prosecution of sailors who refused to sail on the steamship "Olympic" owing to a dispute as to the adequacy of the boats and life-saving appliances, and the consequent engagement of unqualified men as firemen; and if such application has been made, what answer has been given by the Board of Trade; and, further, if seamen and firemen are by law compelled to serve on board a ship with an insufficient or inadequate supply of boats, or with men considered as incompetent?

I was not able to answer this question yesterday, as I had not got the answer ready at the time, through some misunderstanding.

Nor mine, either. In reply to a communication to the Board of Trade the company have been informed that the Board are unable to intervene in the forthcoming proceedings on behalf of either side. I may add that they would certainly not do so. If the surveyor who dealt with the clearance of the "Olympic" is summoned to give evidence he will follow the usual course, and simply give evidence on matters of fact which have come before him in the performance of his official duties. The points raised in the third part of the question appear to be sub judice.

If boats are not serviceable, and if men are shipped who are incompetent, are the men entitled to say they will refuse to sail?

I understand that is the question which is practically under trial, and that is the reason why I cannot give a reply. It is the particular case now being tried in regard to these men.

Is there no law on this matter at all, as to whether men are obliged to risk their lives or take the Gentleman not think some control should chance of being had up for mutiny? Surely be exercised with regard to avoiding the there must be some law or other?

That is not a matter for the Board of Trade to answer. It is a matter for the Courts of Law.

With very great respect, may I ask you, Sir, whether the Board of Trade is not the Department of State that has the life and well-being of these men under its control and disposal, and that should protect the sailors and firemen under these conditions?

It is a question of law, upon which I am not competent to give an opinion. I understand these particular points are the points raised at the trial. That is why I cannot give an answer; the question is sub judice.

Carriage of Mails

asked the Postmaster-General whether, under the terms of their contract with the Post Office, the owners of ocean liners are liable to any, and what, penalties, by the reduction of subsidy or otherwise, in respect of the late delivery of mails; and whether, in fixing the time allowed for the carrying of mails consideration is given to the possibility of delay through accident, especially in view of the danger involved to passengers by any attempt to regain lost time?

In some of the contracts for the conveyance of ocean mails made by my Department a period is specified for the performance of the voyage. It is usual in such cases to stipulate for certain deductions (varying in amount according to circumstances) to be made from the subsidy in the event of the contract time being exceeded; but a saving clause is always inserted in the contracts exempting packet companies from a deduction if it be proved to my satisfaction that the delay was caused by circumstances over which control could not be exercised.

Does this restriction apply to any of the Transatlantic steamers?

I do not think it applies to any Transatlantic steamer; it certainly does not to the White Star line.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think some control should be exercised with regard to avoiding the ice fields?

Central London Railway (Conciliation Scheme)

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given private notice, whether his Department has taken any steps to invite the Central London Railway Company to submit to an independent arbitrator their action in dismissing a number of prominent trade unionists and branch officials, in consequence of the men's desire to give effect to the conciliation scheme as recommended by the Royal Commission; and having regard to the serious consequences likely to arise from this victimisation of men desirous of adopting a measure recommended by this House, what action he proposes to take to deal with the situation?

The Board of Trade have been in communication with the railway company in regard to the question of submitting the matter in dispute to an arbitrator. The company deny that the men were dismissed on the grounds stated by my hon. Friend, and have informed the Board of Trade that in their opinion there is no proper ground on which to found an arbitration. I regret this decision; but I have, of course, no powers of compulsion in the matter.

Having regard to the seriousness of the position likely to arise, I give notice that on the Adjournment of the House to-night I will raise the whole question.

Parliament Act (1911) Amendment

I beg to more, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend and repeal certain portions of the Parliament Act, 1911."

I ask leave to introduce a modest and, I hope, useful measure, having as its object to repeal and amend certain portions of the Parliament Act of last year. I am sanguine enough to believe that this proposal will receive a general measure of support in the House, and I am even more confident that the precise occasion which I have selected to submit it to the House will be regarded as opportune or even auspicious. We are about to receive a Motion for the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill, and the Preamble to the Parliament Act was inserted with the object of persuading the country that the security of a reformed Second Chamber would be afforded, and would be afforded before Ulster had been sold in America and before the poor curates had been robbed in Wales. Every schoolboy knows that this promise has been dishonestly broken, but the fraud has so far prospered. The Home Rule Bill will be read a second time next week. In other words, the Preamble has done its dirty work. Under these circumstances I suggest that no good object can be attained by further defiling the Statute Book with a shameful and notorious falsehood. The simple Bill which I commend to the House will, besides amending certain portions of the Parliament Act, propose to repeal entirely the Preamble of the Act, and I anticipate that that proposal will find friends in almost every quarter of the House. For instance, it will afford the Leader of the Irish party ample proof that the Prime Minister is still at his disposal, and it will convince him that the Prime Minister is still the most obliging of men, and is still a man who can refuse the hon. and learned Member nothing. It might also afford him an opportunity of sending special messages to his honoured correspondent, Mr. Egan. He might send him what one might describe as a telegram of fraternal information advising him that the patriotic ticket can still be proceeded with, and that the Prime Minister is still toeing the line. As to the Labour party it will afford them a unique opportunity of voting for a measure of which they approve. They would still be able to snarl at the Government on the platform and support them in this House.

But it is to the Prime Minister that I believe the measure will specially appeal. If he appropriates it I shall feel no resentment and shall express no surprise. Three times the Prime Minister has given us in the country his word of honour that he will give effect to the Preamble. He knows, and we know, that he cannot in this House give effect to the Preamble; and we know, and he knows, that he never intended to give effect to it, and he does not intend to give effect to it to-day. I do not say that this Bill affords the Prime Minister a pleasant line of defence, but I suggest to him that it will afford him the only line of defence which is available. He can say as Leader of the Government, "It is quite true that we have perpetrated a dishonest tricky but we did own up at the end. We did not die with a lie on our lips. The gallows found us repentant." If there are any particularly squeamish supporters of the Prime Minister behind him, some of them, may say, "But does not such a Bill admit chicanery on our part, and is not such an admission somewhat injurious to our honour?" At first sight that might appear to be a weighty objection, but is is open to an answer, simple, adequate, and final, to the effect that the Highlander does not lose his breeches. The matter is even clearer for my hon. Friends and myself because we propose to fight Home Rule on a real and not an unreal issue, and it would be therefore convenient to jettison here,, for all time, this preliminary humbug. The Preamble is dead. Let us write upon its tomb—a tribute at any rate to consistency beyond the grave—"Here the Preamble lies." Further, I suggest in my proposal that there shall be Clauses subjecting to penalties all those fraudulent persons who, in future, insert lying Preambles in Bills and all those who by methods of blackmail compel them to do so. I am doubtful whether in the interests of unanimity it would be desirable to make that proposal retrospective. There is one further Clause I wish to introduce to provide for elections in certain defined contingencies. Such, briefly, is the outline of the Bill which I commend to the House as a sincere and earnest contribution to our constitutional embarrassments.

I waited to see whether any Minister of the Crown would rise to protest against this monstrous abuse of the ten-minutes Rule. I felt as I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman's, speech that the voice was the voice of Warrington, but the language was the language of Walton. As no one has risen on this side of the House, I reluctantly feel compelled to speak. I desire, on behalf of the Government of this country, to be perfectly candid to the hon. and learned Member. We have no intention of carrying out this Preamble. Originally, as the reference to the King's Speech at the time will show, it was our intention to carry Out reform and limitation of Veto practically at one and the same time, and if precedence was to be given to one set over the other it was in favour of reform. But we found difficulties with some of our supporters, and we have come to the conclusion that an emasculated Senate is the best compromise. Under these circumstances I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not embarrass the Government by pressing this measure, as I shall most certainly consider it my duty to go into the Lobby against it.

Question put, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend and repeal certain provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 233.

Division No. 83.]

AYES.

[4.2 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Macmaster, Donald

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Malcolm, Ian

Ashley, Wilfrid W,

Fetherstonhaugh, Arthur Godfrey

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Baird, J. L.

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest

Newman, John R. P.

Baldwin, Stanley

Gilmour, Captain J.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Goldsmith, Frank

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Barnston. Harry

Greene, Walter Raymond

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Barrie, H. T.

Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Peto, Basil Edward

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Bigland, Alfred

Helmsley, Viscount

Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

Bird, A.

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

rBoscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hills, John Waller (Durham)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Sanders, Robert A.

Bull, Sir William James

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Burdett-Couttt, W.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

Burn, Col. C. R.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Stanier, Beville

Campion, W. R.

Horner, Andrew Long

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Starkey, John Ralph

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cassel, Felix

Ingleby, Holcombe

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Joynson-Hicks, William

Talbot, Lord E.

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, N.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Larmor, Sir J.

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mire End)

Winterton, Earl

Clyde, J. Avon

Lewisham, Viscount

Wolmer, Viscount

Courthope, George Loyd

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R,

Yate, Col. C. E.

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Yerburgh, Robert

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

Younger, Sir George

Croft, H. P.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyftelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Harold Smith and Major Archer-Shee.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick, B.)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

.Acland, Francis Dyke

Beale, W. P.

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

Beauchamp, Sir Edward

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Agar-Robartes. Hon. T. C. R.

Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heyweod)

Agnew, Sir George William

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Black, Arthur W.

Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston S.

Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

Boland, John Pius

Clough, William

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry .

Booth, Frederick Handel

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Baker, H. T. (Accrlngton)

Brady, P. J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crooks, William

Barnes, George N,

Burns, Rt Hon. John

Crumley, Patrick

Cullinan, John

Illingworth, Percy H.

Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford. E.)

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

John, Edward Thomas

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Pringle, William M. R.

Dawes, James Arthur

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

De Forest, Baron

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Delany, William

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Reddy, Michael

Denman, Hon, Richard Douglas

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dickinson, W. H.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Kelly, Edward

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Doris, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln;

Duffy, William J.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lansbury, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Leach, Charles

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roe, Sir Thomas

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lundon, Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Essex, Richard Walter

Lyell, Chas. Henry

Rowlands, James

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Rowntree, Arnold

Falconer, James

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Farrell, James Patrick

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

MacGhee, Richard

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Ffrench, Peter

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

Scanlan, Thomas

Fitzgibben, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

France, Gerald Ashburner

M'Kean, John

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Furness, Stephen W.

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Sheehy, David

George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Gill, Alfred Henry

M'Mlcking, Major Gilbert

Shortt, Edward

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Glanville, H. J.

Meagher, Michael

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Goldstone, Frank

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Millar, James Duncan

Spicer, Sir Albert

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

Strauss, Edward A. (Southward, West)

Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

Mooney, John J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Morgan, George Hay

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Gulland, John W.

Munro, R.

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hackett, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Neilson, Francis

Toulmin, Sir George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nolan, Joseph

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Verney, Sir Harry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nuttall, Harry

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wardle, George J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Hayden, John Patrick

Ogden, Fred

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hayward, Evan

O'Malley, William

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Shaughnessy, P. J

Whltehouse, John Howard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Palmer, Godfrey

Whyte, A. F.

Henry, Sir Charles

Parker, James (Halifax)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Wore, N.)

Hinds, John

Pease, Rt. Hon Joseph A. (Rotherham)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

Hodge, John

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Hogge, James Myles

Pointer, Joseph

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Holmes, Daniel Turner

Pollard, Sir George H.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Dundas White.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Hughes, S. L.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Government of Ireland Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

I rise, Mr. Speaker to ask your ruling on a point of Order in relation to this Bill, namely, whether certain Clauses are not outside the scope and title of the Bill. The position is very clearly laid down in Erskine May's Book on "Parliamentary Practice." At page 465 (eleventh edition) he says:— Clauses in this Bill come within Erskine May's definition. In the Commons Journal, volume 80, page 329, I find the following entry:—

"A Bill to Amend the Provision for the Government of Ireland,"

there is nothing whatever relating to the Government of the United Kingdom, nor was there anything on that subject in the leave to introduce the Bill. But Clause 13 materially alters the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Clause 13 provides that the number of Members returned by the constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two, and I take it it is quite open to alter that number by amendment to 142. Whether that is so or not we have this reservation in a Bill for the Government of Ireland which entirely alters the constitution of this House by reducing the number of Irish Members to forty-two, and possibly if the Clause is in order it might enlarge instead of reduce the number of Irish Members. Clause 26, Sub-clause 3 provides that for the purpose of revising the financial provisions of this Act there shall be returned to the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom such number of Members of the Irish House of Commons as will make the representation of Ireland in the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom equivalent to the representation of Great Britain on the basis of population. I am not arguing whether these Clauses are desirable or not, but I submit that they contain within themselves powers for altering the constitution of this House, and therefore altering the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and that this Bill ought to have been entitled "A Bill for the better Government of Ireland, and for altering the Constitution of the United Kingdom." I submit with great confidence, whatever the result may be in regard to this Bill, that you are bound by the precedent not only of other Speakers, but of yourself, and that it is desirable that the Rules and Orders of the House should be complied with, and that the precedents established should be followed. I submit that these two Clauses come entirely within those precedents and I ask for your ruling in the matter.

With the general principles which the hon. and learned Gentleman has laid down I am quite in agreement, and I think he has stated them quite soundly and accurately. He has said that in these matters I must follow precedent, and with that also I quite agree. I would remind him that in the case of Bills for the government of Ireland we have two precedents. This Bill follows exactly the two precedents which we already have. In the first Bill, that of 1886, there was a Clause, No. 24, by which Ireland was to cease to return any Members to the House of Commons. That is even a greater innovation than cutting down the present representation from 103 to 42, but the title of that Bill was exactly the same as the title of this Bill, "a Bill to make provision for the future government of Ireland." Then there was the Bill of 1893, in which the representation was reduced to eighty, and there were certain provisions which went by the name of the "in and out" provisions, which hon. Members will recollect. Again, in that case, the title of the Bill was exactly the same. Therefore this Bill really only follows the exact precedent of these two former Bills, and I think it must be taken that the representation of Ireland in this House is a matter which necessarily follows, and is closely connected with any Bill for providing a Constitution in Ireland and setting up a separate Government there; and it is almost impossible to conceive that the representation of Ireland should be left as it is now in this House without some change being made, supposing that a separate Government were set up. For those reasons I think that the present Bill is properly drawn by reason of the fact that it follows exactly former precedent.

With all respect, may I ask whether the fact that a particular Bill has been allowed to go through without this question being raised, affects the point of the decision of previous precedents, and may I also suggest, with great respect, that if it is necessary, as you have said, that this should be done, the title of the Bill should have been altered in such a way as to include the innovations in regard to this House?

I think it is possible that there may be circumstances in which the fact that a Bill has gone through on a former occasion improperly does not necessarily bind the hands of the House in any future Bills of similar character, but, as a rule, a matter of that sort takes place in a Bill of minor importance, and the matter escapes attention. But these two particular Bills, which the hon. Member will remember well, could not be described in such terms as those. They attracted a great deal of attention, and I think that if there had been anything in the point raised by the hon. Member it must have been raised in the case of these Bills. I do not think that I should be entitled to set aside the two clear precedents which I have cited.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

The precedents of former years, following the example of Mr. Gladstone, would seem to require that the Second Reading of a Home Rule Bill should not be moved without some general observations from a Minister of the Crown, and I would ask the House to accord me the good will and indulgence usually shown to a Member who has a difficult task to discharge and to accord me also that full liberty of Debate which we, for our part, shall gladly give to our opponents on this subject. I desire, not at undue length, I hope, to address my argument to the House conceived from the point of view of one of the many of its younger Members to whom the controversies of the 'eighties and even the controversies of the 'nineties have never made their appeal, and one of those many Members of the House whose active political life lies wholly or almost wholly in the new century into which we have now begun to make some headway. There are many of us here, and in the Debates on this Bill no doubt we cannot contribute to the discussions the experience which those who have been over this extensive battlefield before are endowed with. We cannot have the experience or the knowledge of those who fought in 1893, and still less of the veterans of 1886. All that we can hope to bring to the lengthy discussions in which the House is now to embark is the modern eye. That we can contribute. We have seen a century begin in war and we have all the nations of the world embarking on military preparations and naval preparations on a scale altogether without example for many generations. We have witnessed a vast expansion in the scale and business and functions of government. We have seen an enormous expansion of science and wealth, the fruit of science. We have seen the most striking development of internationalism both as affecting capital and labour; we have seen the growing consolidation of the British Empire under a system of many Parliaments. We have seen a South African settlement and its consequence, and we now perceive that the two most formidable and powerful and progressive Powers of the modern world, the United States of America and the Empire of Germany, conduct their business and carry on their development through a gigantic system of federated States and subordinate legislatures. These are the features of the landscape such as open to the modern eye, and it is in relation to them and in proportion to them that we are led to look at this question of Home Rule about which our fathers used to get so angry and about which they used to fight such invigorating party battles in the good old days.

The first impression which I venture to think this class of Members to whom I refer will sustain as they approach this question, is that Irish Home Rule is no longer as big a question for Great Britain as it used to be. The seriousness of a grant of autonomy or a division of the powers of self-government in a State is necessarily affected by the relative size and population of the two countries concerned. Norway and Sweden, Holland and Belgium, and Austria and Hungary were, I believe I am correct in saying, though I have not got the statistics at hand, equal or almost equal bodies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At any rate, they were both great and important bodies, but even at the time of the Union the population of Great Britain was twice as big as the population of Ireland, so that the question of the relations between the two countries was never such a great question to us as it has been to these other States whose names I have mentioned. But a change has taken place since the Union—it has been continually in progress, and there is no evidence that the change is not still in progress—in the relative power and wealth and population of the two countries. The population of Great Britain is no longer twice as great as that of Ireland; it is now ten times as great. That has made a very great difference in the scale and importance of the problem to British eyes. There is no arguing against a change like that; it obviously alters the proportion all through. I do not say that it alters the merits of the controversy, but it alters the proportion of things. We are told that Home Rule involves the disruption of our country. If a hundred years ago Home Rule for Ireland would have disrupted the United Kingdom to the extent of one-third, and if in 1886 it would have disrupted the United Kingdom to the extent of one-sixth, it is at any rate open to those who urge this argument of disruption to console themselves in our discussion with the reflection that at the present time it can only disrupt the United Kingdom to the extent of one-tenth. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am anxious so long as possible to avoid controversy. Therefore I begin with a proposition which, of course, is absolutely indisputable. It is undoubted that the complete change in the proportion of the two countries has made all Irish questions less vital to the security and safety of this country. If you work out the ratio of the wealth of the two countries, which is, I suppose, some measure of their relative power—wealth can be easily converted into armed force—far greater changes will be seen to have taken place in the relative proportion in the period which I have mentioned. There is another reason why the importance of the Irish question to English eyes has diminished with the passage of time. The violence of the Irish movement has been steadily reduced as time has passed. The fierce revolutionary agitation for the repeal of the Union, which was led by O'Connell in the forties, and the serious disturbance of 1848, were far less horrible and dangerous in their character and course than the rebellion of 1798. The Fenian movement of the sixties was less dangerous in its manifestation than the agitation of O'Connell, and the land movement of the eighties, though marked by many shocking incidents, was less violent than its precursor in the sixties, and since Mr. Gladstone in 1886 identified one of the great English parties with the Home Rule cause no scenes or incidents of violence have been witnessed in Ireland more serious than those which have attended labour disputes in Great Britain.

If the methods of violence have sensibly diminished, it is also true to say that the influence of extremists and of extreme views upon the form which the settlement should take has also been steadily reduced. From the days of its inception by Mr. Butt, I believe it to be historically true to say that the Home Rule movement has never been a Separatist movement. It is very important you should realise our view in order that you may be able to contradict or correct it when opportunity serves. By that, I do not mean that many Separatists have not supported the Home Rule movement, nor that many Home Rulers have not made Separatist speeches. But I say that the Home Rule movement in its whole course and character has been a modifying and a moderating movement designed to secure the recognition of Irish claims within the circuit of the British Empire. Why, the very name of Home Rule, I have been told, was chosen by Mr. Butt with the express object of avoiding excitement and raising prejudices and ill-feeling, and with the intention of conciliating British public opinion. And the character of this movement as a non-Separatist movement was maintained by Mr. Parnell, and has been continued by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. oh!"] It is quite easy to point to speeches of Irish leaders which are in conflict with this view. That does not alter the general truth of the statement I have just submitted to the judgment of the House. When men are fighting desperately and agitating strenuously for political change, when their hopes are forlorn and they have every need to rally to their party, even the most extreme and turbulent forces in their country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I am delighted to find some assent is given to that proposition—when they are in that position, it is not wonderful that they should be led into excited language and into violent demands.

What is remarkable is that through all these years of struggle, uncheered by fortune, and even abandoned by hope, the great mass of Irish Nationalist opinion should have assented at every important juncture to the formal and deliberate statement and restatement of their claims in a form absolutely antagonistic to the separation of the two Kingdoms. I say that the Irish demand now put forward, and now met by this measure, which has been accepted as a full settlement by almost every important element in Irish life, is an essentially moderate and reasonable demand. It is no demand for a divorce of the two Kingdoms; it is no demand for separation from the United Kingdom or for separation from the British Empire; it is not even a demand for the termination of the Parlamentary Union; it is not even a demand for Colonial autonomy; it is, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), in his brilliant speech the other day, contended with perfect truth, the acceptance of a measure which implements, amplifies, and carries out the union of the two countries under forms which for the first time will receive the assent of the Irish people. All the time that this modified process has been in progress, let me remind the House, the diminution both in the violence of method and in the extravagance of demand which has been taking place has not been accompanied by any diminution in the volume of opinion in Ireland in favour of the restoration of their Parliament. On the contrary, it is perfectly true to say that never before has so little been asked; and never before have so many people asked for it. The character of our Bill is displeasing to the Opposition, and why is it displeasing? They do not give us at present quite a clear indication as to the main direction in which their dislike of it lies. Is it displeasing because it is so moderate, or is it displeasing because it is so extreme?

They employ both arguments. At one moment they turn to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his Friends, and say, with incredulity in their tone, "Surely you are not going to accept this wretched, restricted measure? It is an insult to your national claim. If your national aspirations mean anything they mean absolute separation from the British Empire. This is not even what Mr. Gladstone offered you." Then, in the very next, they inform the country that the Empire has been riven in twain, and that Ireland is free to make an alliance with Germany. We must, no doubt, expect that there will be a simultaneous continuance of these two lines of thought. As a matter of fact, our Bill in some respects falls short of Mr. Gladstone's proposals, and, in others, goes beyond them. The most notable instance in which it goes beyond them is in the definite gift to Ireland of a Parliament under the name of Parliament and a House of Commons. I have been told very often, in these Debates, and challenged upon it, that there is no finality in the settlement which this Bill embodies. Let us see what is meant by that. If you mean by finality that we are to regard this Bill as a final adjustment in every Clause and detail of the administrative and financial arrangements between the two Islands, I say I do not think it will be final in that sense. It seems to me highly probable that it will require a good deal of alteration before we have achieved a complete federal system for the United Kingdom, and we see no difficulty or cause for apprehension in that. I say quite frankly that I regard this Home Rule Bill as standing in the same relation to the establishment of a complete system of self-government for the different countries and portions of the United Kingdom as the Transvaal Constitution stood in relation to the Union of South Africa. The Transvaal Constitution never referred to the Union of South Africa, and many of its provisions were affected by the Act of Union and altered by that Act. But the Transvaal Constitution was the necessary parent and forerunner of the Union, and there would have been no chance of carrying the Union unless we had first of all terminated the quarrel by a bold grant of self-government. And that is what we mean when we speak of finality in Ireland. We mean that we shall have reached the end of the quarrel, and that the dissensions that have disturbed us so long and injured us so deeply will have been laid finally to rest, and that we shall have come to terms with the Irish people on the basis of Union both of Crown and Parliament.

I was saying, at the outset of my remarks, that we ought not to exaggerate the importance of the Irish question. It is a great, difficult, and historic problem, but it is not so important as it was one hundred years ago from the British point of view. Its importance has been altered by the great increase in the scale of other things. The whole scale of our business and affairs has multiplied and expanded vastly, perhaps beyond our power to realise. The great questions of the Victorian era which convulsed the politics of the 'eighties, which seemed then to absorb the whole mind of the nation, are as much outclassed by the questions of the present time as the battleships and liners of 1880 are dwarfed by vessels we are launching now, and the dangers which Mr. Pitt apprehended, and properly apprehended, are as obsolete as now are the three-deckers with which he surmounted them. Everyone in this House, wherever he may sit, knows perfectly well, even the representatives of Ulster know it, that events might happen on the frontiers of India or in the North Sea—nay, they might happen here at home, on our railways, in our colliery districts, on our great markets and exchanges—incomparably more important to the welfare of the whole masses of the people of this country, incomparably more important to the structure and form of our society, and to the general welfare of the Realm, than anything which could happen in Ireland. We are confronted in this Parliament, in these times in which we live, and upon which we are entering with two tremendous groups of questions, one internal the other external, both of such profound gravity and import that party strife is hushed in their presence. We have to face the growing discontent of the immense labouring population of this country with the social economic conditions under which they dwell. We have somehow or other to create for them decent and fair conditions of living and of labour. We have also, at the same time, to guard and maintain our interests and position in the world, filled with mighty nations and empires, whose minds and energies are turned more and more each year to the science and preparation of war. We have got to succeed in solving both those great sets of questions, both those great sets of problems, if we are to maintain our station in the world as it has been handed to us by those who have gone before.

Everyone knows, whatever opinion he may hold upon Irish policy, that it raises no issue comparable to either of those two questions I have mentioned. I am going to subject this statement to one very crude test. I am going to test the statement that the Home Rule question, important and vital as it is to Irishmen, does not touch vitally British issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is my contention. I may be wrong. I am going to subject it to the crude test of bringing it before the tribunal of absolute force, and by asking, as I asked last year in a few sentences, whether our military security is in any way affected by such a measure as this. This matter was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) in his powerful and suggestive speech the other day, to which we all listened with such deep attention. And I take it that this question, Will Home Rule weaken our power or security in war? is one which we are bound to discuss quite early in the Debate upon this measure. Could anything be done by a Parliament in Dublin, as constituted by the Bill, to add to the military risks or impair the effectiveness or integrity of our military measures? To examine this question fairly one ought to assume—what I believe to be impossible, as I shall presently endeavour to show is extremely unlikely—namely, that there will be a violent divergence of opinion and sentiment between the British and Irish Parliament during the course of a war of first magnitude. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that such a divergence takes place. Is there anything that an Irish Government or Parliament could do if they were unfriendly that would sensibly affect the efficiency of our defences, particularly of our naval defences? The answer to that question is, I submit to the House, that there is absolutely nothing. Even putting it at its very worst, and even assuming the impossible, the action of an Irish Parliament upon our naval defences would be practically negligible. The fact that such an answer can be given now shows the enormous change that has come over the Irish question as time has passed, for what was the preoccupation, the great preoccupation of our ancestors? What was it drew them to Ireland and led them to encounter all the exertions and risks then contingent first on the Union and then on the Union Parliament? It was the continual apprehension of a Continental descent upon the Irish coasts from France or from Spain, and which descent in those days of sailing ships and practically no certain communication would be unknown for many weeks or many months, and which could not be coped with by means of another army perhaps for the greater part of a year.

That was the nightmare which haunted the statesmen of Elizabeth and the statesmen of George III., and it was, I have no hesitation in saying, the main preoccupation which guided them and impelled them in the course which they took in regard to Ireland. Now the conditions have absolutely changed. The conditions of modern war are such that there is no possibility of such a descent being effected now. As I said to the House last year, as long as we hold command of the seas no descent from a foreign country is possible in Ireland, and if we lose command of the seas it is not on Ireland the descent will be made. There are half-a-dozen countries, whose names I shall not mention, entirely independent of this country, with whose affairs we do not meddle, but whose action or inaction might sensibly affect our interests in great emergencies, but Ireland is not among them. If Ireland did her best for us in a war she could help us greatly, but if she did her worst against us she could not—and I am speaking purely from the military point of view—materially affect our operations, and we should be able to plough through quite unaffected, if we had made good arrangements.

I proceed to ask whether such a divergence of view and of sentiment is likely. I have been showing that if it occurred it would not be detrimental, and now I proceed to ask whether it is likely in a great crisis. The circumstances of the relations between the two countries are without parallel in the history of the whole world. Never before has the smaller and weaker country succeeded, while it has been quite unreconciled in the system of the larger Power, in exacting tribute from the stronger Power. In nearly every case the weaker nation has been made to pay, and the stronger has profited from the union. For generations this was the rule between England and Ireland, for generations the poorer island was made to contribute taxes even in times of its greatest penury, even during years of famine, to the prosperity of its wealthier neighbour, which had her by the throat. But the irresistible march of events, though perhaps scarcely perceived even by those who directed them, has altered the situation entirely and has first wiped out all the profit which British revenue derived from Ireland and has then turned the balance decisively the other way, so that we are now actually paying £1,500,000 per year with certain increases naturally maturing and in prospect in the future. That is the fact. It is our policy on this side of the House to prolong those payments for periods which are indefinite; it is your policy on the other side of the House to increase them and to make them perpetual. I say, therefore, that the financial relations between the two countries are without precedent or parallel and constitute one of the dominant facts of the situation. I do not wish to overrate material influences. To do so is to take an unworthy view of our human nature, but it is the contention of the Unionist party that those material advantages will by themselves overbear the national sentiment of Ireland if time be given. That is what you call "Killing Home Rule by kindness." If you are right in thinking that unity can be obtained by declaring benefits overbearing national sentiment by material benefits in defiance of national sentiment, how much more hopeful is our prospect, which combines in one alliance community of interests and national reconciliation.

I shall be asked what about the South African war, and did not the Irish cheer for the Boers. The South African war was a very expensive Colonial war, but it was not a great war in the sense of the great wars and struggles of history. It was not a war which came home to the people of the United Kingdom, or came near to them in the same way in which the great wars and struggles of history on the Continent of Europe came home to the nations who were dwelling side by side. It was a war about which we could afford to differ, and about which we did differ, but if it had come nearer I believe, even under the circumstances which then existed, the instinct of self-preservation would, as the danger became greater and closer, have united the peoples of the United Kingdom, and all parties among them, in a common league to meet a common danger. Quite apart from that, the Irish were, at the time of that war, engaged in a bitter political controversy and a great political battle and struggle with the people of this country to procure for themselves the grant of self-government— HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—for which they are now asking. Certainly they had seen on two occasions their hopes defeated, and they were still united in equal strength and pressing forward their demands, and you cannot argue that the Irish action which was taken, when they were unreconciled, would be any guide or measure to the action which they would take if a settlement had been reached, for there is no statement more devoid of deep truth, whatever superficial plausibilities may attach to it, than the common statement, "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity." But I believe it has never been true, and when this Bill has passed, and when every ground of quarrel has been obliterated between the two peoples, when Ireland is not only economically but financially dependent upon Great Britain, and when no bar of national sentiment divides, and when every prompting of self-interest unites and every tie of custom and convenience welds them together, then I say the identity of interest between Ireland and England will be absolute, and I defy respectfully, and I dialectically defy you by the utmost exercise of your imagination to conjure up or picture even any set of circumstances in which the ruin of England would not mean the ruin of Ireland also.

It is the same identity of interests on which we rely to make this Bill work smoothly, to make its safeguards thoroughly effective, and to prevent friction and divergence between the two Governments and the two Parliaments. Why should we not rely with confidence upon the identity of interests? What conceivable reason would any Irish Government have to put itself on bad terms with the Government of Great Britain. To maintain good relations with each successive British Administration will be the first interest of Ireland, unless we are to assume what our daily experience shows us is absurd and untrue, that Irishmen are absolutely blind to their own interests. Unless we are to make that assumption that they are so blind to their own interests, that no sooner have they obtained a Constitution than they would endeavour to wreck it, it seems to me that those dangers are illusory. There is hardly any step which a British Government could take even on matters unconnected with Ireland that would not in many ways affect Irish interests, and to be considered to stand well with the Imperial Government, and to have good and cordial relations with the Ministry of the day will be the pride and constant care of Irish statesmen called upon to direct the affairs of the smaller island. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] I am not prophesying, I am drawing a conclusion from an argument. My premise is that there is an identity of interests and that there is continuity in the relations of mutual interest between the two countries. From that I argue as a fair deduction that it is unlikely that persons not blind to their own interests and who have managed their own affairs whenever they had the chance with great grit and discretion, will be anxious to quarrel with those with whom they have so many intricate and important relations. That is my proposition.

5.0 p.m.

I say we see these forces at work every day and year and with our Colonies increasingly at work every day, in bringing about closer union with all parts of the British Empire. But the Dominions are far off, they are at the end of the world, they are self-supporting; they are not represented in our body; they have no great and continual volume of business with us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—such as undoubtedly would occur between the two sister Islands. Ireland is close by. I am putting a proposition which, of course, like every other proposition in connection with Ireland, there would be two opinions about. I say Ireland is close by, and I say Ireland will be thrown into continual, serious, and close intimate business and political relations with this country to the end of the world. Our affairs are interwoven; our interests are the same; they can help us often, and we can help them always. Remove the cause of quarrel, restore their national self-respect, give them a fair Constitution, and you will find, swiftly and surely, results beyond your utmost dreams. That is prophecy, I admit; but I will run the risk of it. But suppose we are wrong, suppose there is one island in the world and one race upon the surface of the earth so curiously disposed, so strangely fashioned, that self interest does not stir them, that the desire of prosperity does not dwell in their hearts; suppose there were a race whose two fiercest passions were, first of all, to quarrel with their own bread and butter, and, secondly, to cut off their noses to spite their faces; suppose there were such a people, suppose that the Irish were that people, suppose they deliberately set themselves—all this concatenation of absurd suppositions must be made—to wreck and ruin the Constitution they had so painfully acquired, to bring about a deadlock, to infuriate or to irritate their all-powerful neighbour, to quarrel with the great protecting, credit giving, revenue-paying, and produce-purchasing Power—what then? Why then, even for this inverted pyramid of absurd and unnatural assumptions, there is full provision in the Bill. The Imperial Parliament, in which the Irish will be represented, will have not only the legal but the moral right to legislate. The Imperial Parliament can resume its delegated powers in whole or in part. It can legislate as it chooses for Ireland. It can justify force by law, and, if necessary, vindicate law by force.

We believe that immense benefits will be derived by the British Empire, particularly in its Colonial and foreign relations, from a thorough good feeling between the British and the Irish people. We are sensibly hampered at the present time in the progress of our Colonial policy by hostility and distrust in every one of the great English-speaking dominions, which, traced home to its source, arises from the presence of unreconciled Irish in positions of prosperity and honour in their midst. Everyone knows that this influence has worked much evil in our relations with the great English-speaking Republic on the other side of the Atlantic, but though there are great advantages to be gained, though Ireland has great gifts to give us, which we have never enjoyed so far, I believe it to be true, and I have been trying to submit the argument to the House, that no serious injury worse than we suffer now can come to us from Ireland. The gain to the Empire by a settlement would be very great. The risk to Britain even from failure is small. We have much to hope for; we have nothing to fear. It is no doubt a realisation of this last fact that leads the Opposition to permit themselves in dealing with Ireland a latitude that they would never think of using in matters more vital from the British point of view. Take the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. When he speaks on foreign affairs, upon Imperial defence, or upon a coal strike, he uses language in form worthy of the leader of a great party, and not unfitting a statesman who is looking confidently forward to assuming the responsibilities of the First Minister of the Crown. But when Ireland comes along, a palpable sigh of relief goes up, and the Opposition and their Leader feel that here at last, thank Heaven, is a question upon which they can afford to have a regular good party row. But I am going to plead very respectfully that the Irish question, although not so vital or so momentous as these others, should receive fair and statesmanlike consideration from all parties in the House. After all, our relations with; Ireland do deserve our unprejudiced attention, as well as our relations with any foreign Power. After all, the demands from the Irish Nationalists have a claim on the statesmanship of the House of Commons as a whole, as well as the demands and claims, we will say, of the Miners' Federation, or some other great trade union engaged in a labour dispute.

Although in the British Isles there are greater questions, Home Rule is the greatest and the most agitating question of all to every Orangeman and Nationalist in Ireland. On those benches sit the representatives of the two opposing Irish parties, differing one from another so sharply, severed from each other by all the sorrowful events of the long quarrel into which, through no fault of either party, they have been plunged. This question to them is one of life or death, as they believe it to be. It is in view of these two parties sitting side by side in this House that I, speaking as a British Member to other British Members, would ask what ought to be our duty as British Members? It is an Irish quarrel in the first instance. Ought we to make it a British quarrel too I Ought the two great parties to draw out their lines of battle and their standards of Orange and Green, which are not their standards, and to fall to? Ought we to set these two cocks to fight, and stake our party fortunes on the upshot? As good and faithful citizens, with dangers to face in common, with treasures to enjoy in common, with work to do in common, are we not bound to do our best to appease, and not to foment Irish hatred, and to effect an honourable and lasting settlement if we can? There is one form of argument which I myself do not like very much to employ, and that is for a Government to appeal to an Opposition with whom they have been fighting hammer and tongs at party politics, and to say to them, "Be generous, be conciliatory, be statesmanlike, be patriotic—and keep us in office ad infinitum. " I much prefer another style of political controversy. But this Irish question and its solution matters as much to the Conservative party as to the Liberal party. It is your interest as much as ours, perhaps more, to have it settled. It is your duty as much as ours to try to settle it.

Can you say that you are satisfied with the existing condition of things? Is not your whole political argument at the present time, one long complaint that the Irish Members hold the balance in the House of Commons, that Bills are passed, that Budgets are passed, that ministries are maintained in power largely by the Irish vote? That is what you tell us night and day. You reproach us harshly for the consequences and conditions which you yourselves have decreed, and which you declare you are resolved to maintain unaltered. You say that Ireland is to be represented at Westminster, and only there. What position and what status do you accord to four-fifths of her representatives? They are to remain here, but they are to be regarded as political pariahs. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Anyone who co-operates with them or accepts their co-operation in the ordinary working of Parliamentary business—[Several HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—we are told is guilty of dishonourable and contemptible conduct, of paltering with the unclean thing. That is your contention. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What other contention than that could justify the stream of strong, harsh, and insulting words which we heard from the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) this afternoon? Anyone who has political relations with the Irish Nationalist party is guilty of something like treachery to the country. According to the language that is held—I am honestly doing my very best to meet the charges which are made, and the very generally accepted opinion in Conservative circles— there ought to be a tacit understanding that whatever differences may sunder British parties, neither is to be influenced by nor to profit from the Irish vote. I remember, when my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely) and I were followers of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and, I am bound to admit, we had the misfortune to differ from him on one or two occasions, the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in which he referred to the Members who were attacking the Government—I am not sure that the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) was not included—and said that there were certain Members of the party who were in it but not of it. That is the kind of position which, according to much of the language that we hear and in harmony with the charges that are made, is to be assigned to the Irish Members in the House of Commons. They are to be in it but not of it. That voting strength, given to them for their express use and protection, which is the one substitute that you offer them in exchange for a Parliament of their own, is to be nullified and neutralised and made ineffective by the superior voting strength of the two great English parties. As for the Irishmen in their own country, they are, to put it bluntly, to be held down and kept in order by a great system of constabulary directed from across the sea.

This is the situation in our Parliament and in their own Island which is offered to an ancient people, famous in history, influential all over the English-speaking world, whose blood has been shed on our battlefields, whose martial qualities have adorned our ensigns, whose humour has cheered our spirits, whose poetry has touched our hearts, whose private virtues may serve as no unworthy example to our homes. They are to be content with that. They are even to be enthusiastic about that. They are to sing "Rule, Britannia," and rejoice that, whatever may happen to Irishmen, Britons, at any rate, never will be slaves. Young English Members of Parliament will rise in their places and let off little speeches proving that the Irish are naturally, intellectually, and temperamentally incompetent and incapable of managing their own affairs, that they are a very agreeable people when taken the right way, but that there is something about their nature which makes it necessary for them to be treated like children, like aborigines, and kept in a state of tutelage and subjection. An argument like that will be used by Members of this House, when all the time the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), or the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. Healy), the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), and others, who, in the broad and just judgment of the House of Commons, stand in the very first rank of the Parliamentary debaters of the day, are sitting silently and critically behind them. All I can say is, when I contemplate the real meaning of the status and position which you offer to the Irish Members of this House, and to the Irish people in their own land, that I do not envy the nation that tried to put such treatment upon John Bull. Of this I am sure, that until we have comforted the soul of Ireland, until we have given to her national honour the solace of mutual forgiveness—of which we both stand in need—until we have made her a freely consenting party to an act of reconciliation, we shall never secure integrity in national action or unity in Imperial structure.

I have never believed in the nonsense which crops up from time to time in the Press about their being no alternative Government. The personnel of several good Administrations can always be found in the House of Commons. But I would ask it amicably and earnestly of the Opposition, "Have you not a real interest with us in making a settlement, and in getting this question cleared out of the way?" What are your own remedies for it? Can you feel any great confidence in them? Will you really—I ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—give to Ireland a preferential tariff as against Canada? Do you think that that would be a good plan? Do you really think that would be a consolidating measure for the Empire? If you do, do you suppose for one moment that will buy off the Irish national movement? What shall a nation have in exchange for its soul—a tax on imported butter? Despair attendant on the failure of this Bill would produce disastrous consequences. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes. Can anyone—for others, are in earnest besides the hon. Member—others feel deeply and strongly, and are prepared, perhaps, to risk their lives—can anyone look forward to being a Minister in a Government committed from the outset to a policy of coercion? Can anyone who has used the language and the doctrine of civil war—I have no doubt under great stress of strong, sincere personal feeling—violence always arises from very strong and sincere feelings—and promulgated on that Bench, look forward with pleasure or without an anxious conscience to having to discharge his duty in such a situation, and having to mete out to others that measure which has not been meted out to him? What about Irish representation here? Do you mean to keep the Irish Members as an extraneous body under the insulting conditions of inferiority to which I have referred, and just vote them down, or do you propose without their agreement to cut down their representation from the numbers fixed in the Treaty of Union without giving them any compensating increase in their own control over their own domestic affairs? Is that your remedy, your reconciliation? Is that to be the final word which the governing genius of Britain, successful in so many lands, has to speak upon the melancholy relations between the two Kingdoms? Even this relief, if such you regard it, is distant, and cannot be attained until another Parliament beyond this one has run its appointed course. The march of history may in that period bring us to many grave events at home and abroad, whoever is in power, and we shall all of us be glad to have by our side a reconciled Ireland, and a friendly Irish party to share our hopes and fears; not a hostile band in our very citadel to raise their cry of unappeased resentment at the position in which they are placed. That is my argument to the Conservative party as a great power in the country.

I know well the answer that we shall receive to this. The answer will be that Ulster bars the way; that the Unionist party is bound in honour to Ulster. I am not going to indulge in recrimination. These are, so far as I can see them, the facts as they lie before us. It is because Ulster, or, rather, because North-East Ulster, objects that the whole settlement by agreement is to be prevented for ever. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition indeed thinks so seriously of the Ulster case that he seems to apprehend that the limit of conflict will not be confined to this world, but will trench upon celestial regions. Did he not in a powerful sentence say, "If Home Rule was passed Heaven help Ulster, but God help the Government"? Apparently we are threatened with a renewal of those divine incidents which form the subject of "Paradise Lost." I bad always hoped that they had happily ceased in the concluding canto of "Paradise Regained." But I admit that the perfectly genuine apprehensions of the majority of the people of North-East Ulster constitute the most serious, and in my humble judgment, the only serious obstacle to a thoroughly satisfactory settlement of this question. It is impossible for a Liberal Government to treat cavalierly or contemptuously, for any British Government to ignore, the sincere sentiments of a numerous and well defined community like the Protestants of the North of Ireland. We may think them wrong; we may think them unreasonable; but there they are! We may think that their opinions are prejudiced, but their opinions are facts of a most stubborn kind. We are not likely to under-rate the forces and the influences which they can exercise upon the party opposite. We are not likely to under-rate forces that drove Mr. Gerald Balfour from the Irish Office—[An HON. MEMBER: "Wyndham"]—and, though we all hope only for the time being, has interrupted the career of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover.

We are not likely to under-rate these forces. We know perfectly well how firm is the grip which Ulster politicians have upon the mainsprings of the Unionist party. For reminder—if reminder were needed—there sits opposite the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a horseman armed with whip and spur, resolved at all costs to drive Orange colours to the fore! What are the legitimate rights of Ulster? No one on this side of the House, no Liberal, will deny that it is the right of every citizen, nay a duty, provided the circumstances are sufficient, to resist oppression. That is a great and far-reaching principle. But it can be only applied with great moderation if societies and States into which men have formed themselves are to retain coherent structure. Let me ask another question? Have citizens the right even, if there is no oppression, to resist an Act of Parliament which they dislike? Not only by the men of Lister, but in various parts of the country, in different circumstances, we feel the growth of this disposition to offer unconstitutional resistance, passive resistance, to the acts of the Legislature. I do most seriously ask the House to consider the great dangers which the continued development and exaggeration of this new feature will undoubtedly cause to our national life. I daresay I may some time or other be confronted with some quotations from the late Lord Randolph Churchill's speeches in this House, or out of it. I do not know whether the Noble Lord will do this, but, at any rate, I am going to carry the war into his own country, and to treat him to a quotation from the late Lord Salisbury. I was reading the other day again the essay which the late Lord Salisbury wrote many years ago on the Polish Constitution. Lord Salisbury was showing all the defects in the Constitution of Poland which led them inevitably to the evil fate which ultimately befel them. He wrote, all these defects

I listened with profound interest to the colloquy which took place in the Debate on the introduction of this measure between the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir Edward Carson), and I think I am stating the views of the House as a whole when I say we should have liked to hear that colloquy carried further. It would be a great disaster to Ireland if the Protestant population in the North stood aloof from a national Parliament. It would be deeply injurious to the balance, interest, power, and distinction of the new Assembly. It would sensibly diminish the hopes which we attach to the establishment of self-government. We seek no quarrel with Ulster. We contemplate no violence, we seek to make friends not foes, to make peace not war, to redress grievances and not to create them, to appease not to offend, to enfranchise and not to enthral. But Ulster has duties as well as rights. There is a plain duty upon the Protestants of Ulster, though I am afraid hon. Gentlemen opposite will not agree as to what that duty is, but perhaps they will permit me to say what I believe it to be—there is a plain duty laid upon the Protestants, on the Loyalists of Ulster, as Mr. Gladstone used to call them, a duty which they owe first of all to the land of their birth, and in the second place to their friends and coreligionists all over Ireland, and, thirdly, to the self-governing Dominions of the Empire of which they are proud, and that duty is to stand by the ship and bring it safely into port. It is no doubt a great sacrifice that is asked of them, but a great opportunity is also offered to them.

No man can measure in words, or can tell, the blessing that Ulster men have it in their power to bestow upon their fellow-countrymen or the benefits which they would confer upon the State, or the fame and honour they would reap themselves, if they would lead a united Ireland home. At one stroke of the wand they could sweep the Irish question out of life into history and free the British realm from the canker which has poisoned its heart for generations. If they refuse, if they take to the boats, all we say is they shall not obstruct the work of salvage, and that shall go forward at any rate to the end. We present this Bill with good faith and good will to the House of Commons. We think the Irish have too much power in this country and not enough in their own. We feel that the growth of business requires a complete recasting of the Parliamentary machine. We intend this Bill to be the forerunner of a general system of devolution in the United Kingdom, and we are sure it is an indispensable preliminary to any such reform or any large improvement in Imperial organisation. We believe it will reconcile the two Kingdoms and bring the Irish race closely and truly into the British Empire, and make them loyal to the monarchy and good friends and comrades of the British people. We are convinced that there are no inconveniences and dangers in this policy which are not smaller than those under which we now lie, and we ask most earnestly for a fair and faithful consideration for that policy, and we believe, should this Bill pass into law and ultimately receive the full embodiment which we expect and ask for it, that men will look back across the gulf of years to that great statesman, first of all British Parliamentarians, who had the wisdom and the courage to point with unerring finger the true path along which the States and peoples of the British Empire might march to power and peace.

I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

I am fully conscious of the fact that I am a very inadequate successor to the two distinguished men—one, alas! no longer alive, the late Duke of Devonshire, then Lord Hartington, and Lord St. Aldwyn, who is still, I am happy to say, with us—who made on the two previous occasions the same Motion I am now about to make. But I can, at all events, say this, that unlike the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me, during all these years, I have never changed my opinion on this great question. On the contrary, during all the time that has passed during which this has been the foremost subject of controversy in this country, all the opportunities that I have had, whether when connected with the Government of Ireland or by study in the various parts of the King's dominions, all the experience I ever gained has convinced me, if I needed convincing, that the views of the party to which I belong are well founded, and are, if possible, more deeply seated than ever they were. This occasion differs somewhat from its predecessors, not only in the form and character of this Bill, but still more in the method by which that Bill is presented to the House and the country.

We have just listened to the speech from the First Lord of the Admiralty, which is, no doubt, a valuable contribution to the studies of those who are anxious to inform themselves about the various forms of government and their probable effect upon men; but as a contribution to the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill was the most extraordinary attempt to which I have ever listened in the House of Commons. What is the position? The First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech referred to Mr. Gladstone, that great Prime Minister in this country who first introduced a Home Rule Bill. If he thinks so highly of the policy of the late Mr. Gladstone, why should he and his Government depart so entirely from it by their practice upon this occasion? Mr. Gladstone, at all events, knew he was asking Parliament and the country to undertake very responsible work, and he gave the House of Commons and the country some opportunity of knowing what was the work they were engaged upon, what it was they were doing, and what it was they were asked to do. The First Lord of the Admiralty in the speech to which we have just listened has only referred to the Bill once, and then in the most general terms. Will right hon. Gentlemen or hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that when the Debate on the First Beading took place criticisms of the most destructive character were delivered from this side against the Bill; that questions were asked of the utmost importance, questions which ought to be answered with the least possible delay, questions which were so important that we who asked them believed it was only through a natural omission on the part of the Prime Minister that they were not dealt with in his speech, and that we should find the answers in the Bill when we came to read it. To not one of these questions is there an answer in the Bill, and yet to-day when asked to proceed with the Second Reading of that Bill the Minister put up to move the Motion does not condescend to answer any one of these questions or to give us an atom of information.

What did the First Lord of the Admiralty do? He made several statements, and, let me say, while I am quite willing to accept him as an authority upon his own side I absolutely decline to accept him as an authority upon ours, and although his statement with regard to the effect of self-government in different parts of the world may or may not be accurate, the statements he made about us and our policy and intention and declaration are statements which from beginning to end are as inaccurate as anything could possibly be. His statement that we had declared it was dishonest and dishonourable for any Government to work with the Irish Members was, if he will forgive me saying so, absolutely absurd. After all, if there is anything in this statement where did it first emanate? Who was it that laid it down that the Government ought not to legislate upon Home Rule when dependent upon the Irish vote. It did not come from this side, and if the First Lord of the Admiralty is so much concerned about this aspect I recommend him to settle his difference with the Prime Minister and not with us. The right hon. Gentleman in the greater part of his speech made an eloquent appeal to us not to make this a party question, and he appealed to Ulster and to Ulster Members to be patriotic and to be public-spirited. But he forgot to add another piece of advice which, if his recommendations are to be complete, must be included. "Be patriotic! be public-spirited, and desert your friends." That may be good advice in some quarters, but it is advice we are not prepared to accept.

Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to appeal to us and to Ulster to bring about this settlement, and he spoke through the whole of his speech as if no such thing as an Irish difficulty in its real form existed. He made a passing reference to Ulster of a partly offensive and partly contemptuous kind. What was there in his speech that would lead anyone to suppose that the Irish question as it exists to-day is what it has been for generations? I venture to say there was nothing. He appealed to us and to Ulster to support him and the Government in what? In what he is pleased to term a settlement, a settlement which is rejected by every Irish Unionist not only in North-East Ulster, but in many other parts, and is looked upon by them not only as not likely to bring about a settlement, but as an insult to them and a betrayal of their best interests. He appealed to us not to place ourselves here, or to force the House to place itself, under two flags, the Orange and the Green. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently accurately informed as to the relative standards of the two parties. We are not placing ourselves under any new flag. We are asking, and those whom we represent are asking, that they shall be allowed to remain under the Union Jack. That is all they ask, and when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is an attempt on our part to make this a party question and treat it purely as a party question, and be blind and deaf to all the movement that is going on amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the entreaties that are addressed to us, he has gravely mistaken the position. We were entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman why we are asked to-day to debate this Bill only ten days after its introduction, before it has been possible to examine it, or to have it fully examined at a time when some of the most acute critics accustomed to the examination of Bills are, as we see from the papers to-day, differing as to the construction to be placed upon the different parts, and the most important parts of the Bill.

I do not know whether I am right or not, but it struck me that possibly this was the Government's way of redeeming their promise in the Preamble of the Parliament Act. They are not prepared to reconstitute the House of Lords, because, as we know, they would not be allowed to do it, and they have made up their minds that the duties and functions of the two Chambers shall be divided. Their view is that it shall be the duty of the House of Lords to debate, and there shall be no importance attached to their Divisions, but in this House debate is to be the least important part of our duties, and the only important part is to be the Divisions. It is possible that may be one of their remedies, but it is a most unsatisfactory position in which to place this House. Is the Government confident that their Bill would stand so well in this House, as I presume they hope it will do, if it had been in the possession of hon. Members for a reasonable time, and had gone through careful and strict analysis. They have pushed on with this Bill in a way which is absolutely without precedent, and which is absolutely scandalous, because they are anxious that many of its provisions should not be sufficiently understood before this House is called upon to pass the measure. This Government has on many occasions not only treated the Opposition unfairly, but there is a special unfairness in this case because we know from the statements made in this House the Government took into their confidence those friendly to the Bill, the friendly Members of the Nationalist party. We know also from statements made outside, that its provisions and the finance contained in the White Paper, all this information was at the disposal of others before this Bill was introduced into this House. We had no information of the kind, and therefore there is every reason why, in justice to the Opposition—if the appeal of the First Lord is to have any weight at all—it should be accompanied by the usual treatment to the Opposition, that of giving them sufficient time to master the details of an intricate Bill like this.

It is not only the Opposition they have treated in this way. One of their favourite occupations seems to be not only flaunting the Opposition but throwing over their own colleagues. We all remember the Trades Disputes Bill, and the famous incident of the right hon. Gentleman who has preceded me in reference to his dealing with Home Rule in Manchester and Dundee. Now the Chief Secretary comes in for this treatment. You have often been told, and the right hon. Gentleman says we have no right to complain, that the country was not aware of what you were doing; when the Parliament Act was passed, and what would be the effect with regard to Home Rule. The Chief Secretary was one of the strongest in condemning those who held the view that one effect of the Parliament Bill would be to enable the Home Rule Bill to be smuggled through Parliament, and he poured contempt upon anyone who held such a view. I do not know what he meant by the word smuggling, but to bring in a Bill, as you did about ten days ago, and force this House to read it a second time before any large-number of hon. Members of the House can have become thoroughly acquainted with its contents is, in my opinion, an attempt to smuggle a Bill through this House in the first and most important year of the three years or the two and a half years which are necessary if the Parliament Act is to be effective.

We have heard a good deal said by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the second and third year. That is all very well, but under the Parliament Act in the second year the Bill must be practically kept the same as it was when it left this House in the first year. Therefore this Session and these stages are vitally important parts of this Bill, if, and I admit it is a big "if," the Government who have drawn it now intend it to be really placed upon the Statute Book, and not merely to be regarded as goods put in the shop window in order to maintain their arrangement with their friends and to show they have kept this promise, at all events, in the letter. But if this Bill is intended to be placed finally upon the Statute Book, then I say every discussion we have upon it this Session is of vital importance, and the attempt of the Government to rush it through in this way is not only most unfair, but I believe unprecedented, and it makes it impossible for them or their supporters to pretend that they are giving this House or the country a reasonable opportunity to discuss and consider this great question.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about our view in regard to Ireland and the Irish Members. I have already said it is not our view, it is the view of the Prime Minister himself, who laid down the rule that it would be wrong to legislate for Ireland when you were dependent upon; the Irish for your majority. Was there ever a moment in the time of any Government when the Government of the day was more dependent upon the Irish Vote than at the present moment? We find no fault with the facts as they are. We do not seek to drive the Irish out of this House, or as the right hon. Gentleman suggested most inaccurately, deprive them of their absolute right to take a part in our Debates and in our divisions, but when we judge you by your own standard, what do we find? We find that you are deliberately legislating for Ireland at a time when you are more dependent on the Irish Vote than you have ever been before. Take the last two occasions. What would your majority have been last night but for the Irish Votes? It would have been twelve.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that interruption is not correct, because the Division last night was not upon the question of £6,500,000 for the Navy. I will not discuss that point now, because the right hon. Gentleman will read the Debate. He will see that his description is a most improper one, and I confess I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman should have made such an interruption, because it is grossly misleading. What about the Division on the Welsh Church Bill? In that case, without the Irish vote, your majority would have been two. Why, may we ask, did the Prime Minister lay down what I bold to be a very admirable proposition, namely, that the Government when legislating for Home Rule ought to be independent of the Irish vote. It was not, I am quite sure, that he held the view, or holds views, now hostile to Irish interests, but surely it was for this reason that you may have, and probably will have, questions arising in the discussion on this Bill, when the interests of Great Britain on the one hand and Ireland on the other come into direct conflict. Are we to be told by the Government not only that we are to grant Home Rule in these special circumstances, but that we are to do it in a way that can make it certain as anything can be, that in nine cases out of ten the Irish will be able when these differences arise to wring out of the Government concessions in favour of Ireland, because you are legislating at a time when the predominant partner, or those who represent the predominant partner for the time being, are dependent for their places on the Irish, who can turn them out if they resist their demands and maintain the rights of Englishmen.

6.0 p.m.

Surely there never was a moment when the Government, by all the evidence you can obtain, come more under the rule laid down by the Prime Minister than the Government of the day do at this moment. The first Lord of the Admiralty appealed to us to support this Bill because, as he said in an eloquent peroration, a settlement would lead to peace. At the beginning of his speech he denounced us as inconsistent, because of the two, as he says, divergent views we take about the Bill. I venture to say that anybody who reads this Bill carefully and with a fairly accurate knowledge of Ireland and Irish affairs will rise from their study convinced that it is not peace this Bill means, but it is war, and bitter war, in every word and Clause of it. When the First Lord of the Admiralty says we ought to heal the quarrels of centuries and shake hands over this opportunity for union, I say that if there had been no differences in Ireland between the people of Ulster and the Nationalists, if there had been no separation in it, and what is practically two races and two peoples in Ireland, if nothing of this kind had happened, this Bill you have brought in would most certainly have caused differences of an acute kind before it had been very long in operation. Why are we inconsistent if we point out that this Bill errs in both directions? It is not we who are inconsistent; the charge the right hon. Gentleman brings should be brought against his own party and his own Government. The inconsistency is theirs. They profess a desire to give Ireland Home Rule, but they are not able to make up their minds whether they would trust Ireland with complete Home Rule, and give her Home Rule the same as exists in Canada or Australia, or give to her a sort of half-and-half, under which system you retain a great deal of power in the hands of Great Britain and leave Ireland a certain amount of power. How is it inconsistent for us to point out this is undoubtedly so? It certainly is not inconsistent to say that, if you give Ireland powers which she must in time find to be wholly inadequate for the work she has to do, it will be a cause of quarrel when Ireland comes to make further demands upon England. I think it is more than likely that in these discussions questions may arise upon which even hon. Gentlemen opposite may find themselves holding views differing it may he from the Government or from the Irish Members. I wonder how many Gentlemen opposite have really read this Bill and endeavoured to ascertain what will be its actual effects in Ireland. I doubt very much whether a large number of them in their inmost hearts really approve of this Bill in many of its Clauses. I do not know whether they are going to defend it, but, if the information which reaches me is correct, very few of them are going to attempt to defend it they are going to vote for it hoping in their hearts it will turn out to be better than many of them dare to expect, and that it will not be quite so bad as we say it will. They think the less they know about the details the better for them and for their comfort and peace of mind, and they say: "We will leave its defence to those who are responsible for it." It is a comfortable way of discharging your duty as a Member of Parliament, and no doubt it is a convenient way for the Government of the day, but I will venture to say, if this Bill be really closely examined by those who understand the problem it proposes to solve, it will be found to fall short in almost every particular of the standard any reasonable man would set up for the purpose.

The First Lord, in the beginning of his speech, dealt with the question of national defence. I do not pretend to be an authority on national defence. I have not had time to read a book by a distinguished general officer, Major-General Sir Thomas Fraser, which came into my hands yesterday, but he takes an entirely different view from that taken by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I think it is very likely, in the course of these Debates, we shall hear from hon. and gallant Friends of mine on this side of the House the views which they are well qualified to express, based, as they will be, upon their own personal and practical knowledge and experience. They will be entirely at variance with the views laid down by the First Lord, who told us that all these ideas of any danger to national defence might be dismissed as mere dreams, and that there was no reality in them. He then went on to say there were other places where we might be vulnerable, and asked, Why not risk this one? He gave us the same advice he gave us on other questions which might be of serious importance to the country. He said, "You may have labour troubles, and trouble in regard to the coal supply, and other matters, and, if you have got all these difficulties, why should you be afraid of running the risk of another one?" I must say that is a most astounding argument to come from a Minister of the Crown. I do not want to misrepresent the First Lord of the Admiralty, but. I respectfully submit to the House who heard his speech that was what his argument came to. We are told in regard to national defence that we are perfectly safe, because the Irish Parliament, in a most extraordinary Clause, is prohibited from making laws in respect of

"the making of peace or war, or matters arising from a state of war."

The right hon. Gentleman asked us, "Supposing the Irish Parliament were there, and supposing it were hostile to us in a moment of national difficulty, would it be a very serious danger?" I was amazed to hear a Minister of the Crown, and, above all, one who fills the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, ask a question of that kind. I say it would be most serious to this country if you had a Parliament separate to all intents and purposes in Ireland who at a time of great national danger, and when we might actually be engaged in war, took a view hostile to us and hostile to the United Kingdom. We are told this is not serious, because they cannot legislate, etc. No, but they can pass resolutions. Does anybody suppose for a single instant that if this Parliament had been in existence at the time of the Boer War they would not have passed resolutions? Are Ministers going to tell us that, if a Parliament had been in existence in Ireland and had passed these resolutions, they would have done us no harm, and have caused us no extra difficulty? There is only one construction to be placed upon the right hon. Gentleman's language, and that is that he would have gone on to say the Resolutions they might pass and the things they might do would be of so little importance that you need not mind. That is not the view I should take, and I say deliberately you have no right, even on the ground put by the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech a moment ago—namely, that you are really making for peace and a final settlement; you have no right even for objects as great as those—to run real risks in connection with national defence. I maintain those risks will exist. Persons of far greater authority than the First Lord of the Admiralty will substantiate that view, and I hope it will be presented in the course of Debate in this House.

We asked the Government the other day a series of questions. Not one of these questions has been answered in the Bill, and not one has been answered to-day. We asked them what would be the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary. No answer has been given, and we are asked to fight this Bill and to read it a second time in complete ignorance, so far as the Bill goes, on what the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be. The Government may think it is a matter of small importance, and they may choose to treat it with contempt, as they have done up to the present, but what is the Royal Irish Constabulary? It is one of the finest forces in the world, and it is one which has rendered magnificent service to the Government of this country, from whatever side of the House it has been drawn. It must be remembered the Royal Irish Constabulary, whether they like it or not, have been called upon to discharge very difficult and sometimes very painful duties, which have brought them into the sharpest possible conflict with the Irish Members. Yet we are told these men who entered into a contract deliberately with the Government centred here in Westminster, and who entered into our service and had no intention of being transferred to other employers, are to contemplate remaining under the Imperial Government for six years, and at the end of that time being transferred to the new Government. If that is the way you are going to treat them you had better hand them over at once, and give them proper terms on which, if they wish, they can retire. Your proposal is that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be retained for six years as an Imperialist force, but by whom controlled? Who is to be responsible in this House? The Chief Secretary was asked the other day, and he remarked in a rather flippant manner, as if it were not of great importance, that there would be a Minister in this House who would be responsible. A Junior Lord of the Treasury is a Minister. Does the Chief Secretary mean that a Minister is to be deputed to answer for Ireland just as a Minister is now occasionally deputed to answer for some Department which is not represented in this House? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Charity Commissioners."] We asked, and we must be told in this Debate. The Government must tell us, and they ought to have told us to-day, what is to be the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are to be responsible for them to this House, and, still more, to whom they are to look for protection, for guidance, and for command?

We were told by one of the Ministers I think it was the Postmaster-General, they would be under the Commissioner or the Inspector-General, and that he would be under the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant does not sit in this House. Who is going to answer for the Lord Lieutenant in this House? We ought to be told what is to be the position of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the future. An Irish Government is to be established in Dublin, and to them you give certain powers which they are to enforce. Supposing in the performance of their duties they come into conflict with the people, as Governments sometimes do, are they to have the right to demand the Royal Irish Constabulary to assist them, or is the Inspector-General to be allowed to refuse to give his assistance if he thinks it undesirable? Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not had reason to follow as closely as some of us the course of events in Ireland, probably do not realise these are questions which go to the very root of government in Ireland and to the very foundations of society in Ireland. The police are frequently called upon in Ireland for duties they do not perform in this country. There are occasions when their presence is demanded, but is refused by the Executive Government. The Government, represented as they are here by the Chief Secretary and other Members, can be brought face to face with their opponents upon these questions and be compelled to give their own defence and answer for them; but how is this to be in the future? Who is to do this work in the future? What is to be the position of this great force, and to whom are they to look as their Parliamentary head? These are questions we asked the other day, and up to the present it has not been thought necessary by the Government to give us any answer at all.

I venture to say you are deliberately breaking the contract you made with this force without consulting them, and without obtaining their consent, and the least you can do is to see that their position is secured so far as the control which is exercised over them goes and also that they are given the same opportunity for voluntary retirement as I understand is given to them for compulsory retirement under the Bill as it stands. This is the least you can do for a force which has done splendid service and which demands fair, if not generous, treatment at the hands of this House. The Reserved Services which the Government are keeping are really interesting. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us we must not attack the Bill on two different grounds, but surely we are entitled to point out that the division you are making is one which will render government in the future ten times more impossible than you hold it to be at the present time. What are you doing in regard to finance? You are giving the Irish Government certain definite powers. I venture to say the financial proposals of this Bill are not only unsound, but they are dishonest. And for this reason. You talk about the economies which the Irish Government are going to secure. But knowing something of the Irish Government myself, having had some experience of it, I venture to say I do not think there is any economy which can be effected in Irish government that will make the surplus at their disposal worth talking of. Lord MacDonnell, who speaks with great authority on this question, takes precisely the same view. He makes it perfectly clear, in a long article which he has written to one of the morning papers, that it will be practically impossible for the Irish Government to effect economies, and he, in fact, makes an appeal to the Government to give them more money, because, without it, he says, they cannot possibly carry on the administration.

Why is it dishonest? We are told that under the Government Reserved Services this House retains its control generally and its independence. Is that so? Is that really a statement of the case as it stands? What would happen if Lord MacDonnell is right, and if Ireland will not be able to effect economies? She will find herself in need of more money. What will be the alternatives? To tax her own people, or to come to this House and get some alteration made in the general taxation affecting her, a differentiation in her favour, which will enable her Parliament to get more money without placing an additional burden on the Irish taxpayers. I am imputing no bad faith to the Irish Members by this suggestion; I am not talking about impossibilities. I believe that is what may happen. I do not care who constitutes your new Irish Parliament when it is formed, if ever it be. Great stress was laid the other day on the position of the Imperial Parliament and the power of the Imperial Parliament to control financial matters so far as the Reserved Services go. I have never been a believer in this control secured to the Imperial Parliament any more than I have been a believer in the so-called veto of the Imperial Parliament.

This part of the financial scheme is not only dishonest, but it is grossly misleading. The people of this country have not the smallest impression, at all events at present, although I hope it may be brought home to them by the Debates here and elsewhere before the Bill has been much longer under consideration—they have not the smallest impression that, by your financial proposals, you are really handing over their control entirely to the Irish Members. What must they do if they want money in their own Parliament? They have the right to send forty Members to this House. What will be the instructions to those forty Members? There is nothing improper in it, because it will be natural action of men determined to protect themselves and to use for their own protection the power which this House has given them. If you leave them under these financial provisions, and give them the right to send forty Members here, it is as certain as anything can possibly be that, when they find themselves in a difficulty for money, they will not incur the unpopularity which will follow from imposing taxation on themselves, but they will tell their representatives to go to the Imperial Parliament and take care that the Government of the day shall so shape its Budget that it may be acceptable to the Irish people. And this is what you call safeguarding Imperial finance!

There is one other feature connected with this part of the Bill about which I honestly confess I find it difficult to speak with moderation. I think it is the most unfair plan any Government has ever adopted; I do not believe there is any precedent for it in any form of Colonial government that is known. I mean that part of the Bill which proposes that, while the Irish Government shall have the right to tax Ireland for certain specified purposes, the whole of these taxes are to be collected by tax collectors appointed by and responsible to the Imperial Government. Was anything of the kind ever suggested, before by any Government? What is the reason for it? I venture to say it is against every precedent I will go farther, and I will say I suspect that, if the truth were known, many hon. Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House have denounced on many occasions the very same thing in a slightly different form. When we have Debates on rates and rating questions in this House, it is a common thing for hon. Gentlemen on both sides to get up and point out that a system under which rates are made by certain authorities and collected only by one, is an extremely unfair system, that it leads to extravagance, and makes it impossible for those who pay the rates to lay their fingers easily on the source of expenditure and ascertain whether or not it is extravagant. But you are doing this now. Why is this extraordinary step being taken? Is it possible that it was, as has been suggested in some quarters, adopted to avoid the Ulster difficulty by compelling Ulstermen to pay to the Imperial tax collector? I do not know.

Nothing is impossible in these days, of course, but I do say this, knowing something of the country of which I am speaking, it is a monstrous thing to do, because circumstances may easily arise in Ireland under which this power of the Imperial Parliament to collect all taxation, some of which will be Irish money, may be gravely misrepresented, and misrepresented to the great injury of Great Britain. Surely the Government would have done well, having appointed a Commission to exhaustively inquire into all these questions, to have more closely followed its advice, in this one respect at all events. Surely, if you are going to give Ireland what, as the First Lord of the Admiralty just now asserted with much pomp and ceremony, you are going to give her—not as a legislative assembly or a council, but a Senate, a House of Commons, and a Parliament—if you are going to give her a Parliament with power to impose taxation, why do you not also give with it the duty of collecting that taxation? Why? For this reason. You know very well—the framers of this Bill know very well—that there is a good deal of odium attaching to those whose business it is to collect taxes. Therefore, you deliberately take this step. You, the British Government in the Imperial Parliament, deliberately take this step of casting this duty on the British Parliament, while you pretend to set up an Irish Parliament with separate and independent powers of taxation. I repeat it is very difficult to speak calmly about a proposal of this kind. I believe it to be as bad financially as it is unsound and unfair towards this Imperial Parliament, and even towards Ireland herself. Then I come to the Land Clauses, about which I made a few remarks the other day. What we gather from explanations given by the Prime Minister is as nothing compared with what we learn from a closer study of the Bill. Here are the words under which the Land Acts are reserved to the Imperial Parliament:—

"The general subject of the Acts relating to land purchase in Ireland."

It has taken experts best acquainted with Irish government and with the Land Acts no little time and trouble to ascertain what the real meaning of these words is. It appears now to be this: the Land Acts are administered in Ireland through different bodies. The Estates Commissioners are to be an Imperial service. I presume, although this is not by any means clear, the Land Commission is also to be an Imperial service. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary will correct me if I am wrong.

Are the Commissioners and the Assistant Commissioners, the gentlemen who fix the rents, to form a reserved service, or an unreserved service?

No, certainly not. All land purchase is reserved, but the land law is not reserved.

I am very much obliged to the Chief Secretary. I am not a lawyer. I am not saying this in any offensive sense, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the study of a new Bill is by no means an easy matter. It is not easy to ascertain exactly what it means, and, in this particular case, two totally different views have been taken by experts who were lawyers as to what would be the effect of these words. We now know, and it is a matter of the utmost importance, that the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board in part are to be reserved. The Congested Districts Board is to have a most curious existence, because, when doing certain work, it is to be reserved, and under some mysterious Minister of whom we as yet know nothing, and when doing other work it will be under the Irish Parliament. There will be periods of the same sitting when the Members will be acting independently of the Irish Parliament, and there will be other periods when they come under the control of the Irish Government. But the Land Commission, the body which has the fixing of the rents, is to be a transferred service. Here again I say that this proposal is not only bad but dishonest, because great stress is laid upon these Land Clauses. We were told "Here is all this money which has been lent to Ireland, in which the credit of this country is involved, and we are securing your credit; we are looking after your property, by keeping it as a reserved service under the control of the Imperial Parliament." Are you doing anything of the kind? Are you really keeping the security upon which the British taxpayer has lent his money? What are you doing? I do not suppose there is one Member in fifty, outside of those who are actually cognisant with the government of Ireland, who has discovered, even after reading the Bill many times over, that you are going to control the work done by the Estates Commissioners in connection with the purchase and sale of land and that of the Congested Districts Board?

What about your credit? What does your credit depend upon? Not merely upon transactions between landlord and tenant, not merely upon the work done by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, but it depends on the value of the property in Ireland. It is true you have now got something like £120,000,000 worth of land either bought, transferred, or in process of agreement. You have eighty odd millions worth to come. Supposing, under your new Government, this happens—and unless the Irish Members are going to be totally different in every respect from what they have hitherto been it will happen—supposing the Irish Government take the view that rents are too high. They have expressed these views repeatedly before. Suppose a campaign of rent lowering is started in Ireland. What is going to happen to your Land Purchase Acts? The Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board will be compelled to buy on the ordinary terms of purchase, and prices will largely depend on the rent fixed on the land. Do you think, for a single instant, that a man is going to consent to pay an annuity on this side of a ditch based on old prices when the man on the other side will be paying on the new prices, the result of your handing over the valuation of land to the Irish Government. The thing is unthinkable. But if it be true, and after the admission of the Chief Secretary I may imagine it is true, then I say that, by surrendering the right to administer the Lands Laws in Ireland quê the valuation of land to other parties and to a separate Government, you abandon all right whatever to say that you have given the Imperial Government power to protect the security of the Imperial taxpayer. You have abandoned that security. The least you can do is to tell the people frankly and openly what it is you are doing, and not to mislead them and humbug them by telling them at one moment that you are protecting that interest and the next moment being compelled to admit that you are doing exactly the reverse, and are taking a line which will be more likely to destroy that security than protect it. Supposing the Land Commission should be retained in the power of the Imperial Government, how long will that last? How long will this state of things that you are pretending to set up now last? I notice that there is no provision made in this Bill, so far as I can ascertain, for the subsequent transfer of the Land Purchase Acts.

As I listened to the First Lord of the Admiralty just now I felt as if one were living in a different world altogether, and that his speech had no bearing upon our Debates, because he ignored every practical question of importance with which we have been confronted. When we meet here to discuss this Home Rule Bill and are told that the whole administration of the land law and the Land Purchase Acts, save the fixing of rents, is to be a reserved service, outside the jurisdiction and control of the Irish Parliament, I ask myself how it is possible that a scheme of this kind can last or give any real satisfaction to Ireland. Only the other day one of the hon. Members for Mayo spoke in the strongest terms of what they wanted to do with the land in Ireland. He prophesied that as soon as they had got Home Rule they would do those things themselves. The First Lord of the Admiralty has spoken of the unanimous support given to this Bill by Nationalist Ireland. Let him read an account of a meeting held the other day in the county of Roscommon to protest against the continuance of grazing farms and to demand that they should be broken up. A set of resolutions was passed demanding that that should be done by the Estates Commissioners. It is true that in the middle of all these resolutions there was an expression by one of the speakers of his entire confidence in the Nationalist party and his approval of the Home Rule Bill, but I do not suppose he knew—or, if he knew, discipline was too good to enable it to effect his action—that the Bill of which he approved so highly does not, and will not, enable the Irish Commissioners to do any one of the things that this great meeting unanimously demanded they should be allowed to do.

Is it not a farce to talk about a Bill like this bringing peace, good will, and a settlement of all difficulties? I do not care whether you examine the land provisions, to which I have referred, or whether you turn to the education question, it matters not which of these transferred services you examine, you will find the same result follows. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in his speech to-day, said that this Bill was going to heal differences, to end quarrels, and to bring together opponents. Who are the opponents that this Bill is going to bring together? You are in friendly alliance with the Irish Nationalist party. Do you think that by handing over education to a Nationalist Parliament you are going to bring together those on whose behalf I and other hon. Members on this side of the House speak? What will that Parliament be? As sure as anything can be, it will be a Parliament strongly denominational. Yet hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have spent many months of the last five or six years in doing their best to injure Church schools, who, the other day, did their best to injure the Church herself, by robbing her of some of her property, and destroying four of her dioceses, who profess that they are strongly in favour of Nonconformity and independence, are prepared to tell those whom we represent, and who view this change in educational matters with the greatest possible anxiety, that there is no foundation for their fears, and that no harm will come to them. They are prepared to abandon those we represent in Ireland, while in this House they demand for themselves very different treatment, and will be satisfied with nothing less than the extinction of Church schools, and, if they could have it, the destruction of the Established Church. I am bound to say that is a policy as unjust and as unfair as anybody can conceive. I venture to say you will find the opposition will not decrease, but that your attempt to do this will lead to more determined opposition, if possible, in many parts of Ireland, than anything you have encountered hitherto.

I have only one other word to say, that is upon the federal question. So far I have only dealt with the provisions which affect Ireland or this House. There is a great deal in that that is dishonest, as I have sought to prove. In every Clause dealing with them there is written distrust of the Irish people. That is a matter for those who represent Nationalist Ireland, and not for me to deal with. There is a great deal in the Bill that is profoundly unsatisfactory, but the greatest imposture of all is the pretence of the Government that in this Bill there are to be found the elements of federalism, and that this Bill will contribute to a final solution of this question upon federal lines. Will the Government in the course of these Debates tell ns what precedent they are relying upon when they claim that this Bill will lead to federalism. Will they tell us something else? They know perfectly well, as we do, that as far as England is concerned there is in this House at this moment— what there would be if an opportunity were given to the electors outside, to express their opinions, I do not hazard an opinion—a decided majority opposed to their policy, whether it be Home Rule on federal or any other lines. What right have you to prejudge this question of federation, to decide to take this as a model, when you know that the partner to the Union, who has been described by one of your own ex-Prime Ministers as the predominant partner, is opposed to anything of the kind at the present time. You know it is extremely unlikely that she would alter her opinion if you were to consult her again. This Bill, instead of making for federalism, will make any scheme federating the United Kingdom, supposing it to be desirable, ten times more difficult than if you started with a clean slate. No, this is not an attempt at federalism: it is a pure sham.

The Government have got, as we know, to keep some of their Scottish allies in tow. They have on more than one occasion spoken very strongly upon this subject. I have been looking at some Resolutions which have been passed affirming that no scheme of Home Rule would be satisfactory which did not provide for a federal system in Scotland. It is like the Preamble to the Parliament Act. It is necessary for the passing of this particular measure. Although you talk about federalism, you cannot produce one precedent. The South African precedent has been blown out of the water long ago by every critic that has addressed himself to the question. There is nothing in the South African precedent that you have followed in this scheme. You will, I believe, not discontinue talking about federalism because we have exposed the sham and illusion that it is, but we will take care that, to the best of our ability, you are not allowed to describe as a Federal Bill a Bill that is simply intended to secure Nationalist support in this House by giving them just as little government as they will accept, and reserving certain things that you think will represent to the British people a protection and guarantee, when in reality they represent nothing of the kind. The object of the Government is to pass Home Rule. The First Lord of the Admiralty talked about getting this ship into port, and about our getting into the boats. I think he got a little away from his line in that reference. It is the Government who have got to get their ship into port. I venture to predict that they will encounter some very rough weather, and if they do get their ship into port, of which I am not at all certain, I am not sure that they will be able then to unload their cargo. Even if they do get this water-logged, cranky vessel somehow along the quay side, I think they have an uneasy feeling themselves—the First Lord of the Admiralty showed it when he was speaking—that the reception they will meet with at the end of their journey will be by no means an agreeable one.

They have tried more than once, not only by their speeches, but by their laughter and their jeers in this House, to throw discredit and contempt upon those who come from Ulster, and those who represent the cause of Ulster. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is no good for hon. Gentlemen to shake their heads and say "No." I speak of that I know, and have heard and read, and I say it is so. They know very little end? By unfolding the Union Jack and singing "God save the King." Do you think that any gathering of this character, belonging to this race, following these practices, is going to be easily put down or lightly destroyed? The First Lord of the Admiralty quoted from the late Lord Salisbury. I should like to make a quotation, which happily I have with me, from the late Duke of Devonshire. Nobody will deny that the late Duke of Devonshire was not only a great, wise, and powerful statesman and citizen of this country, or that he was also a man of great prudence, moderation, and wise judgment. The Duke of Devonshire, speaking in 1893 at Dalkeith, said:— deadly earnest to-day." That is the attitude of the Opposition—the Opposition united as one man in their determination not to follow the advice of the First Lord of the Admiralty and desert their friends who ever stood by them, but to be loyal to their friends, to stand by them and defend with them the interests which are common to both of us. That is the line we prefer to the one suggested by the First Lord. How does it then stand? A measure cranky, destroyed already by criticism, and one which will find very little defence among private Members, particularly when they know more of it than they do now, and Ulster steadfast, grim, determined, the Opposition pledged to stand by them as one man. What will be the result when you face this position— a terrible position we may call it perhaps —in Ulster, a serious position for any Government or any party to have to face? I am satisfied that you will ultimately realise that you cannot, and we shall be here determined to say that you shall not do so grave, so unjust, a thing as that which you are attempting to do by forcing this measure upon an unwilling country.

I rise to support the Second Reading. The case for Home Rule was strong and unanswerable when Mr. Gladstone introduced the first Home Rule Bill in 1886. The flight of time since then has intensified the demand of the great majority of the poeple of Ireland for a measure of Home Rule, and every year that has passed has added force to the reasons and arguments by which Home Rule is supported. What of the case against Home Rule? I think anyone who has listened to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long) cannot resist the conclusion that the argument of the Opposition against Home Rule has weakened, and that the case of Unionism, in the matter of this great question of national policy, is a hopeless and a lost cause. The right hon. Gentleman boasted that he had never changed his opinions on this question. I do not think I shall be doing an injustice to him if I suggest that that is a qualification which he could apply to the whole of his convictions, and probably the explanation is that he has not had the trouble of forming his own opinions, but that they have descended upon him from his ancestors and that as an inheritance he, of course, feels himself bound to respect them. But if the right hon. Gentleman follows to its legitimate conclusion the train of argument which I was able to follow in his speech there is still hope for him in one sense and danger for him in another. If he is sincere in advocating that this Bill gives too little power to Ireland I presume, if he gets an opportunity at a later stage, he will move to have the powers given to Ireland extended. A large number of the arguments which he used against Home Rule are, I presume, directed to the people of Ireland in order to convince them that the Home Rule Bill proposed by the Prime Minister is not half good enough. Take a specimen of this trend in his reasoning. He objects to Home Rule because the tax collector in Ireland will be a British tax collector, and he objects to the Land Clauses. I cannot follow him further when he tries to make, in some subtle manner, an analogy between the question of Home Rule and the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales.

In contrast to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I should like to direct attention to the speech which the former Leader of the Opposition, not alone in the House, but at home and abroad, made on the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill. I am not sure whether it was a charge or a compliment, but he mentioned the fact that during the years since the introduction of the first Home Rule Bill the Government had learnt a great deal. I do not think anyone could reasonably accuse either the right hon. Gentleman or his Friends of having either learnt anything or forgotten anything during the years which have elapsed since 1886. In the Unionist arguments of to-day we find all the fallacies which blinded the reason in the controversies of a generation ago. They still painfully labour under the delusion that the bogies which they used to frighten their grandmothers with can still be effectively used as political scarecrows to-day. They take no account of the cumulative effects of the changes which have taken place in Ireland, the changes wrought by Land Purchase and the entrusting to the people of popular government. This great experiment has, I am sure, established beyond question—and we have it on the highest Unionist authority—the capacity of Irishmen for self-government and their character for economy and the entire absence of corruption from their connection with the management of the large and responsible concerns committed to them under the Irish Local Government Act. This Bill, in its principles and in its main provisions, embodies every provision which is essential to make it acceptable both to the people in Ireland and to the people in Great Britain. It confers on the people in Ireland the right and places upon them the duty and the responsibility of managing their own affairs, legislating for themselves in their own internal concerns and administering the laws which they make in their own Parliament. But at the same time it provides for and safeguards in the most ample and complete manner the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament.

What is the objection to Home Rule? What is at the bottom of all the speeches such as that to which we have just listened, and what is the meaning of the controversy and warfare which the journals which support the Opposition are carrying on in their campaign against Home Rule? If the arguments in their speeches and in their journals are boiled down and analysed, they just come to this. They admit the justice of the principle of Home Rule, but they object to the details—they maintain that the details of Home Rule are so difficult to settle that the problem in insoluble. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) said in the First Reading Debate that it was the details of the previous Home Rule Bills which were rejected. Surely, if this is to be accepted as the best case which Unionism can put forward, it concedes, at all events, the soundness of the principle of Home Rule and the justice of applying that principle to the Government of Ireland. No one in this Empire, no one living under this Constitution, can deny the principle of Home Rule, which is the foundation of the Empire and the very genius and inspiration of the Constitution. In no part of the Empire, not amongst any of the enfranchised Colonies or Dominions, has there ever been a stronger claim for the recognition of the rights to self-government than that which is presented in the case of Ireland. When self-government has been given in turn now to Canada, now to Australia, and now to South Africa, this country has conciliated the individual Colony or the individual Dominion; but when once the question of the Government of Ireland is settled, you have not only satisfied the legitimate aspirations of the Irish people, but you satisfy also the twenty millions of the Irish race who are amongst the best and most loyal citizens of the Empire in the Colonies which are the pride of the Empire, and the millions, also, who hold that place in the great Republic of the United States. I take it, as the right hon. Gentleman has not in any way disputed the soundness of the principle of Home Rule as applied to Ireland, that he has given up that contention, and indeed the Unionist party in attacking Home Rule seem in despair of meeting it by fair argument. What do they do? They are reverting to the old game of misrepresentation. I wish to take a specimen from the platform oratory of the Front Bench. Here is a short extract from a speech made in Peterborough on the 20th instant by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith). He said:—

I ask whether a more grotesque or stupid misrepresentation of the facts and figures of the Home Rule Bill than that contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman could be conceived. I am forced to the conclusion that at the time he delivered that speech he had not given for his own part even a first reading to the text of the Bill which he must have had in his hands some days before, for otherwise I should be obliged to come to the conclusion that he thought anything was good enough for Peterborough, and that this audience of Primrose Leaguers would swallow anything he might offer to them. I venture to say that nothing more stupid as to the character of the Home Rule Bill could well be thought of. Indeed, it is well known to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that what the Bill contemplates is to take over the responsibility for the present deficit and to give Ireland on the setting up of her National Parliament a sum of £500,000 a year, diminishing gradually to £200,000, and that when in the course of time the Irish Parliament has had an opportunity of exercising economy and running the administration and government of the country on economical lines, and when the state of Ireland improves, it is contemplated that Ireland will not only not be in the position of receiving anything from the Imperial Exchequer, but will be a contributor to all the purposes of the Imperial concern which she will share jointly with this country. I am sure that the prudence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is at least equal to his courage, and I venture to say that he would not dare from his place in this House to repeat the fantastic statement he made to the Primrose Leaguers at Peterborough. I do not think there are many even on the Front Opposition Bench, or on the Opposition Benches above the Gangway, who would be capable of such a distortion of facts.

But it is not surprising that we get this from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith) when we remember that during the last election he avowed himself to be devoted to the twin causes of Protestantism and Tariff Reform. I wonder if when he goes over to support the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University he will still address himself to the twin causes of Protestantism and Tariff Reform, or whether he would on that occasion like to make a separation between the heavenly twins. We on these benches maintain that Home Rule is a good bargain for this country; that no injustice whatever is done to this country by its provisions, and that it saves this country from an enormous increase in the deficit which is bound to pile up if the present state of affairs continues to exist between Ireland and Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division {Mr. Long) in a previous speech on this question said, in reference to the proposals on the financial side:— component parts of the United Kingdom would be a bad thing, but evidently what he desires is that the whole scheme should be produced and settled at once. But if federalism is a good thing, and if you are to begin to federalise, you must begin some time and somewhere. My submission is that this is the time, and that the instance in which federalism can best be tried is this instance of giving Ireland a Parliament which will work in and fit in with the federal system for the whole of the United Kingdom. If the object of the Opposition is to bring strength by means of greater unity, how are you to secure greater unity better than by conciliating the different component parts you are uniting. Will not a contented, settled, and happy Ireland be a greater strength to the Empire than an Ireland discontented and disaffected, and which must continue so, until her legitimate claims are conceded? What are the other arguments against Home Rule? We have heard frequently of the religious question. We have not heard much of it to-day. We heard very little of it on the First Reading of the Bill, and if you take the daily Press I think it will be found that the basis of the opposition to Home Rule on the religious question has been entirely abandoned. There may be disputes among the Opposition as to who is the leader of the party in the country, but I do not think there is any dispute among the Opposition as to what is their leading journal and who is the leader of the party in the journalism of the country. I take an extract from the "Observer" of last Sunday, and when I state this I am sure that my hon. Friends above the Gangway will be as little inclined to dispute it as if I had quoted from the Sacred Book itself. In the last issue of that paper the learned editor says that the religious question is no longer to be the battle ground of controversy: that he has never taken up this attitude, and that he speaks for the party that this will never be made the ground on which the fight in regard to Home Rule will be fought to a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division in a remarkable speech which he delivered in October—I have not the quotation by me and I am speaking from memory—stated that he himself had never attached any importance to the contention that if Home Rule were given to Ireland the Catholic majority would attempt in any way to tyrannise over, or to act unfairly towards the Protestant minority in Ireland. All through this controversy upon Home Rule this has been the thought of the ablest among the Unionist party. I find that on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1893, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach said:— colleagues and I belong. Our movement has never been for Catholicism and Home Rule. Our movement has been for a broad Nationalism, including Protestant and Catholic alike; and the responsible leader of this party has never failed to take advantage of any opportunity offered to him to bring conciliation to the doors of those who differ from us in the North of Ireland.. In a speech delivered some years ago, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) said:—

What are the great industries in the North of Ireland? What would Belfast be but for this shipbuilding industry? The greatest shipbuilding firm is the firm of Harland and Wolff. I observe that an hon. Member above the Gangway despises a great industry which is probably more important than any other similar industry in the whole world.

The hon. Member says that he observes that I despise a great industry in Belfast. I would like to ask him if there is anything in the observations which I made a moment ago that could lead any person to draw such conclusion?

I admit to my hon. Friend that there was nothing in the interruption which he made now, or in his previous interruption when he challenged me to say in what way there is evidence—

Convincing proof of the popularity of Home Rule among his own co-religionists in the North of Ireland. He and his friends took very great care that so far as it lay in their power they would prevent the people of this country from getting proof that there were in the North of Ireland and in Belfast large numbers of people who were prepared to come and listen to a Cabinet Minister expound the policy of the Government in regard to Home Rule. Now I will give him some proof. He and his friends excluded their fellow Protestants from hearing a Cabinet Minister in their own hall, the Ulster Hall, but in spite of the preparation of the provisional government of North-East Ulster, the Protestants of Ulster mustered in great numbers, to more than treble the number that could have been accommodated in that hall, and heard the proposals of the Government, and by the resolutions carried at that meeting expressed their confidence in the policy which the Government have propounded. And I would refer my hon. and learned friend to his own journals, published in his own city, in which he will find convincing proof that the movement for Home Rule is supported by an increasingly large number of Protestants, not only in Ulster, but everywhere through Ireland. This game of making political capital out of the religious difference between various people in the North of Ireland is played out, and the protestations of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that they represent a separate nation in Ireland are denied by the highest organs of the Unionist party from the "Irish Times" downwards. In view of these facts, I am justified in contending that not only are the great majority of the people of Ireland, who have always been demanding Home Rule, still firmly convinced of the justice of their cause, but that the justice of their proposals has been seen and admitted by an increasing number in the North of Ireland.

We believe that this is a satisfactory measure of Home Rule, and that when it is carried out it will be given a fair chance and a fair trial not only by the people of the three southern provinces, but also on the scene of controversy among the Protestants and the Orangemen of the North of Ireland. We for our part want to build up an Ireland where the Protestant will have equal rights with his fellow Roman Catholics. A great deal of the speech of the hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. Long) was about the demand on behalf of the Presbyterians of Ireland for securing equal rights and liberties. This Bill gives equal rights and equal liberties. Whenever reform has been won in this House by those who sit on these benches, irrespective of and in spite of the opposition of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, whether it be in the direction of landlord reform or the extension to Ireland of local government, the North of Ireland has shared equally in the benefits of these reforms and such legislation with the people of the other provinces of Ireland. Therefore, we believe that when Home Rule is carried the benefits which it is capable of conferring on Ireland will be seen and recognised by those for whom hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway now speak, and from whom they say they have a mandate to oppose Home Rule. We look forward to a time when those who have fought against one another as Protestants and Catholics will join hands and stand shoulder to shoulder and fight together to exterminate religious differences, and to bring about the peace and prosperity and happiness of Ireland and the greatness of the Empire.

The hon. Member who has just sat down tried to make the House believe that there was a comparatively large section of the Protestants in the North of Ireland in favour of Home Rule. I thought that that old fallacy had been given up even by such advocates of Home Rule as the hon. Member for North Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), but it appears not. It appears that an attempt has still to be made by hon. Members below the Gangway to make the House believe that there is a serious section of Protestants in Ireland in favour of Home Rule. I will give some figures which will show conclusively that there is not a word of truth in the assertion of the hon. Member below the Gangway, but that the very reverse is the truth, and that the feeling in the North of Ireland at this moment against Home Rule is infinitely stronger that it has been at any time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was elected a Member of this House in 1903. Home Rule was then in the background, and the land question was the question which was agitating the people, and my majority was 849. In 1906 I was unopposed. In 1910, it will be remembered that the Prime Minister had stated that the Radical party were freed from the pledge given in 1906 not to introduce a Home Rule Bill, and that on the first suitable opportunity a Home Rule Bill would be introduced. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I understand those cheers, but the mere effect of that statement on my election was to increase my majority to 2,970. That does not look very like as though the people in my Constituency were particularly anxious for Home Rule. Not only was my majority trebled, but the majority of every single colleague of mine on these benches from the North of Ireland was also increased at that election and for the very same reason. North Belfast, upon which, as the hon. Member for Leicester said the other day, his party had made assaults, was held in 1908 by the Unionist party by a majority of something like 600. At a subsequent election the figure fell to 300; at the election in 1910 it went up to between two and three thousand, after that declaration by the Prime Minister. If figures prove anything they prove without any shadow of doubt that as soon as Home Rule became a serious issue in the North of Ireland the Liberals and Radicals in that part of the country, who at a time when Home Rule was in the background voted as Liberals and Radicals, put the Liberalism and Radicalism on one side and voted for the man who they thought could best defend them against Home Rule.

I should have thought also that what has happened in Belfast lately would have been quite enough proof to the hon. Member below the Gangway that the people in that part of the country were not in favour of Home Rule. I should have thought that the demonstration which we had a few days ago in Belfast would have been sufficient for that purpose, but if that were not sufficient I should have thought that the action taken by the people in the North of Ireland, including myself, and I am glad to say the Leader of my party, the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), in refusing—I will use plain words—to allow a Cabinet Minister to hold a meeting in Ulster Hall, as we considered absolutely desecrating that building by so doing—I should have thought that that action, taken with full responsibility on our own shoulders and with a full knowledge of the responsibility that we incurred, and carried right through to the end, in bringing about, as we hoped and knew we should be able to do, an abandonment of the plan of holding that meeting in that particular hall, would have dispelled any lingering ideas that any considerable section of the Protestants of the North of Ireland were in favour of Home Rule. I can assure the hon. Member that it is not so, and that the feeling in the North of Ireland to-day is stronger than it has ever been before on this subject. The hon. Member talks about Unionism being a lost cause. I trust that we shall be able to show him before the end of the Debate, certainly before the end of two years, that Unionism is a very flourishing cause indeed. If he means that he is going to see a Home Rule Bill in operation in Ireland, I can only say that I think he is grievously mistaken. The hon. Member informed us that there was practically no religious aspect of the Home Rule question. He said that all the talk about religion was simply manufactured by a few bigoted Orangemen. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), speaking a few days ago, said he did not think there was any religious question; he did not think there was any racial question; he called the strong feeling existing in the North of Ireland against anything in the shape of Home Rule an historical question. I do not really mind what he calls it. Call it a racial, a religious, or an historical question, or all three, but there it exists. Personally, I know that it is very largely due to religion, but if you do not like to mention the word "religion" you can call it what you like. The strong feeling which we hold in the North of Ireland that a Parliament in Dublin to which we were subject would be dominated first of all by the Nationalist party, and, secondly, and probably to a greater degree, by the Roman Catholic Church, is at the bedrock of this whole question. There is no use in discussing that fact. Any man, from Ulster especially, who meanders through the speeches on this subject, without candidly and freely grappling with the question, is not doing his duty either to this House or to the country. You may call it what you like, but we in the North of Ireland believe that a Parliament in Dublin would be dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, being what it is, we do not believe, to use a colloquial phrase, that the Protestants would have a "fair show." Protestants are not going to allow themselves to come under the domination of that Parliament. Unionists in Ireland have known for a considerable number of years past that the Home Rule fight would have to be gone through once again. Personally, I am heartily glad that the time has arrived, because I, together with my fellow countrymen in the North of Ireland, feel that it is a scandal that we Ulster men, who to the best of our ability have worked for the good of our country and of the Empire, should have all our lives remained with the horrible shadow of Home Rule hanging over our heads. We say that we are citizens of this country, just as much as you are, and what have we done that we should be thrust out? I maintain that we have done our share in building up the Empire, and that we ought to be treated precisely as are persons who live in Somersetshire, Lincolnshire, or any other part of this country. We say that there is not a single instance, so far as we have been able to ascertain in the history of the world, where it was proposed to cast out of the State a useful, self-respecting portion of the community such as we claim to be.

We say that has never happened. If it has never happened, then ten times less has it ever happened in the case of such a large proportion of the community as that of the North of Ireland, though it may appear to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the proportion is not large, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke of its being one-tenth. But I say that never in the history of the world has it been proposed to thrust out such a large portion of the community against their will as is now proposed, and still less has it ever been proposed, not only to thrust out such a large proportion of the community, but to put them under the domination of another party, under whose domination they do not desire to go. I say that is absolutely unheard of in history, and it is an operation which the men of Ulster will never allow to be performed. We all know how this Bill came to be introduced. We know it has been in the Radical programme, but not in the forefront. It has been mentioned sufficiently to suit hon. Members below the Gangway, but kept far enough in the background so as not to affect hon. Members opposite and their constituencies; and I venture to say that if the majority of the Government in 1910 had been like the majority in 1906 hon. Members below the Gangway Would still be whistling for Home Rule. We know that the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Hobhouse) at Bristol spoke upon this subject with extreme frankness. He said that the Liberal Government and the Liberal party owed deep and sincere thanks to the Irish representatives for the support they had given to the Government during the last six years. They supported the Government all through the difficulties and labours of the Budget, they bad supported taxation which was especially unpopular in Ireland, and some of them had supported it at the risk of their Parliamentary lives. The Liberals, he said, owed to the Irish Members deep gratitude for that, and also for their support in limiting the Veto of the House of Lords; and—this is the frank part of it— closely connected with Ireland, the Chief Secretary, was amongst those Members of the Government who did not mention Home Rule in his election address. I think the same proportion applies to the Front Bench opposite as applies to the rest of hon. Members on that side of the House. How anyone can contend for one moment, as has been seriously contended on more than one occasion by the Prime Minister, that a question of this importance could be said seriously to be before the country, with such a small proportion as I have named out of Liberal and Labour Members on the other side mentioning it in their addresses, is what I cannot understand.

The Union between Great Britain and Ireland has been in existence for 112 years; and I say that no statesman or even politician, which is not always the same thing, should have any right to attempt to dissolve that Union, unless he has satisfied himself that the Union has been a failure; and, in the second place, that Home Rule would remedy any defects which exist in Ireland by its being joined to this country under the Union. Can the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House point out in what way the Union has been a failure except in this one way, that we have had constant demands, I admit, for some years past from the Nationalist Members below the Gangway for a repeal of the Union. That does not mean that the Union has been a failure in any measure, and if you apply the ordinary tests, which you would apply to the question of the prosperity of any country, you would come to the conclusion that the Union which exists between Great Britain and Ireland, has not been a failure. If you apply the test of the Post Office Savings Bank, which I am told is about the best test under the circumstances, you will find that there is evidence of great and steady progress in Ireland. I notice in the papers this morning a letter written by a former Member of this House, a very eminent citizen of Belfast, Mr. George Clark, which contains some figures on that very subject, and which are very Valuable. The writer said:— Ireland. That is an increase of £27,000,000 in six years. than she is under the Union. Can anybody prove to me that a shopkeeper in Tralee would be any better off under Home Rule than under the Union, or that the shopkeepers of Cork or Kerry, or any places you like to name, would, from the material point of view, be any better off under Home Rule than they are under the Union?

If the hon. Member can do so, possibly he will inform us when he comes to speak. I shall be very glad if he would convince me of it. My view about that is that not only would Ireland not be as well off if Home Rule came to pass, but in a short time she would be on the verge of bankruptcy. She would instantly lose all the benefit of British credit which has been so immensely advantageous to her in the past, and, as on former occasions when Home Rule was introduced, we know that the value of railway stock and all sorts of shares in fact all over the country fell rapidly, and very rapidly, many millions of value. She is going to lose, with the exception of £500,000 for the first few years, and £200,000 afterwards, the £1,500,000 and the innumerable Grants which she has received for a variety of purposes for the last thirty or forty years. She is going to cut herself off, and, in fact, shut herself up in a watertight compartment, so to speak, so that in future she will not get any of those financial benefits from this country which she has been accustomed to get with such regularity in past years. Again I ask with reference to the improvement, the alleged improvement, which is coming to Ireland under Home Rule, I ask hon. Members below the Gangway, and right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, have the Gentlemen into whose hands is going to be committed the government of Ireland ever shown the slightest business capacity. [Laughter.] I notice hon. Members below the Gangway laugh. [An HON. MEMBER: "New Tipperary."] That undoubtedly was a failure. Let me draw the attention of the House to this fact that hon. Members below the Gangway cannot produce hardly a single successful merchant in Ireland who is in favour of Home Rule. [An HON. MEMBER: "Harland and Wolff."] I thought they would say that just almost as they say that the Protestants of the North of Ireland are in favour of Home Rule.

I presume they refer to Lord Pirrie. I should have thought that this House, and certainly Belfast knows perfectly well the story of Lord Pirrie. Lord Pirrie is a Radical, and, I believe, in favour of Home Rule, though there appears to be a little doubt on that point. Lord Pirrie has from 18,000 to 20,000 employés in Belfast, and 95 per cent. of them are against Home Rule and are strong Unionists. Ninety-five per cent. of them marched before the Leader of the Opposition in Belfast, and they were as fine and as strong and as sturdy a body of men as I believe you would have seen anywhere. I would advise hon. Members not to run away with the idea that any considerable section of Lord Pirrie's men are in favour of Home Rule. As to Lord Pirrie, in Belfast, at any rate, the idea prevails, and I must say I share it myself, that it is no deep conviction with regard to Home Rule that makes him in favour of that measure, but it is dissatisfaction, not to say spite, which he feels because, to put the matter very plainly, the Unionist Government when in power did not give him all he wanted in the way of preferment. That is the idea which prevails in Belfast with regard to Lord Pirrie, and it is as well to state it plainly in the House of Commons. I give hon. Members below the Gangway a present of all the advantage they can get out of Lord Pirrie's advocacy of Home Rule.

Let me try to put, if I can, the view of Ulster. By Ulster, of course, I mean those four or five counties which are principally Unionist and Protestant. I give hon. Members below the Gangway a present of the portions of Ulster which are represented entirely by Nationalists. Let me remind the House as to the objection which has been raised to our claim to speak on behalf of Ulster that we have as much right to speak on behalf of Ulster as they have to speak on behalf of Ireland, because they have no right to speak in regard to a large section of the North of Ireland, part of which I represent. We do not raise any objection to them saying Ireland, because it is a convenient expression for use in this House, but if they do that then we must claim to have the right to say, purely for convenience, that we represent Ulster. Let me try to make clear what the position of Ulster in this matter is. Ulster is, I say, opposed in the most determined way to Home Rule in any shape or form. The hon. Member who spoke last says that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) had said that he was in favour of Home Rule. I do not believe he ever said anything of the sort so far as Ireland was concerned. He may have, in discussing Colonial Home Rule, said he was in favour of it, as of course we are all here. I recollect no occasion in which he ever said in the least degree that he was in favour of the principle of Home Rule as applied to Ireland. But we are absolutely unalterably opposed to Home Rule in any form, and the details of this Bill do not interest us in the slightest degree. We saw from the moment the Bill was introduced that it would be abhorrent to us and all of our countrymen in the North of Ireland, and from that moment it became our duty to oppose it in every way we could. We will take part, of course, in the Committee stage of the Bill, but I need not say our object there will be, having declared our conviction that the Bill is as bad as it can be, our sole and only object in the Committee stage will be here and there to make it less inconsistent and less ridiculous.

As the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said, speaking on the First Reading, this question, whether you call it religious, historical, or racial, did exist. He was honest about the matter; he did not attempt, as the hon. Member who has just spoken did, to make out that there was no question of this sort. He honestly admitted the fact that, for some reason or other, call it historical if you will, the people in Ulster, the Protestants of Ulster, were opposed to this Bill on the grounds that they thought if a Parliament was set up in Dublin they would not be fairly treated. This House of Commons may think that we are mistaken in that view, and that we are bigoted. We have often been accused of bigotry, and it is only during the Debates on this Bill that any respect whatever, and it is only what I may call lip-service, has been given to our opposition. Hitherto we have been described, and I think even by the First Lord of the Admiralty, as bigoted and intolerant, and as persons whose opinions were not worth considering. That cue has been changed, and the bulk of the House, and I am glad to say I attribute their change in their opinions to what has happened in Belfast during the last two months, have come to see that the opposition in Belfast and in the North of Ireland, from whatever causes it arises, is an opposition which must be reckoned with, and an opposition which, unless it can be appeased, will eventually wreck this Bill. I say no matter what that springs from, whether it be history or any- thing else, it exists, and I say that it is a serious factor in the situation. I say to the Nonconformists of this country, through such Nonconformists as may be sitting on the benches opposite, that the bulk of the people in the North of Ireland, and I think I am right in saying considerably more than half of the Protestant inhabitants of Ulster, are Nonconformists. At ordinary times those Nonconformists, a great number of them, are Liberals and Radicals, just as the Nonconformists are in this country. I ask the Nonconformists are they going to disregard the cries of their Nonconformist fellow countrymen in Ireland? Are they going to say to them, "No, we do not believe a word you say. If you were English Nonconformists your word would be law, but being Irish Nonconformists, we do not believe a word you say, we believe that "when you say under a Home Rule Bill you will be badly treated you are really talking nonsense." I say that is a position about which Nonconformists ought to hesitate very seriously before they take up. A great many of them, a very large number of them, know perfectly well in their heart of hearts that what we say is perfectly true.

We know that that eminent Nonconformist, Dr. Horton, who, although by some curious art of reasoning has brought himself to the position that he is still going to support Home Rule, admits, in the very letter in which he says he is going to do so, that many of the things that we say will happen in a Parliament in Dublin, will undoubtedly happen. He says we will be oppressed, he says that the state of affairs will be so bad for the Protestants of Ireland that there is only one thing for them to do and that is to go over to England in a body. I never met Dr. Horton, and I do not want to, but I understand from what I read of the newspapers and hear that he is quite an authority amongst Nonconformists, and that he is rather a leading light in their church. If that is so, I suppose they would have to attach importance to what he says. Therefore, we have not only the Nonconformists of Ireland telling you this story, but the Nonconformists who go over there, come back and tell the same thing. I ask the Nonconformists of this country are they prepared to allow a Home Rule Bill to be passed which will have the inevitable result, there can be no doubt of the result, of setting up Ulster in armed opposition to the Parliament in Dublin. Let there be no mistake about that. I think hon. Members, probably from what has happened in Belfast in the immediate past, are beginning to realise that if a Home Rule Bill is passed over our heads, and if we are included in that Home Rule, that it will mean opposition by us, by force if necessary. I think it is much better to be perfectly plain and to state exactly what we think will be the result of this Bill.

8.0 P.M.

Furthermore, allow me to say that in my humble judgment I am not contravening any laws of this country in stating that. It has been sought from the Labour Benches to liken us, the people from Ulster, to Tom Mann and certain other Labour leaders in the speeches they have made. I see no analogy between us whatever. Mr. Tom Mann and his friends were advising opposition to the laws that are in force at this moment. They were inciting, at least they were tried and convicted for inciting, soldiers not to do their duty. We did nothing of the sort. We are simply saying, under a problematical condition of affairs, which may or may not take place two or three years hence, that we will do certain things. I say, and I repeat here, and I believe I am speaking absolutely for my fellow-countrymen of the North of Ireland, that if Home Rule is passed we will never allow it to take root and have any effect in our part of the country. Hon. Members scoff at that, but I believe they know that what I say is literally true. I am not addressing myself to hon Members below the Gangway. I am addressing myself to hon. Members opposite and through them to that wider public outside this House. If that be so, it is for hon. Members opposite to consider very carefully indeed before they allow to pass through this House a measure which would have the disastrous effects which I believe a Home Rule Bill would have upon Ulster. A great deal has been said on the question whether this Bill will have the effect of separating Ireland from this country. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), speaking on the First Reading of the Bill, dealt with that question very fully. He said:— Later on he said:— this Bill imposes. The hon. Member for East Mayo, speaking in Ireland in 1904, said:— on which this country has sought to lay embargo on any action of these Colonial Parliaments, an outcry has been raised, and I believe that in the last thirty or forty years there has not been a single case in which the House of Commons has overridden the decision of a Colonial Assembly. Precisely the same thing will happen in Ireland. Friction will occur from the very start, and, as time goes on, claims will be set up by the Irish Parliament which it will be very difficult indeed for this House to resist.

It does not matter to us in Ulster whether it is a separate or a subordinate Parliament; we are not going to have it at any price. But I am trying to speak from the point of view of Englishmen to hon. Members opposite who are apparently inclined to believe hon. Members below the Gangway when they say that this Bill will be a final settlement of the Home Rule question. Quite apart from the declarations which have been made, it is inevitable, from the history of all similar Parliaments, that from the word "go" the Irish Parliament will endeavour to remove the restrictions imposed by this Bill. Are the people of England going to tolerate that? The First Lord of the Admiralty sought to prove to-day that from a military point of view it did not matter sixpence whether Ireland was absolutely independent of England or not? I differ entirely as to that. It requires no great military knowledge to see that from a military point of view it might be of the very greatest importance indeed to this country to have a friendly Ireland on its flank, and it would be equally important from another standpoint if the Ireland on its flank were unfriendly. I ask, therefore, whether the people of this country are going to run the risk? They may think that under this Bill there will be set up a subordinate Parliament over which they will have complete control. I say, first, that it is not such a Parliament as that, and, secondly, however subordinate the Parliament may be, it will only require a. very few years to convert it into a position of absolute freedom and independence. It will be a very serious day for this country if it allows such a Parliament to be set up on its flank. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford concluded his speech the other day by quoting a portion of the form of prayer read out by Mr. Speaker's chaplain every day when the House meets. By way of peroration I propose partially to follow his example by, not singing, but quoting one stanza of the "National Anthem":—

May I, as a merchant and an inhabitant of Belfast, as a Member for a Catholic constituency in Ulster, and as one with a longer experience than any other Member of this august Assembly, interpose for a few minutes? I am afraid I cannot follow my Friend who has just spoken, nor can I entertain the opinions which he has expressed with regard to Belfast or with regard to the industries of the Catholic people and their position in the country. I think that so far as Leinster, Munster and Connaught are concerned, that it is a marvel that there is any industry at all in these places. It is indeed a marvel there are any industries in the country. If the people had not been industrious they would have been extinguished. Cromwell shipped the aristocracy and the hierarchy, 5,000 in number, to Spain; then he shipped an immense number of the lower classes of the people to Barbadoes. He only kept servants in the country for the use of the soldiers. A few who were Catholics still remained in the country, and Cromwell said that they must either go to hell or to Connaught, These people had to crawl down since from the mountain tops to be servants in the country. They had no money, and it was impossible for them to commence very many industries. In fact, if they had not been a wonderful people there would not have been one industry in the country at the present day.

I have lived amongst the Catholic people in Ireland all my long life—for ninety-one years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— and I say that there is no despotism, no tyranny, no attempt to put down the Protestant minority in the country. On the contrary, the majority give perfectly fair play to the Protestants with whom they come in contact. I represent a Catholic constituency, and have done so for twenty years, and can therefore speak on that subject freely. My hon. Friend who has just sat down talked of the large quantity of money in the country as evidence of the riches; of the country; There is, it appears, in the bank and Savings Bank £72,000,000 belonging to the country. How is that sum used? Two per cent. and 2½—there are £57,000,000 of it out at only 2 per cent.—is the most the people get for that money. It is invested in various places abroad. If we had Home Rule in Ireland, surely to goodness we would, at all events, have some of that money for manufactures. This is paraded as the riches of Ireland. Talk about Ireland's riches! The people fly from the country. There is no reason why Ireland should not be as rich as Scotland. In wealth and population it is the poorest country of the three countries. Why is this? There is something wrong in the management of the affairs of Ireland. A good deal of what the hon. Gentleman who preceded me said contradicts itself. It is surely time then for a settlement of this great national question. It has been acutely before this House and the country for at least twenty-seven years. It has disturbed' the peace of Ireland, and yearly it has retarded the progress of the business of this House. It has often been a great puzzle to me why the British Parliament or the British people long ago did not treat this diseased limb, which has been a weakness to the body politic, when the patent remedy known for a long time as self-government could have been easily applied. It is a remedy known to be effective. It has been effective in Canada, in South Africa, and in other Colonial possessions in allaying discontent, and meeting other evils.

The Home Rule Bill before the House, moderate in its provisions, is desired by three-fourths of the people of Ireland, by Wales, by Scotland, and by those in the-enjoyment of twenty-seven Parliaments in connection with a Mother Parliament. It-is only opposed by half of the constituencies in England, and by the north-east corner of Ireland, whose inhabitants, we-suggest, are actuated by religious or irreligious fear. A few here and there of those connected with the ascendancy class who oppose it fear the loss of place and power. We hear a great deal of Ulster opposition. It is not true that the majority of the people of Ulster are opposed to Home Rule. There are about 45 per cent. in Ulster of the Catholic religion who desire Home Rule, and certainly there are 12 or 15 per cent. of Protestants in the Northern Province in harmony with the-Bill before the House. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; told us that in Belfast and the North of Ireland there were very few Protestant Home Rulers. That is quite a mistake. We can in our largest hall any night get 2,500 to a lecture. Many of the Protestants in the North of Ireland have been sitting on the fence, and I will tell the House why. A majority of the people of Belfast are inveterate Tories, and Liberals there would have lost their trade if they had not kept quiet. There, are really a vast number of Home Rulers in those parts who are now beginning to take courage and come out. When that most eloquent speaker on the Front Bench, whom we were all delighted to hear open this Debate to-day, came to Ulster we had 15,000 persons to hear him in the field, for we had been refused the Ulster Hall. This statement of the number of people in Belfast and Ulster who are Home Rulers can be verified by the Members of Parliament.

Ulster is about equally divided. We have now sixteen Home Rule Members for Ulster and the Unionists have seventeen. In some previous Parliaments we had seventeen and they had sixteen. We hear talk of Unionist Ulster. It is Unionist Belfast, and not Unionist Ulster. This Bill is, no doubt, opposed, but by whom? In Belfast there are about six gentlemen who are leaders, some of them are Privy Councillors, who meet as the Liberal Unionists Association and issue manifestoes and parade bogies in panoramic succession through two widely circulated Tory journals in Antrim and Down. This little Tory band in Belfast act like a refracting atmosphere and distort the true shape of the Irish demands and the character of the Bill before the House. They are incapable of emancipating themselves from the tyranny of their sectarian prejudices. The great world of thought is for devolution, and but for a few professional politicians, the little band I have described, the North-East corner of Ireland would fall into line with their fellow-countrymen instead of opposing this measure, which is sure to bring peace and contentment to the country. It is difficult, however, for those who practice for a time the cheap role of bluster and noise, to subside into stoicism. The Unionists of Belfast must have felt their lamentable weakness when they imported the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir Edward Carson) to lead them and assist them in the game of brag and bluster. The ascendancy spirit is hard to kill in Ireland. Place and power are dear to those who have been possessors for centuries of lands, abbeys, higher university education, and ecclesiastical endowments. These people call themselves the loyal garrison, which, if it has any meaning, means they are in constant war against the majority of their fellow-countrymen. These are the people that make so much noise, and who from their synodical meetings, from the Primate of the country to the youngest bishop, assisted by a few Presbyterians, who no doubt have a traditional fear of the decrees of Rome, never cease abusing their peaceful fellow-countrymen.

There is no real argument from this north-east corner of Ulster against self-government. They simply say, "We shall not have it." By the professional politicians in this House now and again we may be told that the people are not fit for Home Rule. We are told we are not like any other civilised people in the world. We are told also that we will quarrel amongst ourselves, just as if this state of things did not exist under British rule, and was encouraged too, so that ascendancy under the present state of things might be maintained by keeping the people asunder. We are told it is disintegration we want. That is absurd. It is a great reunion with England we want, and this Bill is sure to accomplish that real union. Talk of disintegration, why, Sir, the King shall be our King, the Army and Navy, on a general Customs and Excise, shall be common to the three countries. We want to glory in the success of the Empire, in the building up of which we played so great a part. We want no separation; we would fight against it tomorrow if it were proposed. We want to belong to this great country and to be a strength to this great country.

Then we are told Ireland cannot support herself, that she will go into bankruptcy, as if we had been living under the benevolence of Great Britain for years! I ask these caveators, who do not reason, to turn their thoughts to Denmark, Holland, and Belgium, much smaller countries than Ireland, whose inhabitants live and prosper by their own industry. Why not Ireland? It appears to me an Irish Parliament would possess all the elements of harmonious action, so many burning questions having been already settled. Unlike Wales and Scotland, in Ireland there is no longer an Established Church —no university questions, not even a land question to be settled, nor need there be a franchise or redistribution question, nor any alteration in local government. As for legislative schemes, as is sometimes asserted for persecuting Catholics or Protestants, no sensible person believes in such childish bogies. It is difficult to know what to do with that impossible class in the North of Ireland, who know not the history of their country and will not reason. Imagine the fourth wanting to dominate the three-fourth. When the affairs of Ireland were stagnant, and the people in a state of reasonable unrest, the cry was, "No Home Rule for such a people." When by agitation, comparative life, animation, and social progress dawned upon the country from measures such as the Land Bill of 1903, which, by the way, was brought about by a convention of Irishmen, who agreed to buy the consent of the landlords at a cost of £12,000,000, even then the cry was, and is, "There shall be no Home Rule for such a people." Prosperous or not prosperous, the cry is, "No Home Rule." What does opposition to this Bill mean? From the north corner of Ireland it means bigoted hate, from the Opposition in this House party spirit. If the Unionists were in power to-morrow they would have to give Home Rule in order to make it possible to govern Ireland. If you put the cup to the lip and you are not able to participate in the contents and have to dash it aside, it would be impossible to govern the country under such circumstances.

There is no substitute to the Bill before the House. Can anyone seriously refuse a change of Government after a hundred years of misrule? Every reform—and I admit there have been reforms—for Ireland had had to be dragged out of a preoccupied people who, until lately, did not understand the state of the country, and who in another place received no sympathy. All sorts of promises are now made by those who oppose this Bill, but it is too late. The managers of a business concern in the commercial world would be turned about their business at once, after their disastrous career had been brought to light. No system of government can succeed against the wishes of a nation, and always such government must be enormously expensive. May I say to this House in all sincerity that if it wants a panacea for the ills of Ireland, if it wants to end sectarian strife, if it wants Ireland to take her place in progress with other nations of the world, if it wants to make her inhabitants loyal and contented, if it wants to make her a strength to the British Empire, of which she will still form a part it should give her people the right to manage their own affairs, and thus concentrate the energies of her sons on the physical and moral elevation of their country.

We have all listened with interest to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I am sure none of us wish to disparage the sincere feeling which animated him, although we differ as to his policy. In this House what we have to look to is not the speech of an hon. Member who speaks in no official capacity, but the speeches of Members of His Majesty's Government. We listened with expectation to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty this afternoon, and he gave us an eloquent and ingenious dissertation. In general terms he assured us that the policy of His Majesty's Government was going to meet at last the indefeasible claim of Ireland to be regarded as a nation; to obliterate old causes of conflict; enable the sister Islands to live in unfettered harmonious cooperation; ease the burden of this congested Parliament; lighten the load of taxation, and put a definite limit upon the expenses of the British taxpayer; and last though not least the right hon. Gentleman said this Bill was to form the starting point, to provide the exemplar, of a great scheme of federation in these islands. But from first to last the right hon. Gentleman did not make a single reference to the Bill, the Second Reading of which he was moving. I am not surprised at it. This furtive, fumbling and utterly futile measure directly gives the lie to every promise and assurance made in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not think there is a single subject covered by this Bill in which it is not possible to show that not one of the assurances made can possibly be fulfilled.

I will confine myself in the main to one single subject, the all important question of finance, and I think in regard to that subject alone I can prove my assertion up to the hilt. Let me take first of all the promise that Home Rule is to enable us to cut our losses and reduce the burden which the British taxpayer has to bear in connection with Ireland. On the First Reading of this Bill the Prime Minister drew a picturesque contrast between the Unionist policy with its deficit "swelling and swelling and swelling to dimensions no man can foresee," and the true economy of Home Rule putting an immediate limit to that deficit, and by sure if gradual steps leading eventually to a surplús. There was not a vestige of truth in that picture, and there is not a shred of evidence in the Bill before us to support it. What is the real financial position we have to face under the Union? In the first place we Unionists do not admit that under the Union there is a loss on Ireland or a failure on the part of Ireland to contribute towards the common purse. As long as Ireland pays the same taxes, as long as British citizens in Ireland pay the same taxes they are paying their fair share towards every Imperial purpose, and that is enough for us as Unionists.

But undoubtedly there is a difference between the revenue raised in Ireland and local expenditure in Ireland, and that shortage at the present day amounts to about £1,500,000. The whole of that deficit is due to the old age pensions introduced by the present Government. Without the old age pensions—I am not discussing their merits now—there would be a surplus on Irish .revenue of over £1,000,000. I readily admit the Unionist party has spent money freely in Ireland. I submit they have spent it wisely. They have spent that money on reproductive purposes, and it has brought its own revenue in its train. The Postmaster-General the other day admitted a surprising increase in the revenue of Ireland. To what does he attribute it? More than that, you have in this connection to consider, not only the revenue actually raised in Ireland, but the effect of Irish prosperity upon British trade and British revenue. As a result of our policy, the trade of Ireland has increased to such an extent that in the last ten years the actual importation of British goods into Ireland has gone up by more than £10,000,000. That means that at least £1,000,000 has been added to the revenue raised in Great Britain as a consequence of the Unionist policy in Ireland. When you take that into account you will realise that the Unionist reproductive expenditure in Ireland has not only repaid itself, but has very nearly paid for the whole of Irish old age pensions into the bargain.

Under the Union we are committed to certain automatic increases on land pur- chase, on old age pensions, and on national insurance. Precisely the same increases will have to be incurred under the Bill of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Beyond that we are also pledged to fresh constructive expenditure. We are also pledged to a revision of the whole system of taxation in this country, and that will undoubtedly lead to a temporary reduction in the revenue of Ireland by reducing some of those taxes—taxes on tea, tobacco, and spirits—which burden that country so unfairly to-day. Yes, but we are only pledged to those things because we know that the result of that policy will be an increase of Ireland's productive capacity, and that from that increase will assuredly flow an increase both in the revenue of Ireland and in the revenue derived from Great Britain's trade with Ireland. So much for the fiction about the swelling deficit under the Union. Let me now deal with the alluring prospect of putting an end to this deficit by Home Rule and converting it into a surplus. You start with exactly the same deficit, and you will have precisely the same automatic increases as you will have under the Union, but in addition you begin with a new deficit of £500,000, which is to be spent, I gather, upon the salaries of the Irish Members of Parliament and Irish Ministers, and other kindred reproductive schemes. By the Government's own admission, they are starting with a deficit of £2,000,000 to-day, increasing to something like £2,500,000 in the near future. The memorandum from which these figures are obtained does not, however, make any estimate of any possible future cost in connection with the Constabulary or any possible reduction of revenue due to trouble in Ulster. An hon. Member dismisses that with a laugh, but is there no possibility that under Home Rule the revenue of Ireland may go down and that the prosperity of Ireland may decrease? What reason have the Government to be so confident as to the future prosperity of Ireland under Home Rule? Their confidence at any rate is not shared by the bankers and business men of Ireland.

We were told by the Postmaster-General there would be economies. The Prime Minister's words were— power of freedom to bring economy in its train. Let us leave this theorising and come down to particulars. Where is the Irish Government going to save on the transferred sum? Is it going to save on the Post Office? Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that any Irish Postmaster-General can begin his career by cutting down the wages of the postmen in Ireland, or by reducing the postal service? I fancy not. Are you going to reduce the sums given in aid of local taxation in Ireland? I think that would be no light task. If the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), whose eloquence has often moved this House in connection with the starvation wages paid to Irish teachers and the miserable accommodation in Irish schools, were here, I should like to ask him how he is going to suggest economies in the Irish Education Estimates. What is left? I notice the Report of the General Council of Irish County Councils has nothing to say about the mysterious virtue of Home Rule to create economy. That Report says quite bluntly:— whole of this argument about cutting the loss and about the economy of Home Rule has nothing whatever to do with the Bill before us. It is concerned with an entirely different kind of Home Rule, with the sort of Home Rule the Committee of experts presided over by Mr. Childers recommended. It has nothing whatever to do with the proposals now before us.

It is nothing but sloppiness of mind or else sheer dishonesty that can account for its use in connection with a measure which contains no single inducement either to the Irish or British Government to economise, but which contains more than one occasion for deliberately adding to expenditure. If this Bill becomes law, will it not actually be to the interest of the Irish Government, while the day of equilibrium is still in the distant offing, that the reserved services should cost as much as possible, that as much Imperial money as possible should be spent in Ireland, and that the reserved services should stand at as high a figure as possible when they are transferred to the Irish Exchequer? Let me take the case of the Constabulary. The more it costs during the next six years the more Imperial money will be spent in Ireland; the higher the figure at which it stands when it is transferred, the wider the margin the Irish Government will have, without a single fresh tax being imposed on it, but at the expense of the British taxpayer, to devote to its own purposes, whether by way of fresh expenditure or reduction of Irish taxation.

Now let us see how the financial provisions of this Bill are going to lead to that harmonious and unfettered co-operation of which the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke with such assurance this afternoon. In every single workable federal Constitution an attempt is made to avoid friction by some clear line of demarcation between those sources of revenue which are to be taxed by the central Government and those which are left to the local Governments? But under this Bill two Governments, with different and opposite interests, are let loose with indiscriminate powers of taxation over the whole field of taxation.

It is practically so, subject to very limited restrictions. I would ask how, under such a system, you can hope to avoid constant interference and continual friction? Let me take an instance. Let me assume that the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, needing money, imposes some new tax. Let me assume he imposes it practically up to the limit of remunerative taxation, and that it proves a success. In the next year the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that that tax has been a success, determines to impose it on the United Kingdom as a whole. A United Kingdom tax naturally takes priority over an Irish tax, and the Irish tax consequently becomes a mere surtax. It is then not only exceptionally burdensome to the people of Ireland, but it will produce practically no revenue, and the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer will be forced in consequence to abandon his tax and to look out for some other means of taxation. Is that going to lead to harmony? Is it going to carry out the assertion of the Postmaster-General that under this scheme "Irish finance will not be swung this way or that by the movement of Imperial finance"? But if the tax is going to be applied to Great Britain alone and not to Ireland, is the deficit to be made good by extra taxation on the working classes of Great Britain? Or am I to assume "that, because the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer has imposed a certain tax in Ireland, the British Government will abandon the idea of imposing that tax at all? If so, what becomes of the independence and fiscal autonomy of this country under this proposal? This is the sort of thing that will inevitably happen when you are face to face with a great and prolonged war, or with any other cause that may lead to a heavy strain on the finances of this country and compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look for new sources of income. If it is said that this is a fantastic idea, let me make the converse assumption. Let me imagine a Government coming into power less lavish than the present. Let me assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by rigorous economy, will reduce taxation. Let me suppose he knocks 2d. off the Tea Duty. None of his economies come off the reserved services in Ireland. He may find the Irish Government making no attempt to effect economies, and I say that both in law and in equity, he would be entitled to say to the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer: "I shall leave the duty on in Ireland; it is your business to take off the 2d. and make it good by economies on the transferred services, or in any way you please." If he did that it would be not only a lawful but a perfectly equitable thing. But do you think the Irish Government would tolerate a precedent for imposing differential taxation against Ireland? I do not suppose it would for one moment. Let me take another supposition. Let me assume that he does take off the Tea Duty in Ireland even if he thereby increases the deficit. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, being anxious for more revenue, and finding the Tea Duty one less irksome than most and convenient to collect, would like to put that 2d. back and keep it on for his own purposes. Is he allowed to do so? No, your absurd 10 per cent. rule forbids it. And, if by any chance the British Chancellor of the Exchequer took the Tea Duty off altogether, then the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer is prohibited from having a Tea Duty, whether high or low, for fear the sacred doctrine of Free Trade might be profaned!

This by no means exhausts the possibilities of friction under this fantastic scheme. In what way will it be possible to ascertain the effect of Irish variations of British taxation? Let me suppose that the Irish Government consider the present Excise duties on spirits are too high and that they might be considerably reduced without appreciable loss to the revenue. Suppose they do reduce them and there is no appreciable loss for a year or two. But presently it drops heavily. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer declares that the drop is due to the reduction of the British tax, and claims that the whole of it should be subtracted from the transferred sum. The Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer protests, and says it is due to bad trade or the spread of temperance, and that the loss ought to be divided between the British and Irish Exchequers. Who is to decide the point? Who is going to be satisfied with the decision? Ireland has only two votes on the Joint Exchequer Board, as against the three votes of Great Britain. She will be the loser, and I venture to think she will always be the corn-plainer. Take, last of all, that real stroke of genius by which British revenue officers are to collect any taxes, however unworkable or absurd, the Irish Parliament may choose to impose, and by which the Irish revenue is to get the gross return while the British taxpayer is to bear the whole burden of collection. Can you possibly conceive a more direct invitation to extravagant and foolish taxation, or a more direct invitation to friction and discord? It is a "division of labour that leads to disaster," if I may quote the language of the Committee of Experts in one of their many sweeping anticipatory condemnations of the finance of this Bill. I know the scheme of the Expert Committee has been rejected by the Government in the interests of Free Trade and of federalism, but have they really safeguarded either of those objects in their Bill? Does not the power to vary the Customs and Excise inevitably involve a Customs barrier between this country and Ireland? Does it not inevitably involve the fiscal break-up of the United Kingdom, and if so, is it compatible with federation, or any real form of Free Trade. Do the Government think that they really preclude protection in Ireland by their various clumsy devices. Only at the very last moment have they attempted to stop a gap in Clause 15 and to prevent the Irish Government, by varying Excise and Customs Duties, from establishing a protective system with regard to tobacco, sugar and spirits. Do they think that the gap is really stopped? Does the Postmaster-General think that the Irish Government under this Bill could not protect its tobacco industry, or its sugar industry, if it wanted to? There is nothing simpler in the world. Take the case of sugar. All they have to do is to impose an extra Customs Duty of 2d. on the lb., and an extra Excise Duty of 2d. on the lb., and then give to the Irish sugar-grower a bounty of 2d. on the lb., and in that way give him effective protection. I suppose they will say that 2d. is beyond the 10 per cent, limit, and that some of the money will go to the British Exchequer. But once a protective system is working there will be not an increase but a decrease in the sugar imported into Ireland. The same with regard to tobacco. If they do it there will be a serious loss on the tobacco revenue in Ireland, and a serious increase in the deficit to which they profess to be making an end.

Again, how will the provisions of this Bill prevent Licence Duties being placed on people selling foreign or British goods in Ireland, or prevent a tax on commercial travellers, or on commercial catalogues? What is there to prevent the Irish Government from establishing, as many countries do, a Government monopoly in tobacco, matches, paraffin, or anything you like, and turning it to a protective purpose? All that is under the existing Free Trade system. You cannot, when you are framing a Constitution which you mean to be enduring, ignore the possibility—I would say the certainty—of a change in the fiscal system of the United Kingdom. I appeal to hon. Members opposite. They may dislike the idea of protection. But if it comes, surely they do not wish to have a complete break up of the fiscal unity of this country. Yet once you have a general tariff in this country, the Irish Government will have the right to vary every single duty, up and down, to turn high protective duties into low revenue duties, and to turn low revenue or registration duties into very substantial protective duties. It will make it necessary for every single article which comes from England into Ireland to have with it a certificate to show that it is entirely a British production, and if it is partly British and partly foreign it will have to have an elaborate analysis explaining to what extent it is British and to what extent foreign dutiable commodities have entered into its composition. If an answer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to an hon. Friend of mine the other day is correct, if the Irish Government can only vary a British duty which has no Excise Duty attached to it, up or down, if they then impose a corresponding Excise Duty, that will only make the situation worse. If we have a 15 per cent, duty on woollens, the Irish Government has only to reduce it to 14 per cent., impose a sham Excise of 17 per cent, and give it back by a sham bounty, and then you will have absolute protection against the industry of this country. I think it is a sorry ditch in which the sacred ark of the covenant of Free Trade has been left by its guardians.

It is not only in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom that this power to vary taxes will cause confusion and dislocation. The moment you give the Irish Government the power to vary the Customs Duties of the United Kingdom, you do, in fact, give them the power of framing commercial treaties. If the tariff of the United Kingdom imposes a substantial burden upon German trade, and if the Irish Government is inclined to reduce that taxation, do you suppose the German Government will not be inclined to maker some bargain with Ireland in return? How could you prevent an informal bargain? How could you prevent Irish Ministers meeting German Ministers at Ostend, or Carlsbad, or anywhere else? It is entirely impossible. More than that, by this Bin you are giving the Irish Parliament, which has no representative at the Imperial Conference, the power to nullify any system of preference which the United Kingdom may enter into in the name of the United Kingdom as against the Dominions. Is that really what hon. Members opposite desire to bring about?

I maintain it is in the Bill. I maintain that the scheme, as it stands, is utterly futile as a check upon any departure from Free Trade in Ireland. Even this scheme as it stands is futile. But this scheme is only a stepping-stone to some future revision. What is the character of that revision to be, and under what conditions will it be carried out? When the time comes for the College Green reserve to be mobilised and sent over to Westminster, do you think they will be sent to restore the fiscal unity of the United Kingdom? Do you think that, as the First Lord of the Admiralty suggested, they will be sent in order to bring Ireland back to her proper subordinate place in any federal scheme? Nothing of the sort. Is it not obvious that they would be sent with no other purpose except that of increasing Ireland's powers, increasing Ireland's liberty to set up an independent financial system, and with it an independent political system. The revision of finance inevitably implies another and more separatist Home Rule Bill to follow this one. The revision of finance is a direct incentive to the beginning of a new and more advanced Nationalist agitation in Ireland from the day on which the Parliament in Dublin assembles. That has been the experience of every other country where the same sort of thing has been tried, and it will be the same in Ireland. In the service of that agitation, it will be the natural course for the Irish Government to thwart and obstruct the Imperial Government by every means in its power. It will be the natural and bounden duty of Irish delegates in this House to offer their votes for sale, until the time may come when they can again find a weak and venal Government prepared to buy those votes at the cost of national safety, and at the cost of national honour.

I think I have succeeded in showing that in a domain of finance this Bill is not going to lead either to economy, co-operation, or finality. What of the other promises the Prime Minister-has made? They were repeated again by the First Lord of the Admiralty. They were that this Bill is going to relieve the congestion of work in the House of Commons, and to lead to a federal scheme for the United Kingdom as a whole. How will this Bill do anything of the kind? The Prime Minister declared that the creation of a federal scheme in one effort was too vast and too complex a task to undertake. It will be far more complex and far more difficult if you undertake to proceed piecemeal, but if you do proceed piecemeal why should Ireland come first? Ireland undoubtedly is the most difficult: federal problem, and, from the federal point of view, in what sense is Ireland the most urgent problem? It is not Irish affairs which take up the greater part of the business of this House. If it is the problem of congestion which really distresses you, it is with England that you ought to begin. It is the local business of England that takes the greater part of the time of the House. The Education Bills of 1902 and 1906 took fifty-two and thirty days each, and the Licensing Bill of 1908-took thirty days. Compare with that the Irish Land Acts of 1903 and 1909, which only took fifteen days. After all, not only is England the more urgent case, but it is infinitely easier to carry out. If you give Home Rule to England, England can pay its way from the start and provide a handsome contribution to the United Kingdom revenue. With English Home Rule you; need not have any of this hocus-pocus of transferred sums and reserved services, this trying to disguise from the British people the fact that you are paying a subsidy to the Government you are setting up in Ireland. You cam divide revenue, you can divide taxation in accordance with the administrative and legislative powers you assign to the respective governments.

But even suppose that Ireland were the most urgent case and that Ireland' was responsible for most of the congestion in this House, what has that to do with the Bill now before us? What are the subjects in connection with which most of our Irish discussions have taken place and on which questions are continually asked in this House? Are they not in connection either with the land or with the administration of law and order in Ireland? The Prime Minister finds the necessity of relieving congestion so urgent that for six years he provides that every single question in Ireland which calls for the use of a single policeman, or which ought to call for the use of a single policeman, is under the purview of this House and must be discussed on the floor of the House.

Then take the question of Land Purchase. We are throwing the responsibility for Land Purchase upon this House and you are leaving the Land Purchase transactions in this House. At the same time you are giving the Irish Government the power and the liberty to interfere with, to hamper and to complicate land purchase in a score of different ways. Is that going to diminish congestion? Is it not rather going to aggravate congestion? I am quite prepared to admit that the congestion of business in this House, the confusion of aims and objects, is a really grave problem and one which will have to be dealt with, but let us look the matter fairly in the face. The source of congestion in this House is not the fact that the House attempts to deal both with the local affairs of the United Kingdom as a whole and the local affairs of parts of the United Kingdom. It is because this House attempts to combine the central government of a world wide Empire with the local affairs of the United Kingdom. It is not the claims of Scotland against Ireland, or the claims of Ireland against England which are responsible for the trouble; it is not that social reform in Belfast conflicts with social reform in Birmingham or Glasgow. They are all part of the same problem, just as the problem of restoring agriculture is essentially the same in Wexford as it is in Essex. The real difficulty is that all these local interests conflict with the interests of the Army and the Navy, with the interests of our foreign policy, and with the administration of that dependent Empire which the Prime Minister himself says would require every day in the year for this Parliament to attend to.

What is urgent in this country is not a division of powers between the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole and different parts of the United Kingdom. What is needed is a division between the functions and duties of this Parliament as the central Parliament of the Empire and the functions and duties of this House as the central body of the United Kingdom. We want to set up, not local Parliaments in the United Kingdom, but a local Parliament for the United Kingdom which will make the United Kingdom a Dominion parallel to the other Dominions, and thus enable the Dominions to join in the central Government of the Empire, to federate with us in a real Imperial council. That is the noblest and highest policy which any statesman could undertake. That policy is not affected in one way or another by this measure, or by any measure which affects only a portion of the United Kingdom. What has it got to do with Imperial federation whether the United Kingdom is on a federal or a unified basis? In the Imperial Federation of the future Australia and Canada will enter as federal States and New Zealand and South Africa will enter as legislative Unions. The internal affairs of the United Kingdom in the federation will be a purely local concern, just as they are in Australia and Canada. It is as a purely local concern that this question of federation and federalism has to be discussed, and I wish to discuss it with respect. The federal argument is one which certainly has great influence with our fellow-subjects oversea. It is that argument which induces them to give an assent in general terms to measures of the details of which they have no opportunity of being informed. It is the argument that weighs with thousands of moderate men in the country, and I think it is the only argument which weighs with many hon. Members opposite. I would ask hon. Members opposite to face this federal question frankly, and not to shrink from the conclusion to which it will lead. Let them set up any standard for a workable federal constitution in the United Kingdom, and let them test this Bill by that standard. I do not believe myself there is room in this United Kingdom, in this small, compact, and homogeneous country, for a federal scheme such as you have in Australia and Canada. At the most there is room, and I believe there is room, for some wider grouping of existing local government areas, but as regards any scheme of federation I hold with the view expressed by Sir John Macdonald, the founder of Canadian federation, that a legislative union is the best, the cheapest, the most vigorous, and the strongest form of government. That is the model that South Africa has recently chosen. Let hon. Members take their own standard of a federal scheme. I do not think it will be unfair to them to assume the standard to be that which the hon. Member (Dr. Chapple) set up in his Bill for Scottish Home Rule. In that Bill the United Kingdom retains control first of all of the Customs, Excise, and Postal services, as every other reasonable federal scheme does. More than that, very properly for this country, it retains all the residual powers, following the Canadian and the Australian principle. What sort of federation is it that you are going to set up under this Bill? You are going to set up a federation with four Customs barriers and four tariffs, created by variations upon a federal tariff which is not in force anywhere. I would ask hon. Members to picture to themselves the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom coming down to expound a Budget which will never exist at all, but which will only serve as a hypothetical basis upon which four other Chancellors of Exchequer may exercise their fiscal ingenuity. I suppose the official answer will be that it is not necessary to apply quite the same kind of Home Rule everywhere. You take account of local needs and local conditions. You cannot do that. It is absolutely contrary to any federal scheme. The essence of federalism is uniformity, and the essence of federalism must be uniformity, because without uniformity you cannot give the same political rights to citizens of the federation. How can you give to Irishmen the right to alter their tariff at their own will and pleasure and compel Scotchmen to be bound by a tariff which Irishmen, Welshmen, and Englishmen frame for them? The thing is flatly impossible.

But there is an even more important consideration in connection With this federal idea to which I would most earnestly draw attention. I would ask hon. Members opposite to consider what is the real justification for federation anywhere? Why is it that States have stopped short of complete union and have accepted the more expensive and more cumbrous and weaker system of government known as federation? It is because independent communities, more particularly small, communities, have been reluctant to surrender their local, their more intimate, affairs without hesitation to the control of neighbours with whom they may be in broad general agreement as to national interests, but yet are in somewhat imperfect sympathy. If that principle applies in the creation of a federation from independent units, does it not apply equally well to the creation of a federation out of a unitary State? If you are making a federal State out of the United Kingdom, your first consideration ought to be, that in delimiting your new units you. should not include in any one of those units any community which does not wish to be so included. To include Ulster in Ireland, as you will do by this Bill, is the very negation of the principle of federalism. It is not federalism; it is tyranny. It is subjecting what the First Lord of the Admiralty called a populous and well-defined unit to people by whom they do not wish to be governed.

There is no federal argument which can justify the inclusion of Ulster with the rest of Ireland. There is only one argument that could justify it, and that is that Ireland is a nation in the territorial and sovereign sense of the word, and that Ireland's claim can override both the national claim of Ulster and the national claim of the United Kingdom. Underlying all this pretence and sham of federalism, underlying all the chaos and confusion which this Bill will set up, there is only one real argument and one real purpose—and that is, that Ireland is a sovereign and independent nation, and the determination to use this Bill as a stepping stone to that end.

Let us understand what we mean by the word "nation." If we only mean a moral unit, a community of ideals of traditions, of manners, of literature, such a unit as Scotland is to-day in its utmost vigour and highest perfection, then in that sense there is not one of us who would not help Ireland to be a nation, but unfortunately Ireland is not a nation in that sense. Hon. Members who plead so eloquently for Irish nationality have made little effort to reconcile the two nations at present in Ireland. You certainly cannot reconcile them by handing over the smaller nation to the servitude of the larger. But if you mean by a nation a political unit, a territorially sovereign unit, as the Nationalists mean, what is involved in that? The recognition of Irish nationality in that sense involves not only depriving Ulster of her British nationality to which she is passionately attached, but it means depriving everyone of us in this House of our nationality as citizens of the United Kingdom, and reducing us to the status of citizens of Great Britain. We Unionists claim the United Kingdom is a true nation by every test by which you can judge a nation. It is one by geography, one on the ground plan of the universe, more compact than the island nation of Japan or the sea girt nation of Italy. She is essentially one in speech and one in economic intercourse, and she has been made one by the slow welding process of centuries of history. She has been welded together in the same sense as France and Spain have been welded into nations in the past, and Germany and Italy in our own time. By every test the United Kingdom is a nation. You can apply the term nation to Ireland by none of these tests. She is nothing but an integral part of a greater nation.

I do not wish to speak contemptuously of the national aspirations of Irish Members. I think I can understand them, and even sympathise with them. What we have to recognise is that their claim is incompatible with our national aspiration of remaining the United Kingdom. On that question there can be no compromise and no truce. One or other has got to surrender, and surrender finally, and certainly we do not mean to surrender lightly. Nor do hon. Gentlemen who support this Bill. I do not think so lightly of them as to believe that they would admit the idea. I am not asking that of them, but I say we do not mean to surrender, and no strong and vigorous nation has ever agreed to surrender on these terms. Did the United States surrender on these terms when the Southern States demanded separation? I do in all sincerity ask hon. Members opposite to consider the extent and the character of the task they have taken in hand if they really do mean to force through this measure without taking the verdict of the people of the country upon it. I think they are already beginning to realise, perhaps a little dimly, the seriousness of the situation in Ulster. But when will they realise that Ulster is only one part of the problem that confronts them? When will they realise that behind and with Ulster there is the whole body of Unionists in this country? When we declare that Ulster will be right in resisting this Bill if it should ever pass into law, this Bill which has no constitutional or moral sanction behind it, if we declare that Ulster will be right in resisting by force, do they think we are not sincere, that we are merely, in the words of the First Lord, setting the Ulster fighting cocks against the Nationalists? I ask hon. Members to recognise our sincerity, and to recognise that we are not so mean or so poor-spirited as to declare that Ulster will be right in resisting, and to urge upon Ulster to meet Imperial troops, it may be and not be prepared to lift a finger ourselves in Ulster's defence. If we hold that this measure is so great a crime that the people of Ulster are justified in resisting it by any means at their disposal, we should be inconsistent and timid if we thought that we were any the less justified in this country in endeavouring by any means in our power to break this measure. We look upon this matter as a question of duty, and I cannot believe that when the time comes, if it should ever come, we should shrink from any means, however extreme, to maintain the unity of this country, and to maintain the nation to which we belong. We are prepared to see this matter through. Are you? Where are the burning convictions and passionate faith with which for fifteen years or so you treated this cause as the skeleton in your party cupboard. This cause which barely twelve months ago you talked of as a bogey? Where are those grim Ironsides opposite going to look for a Cromwell who is going with iron hand and stern determination to crush the resistance of Ulster and to crush the Unionists of this country? If Ulster resists the decrees of their Government, are they going to leave their execution to the unbending resolution of the Lord Lieutenant's court jester? Do they put their trust in the worn-out old party hack, wincing under the lash of the Irish jarvey whom they call their leader, or do they hope that when the day of trouble comes it will be averted by some promise of rare and refreshing fruit by their flashy Welsh cheap-jack? I do wish that hon. Member would recognise the hard facts that confront them. They have trusted long and they have trusted successfully to the power of phrases, to the power of misrepresentation, to every base appeal to prejudice, sectarian animosity and class hatred, until they have come to think that those weapons are weapons which will see them through any crisis. They have prevailed, largely owing to the easiness of temper and the lethargy on this side of the House and among great sections of the people. But they are presuming too far, and they will have a rude awakening in this business. They will find that they are attempting to bite on granite and their teeth will be broken.

The hon. Member who has just addressed the House began by claiming for the Unionist party the full credit of the recent Irish prosperity, and in a few moments he told us that the final result of all that prosperity was that the Irish nation was two millions a year in debt to this country. I do not think that that is very much to claim credit for on behalf of British Government in Ireland, in the recent improvement of that country, if that is the best we have been able to do for Ireland. He also asked the House in what way they were going to effect economies under the conditions of this Bill. I do not pretend to know a great deal about the Government of Ireland, but I can suggest to the hon. Member one way in which economies will be effected. I believe that there are at present sixty-seven different local Government Boards in Ireland, with their separate offices and officers, and I submit that an Irish Parliament managing its own affairs would sweep a lot of those out of existence and do the business a great deal better, at a much less cost than is being incurred to-day. I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member in his discussion upon finance for one reason that I could not understand exactly the points he was driving at. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody does."] Possibly when I see the report of the speech to-morrow I may understand them, but I confess that I was totally unable to follow the points which he sought to make with regard to the finance of this Bill. When he came to speak with regard to the congestion of business in this House and suggested that Irish business does not take up a considerable amount of time, I can say that any Member who has had six or seven years' experience in this House knows perfectly well that Irish questions do take up a very large proportion of the time of this House. I think I am correct in saying that, taking the last twenty years, that while there have been some 500 odd Bills for the various portions of the United Kingdom of that number Ireland has had considerably more than her share. We are told that this particular measure is in some way going to work separation as between Ireland and this country. I Relieve that all this talk about separation is very largely a bogey. The people of Ireland have everything to gain by loyally staying within the Empire, but they have also everything to gain by managing the affairs of their own country.

The Government of any nation by force or the keeping of it in subjection under a Government to which the majority of its people do not assent can never be considered good government. No nation can be said to be well-governed which is under a system of government to which the majority of its people are hostile. The Irish nation is in this position and it has been so for many years. That cannot be denied by anyone on the other side of the House, and to suggest that one-fourth of the population, even though that section may be the most prosperous in this world's goods, as no doubt the north-east portion of Ulster is, shall dominate the other three-fourths, and that we should allow this, instead of legislating for the benefit of the nation as a whole by giving them control of their own affairs, is a doctrine to which we are not prepared to subscribe. It is futile to suggest that the position today is the same as it has always been with respect to Ulster. We have had hon. Members on these benches, including the hon. Member who has just spoken, saying that Ulster was a nation apart from the rest of Ireland. This is an entirely new doctrine. If this Home Rule Bill brought nothing else forward that is new, it has at least brought forward that as a new argument from the opponents of Home Rule. We now have not one Ireland but two, and the one-fourth of the country is, by that portion of the House who particularly describe themselves as the people in favour of Empire and unity, set up as the most important portion of the Irish race. Ireland in one respect is different from any other nation that I have ever known of. That country year after year by a large majority at election after election, in spite of whatever may have been done by this House, whether the Conservatives or the Liberals have been in power, in the way of land reform or local government reform, or any other reform, has continued to send from eighty to eighty-six Members for the last twenty-five or thirty years in favour of Home Rule, and the large majority of those Members are sent here without any contest at all. There must be a reason for that. The reason obviously is that in spite of all the loud talk we hear in this House and in the country about Unionists, they are not prepared to spend their money and challenge the right of Nationalists to represent the whole of those constituencies.

They are afraid to fight because they know perfectly well that the representatives who come to this House do represent the overwhelming body of opinion in Ireland. If we take Ulster alone, of the thirty-three seats in this House it cannot be too often stated—to quote the words used a few moments ago by a Conservative Member—that you do not represent Ulster in this House; you represent about half of Ulster, and, if votes are counted, you do not represent half. By seats you represent more than half, but you do not represent half the people of Ulster. There is one particular question which affects myself and my hon. Friends who sit on the Labour Benches with regard to this Home Rule problem, and which perhaps affects us in a different way from what it does other Members of this House. So long as ever this problem remains unsolved, so long will you never get in connection with Irish polities all those issues raised which have divided us in this country and in Scotland. The real facts of the case are that the love of Home Rule, as expressed by the votes of the Irish people and of Members in this House in favour of national government, is so strong that it overshadows all other questions. No matter how much of a social reformer a candidate may be, whether he is Liberal or Conservative, so far as the eighty-six seats in Ireland are concerned he would have no earthly chance of success unless he stood for Home Rule. That fact alone is of very great importance to myself and to my colleagues. We realise, of course, the religious difficulties, and we realise many of the other difficulties that are pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we do not attach the same importance to them, nor do we feel even the religious difficulty in the same way as hon. Members opposite do.

We hear a great deal about the fear of the Protestants of Ulster that they will be subjected to unfair treatment by the Catholic majority in Ireland. I do not believe that that counts in any way for nearly as much as hon. Members make out in this House. I believe this is very often used as a means for keeping the people of Ireland divided, and for keeping their attention from questions which are of more vital importance to them, I believe, if we could get this religious question out of the way, that the Irish labourer, whether Protestant or Catholic, would begin to consider his economic and social position in a way he has not done up to the present time. I believe that the sweated workers in the linen trade of Belfast would realise that there are other matters to be enthusiastic about besides beating the Orange drum, and the existing party relation in Ireland would be subjected to a considerable change. The First Lord of the Admiralty to-day said that he would be a prophet. I will not assume the role of a prophet, but I will put it in this way: In my opinion, whenever an Irish Parliament may be established, the divisions inside that Parliament will not be mainly Catholic and Protestant, but there will be Unionists, Liberals, Labour Members, and possibly Socialists, as there are inside this Parliament, and economic differences will be the differences that will divide them, and Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenter will sit side by side, as they do on this side of the House to-day, voting together in the same Lobby, and making no references to religious difficulties. I contemplate that whenever Home Rule is set up that state of things will prevail in Ireland. There will be a clash of interests as between urban and rural work, and there will be a clash of interests as between their representatives.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland is asked for money for certain towns for improvements and reform, the representatives of the rural population will be found fighting in the same manner as the representatives of the agricultural districts in this House fight against us when we urge social reform, particularly for town dwellers. The same thing exactly will take place in the Irish Parliament when Home Rule comes about. There will be differences between the farmers and the rural labourers, and on those questions to which I have referred divisions probably will take place. When the new Parliament comes to put on the 10 per cent, increase of taxation, which it is empowered to do, the question will be raised on whom the tax is to fall. I can understand quite readily that there will be hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for the City of London who will fight to keep it off their class, and that there will be men like myself who will fight against it being put on our class. Ireland is not going to be in this regard any different from the English Parliament. Therefore, the time has gone by, I submit, apart from all party purposes, when we should continue to discuss this question by adding questions as between Protestants and Presbyterians in the North-East of Ulster and Catholics in the South-West of Ireland. We claim that it is high time that this question was settled. We do not pin ourselves to every detail in this Bill. We say that the people of Ireland and the representatives of Ireland, in the main, are the right people to know what they want for Ireland; and, speaking for myself, I would say quite candidly that I would be prepared to vote in the Lobby as a democrat for the things which the majority of representatives for Ireland desired in regard to this Bill.

There are some things in the Bill which I do not like. I should have liked this Bill better if it had made provision for women as well as for men having a vote. The absence of that provision, however, will not stop my voting for the Bill. I should have liked it better had it been present, because I am a great democrat, and believe in giving women the vote. I should have liked the Bill better still if it had proposed Single-Chamber Government—and I have been giving a considerable amount of attention to this question—but if we are to have a senate I prefer that it should be a nominated senate, and not an elected senate, for the reasons given by the Leader of my own party when this Bill was brought forward for First Beading. Those of us who really are desirous of seeing business done in this House feel that we need a scheme of devolution, and we believe that Ireland is perfectly right to be the first country to have her national Parliament in Dublin. The agitation has been the longest in her case. The time has come when it is impossible to do the business effectively in this House. We are told that this Bill has been rushed through. It had three days for discussion on the First Reading; it is to have six days on the Second Reading, and twenty or thirty days, I suppose, for the Committee and Report stages; yet we are told that this legislation is being rushed through the House. There are all kinds of things waiting to be done by this House. There is the great problem outside which is waiting to be dealt with both legislatively and administratively, and Ireland blocks the way.

Some of us have been Home Rulers for many long years. I believed in the principle before I came to this House. If I may make a personal reference, thirty years ago, a black time in the annals of Irish history, thirty years ago I believe next Sunday, will be the anniversary of the deaths of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Bourke, and at that time I was working as a groom, a youth of eighteen years of age, and I was a subscriber to the Irish cause in those days both with my pence, and, so far as I could, as a public speaker. From that day to this I have always advocated government of the Irish people according to Irish ideas, as the Irish people themselves desire to be governed. We are not, as one hon. Member said, speaking in the country of our party, simply supporting this because it is brought forward by a Liberal Government. We support Home Rule for Ireland by whatever Government it is brought in, and we will walk into the Lobby for it whether it gains votes for us or loses votes for us. Most of us have seen to it that our electors have been educated on this question of Home Rule, and we do not mind facing them on this question. I know that the Nonconformists in my Constituency, and the people who do not belong to any particular denomination, and the Irish voters alike, have sent me here for the purpose, among other things, of supporting Home Rule for Ireland. I shall do so most heartily, and I think I may say that every Member of our party will be prepared to walk into the Lobby to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

We have listened with interest to the hon. Member, who, I have not the least doubt, speaks with conviction, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that, although he followed the closely reasoned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery), which speech was directed to the Bill before us, the hon. Member has not answered a single one of my hon. Friend's arguments, nor has he addressed to the House a single argument upon the Bill with which we have to deal. He has followed the example set him on the Front Bench to-day and has fallen back on generalities. Some of them have done duty for argument for some time past, but now at last, when we have the opportunity of testing those general arguments by reference to a concrete proposal, I think we have a right to ask the House to leave mere generalities and to deal with the proposals which the Government have made. May I say this about the Bill, that I think it is a disappointment in a sense to all of us. The Bills of 1886 and 1893 failed mainly, no doubt, by reason of the unalterable attachment of England and of Ulster to the Union, but partly because of the glaring defects which were exposed in the Bills themselves. The Bills obviously failed to fulfil their purpose or to meet the expectations even of those two Parliaments. There was the proved futility of the so-called safeguards, and there was the failure to solve the problem of Irish representation in this House. I think most of us thought that the period of nearly twenty years which has elapsed since the second of those Bills would have been used for the purpose of endeavouring to remedy those defects, and that we should have had before us this year something like a well thought out and well-considered scheme of federalism which would represent the best efforts of what the First Lord called to-day the governing genius of Britain. We find nothing of the kind.

10.0p.m.

Anybody who reads this Bill and compares it with the last, will see exactly what you have done. You have taken the old Bill of 1893, and you have made a very crude revise of it; you have kept all the old faults and have somewhat aggravated them, and you have added new blemishes of your own. You have reduced the safeguards, and omitted many of them; you have added a new kind of Second House, which I think all of us feel to be a farce, and it is probably for that reason that it has met with the approval of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and you find the financial dependence of Ireland upon Great Britain complete. But there is no federalism in the Bill at all, and I do hope that no one will speak of this as a Federal Bill. For federalism, for true federalism, you must have this: You must have a subordinate legislature and executive for each province or state which makes up the federation, and a central legislature and executive for federal purposes. You must have the powers delegated to the States clearly distinguished and marked off by broad lines. In any wise federal scheme you would reserve the residuary powers, namely, those powers which are not expressly defined in the Bill, to the central Legislature, and you would certainly reserve to the central body such matters as the Post Office and the Customs. It is true that in this Bill you are dealing, or attempting to deal, with Ireland only, but although that is so you might have produced a scheme which observed all those conditions. You might very well have set up an Irish Legislature and a British Legislature, and a federal body connecting the two, and there you might have solved the problem of representation which has defeated every Home Rule Bill, and which, I think, will, among other things, defeat the present Bill. If you had done that, you would at least have met one of the objections, and you might have so framed your scheme that it should contain the seeds for Imperial Federation you might even have so formed your Second Chamber as to begin to solve the constitutional problem. There was here a fine chance for statesmanship, a fine chance for men willing to take the longer view. But it has been entirely thrown away. You have taken the old discredited hulk, you have made a few alterations in it, and you have thrown upon the table of the House a scheme so unjust that it could not possibly pass in an independent House, and so unworkable that if adopted it cannot possibly last.

Take the provisions of the Bill in regard to legislation. There is no clear division of powers between the British or Imperial and the Irish Parliaments. Many matters which are properly State or provincial matters are allotted to the Imperial Parliament, such as old age pensions and police, which it appears to me are only so-allotted as a cover for giving a further subvention to Ireland. Other matters which are clearly Imperial are, nevertheless, allotted to the Irish Parliament, such as the Post Office and the Customs; for when you empower Ireland to vary the Customs, even subject to a limit, you obviously set up a distinction between the two islands which leads in effect and in the end to a separate Customs system. You have very foolishly given the residuary powers to Ireland instead of keeping them in the Imperial Parliament. You have set up a Senate without any provision for the representation of the minority. You have established or proposed to establish a veto-sometimes to be exercised on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant, and at other times to be exercised on the advice of the Imperial Ministry. As to the representation at Westminster, it is astonishing to me that so little has been learnt from experience. This proposal is admittedly, on the Prime Minister's own admission, unfair to this country. You are giving Ireland the sole right to deal with purely Irish affairs, and an equal right to deal with purely English affairs. That alone is so unfair on the face of it that I do not think you will ever be able to carry it even through this House. Let me quote upon that point what was said by a Member of the present Government (Lord Morley), when dealing with a similar proposal in 1886. After referring to the proposed reduction in the number of Irish Members, he said:— have? How is it going to enforce its decisions? I notice that the Prime Minister when dealing with a similar point in the 1893 Bill referred to the United States and to the system of Federal marshals and other officers representing the Federal Government there for certain purposes. Are we to have British Federal marshals in Ireland? If so, how is their authority to be exercised and enforced?

More than that, some Departments of the Irish Government must be partly Irish and partly Imperial. My right hon. Friend (Mr. W. Long) mentioned the case of the Congested Districts Board, which deals partly with matters that would be reserved and partly with matters that will be delegated. Take also the Post Office. So far as the delivery of letters and telegrams is concerned, it would be dealing with an Irish service. But if it deals with the Post Office Savings Bank, or with old age pensions, or with Post Office insurance, as in England, to that extent it will be dealing with Imperial services. Again, in this country we use the Post Office to a considerable extent for recruiting purposes, and in case of war or threatened war, and in connection with military matters generally, we quite properly trust a great deal to the Post Office. But then you will have in Ireland a Post Office partly Irish and acting under the direction of Irish Ministers, and partly dealing with those separate and confidential matters in respect of which it is Imperial. Take the case of the Irish Board of Trade. In so far as it deals with internal trade it will be Irish; when dealing with external trade and commerce it will be Imperial. The Home Office, so far as it deals with Irish Home matters, will be Irish; so far as it deals with the police, it will be Imperial. You will have perfectly hopeless confusion. I cannot imagine how the Prime Minister can have persuaded himself to depart so far from his own principles laid down in 1893 as to put into the Bill some of the proposals it contains.

Let me say one other word about the police, because the subject is of great importance. We have not had our questions answered on this point. I expect we shall have some of them answered tomorrow, and I should therefore like to know what during the six years will be the relation of the Royal Irish Constabulary to the Irish Ministry, or the Home Department, or whatever corresponds to the Home Office in Ireland. What will happen if the Royal Irish Constabulary are called in by the local authorities in Ireland, or by the local magistrates? What will happen if they are called "off" by the local magistrates while doing their duty? Will they be expected to obey those orders or will they look to Westminster and to the representatives of the Imperial Government for their directions? Take the case where they may have to deal with a Loyalist movement in the North of Ireland, or take the contrary case of dealing with an eviction, or the protection of sheriff's officers in carrying out an eviction. In cases like that delicate questions may arise which would be very differently solved by the Imperial or by the Irish authorities. One would like to know how the constabulary are to act there; from whom are they to take their directions; who will be responsible to this House for such steps as they make take? Will the whole matter be delegated to some Irish Department, or will the Chief Secretary prolong a miserable existence in Ireland during six years?

May I add this: I am bound to say that this kind of temporary arrangement about the constabulary has dangers of its own. These men will know that at the end of six years they are coming under a different regime, under different control. As time goes on the period will draw nearer when that change will take place, and there will be a real danger of sapping the discipline of the force. I think that is a matter to be regretted, and I do want to enforce what my right hon. Friend said today that at the very least the members of that force ought to know that if they think it desirable to retire they will be able to retire on a footing of being pensioned, otherwise their position will be very difficult, and one which I think nobody in this House will envy.

Now let me illustrate my point by a reference to the finance of the Bill. For the purposes of this Bill the Government were advised by a Committee which included gentlemen of great experience in financial matters, and none of whom I think were ill-disposed towards the change which it was well known the Government were disposed to favour. In almost every respect the Report of that Committee has been thrown over in this Bill. Turning to one point, namely, the collection of taxes, both British and Irish, what the Committee says is this: "The principle of sound Government is that the same authority that has the spending of the revenue should also have the burden and not infrequently the odium of collecting it; that one should have the unpopular duty of providing the means and another the privilege of spending is a division of labour that leads to disaster." That is what the Committee reported, and the Government have taken the very course which the Committee said would be disastrous.

The Postmaster-General says "No, no," but I take it from the words of the Bill and from the Prime Minister's speech, and from the right hon. Gentleman's own exposition that the effect of the Bill is that the whole of the taxation in Ireland is to be collected by the Imperial Government.

That is the effect of the Bill, whatever the right hon. Gentleman says. I agree the Irish Government will be responsible, but we shall have to collect while they will have the privilege of expending.

I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the Bill. Under the operations of the Bill, if the Irish Parliament expend more money, they will themselves by their own laws have to impose new taxation. The Imperial officers will collect it, but everyone in Ireland will, of course, know that the increase of taxation is due to an Act passed by an Irish Parliament and doubtless discussed by Irishmen.

What the right hon. Gentleman has just said only applies to new taxes and not to existing taxes, which, of course, are very much greater. In the next place, I am very much disposed to think that when the tax-gatherer is in every case the agent of the British Government, the odium will fall upon us, and there are those in Ireland who will take care it does fall on us. What will happen if the tax is unpopular? The Irish Ministers will say: "It is not our fault, it is a British tax imposed before the Home Rule Bill was passed and continuing. We are not levying it. "It is the British Government are levying it, and they decline to reduce it." In that case who is going to protect our officers in Ireland? Are they going to be effectively protected? I will tell the House why it is very likely that they will not receive much assistance. Whatever we levy in Ireland—I am putting out of account for the moment new taxes—does not affect in the very least what we have to transfer to Ireland. Therefore, even if a tax is wholly unproductive, or if we lose in its collection or spend money on its collection, it does not matter to Ireland in the least. The whole of the .transferred sum is fixed by reference not to the yield of the taxes, but to the present cost of Government in Ireland. I call that a premium on muzzling, a premium on resistance, active or passive, to the collection of these taxes.

Nominally you are going to give to Ireland a special subvention of £500,000. Actually, of course, it is very much more. Under Clause 5, as it is drawn, the Irish Government may, at their will, take over some of the reserved services, such as old age pensions, and when they do so they are to have transferred to them the whole of the present cost of that reserved service. If they take over the old age pensions—and they may do so the day after the Irish Parliament meets—they will take over a sum of something like £2,500,000 a year, and they may at once reduce the pensions. You are giving them that power. If they think fit—and many declarations have been made which lead to the suspicion that pensions are thought to be too high for Ireland—they may reduce them by half, and at once they have an extra £1,000,000 of subvention from this country, and they may keep that £1,000,000, although they do not use it for old age pensions. Why on earth should they do that? Why should they have their special Grant-in-Aid increased from £500,000 to £1,500,000 in this way? Why should they be allowed to do that while contributing nothing whatever to Imperial services, a contribution which the Prime Minister himself said was essential? Under this Bill, if the loss on Ireland increases, there is no power to revise the financial arrangements. It is only if Ireland becomes more prosperous that time for revision may come.

If Ireland becomes less prosperous and Irish government is a failure, our contribution to Ireland goes on and indeed may increase, but there will be no power to put an end to the system, and the tribute which we shall have to pay to Ireland may be perpetual. It is an astonishing position in which to place this country. I want to say a word or two about the opinions of Colonial statesmen in favour of Home Rule which are so often quoted to us. I receive the precepts of these gentlemen with respect, but I attach more importance to their example. As a matter of fact their example is all the other way. Ask Sir Joseph Ward whether he will grant to any part of New Zealand such powers as this Act confers upon Ireland. Ask General Both a whether he will grant such powers to Natal. He would at once have to tell you no, because he has just taken the contrary step in promoting the Union of South Africa. While these precepts are one way the examples are the other; while they are flourishing these Colonial examples before us, what kind of self-government which has been given to the Colonies themselves. We all feel that self-government given a distant Colony like New Zealand or to a Union like South Africa is good and leads to contentment and prosperity; but you cannot use that example here, because you are not giving to Ireland Colonial self-government. You are only giving a part of it. You are giving self-government under conditions which must lead to friction. It is not right or wise to expect that you will derive from this kind of hybrid system the same result you have got from Colonial self-government. I do not know what Scotland says to this Bill. We are told by Scottish Members that the Government have given a pledge that the Home Rule scheme inserted in this Bill should be capable of being extended to Scotland too. That is not so. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us so to-day. He said this Home Rule was not applicable to Scotland. He said the same thing at Belfast, in perfectly clear terms:—

"any law whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law in accordance with settled principles and precedents, or may be denied equal protection of the laws."

That has gone. And the special powers of appeal given by Clauses 29 and 30 of this Bill to the Privy Council apply to legislation only and not to administration, so there is not in this Bill any kind of safeguard against what I may call Executive oppression, and, after all, administration in these matters is the key of the whole situation, and without it any safeguards are worthless. There are only three safeguards. There is Clause 3, dealing with the question of religious equality. We all know what happened in the case of the Irish University Act, and how the National University has become Catholic.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an instance where either the Clauses or the spirit of the Irish University Act has been infringed?

I am a plain Englishman. I only know that the intention of this House was to make the Irish University undenominational, and that Cardinal Logue says he has made it denominational in spite of us. I hope the hon. Gentleman will have it out with Cardinal Logue. The second so-called safeguard is the Senate. That is to be nominated, first, by the Crown, and I have no doubt it will make a fair nomination. In eight years—or it may be in less time—it depends on how the Act works—the Senate will be nominated by the new Irish Government, and I do not think I am wrong in expecting it will then be wholly Nationalist. More than that, you have the provision for dealing with differences between the two Houses. You are to have a Joint Sitting. The Joint Sit ling under this Bill differs from that under the Bill of 1893. Under the latter you had an elected Second House, and it was one-third in number of the whole joint body. It numbered forty-eight out of 151, so that the addition of the Senate to the Lower House did make a difference. But under this Bill the Senate will only be forty in 204, or about one-fifth, and the addition of the Senate to the House of Commons, especially should it be mainly or wholly Nationalist, would not prove much of a check.

The third so-called check is the Veto. The Sovereign's Veto in this country, we have been told, is as dead as Queen Anne. I do not think it will be very much alive in Ireland when exercised by a Lord Lieutenant, who will be to a very large extent in the hands of the Administration. I agree with what the hon. Member for East Mayo said last November. He said:— for Waterford" (Mr. John Redmond). You have no right to do that. You have no constitutional right, I believe, to transfer the allegiance of free men. You may refuse, this House may refuse, Parliament may refuse it for this country; even Parliament cannot transfer it elsewhere. You have no power to do it, for the first shot fired in Ulster would, I think, bring all England and all Scotland about your ears. There is no sense in trying to do it, for the only result is to deprive this country of what should be one of its most precious assets, the voluntary allegiance of a free and strong people. We have been pressed for an alternative policy. I think that the real remedies for the Irish difficulties are now known to all of us. They were laid down twenty years ago or more by the late Lord Salisbury, and have since been developed and put into practice by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour). The Unionist policy is plain: first, the maintenance of the law; secondly, Land Purchase, which is cutting off at the source that economic discontent which alone has given driving power to the revolt against the Union; thirdly, the development of Irish resources; fourthly, local self-government—that is the association of the electorate with the administration of the law, subject, of course to central control, a policy which is capable of great expansion, but which is wholly different form the policy of this Bill. Those methods have been successful. It is a commonplace of speakers on both sides that Ireland is growing in wealth and prosperity. No one has borne more generous testimony to it than the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) himself. I agree he did not give us the credit, but he bore witness to the result. The fault of the policy in the eyes of some Members of the House lies in its success, but that very success is a pledge of its ultimate adoption by this country. As Professor Goldwin Smith once said, the only thing now wanted is a little British fortitude and patience. You are on the right road. Follow it, for I believe it will lead to that which is the common end of us all, I mean a prosperous and a reconciled Ireland.

I wish to express my entire approval of the Bill now before the House, and I desire to do that in spite of the fact that we have been twitted with never having referred to the question of Home Rule even in our election addresses or speeches. I can say quite confidently that my Constituency has never had any doubt whatever upon the position which I take up with regard to this question. It is perfectly true that many of us on this side of the House did not specifically mention Home Rule in our last election addresses, because they said in effect, "You know our views, and you know what it is we wish to pass," and that is true. They knew there was only one obstacle in our way, and our election addresses simply were, "Help us to remove this obstacle, and we will pass all those measures we promised in the past." Every single elector in Newcastle knew perfectly well that one of the main reasons why we wished to pass the Parliament Bill into law was in order that we might immediately proceed to pass a measure of Home Rule. I should divide the speeches we have heard to-day from the benches opposite into two classes, speeches of generality and speeches of detail. The speeches of generality resolve themselves, when you come to examine and think about them, into the opposition of Ulster, and the opposition of Ulster largely resolves itself into one of religion. We are told that the opposition of Ulster is a fact to which we ought not to be blind. We are not blind to that on this side of the House. We have had it certainly brought home to us to-day by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. C. Craig), who put the matter in a nutshell. He said that the Ulster opposition was religious, and he said further that, so far as Ulster was concerned, this measure might be passed into law a hundred times over but they would never accept it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] That is their opinion, and that principle is supported on the other side of the House. No matter what is done in regard to this measure they will not accept it, and if it is passed into law they will oppose the carrying out of the provisions of the measure, even, if it be necessary, by force. If that is the position of Ulster, if they are adamant, if they refuse to accept Home Rule, no matter what may be done, what is the use of Members for Ulster twitting us with not going to the country on this question? What is the use of going to the country if they will not accept the measure, even although the country approved of it? [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not had a chance."] The country has had two chances in the last two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members say "No." What did the hon. Member for South Antrim say? He said his own majority and the majorities of his immediate Protestant neighbours in Ulster were swollen by this very question and because Home Rule was before the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Ireland."] Yes, and in England too. As regards the constituencies of which I can speak with more knowledge, I say advisedly that Home Rule was before the country, and even if we had desired that it should not be, even if we had been afraid of it as a party, our opponents would have taken precious good care that it was Home Rule we meant to get, and that the Parliament Bill, now the Parliament Act, was a mere means to an end and not an end in itself.

I have two special reasons why I wish to give expression to my approval of the Bill. One reason is because in the constituency of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives there was for many years before 1886 a large body of Liberal opinion in favour of extending to Ireland a system of self-government. In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth {Mr. Burt), men like the late Mr. Joseph Cowen, the late Dr. Spence Watson, and the present president of the Liberal Association welded and moulded Liberal opinion in Newcastle-on-Tyne, with the result which I have stated. That being the record of the constituency, I feel that I should be neglecting the duty which I owe to my Constituents if I did not give verbal expression to the view which they have definitely sent me here to support.

The other reason why I have a special desire to express my approval is a personal reason. In the year 1886, and for some ten years subsequently, I was a member of the Liberal Unionist party. I had no feeling of opposition to the general principle of self-government, but, like many another Liberal and Conservative at that time, I had grave doubts as to whether Home Rule was really desired by the people of Ireland. I have no such doubt now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall be able to show why in a very short time. I had also grave fears that the Irish Leaders were not to be trusted in a matter of that kind. That fear has gone. [HON. MEMBERS "Why?"] That I will explain also. There is plenty of time. And I was afraid at that time that it might be true, as we were told on all hands, that the minority in Ireland could not safely rely upon fair treatment from the majority. It was not any objection to-the principle of self-government that made me oppose, so far as I then was able, the Bills both of 1886 and 1893. It was the doubt as to whether the Irish really wished to have Home Rule, and the fear, the grave fear, that the Irish minority might suffer at the hands of the majority. I am not going to admit for a moment that my change of attitude is what is usually called a conversion or a change of opinion. It is simply due to the fact that the doubts which I held, the fears which possessed me, have alike been removed by the course of time—by greater knowledge, by greater investigation, and a better understanding which I had not at that time. With regard to the question whether Ireland really desires Home Rule, we were told upon all hands that all that Ireland required was twenty years of resolute and consistent government, accompanied by a proper removal of genuine grievances which were admitted to exist. Lord Salisbury, as we have heard to-day, told us that that was the case. What was our position? What was the position at that time of nine-tenths of the men in the street with regard to the question of Home Rule? It was one of deep ignorance of the whole question. How many political students—I am not now talking of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who have made the subject a matter of discussion and study—but going outside, how many political students would you find who had ever given an hour's thought or study to the question of Ireland before 1886? Both of the great parties in this country had taken it for granted up to that time that Home Rule was an absolute impossibility. It came upon us in 1886 suddenly and practically as a new subject, and I do not think, in view of all the circumstances of the case, that our doubts and fears were at all unreasonable in the position in which we then were placed. But we knew that Mr. Disraeli, as he then was, speaking in this House some time in the forties—I think it was in 1844—had said that the Irish question consisted of a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, an alien Church, and the weakest Executive in the world. "That," said Mr. Disraeli, "is the Irish question." We knew that—

And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).

Central London Railway

Conciliation Scheme

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Gulland. ]

I need hardly say that I regret the necessity of detaining the House at this late hour, but my excuse is that it is the only opportunity I shall have to raise a matter which, I am afraid, having regard to the present industrial unrest, may lead to very serious complications. The House will remember that on the Motion for the adjournment for the Easter holidays I took occasion to raise the action of the Central London Railway Company in dismissing some of their staff. I alleged on that occasion that the only object the Railway Company had in dismissing certain men was because those men were very active in trying to put into operation the scheme of conciliation and arbitration that was recommended by the Royal Commission. I urge the House to remember that some of us in the labour movement to-day, who are striving for conciliation and against strikes, and who are prepared to take all the risks and consequences which follow our opposition to strikes, should at least be able to look to this House for some assistance in the efforts we are making. I do want the House to realise that, however much they may be concerned with the grave questions, political questions I mean, that are now occupying their attention, the present temper and feeling existing amongst the working classes of this country, and especially some of those that I am connected with actively, is such that it may break out at any moment. Surely it is too late when a strike takes place for this House then to intervene where there are a hundred and one side issues introduced. The simple statement of the case is this—when the coal strike took place the railway companies of the country decided to share the work, and that suggestion came from the men themselves. They said rather than dismiss anybody we would suggest to you that you equally divide the work. And when you remember that during the whole of the five weeks we had thousands of men who did not work more than two or three days, and men who get from eighteen shillings to a pound per week, it does show the self-sacrifice that the men are prepared to make on behalf of their fellows. But the Central London Railway Company, a very small com- pany in London, said, "No, we will not share the work, we will not do as all the other railway companies have done, but we will take advantage of this opportunity to dispense with the services of some of our men." No one could object to any employer dismissing men if there was no work for them to do, but when the company said that the men naturally assumed that if there were to be dismissals that it should be the youngest men that would be dismissed; but instead of that this company chose the oldest servants in their employment. They not only chose those oldest servants, but they chose those who were actively connected with, their trade union.

On the Motion for the Adjournment, when I raised the question, the representative of the Board of Trade denied the statement I then made. He said that they had been in communication with the railway company, and that the company admitted that they dismissed those men, because, they said, they had not been loyal to the agreement they arrived at following the August strike. The answer I then made was if the Central London Railway Company dismissed the men for the offence that they alleged, why did they not in common honesty state the reason on their notice. I produced the notice to show that they were dismissed, and that it simply said, "You are dismissed in consequence of the coal strike." Immediately that statement was challenged, I took the responsibility of saying that, seeing there is a grave difference between the facts as stated by the men and those stated by the company, I am prepared on behalf of the men to submit the whole matter to an independent tribunal. I took the responsibility of making that suggestion without consulting the men. I felt that if the men had lied to us, if the facts were not as we understood them, it was not for us to condemn a railway company which ought not to be condemned. I felt that, if we had the matter investigated by an independent tribunal, the facts could be brought to light. The Parliamentary (Secretary to the Board of Trade suggested that that was a fair proposition, and he went so far as to say that he would submit it to the consideration of the railway company. I went further than that. I agreed that the Board of Trade themselves should choose the terms of reference, so that there should be no question as to what was to be arbitrated upon. I actually went so far as to say that I would not include the reinstatement of the men, so that the simple issue would be whether this railway company did victimise men because they had done something to carry out a scheme sanctioned by this House. The Board of Trade, I understand, have made every effort to persuade the railway company to agree to arbitration, but they have absolutely refused. The company say that they will not submit this case to any arbitrator, whether appointed by the Board of Trade or by anyone else. My difficulty at this moment is not to say anything that will render the position serious outside, but I want the House to realise that there is a grave danger in connection with this particular case, and that the railway men will throw conciliation to the winds if they are not to have a fair deal in it. Those of us who are anxious for conciliation, who are striving for peace, who want to avoid industrial strife, ask to be assisted when we make a fair offer, such as I think I have made in connection with this matter. Unfortunately, the Board of Trade have hindrances in the matter. They have no power to compel the railway company. The company say, "This is our business; we will not be interfered with." I leave the House to judge. If they are justified in their action, what have they to fear in submitting it to an independent tribunal? What would have been said of any body of workers, such as the railway men, if they had said, "No, we will not have arbitration; we are going to strike independently"? Now that the offer is made by us, now that we have taken the responsibility on behalf of the men of offering arbitration, the Board of Trade and we have been flouted. If any action of this House can assist us in this matter in the way of compelling this or any other railway company to recognise that the whole industrial position is not to be aggravated because they abuse their powers, and if as a result of this discussion we can do something to ease the situation, I shall certainly be satisfied. In conclusion, I ask the House seriously to recognise that this little railway company in London is, by its autocratic action, not only prejudicing the principle of conciliation, but rendering the whole industrial situation very unfortunate indeed.

As representative of the division in which the principal works of the Central London Railway Company are situated, I have been asked to reply on behalf of the company, and in a few sentences I will give the history of this affair. The hon. Member who has just spoken is really making a covert attack, not upon the Central London Railway Company, which is only a small company in London, but upon a general principle which affects all the larger lines. The Central London Railway Company object to the tone of the answer of the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, in which he regretted that he was not able to interfere in the matter. The Board of Trade has no jurisdiction in this particular matter, and the railway company feel that the House ought to know the true facts of the case. At the time of the railway strike in August of last year, there was only a very small percentage of the staff who went out, not through any grievance of their own, but simply out of sympathy with the other railway workers. There was no reason at all, they said, why they should go out, because they were perfectly satisfied with the conditions and the hours of labour which obtained on the Central London Railway.

I am sorry to interrupt, but does the hon. Member mean that 90 per cent, is a small proportion?

Twenty-one per cent, of those employed on the line. Does the hon. Member deny that?

The hon. Gentleman does not understand that the strike was a strike of railway men, and the men dismissed are motormen; that is, those who are engaged in the manipulation of the traffic, and 90 per cent, of them struck. That is the point.

At the conclusion of the strike the company decided to take all the deserters back, and this was done upon the Board of Trade giving the company an undertaking, signed by the men, that they would work on a purely amicable footing with the other employés of the company, and not, either by word or action, trespass upon the rights or feelings of those employés who had not come out on strike. That undertaking, I am sorry to say, has never been kept, for within a very short time of their return there were serious differences between strikers and loyal men, sufficient to justify the company in dispensing with the services of all the strikers, but this was not done. Serious disturbances, however, led to the prosecution and conviction of some strikers. On 3rd April the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) stated in the House that four drivers, who apparently belonged to the Amalgamated Society and not to the Enginemen and Firemen's Society, had been dismissed because they belonged to a trade union and were working prominently in connection with the formation of a Conciliation Board, 80 per cent, of the men requiring same,4 but he omitted to state that these were only four of upwards of forty men who had to be put off in consequence of the coal strike, and their places have not been filled. The hon. Member alleged that they have.

I distinctly stated nothing of the kind. My point was not that their places had been filled, but that the men offered to share the work rather than that any man should be dismissed.

The Central London Railway have found that there is no need for these particular four men, and their places have not been filled. These men have gone elsewhere, having left the company on extremely good terms, and they were given an excellent character after eleven years' service. I believe that the four of them are engaged as motormen driving motor omnibuses. This case is entirely got up by the trade unions to foment grievances which will not end with the Central London, but will spread to the London and Chatham, the North-Eastern, and other lines. The statement that the majority of the staff wish to have a Conciliation Board is not correct as, I am informed, the men had requested to be represented by a small committee, which, in respect of several grades, had actually been in operation some months before the company received intimation through the Amalgamated Society that a Conciliation Board was desired, and since then the whole of the drivers have expressed a desire not to have a Conciliation Board, but to be represented by a small committee, which is also now in operation. These committees are working most satisfactorily, and there is no discontent among the staff of this railway, and when the staff read in the papers Mr. Thomas's speech, entirely on their own initiative they sent for representatives of the Press and made strong respresentations, which were published, denying that they required a Conciliation Board, or that they were discontented. Therefore they repudiate the action of the hon. Member entirely in coming to this House and taking up the position he has taken with regard to the company. There is no discontent amongst the staff, and the hon. Member has no right to speak for them and to represent that he comes here on their initiative. They have made strong representations, and publicly denied that they require the Conciliation Board, or that they were dissatisfied or discontented in any way. The Amalgamated Society approached the Board of Trade, who in their turn communicated with the company with a view to arbitration, but apparently they did not see any necessity for arbitration on the whole question, but desired to have an arbitration to determine whether the company were within their rights in dismissing the four motor men, ignoring altogether the forty odd other members of the staff who were put off, and in reply to this request, the directors came to the opinion that the first question to be decided upon was whether, in complying with the request of the Board of Trade in reinstating these men last August, the company had prejudiced its right to dispense with the services of any or all of the men at its own discretion, and whether, if such right had been prejudiced, the company was not still within its rights to dispense with any or all of these men, in case the company has reasonable proof that the agreement had been broken by the men making themselves objectionable to the remaining portion of the staff. It is believed, as I said before, that each of the four drivers in question has employment. They had been in the service upwards of eleven years and all were given good characters. We say that the hon. Member has no justification or right to interfere between the company and their men, and the company resent most bitterly his action. One case of prosecution was a striker, who was a signalman, not content with aggravating a fellow signalman (a loyal man) for some days, eventually committed a serious assault upon him whilst he was in charge of the signal-box, and as a result this man was dismissed. In these circumstances I think the House will agree that the company have acted fairly and properly by the men. The men are absolutely content with the terms of the employment they have at the present time, and the hon. Member has no right to interfere between the company and its servants in these circumstances.

The hon. Member has stated that the Central London Company deny the right of the Board of Trade to come in and question their right to dismiss men, and that expression makes it necessary for me to say a word or two. I need hardly remind the House that the constant policy of the Board of Trade is one of conciliation. In this case the Board never for a moment questioned the right of the company to dismiss its men. They simply advised acceptance of the offer to go to arbitration because a refusal might lead to bad complications and turmoil in the labour world. Two separate forms of references were submitted to the company, and they never for a moment suggested, in refusing, that they would arbitrate on a wider issue. I am afraid the hon. Member has perhaps misunderstood the company's position and has given the House a mistaken notion of the situation. Had the company told us they were willing to arbitrate upon all the issues we should have been glad to see the arbitration take that course. Their answer was that they saw no ground for submitting the case to arbitration. If now the company will re-open the matter on that footing the Board of Trade would be glad to consider it. The hon. Member says that the question was that these men had behaved badly and were entitled to be dismissed; yet he states that they were dismissed with excellent characters. I do not quite understand such a situation. The fact that these men found employment promptly elsewhere seemed a circumstance that should have made it easier for the company to submit the matter to arbitration. There could arise no question of the reinstatement of the men. There would have been no interference with the discipline of the company; their prestige would not have been affected, and the matter could have been settled by arbitration. The hon. Member says that the company objected to the expression used by my right hon. Friend this afternoon in reply to a question, when he said he regretted the refusal. I think when the Board of Trade has taken great pains to bring about arbitration and has made no pretence to dictate to the company, and has never questioned its right to dismiss men, but has made suggestions for arbitration in the interest of industrial peace, I think my right hon. Friend was entitled to express regret that his efforts at arbitration had failed. The company is taking a high position if it objects to what he said in regard to the mediation of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend said the Board of Trade had no power to co-operate.

He said he regretted his inability to intervene, which would lead the public to suppose that the company were in the wrong, which they do not think they are.

The hon. Member is mistaken. I have here the answer my right hon. Friend made. He said that the company had informed the Board of Trade that in their opinion there was no proper ground on which to found an arbitration, and then he said, "I regret this decision, but, of course, I have no powers of compulsion in the matter." I have, of course, nothing to add to that. We have no power of compulsion. I should like, however, to express the hope if, as the hon. Member seems to indicate, the company are willing to arbitrate on a wider reference, and on all the matters raised, they will stand to that position, so that the arbitration may be proceeded with.

May I point out that I do not think the hon. Gentleman has stated quite fairly the action of the Board of Trade in this matter. I have the terms of the memorandum sent by the Board of Trade, and the arbitration suggested was this:—

"An arbitrator to be appointed to determine whether the Central London Railway, in dismissing four of their motormen on account of the exigencies of the coal strike, were entitled to select the four men in question on the ground that they have failed to observe the undertaking given to the Board of Trade on their behalf on 22nd August, 1911, and that if they were reinstated to employment, they would work on perfectly amicable terms with the other employés of the company."

That very form of reference was drawn up after an interview on the part of myself and a Board of Trade official with the manager of the company, and we thought that was the best expression of the point of view they took up. Another point of view was substituted later.

At any rate, the form of reference I have seen not only appears to confine the arbitration solely to the point whether the company, in dismissing men it was necessary to dismiss on account of the coal strike, was entitled to take into consideration the fact that those four men had behaved badly from the company's point of view.

I am sure the House from that would immediately say if it became a question which men were to he dismissed, and some men had to go, the company was obviously entitled to take into consideration the fact that these four men had not abided by the undertaking they had entered into after the coal strike. Any company must be entitled to take that into consideration, and any interference by a Government Department would put an end to all possibility of managing any concern.

And it being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.