asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis and on what actuarial calculation he arrived at the amount of £200, stated by him in his speech at Aberdeen, which he said the blacksmith, then under treatment at the London Hospital, would receive in return for his contribution of 4s. 8d. under the National Insurance Act?

The amount referred to was calculated according to the average cost of sanatorium treatment paid up to that date by the Middlesex Insurance Committee and to the period of treatment estimated to be necessary in this particular case.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Middlesex Insurance Committee have not paid a single penny up to the present date, and that the only rate was 10s. a week? If that is so, what time would be required to work out the £200?

The hon. Gentleman is asking me a question without notice, but my information, which I got from the Committee itself, was that they were contracting to pay 35s. a week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of the London Hospital?

I never said it was paid to the London Hospital. What I said was that the patient could not be kept in the London Hospital much longer, and that other arrangements would have to be made. I reckoned that those arrangements would cost the same in that case as in other cases, and the cost in other cases was 35s. a week. As a matter of fact, we have secured accommodation at less.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman remember how long he expected this man to be under treatment?

Speaking without notice, I think it was two years.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, as Vice-President of the Scottish Education Department, he read the evidence submitted by Sir John Struthers before it was submitted to the Royal Commission on the Civil Service?

No, Sir.

asked why, under the Superannuation Fund for Teachers, 1911, "those who were in receipt of superannuation from the Merchant Company, under the Edinburgh Merchant Company's Endowment Act of 1895, at 1st April, 1912, are not being paid allowances by the Scot tish Education Department?

The reason is that they are still entitled to receive pensions from the Merchant Company. They will come under the national scheme if and when the agreement with the Merchant Company is approved by Parliament.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state the number of Scotsmen on the staff of the Scottish Education Department?

No, Sir. The Civil Service Commissioners in their appointments make no distinction between British nationalities, and I think this has proved not to the disadvantage of Scotland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

Yes. The answer is no.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of Scotsmen?

No.

asked the Secretary for Scotland how many of the examiners for the Scottish leaving certificate in 1912 were Oxford and Cambridge men; and whether he will consider the advisability of finding men in Scotland capable of doing this work?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to limit the area of selection.

asked the Home Secretary if he is now able to state the results of his inquiry into the case of a motorist who was fined £10 in October last by the Blackpool magistrates for reckless driving, whereby a woman was killed; and what further action, if any, it is proposed to take?

I have made inquiry, and find that Thomas Outwin was convicted by the Blackpool justices of driving a motor car in a manner dangerous to the public, and was fined £10 and disqualified for holding a licence for two years from the date of the conviction. The defendant had been five times previously convicted of driving motor cars and motor cycles to the danger of the public, and five times of other offences in connection with motor cars. In the case now in question, it appeared from the evidence that he drove down the promenade at Blackpool at a speed of from sixteen to twenty miles an hour at a time of night when the places of amusement were discharging their audiences and the roadway was crowded with people. Having regard to all the circumstances, the sentence appeared to me to be so inadequate to the offence that I felt it my duty to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the desirability of taking further proceedings against Outwin for the manslaughter of the woman who was killed by his car. But in view of the time that had elapsed since the offence was committed and of the fact that it had already been twice investigated by a Court of Law, I came somewhat reluctantly to the conclusion that further criminal proceedings would scarcely be justified. I do not think that there is any necessity for legislation to increase penalties. A person convicted for the second time of dangerous driving can be sentenced to three months' imprisonment without the option of a fine, and in the event of his causing the death of any person he is, of course, liable to prosecution for manslaughter. These powers, if administered with firmness and discretion, should, in my opinion, be sufficient for the protection of the public; and I have recently issued a circular to justices calling their attention, among other things, to the importance of imposing an adequate punishment for serious offences, such as dangerous driving. The fine imposed on Outwin was, in my judgment, an altogether inadequate penalty.

Is it not very difficult to obtain convictions for reckless driving?

It depends entirely upon the facts of the case.

asked if the case of Albert J., of St. George's-in-the-East, has been taken up by the officers under the Children Act; whether his mother was convicted of keeping a brothel on 2nd August, 1907; at what time the police first received a report about the house in question; and why the Children Act officers were able to rescue the boy at a recent date while the police remained inactive?

Under Section 58 (8) of the Children Act, the police and the education authority have concurrent powers. The case referred to was reported to the police by an industrial schools officer, and joint action was taken on 2nd October last. The police first received information about the house in question in June, 1909. The mother had been convicted of keeping a brothel elsewhere in August, 1907, but since that date she had not come under the notice of the police until October last, when action was at once taken.

asked whether a suitable place has been found for Annie E., fifteen years old, who left a respectable home four times, and was taken from immoral surroundings by the officers of the Children Act; and whether any action has been taken dealing with the senders of the letters and postcards found in her possession?

The father of the girl referred to in my hon. Friend's question states explicitly that his daughter has never been in immoral surroundings and that he read the letters referred to and satisfied himself that there was nothing in them improper in tone. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the use of the christian name and initial letter of the surname in these cases, which has enabled me to identify the young persons referred to, also enables other persons to do so, and this may have a prejudicial effect on their future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have taken this from a printed document, and that I purposely avoided placing the address upon the Paper, although the Home Office requested me to give more particulars in the question?

asked if any arrangements exist whereby the education authorities immediately inform the police when a charge is brought against any teacher of a grave offence with the scholars under his influence; whether the case of M., of W. school, Kensington, was reported to the police; if so, by whom and when; and whether the whereabouts of the person complained against are known?

The education authorities, in common with other public authorities and private persons, will naturally inform the police when they become aware that a criminal offence has, been committed. I am informed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police that the case referred to in the question was thus reported. The whereabouts of the person implicated are not known to the police.

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of C.B., of York Road, N., a boy under fifteen years of age, who is charged with an unmentionable offence; whether reports have reached the police as to the alleged tampering with the evidence of the other three boys; and what is the present stage in the proceedings?

This boy was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court, but as the evidence of the first—a material—witness differed substantially from the statement previously made by him, the judge directed the jury to find a formal verdict of "Not Guilty." The police have no knowledge that the evidence was tampered with, and they have received no reports to that effect.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that W. A. G., of Marylebone, was charged at Marlborough Street with importuning in Hyde Park with his face painted; that this boy of fourteen has had two situations since leaving school; will he say whether he is now in Brixton prison; what action the police have taken against the men concerned in degrading this child; and where is he now?

I am aware of the case referred to. The youth refuses to give any account of himself, and the police do not know the persons responsible for his corruption. He is now in safe keeping in a Reformatory school.

asked if a girl, C. A., of Old Ford Road, Bethnal Green, has been dealt with by the officers under the Children Act; whether her father, a widower, has been living on this child's immorality since she was fourteen; whether the police have had any information; and, if so, why they did not take early action?

The initiative in this case was taken by the police, who on receipt of certain information arrested the father forthwith, and took him before the Court. A remand was asked for in order that legal aid might be obtained, and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children then undertook the conduct of the case.

asked the Home Secretary whether the police have reported the case of B. D., of Tabard Street, charged with wandering, and the fact that twelve persons, including the father and mother and a daughter of the same, sister of the above, regularly sleep in one room; and will he say what action he proposes to take in this case?

The City Police found the boy referred to wandering in the City. He was brought before the Juvenile Court and handed over to his mother. The sanitary inspector visited the premises in question, and found that nine persons, including the parents, were occupying two rooms, and he thereupon took action under the Public Health Act.

Has the hon. Gentleman investigated the definite report given by the officers under the Children Act of the London Education Authority?

No; but if the hon. Gentleman draws our attention to any particular matter we will look into it.

I will supply you with documents.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the case of G. H., of Osnaburgh Street; whether the rent was reported to be £150 per annum; whether a man B. was fined £10 for keeping a disorderly house; whether the boy Ernest, aged eleven years, is now in a suitable institution; and whether he proposes to make any recommendation to the magistrates as to the treatment in such cases?

I am aware of the ease referred to. The whole of the facts were before the magistrate, who dealt with the keeper of the house and handed over the boy to the care of his aunt. I see no reason for interfering with magistrates' discretion in such cases. I understand that the rent of the house was £80 a year.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the other authorities, in contradistinction to the police, say that the rent is £150? May I further ask him whether some recommendation has not been given from the Home Office that deals with such cases as this; whether the person is a foreigner, and could have been deported under the Aliens Act; and why was that treatment not suggested?

I think the hon. Member had better give notice of his question.

asked how many sentences of death have been passed upon women in the last seven years, and how many have been carried out; and how many such sentences have been passed in the same period upon youths not out of their teens, and how many have been carried out?

In the last seven years twenty-one women have been sentenced to death. In one case the sentence was carried out. During the same period nine prisoners under twenty years of age have been sentenced to death, and in four cases the sentence was carried out.

Is it not now the almost invariable practice not to execute the death sentence upon female criminals, and would it not be just to adopt some limit of age below which even male persons could not come under execution?

I have given my hon. Friend the figures in both cases. Of course the law is as I have stated it.

It is not the law I am thinking about. It is the practice of the Home Office; their extension of leniency and clemency.

I think it is impossible to make leniency a matter of law, rule, or regulation—

Certainly not!

We must judge each case on its facts.

It is a question of the practice.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Grant payable in respect of the Hellingly (Sussex) Church of England school has been reduced; and, if so, by what amount and for what cause?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A deduction from the Grant of £15 has been made on account of failure to carry out the Board's requirements in regard to the premises of the school.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that children are being educated in the Church of England school at Hellingly, Sussex, in a shanty which does not belong to the managers, has not been approved by the local education authority, and is in contravention of the rules of the Board, and that application has been made for a Grant in respect of these children; whether he can state whether the managers applied for this Grant by signing Form IX. after they had been duly warned of the illegality; and what steps will be taken to ensure that children, who are being educated with the money provided by rates and taxes, are properly housed in non-provided schools?

The building referred to was used until December of last year, although it had never been approved by the Board, and warning had been given in the previous July that its use should be immediately discontiuned. All the attendances of the children accommodated in the building were included in the application for Grant on Form IX. for the year ended 31st January, 1912, in spite of instruc- tions that attendances subsequent to 15th September should be deducted from the total on which the average attendance of the school was calculated. Careful watch is kept by the Board to secure the observance of their requirements with regard to the premises of public elementary schools, and Grant is not paid unless the Board are satisfied that proper accommodation is secured.

Was Form IX. in this case signed by the managers of the school?

I think it was; it was certainly submitted to the managers. I cannot say whether or not it was actually signed. I think it is necessary at any rate for the forms to pass through their hands.

Has the Board of Education power to deal with managers who try not only to evade the law, but to obtain money by false representations?

I have no reason to believe that the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman. It is quite possible that the managers may have overlooked this particular matter in connection with the calculation.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the London Education Committee is proposing to close the Hortensia Street, Chelsea, secondary school for girls and to open a new, smaller, and less conveniently placed school in its place; whether there has been any attempt made to find out and satisfy the wishes of parents and ratepayers; and whether, as required by Section 2 (2) of the Education Act of 1902, the Board of Education has been consulted in the matter?

The London County Council propose to remove the girls' school referred to from its existing premises. The-accommodation provided has been in excess of the number of pupils, and the-county council propose therefore to transfer the girls' school to a building to be erected on a contiguous site approved by-the Board, and to use the existing building for the boys' school, hitherto conducted under unfavourable conditions in the buildings of the South Western Polytechnic. The Board have been consulted in the matter. I am unable to say if steps have been taken by the county council to find out the wishes of parents and ratepayers. No protests have been received by the Board.

asked the Post master-General the reason for disemploying and dismissing a telegraph messenger, named Feeny, at Longford; whether this boy has been hunted out of the Service because he incurred the enmity of some of his superior officials in this office; and whether he will grant an inquiry into the case of this and other boys who have been refused further employment in the Long ford office when entitled to the same?

Messenger Feeny's services were dispensed with in 1910 in the ordinary course at the age of sixteen, because no vacancy was likely to be available for him. His subsequent temporary employment gave him no claim to an established appointment. I have no reason to suppose that there was prejudice on the part of the superior officials of the Longford Post Office, or that any inquiry is called for.

If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with documentary evidence that this boy has been dismissed, and that others in the same position have been retained, will he cause inquiries to be made?

I shall be glad to take into consideration any evidence that the hon. Member may be good enough to supply me with.

asked the Postmaster-General the rules governing the continued employment as temporary postmen of telegraph messengers in Ireland who have passed the age for employment in that capacity; whether, seeing that boys who have served without complaint the office of boy messengers are turned out on the street unemployed in order to give employment to some discharged soldier from another district, he will arrange for an inquiry into the whole system with a view to a continuous service for these boys?

It has for years been the rule, both in Ireland and in Great Britain, that half the vacancies for established postmen should be allotted to boy messengers, and the other half to ex- soldiers and ex-sailors, and it has been the practice to discharge, at the age of sixteen, boy messengers for whom no vacancies appeared likely to be available. Changes of organisation have, however, recently been made which, it is hoped, will allow almost all suitable boys who so desire being permanently retained in the service of the Department.

Will this change soon come into operation?

Yes; it is now being gradually brought into operation, and great improvements have already been effected.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) how many inspectors of his Department are engaged in Great Britain in tracking down fraudulent sale of foreign foodstuffs for Irish; when the last prosecution was undertaken; and whether it is proposed to add to the number of inspectors engaged in this work?

The inspection staff of the Department in Great Britain for the prevention of frauds affecting Irish produce consists of one inspector and five assistants. Prosecutions are at present proceeding in five cases in connection with the sale of margarine as Irish butter. It is not at present intended to add to the inspection staff.

asked the sum available for forestry purposes in Ireland; what progress is being made with the acquirement of bog and waste lands for planting purposes; whether a regular staff of foresters is employed at this work, and how many; and whether the department are kept informed of the destruction of trees by the police for their own inspectors?

A sum of £6,000 has been provided in the annual Estimates of the Department for each year from 1909–10 for the purchase, by means of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts, and development of suitable areas of woodland and of lands adapted for forestry purposes comprised in estates which are being sold through the Estates Commissioners. This provision has enabled the Department to purchase and undertake forestry operations at nine centres, comprising about 7,000 acres. A qualified forester and necessary labourers, etc., are employed at each of these centres. The total staff so employed consists of nine foresters, three foremen, thirty-four permanent labourers, and twenty-five temporary labourers (engaged for about three months). The Treasury have approved of advances not exceeding £25,000 in all being made from the Development Fund for the purchase of areas of bare land suitable for afforestation. No lands have yet been actually secured by means of these advances, but negotiations are practically completed in the case of two such areas comprising about 4,900 acres. Negotiations for the purchase of other afforestable lands are proceeding. With a view to the enforcement of the provisions of Section 32 (1) (b) and (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, the Department have made an arrangement with the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabulary, under which the police report to the Department all cases in which the felling of trees is observed on holdings purchased under the Land Acts.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department full control over the money supplied by the Development Commissioners?

I should require to think what the right hon. Gentleman means by full control.

Have you any control?

asked whether the provisions of the Act of Parliament regarding the destruction and replanting of trees are being enforced by his Department; whether his attention has lately been called to the destruction of some valuable plantations in county Longford; and what steps he is prepared to take to secure the replanting of suitable young trees to replace those cut down?

Steps have been taken for the enforcement of Section 32 (1) (b) and (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, to which it is presumed the hon. Member refers. The Department are not aware of the particular plantations in county Longford referred to, but if definite details are supplied steps will be taken to ascertain whether such plantations come within the provisions of the above quoted enactment.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Golden Valley Ochre and Oxide Company, Limited, of Wick, near Bristol, and the Forest of Dean, are contractors to the Admiralty and other Government Departments, as stated on the note-paper of the company; whether he is satisfied that this company pays trade union rates of wages to their employés; if so, whether he is aware that 75 per cent. of the company's workmen earn less than 19s. per week for sixty hours' labour; and will he see that the Fair-Wages Resolution is observed?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the remaining parts of the question, the Fair-Wages Clause is included in contracts with this firm, and if any detailed complaint is received that the Clause is being infringed, I will cause full inquiry to be made.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state when the Congested Districts Board will be in a position to complete the purchase agreements with the tenants on the Jermyn estate, near Caherdaniel?

The Congested Districts Board hope that this estate will be resold to the tenants in the coming year.

asked when the Estates Commissioners propose to complete the sale of the J. W. Bond estate, at Farragh, and other townlands in North Longford; whether they have yet arranged for the acquirement of the Rhine ranch on this property; and when the tenants will get their vesting orders?

The Estates Commissioners hope to deal with the tenanted land on this estate at an early date. The owner has accepted the Commissioners' estimated price for the untenanted land which he has offered to sell to them and which includes some 118 acres of the lands of Rhine, and it will be dealt with as soon as practicable in order of priority.

How soon will that be? Will it be inside of the coming year?

I hope so.

asked when the King-Harman estate, in the Ballinamuck, Newtown Cashel, and Lisnanagh districts will be vested in the tenants; and what steps are being taken to complete the division of the bogs already agreed on with the tenants?

The owner has accepted the Estates Commissioners' proposal for the purchase of this estate, and it will be dealt with as soon as practicable. The question of the turbary on this estate is under consideration.

asked whether the tenantry on the Perceval estate, situate near Ballymote, county Sligo, were, in January last, served with processes for the recovery of a year's rent and arrears due, and that a settlement was arrived at in open Court on the 29th January last, the terms of which were that the tenants should pay one year's rent and costs, the agent undertaking, on behalf of the landlord, to sell through the Congested Districts Board to the tenants, and lodge all maps, plans, etc., with the Board, the question of arrears due to be left to the discretion of the Congested Districts Board; whether the agent lodged maps in accordance with the terms of agreement, which were incorrect, as some of the farms which he had agreed to sell were left out of them; whether these maps, having been returned to the agent, Mr. Lestrange, were again lodged by him without alteration; and, if so, whether, seeing that the tenants performed their part of the contract whilst the agent neglected to perform his part and is now threatening legal proceedings for another year's rent, although the fault is his own, steps will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to prevent these tenants being victimised in this way?

I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings at Ballymote Quarter Sessions in January, 1912, when it was stated that a settlement had been come to in the matter, but I am not aware of the terms of the settlement. The maps lodged with the Congested Districts Board by the agent were returned to him for amendment, and the maps duly amended and other documents were subsequently lodged with the Board. A valuation of the estate will shortly be made, probably within the next month. The Board have no power to interfere with any steps which the landlord may take in the exercise of his legal rights.

asked whether Luke Torsney, Cloonamanagh, county Sligo, Ballymote sub-pension committee, who owns only seven acres of bad land, was granted a pension of 5s. per week by the local committee, which sum was reduced to 2s. on the representation of the pension officer; and, if so, can he say on what grounds the officer acted, or whether this case will be reopened?

Luke Torsney was in receipt of a pension of 2s. a week and made application to have it increased to 5s, a week, which application the local pension committee granted. The pension officer appealed against this increase, and the Local Government Board on such appeal refused the application on the ground that they were not satisfied that Torsney's means were such as to entitle him to receive a pension of 5s. a week. Before deciding this case the Board sent one of their inspectors to investigate the pensioner's circumstances. The Board have no power to reopen consideration of the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the sub-committees in the West of Ireland contemplate resigning their functions owing to the manner in which they are treated by the Local Government Board on the word of the pension officers?

Well, Sir, I think I will wait until the contemplation becomes a fact.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ardfert Sub-Committee have resigned two months ago in consequence of the action of the pension officers?

I cannot help that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the basis or principle on which the pension officer acts in estimating the living of persons who apply for old age pensions, as there is a very strong feeling in many parts of Ireland about it?

It is an extremely difficult thing to estimate accurately whether a person is getting £31 10s. 0d., or £26 8s. 0d., or £24 2s. 0d. per year. All these things have to be investigated on the spot, and I doubt whether anyone could lay down beforehand a precise basis of valuation when dealing with such amounts.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Solicitor-General expressed the view of the Government when he said, in the London Opera House on 4th December, that the Franchise Bill, with a woman suffrage Amendment, was secure in enjoying the full advantage of the Parliament Act; and whether a Bill, altered in a sense contradictory of a previous decision of the present House of Commons, would be one to which the Government would be prepared, without any further appeal to the people, to apply the provisions of the Parliament Act?

My hon. and learned Friend, in the speech to which the hon. Member refers, was, I am informed, careful to point out that what he was saying did not constitute any new declaration made either on behalf of the Government or of myself. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my own public declarations on the subject, to which at present I have nothing to add.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give a plain answer to the latter part of the question, as to whether the Parliament Act would apply to the case where this current Parliament had altered its decision?

I think we had better discuss that question when we come to the Bill itself. In the meantime I refer the hon. Member to my declaration.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say what chance such a Bill would have if the Parliament Act did not apply?

That is a matter of opinion.

Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House when the Franchise Bill will be taken?

No, Sir; I should like to have notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister if, for the purpose of accurate reference, he will consider the advisability of an official note being taken of proceedings in Standing Committees, and a summary Report issued, as was formerly done with the Debates in this House?

As I stated on the 19th instant, I think the balance of argument and convenience is against a change in the present practice.

I am not talking now of a verbatim report. I am merely suggesting a summarised report, such as we used to have in the old Debates?

Well, Sir, I will consider that.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received the offer of Stafford House; if so, whether the offer has been accepted; and, if accepted, what is the destined use of the property?

His Majesty's Government have received from Sir William Lever the offer of the remainder of the lease of Stafford House as a gift to the nation, subject to certain conditions. His Majesty's Government much appreciate the generosity of the offer, and are now considering the matter. I can make no further statement at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how much the Government are giving Sir William Lever by a concession in West Africa?

That surely is a most improper question.

I want to know will a balance be struck on this transaction?

asked what steps, if any, are taken by the Government to provide the inspectors, surveyors, and other in dividuals who claim to have the right to trespass on private land and premises with their evidence of authority to support the position they claim to hold; and if these individuals will be instructed to present such credentials for examination before they enter upon the premises.

If the hon. Member is referring to the right of inspection of land under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, I beg to refer him to Section 31 (2) of that Act, Every valuer appointed to carry out the valuations under Part I. of the Finance Act has a written authority signed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to inspect land, and he is instructed to endorse this authority with his usual signature and to produce it on demand to any person entitled to require its production.

My question extended to others besides land valuers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that one should find a couple of men prowling round one's garden, and that these men when challenged could show no evidence of their authority?

If they have not got the necessary authority, of course they have no right to be there, but if they have the necessary authority then they have a perfect right to be there.

Should they not first go to the front door and produce their authority?

I think the general instruction followed by the valuers should be followed in all cases, namely, that before coming on a property they should write to inform the owner or occupier that they have to discharge this duty, and making an appointment convenient to all parties.

I will consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is not always convenient for the valuer when visiting a particular neighbourhood to go to the same neighbourhood two or three times to inspect contiguous property. Subject to that, I will consider the suggestion which has been made to me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the general practice of valuers to give notice when they are coming?

I certainly was under that impression. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that there are cases in which that does not occur I should be pleased to hear of them, and I should be very much obliged if the Noble Lord opposite can give me any information in support of that statement.

As far as my experience is concerned, I have received nothing but courtesy from these gentlemen, and the officials with whom I have been brought into contact did give me notice beforehand, and inquired whether it would be convenient to me that they should inspect the property on a given day. I suggest that what they do for a Member of this House they might do for the general public.

Certainly; I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have received no complaints of uncivil treatment on the part of these officials, but quite the reverse. The testimony I have had on all hands from those opposed to the Act, as well as those who support it, is that they have discharged their functions with unvarying civility.

I think it is very generally felt on this side of the House that the extremely plausible case made out yesterday by my hon. Friend, who moved this Clause, deserved a fuller answer than it has yet received from the Front Bench opposite, and if the Government intend to insist upon the rejection of this Amendment a fuller justification for taking that course ought to be forthcoming. My hon. Friend who moved the Clause gave a number of examples of ways in which it appeared likely that in time of national emergency during a war or when war might be apprehended danger might occur owing to conflict or friction, or at all events an absence of complete co-operation between the Imperial Government, who would be responsible for military measures, and the civil authority in Ireland which would be in the hands of the local Parliament and the local Executive. My hon. Friend referred, among other subjects, to the-Post Office. I do not want to go into that question again, but I should like to say that I for one entirely agree with the criticism which my hon. Friend passed upon the Government Amendment for dealing with the Post Office, which I think is entirely inadequate for the purpose intended. My hon. Friend spoke of such? matters as the control of the Press and the administration of the railways in time of war, and following him my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn) speaking with a military-knowledge which I personally cannot claim, pointed out that in time of war, or when war is imminent, there might be a great number of matters connected with mobilisation and the necessary means for carrying them out, in which difficulties might arise with the local Executive authority. What was the reply to those criticisms given by the Postmaster-General? He practically contented himself by replying that all those matters were covered by the general words of the Bill, and he especially laid stress on this paragraph:—

"That the Irish Executive would have no power to deal with matters which were not within the competence of the Irish Parliament, and that those matters-included the Navy, the Army, the Territorial Force, or any other naval or military force for the defence of the-realm, or any other naval Or military matter."

The words which the right hon. Gentleman specially laid stress upon in answer to a question were, "The defence of the realm, or any other naval or military matter." I do not know whether the view which the Postmaster-General put forward would be endorsed by the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. I would like to ask them, supposing a difficulty arose over the administration of the railways, whether nationalised or remaining in the hands of private companies, could that possibly be held to be covered by the words, "defence of the realm, or any other military or naval matter." Would it be possible under those circumstances for the Imperial Government to take into their hands the necessary administration of the railways? "What would be the result in a time of great national crisis if the interpretation of those words was disputed by the local authority in Ireland. The necessity would arise of referring the matter to the Privy Council for 'decision, and no actual step which ex hypothesi would require to be secretly and rapidly dealt with could be undertaken until it had been decided by a competent authority in Ireland, whether the very wide interpretation put upon those words by the Postmaster-General was or was not the true interpretation of the Statute. Then the right hon. Gentleman, on this particular point of the railways, later on in his speech relied upon the existence of Acts of Parliament at the present time giving power to the Imperial Parliament in time of war. He said there is the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, and the National Defence Act of 1888, which gives power to the Secretary of State in time of emergency to assume control of all the railroads of the United Kingdom. He says those Acts would still be applicable to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman does not contest the fact that it is open at any moment after the passing of this Bill to the Parliament in Ireland to repeal or alter these Acts in any way they think fit. Therefore, in time of emergency it would be necessary for the Imperial Parliament, which would still, I admit, have the power under this Bill of legislating for Ireland, in all the stress of a national emergency to repass the provisions of these Acts applicable to Ireland. It appears to me -that for the particular purpose we have in -view it would be idle to rely upon provisions of Acts of Parliament at present in existence and which it would always be open to the Irish Parliament to repeal. Passing from those particular examples given by my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General took much wider ground. He traversed the whole principle upon which this Amendment is recommended to the House. Of course, the principle upon -which my hon. Friend moved his Amendment and upon which we support it is that in time of war and of emergency it is a source of weakness to have the civil authority decentralised. That is the position which the right hon. Gentleman denies, and the words he uses are very dogmatic. He says:—

"It is a profound error to think that the more centralised the Government is the stronger it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th December, 1912, col. 168.]

Of course, that is, at all events, an arguable constitutional proposition in ordinary times of peace, and, whatever our opinions may be upon it individually, none of us are concerned at the present time to argue the point. But can it be said it is equally true in time of war and in time of emergency when war is imminent, to say a Government is equally strong whether it is centralised or decentralised? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in holding that view he certainly finds himself in conflict with a number of very eminent authorities, both ancient and modern. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the most democratic period of the Roman Republic they recognised the necessity in time of war of transferring the power of their democratic State temporarily into the hands of a dictator, and the same idea, the idea that in time of war a strong centralised Government is the strongest and best for the safety of the State has been supported in modern times by political philosophers of repute, men like Stein on the Continent, and Burke in this country. The general position which the right hon. Gentleman laid down has certainly not got the support of those, both in the ancient and modern world, who have devoted the greatest genius to the consideration of political constitutions. If I may quote the authority of more practical modern men who have had to deal with these matters, I suppose it is common ground there is no State in the modern world which so far as preparations for war and civil administration during the time of war is concerned has proved so successful as the German Empire, and it has been very clearly laid down both by Bismarck, as a civil administrator, and by Von Moltke, as a military authority, that centralised control is best for the safety of the State in time of war and of emergency. It is quite true that in the German Empire owing to the circumstances of its federation an extreme centralised form of government in time of war will hardly be realised, but Von Moltke laid it down that in his opinion one of the chief secrets of the extraordinary military success of Napoleon was that in time of war he held all the threads of civil administration. Then, to refer to another statesman whose authority will have some weight in these matters, the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of and will remember the very strong opinion expressed by Cavour upon two occasions, once when he was contesting the Republican principles of Mazzini and on another occasion when he was insisting on the union of Naples with Piedmont. Cavour insisted upon centralised administration in Italy during the times which were looming ahead, and during which he foresaw the possibility of much war as a necessity of the continued existence of the country. Of course, it is no doubt a very happy circumstance for Cavour that he did not live long enough to know he had the misfortune to differ from the Postmaster-General.

There have been others in our own country and amongst those speaking our? own language in modern times whose authority is not altogether to be neglected, although perhaps not so preeminent as those I have already quoted. I would merely mention the well-known opinions of Lord Wolseley. Upon this very subject of Home Rule for Ireland, speaking as a soldier, he declared that the granting of Home Rule would be full of military danger to the Empire, and it is obvious, if that danger exists at all, it must be intensified by any division of the control of the civil authority in time of war. And Admiral Mahan, in the same way, has pointed out that it would be a naval danger to this country, even assuming, as my hon. Friend assumed, that the authority exercising the civil power in Ireland would be whole-heartedly loyal to the good of the Empire. That was Mahan's assumption, and of course his contention would be a fortiori true if there could be any doubt about that loyalty. It is not very surprising the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General should venture to lay down as a general proposition something which is entirely at variance, as I maintain, with the greatest men of ancient and modern times upon this subject, because, as we all know, we are blessed at the present time with a Government so packed with genius that there is no Under-Secretary so insignificant that he is not prepared to instruct Lord Roberts upon questions of strategy. My hon. Friend, in moving the Amendment, brought the matter very near home by quoting examples, within the memory of all of us in this House, of the difficulties which occurred in South Africa at the time of the war both in Natal and in Cape Colony, and he laid stress upon the fact that those difficulties, which undoubtedly hampered the administration of the military authorities in that country, were difficulties which arose where the subordinate civil authorities were absolutely loyal to this country. Without any disloyalty, we all know, as a matter of history, that when the country is unfortunate enough to find itself about to go to war there is usually a minority who hold a different opinion as to the justice or expediency of that war. The right hon. Gentleman quoted, for another purpose, Charles James Fox. We all know that Fox, during the Napoleonic war, was hostile to the war policy of this country. But let us come to more modern times and take the case of the Boer war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others showed themselves hostile to the policy of this country on that occasion. It was the same in the case of Mr. Bright at the time of the Crimean war. These, however, are only examples of the fact that no matter how united a nation may be there is always likely to be a minority opposed to war. In a united and Imperial House such a minority may not do very much damage; it may be unpatriotic but it cannot do much harm. During the American War of Independence there was a strong body in the Irish Parliament of that day hostile to this country. Chatham took up the same attitude in this country, but that is only another example of these differences of opinion. But so long as the difference is only that of a minority in a united House, necessarily controlled by a representative majority in the country at large, no serious injury is done. But if the minority as a whole is a majority in an isolated area, in a subordinate Parliament the damage it may inflict on the country is very serious indeed.

Is the hon. Member proposing the suspension of the Constitution in our self-governing Colonies?

I have no such idea in my mind. The same question was brought up by the Postmaster-General yesterday, and certainly, as far as my opinion goes, they would not be likely to express a hostile opinion to this country, as might be the case with Ireland. But they are not part and parcel of the United Kingdom: they have never till recently been reckoned among the fighting forces of the Empire. This appears to me to be a serious danger in the case of a separate Parliament. The minority in the case of Ireland would represent only one-fifteenth of the United Kingdom, yet it would be in a position to direct a separate Executive Government and to give effect to its opinions. All that is even on the assumption that, in the ease of Ireland, a subordinate Parliament would have behind it those who would be as loyal as the Government of Natal was in 1899. But I am not prepared, merely in order to say pleasant things to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, to make that assumption. I know a great deal too much about feeling in Ireland to make the assumption that if this country were in any difficulty they would for the first time for a long period abandon the view that "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity." The right hon. Gentleman yesterday quoted the history of Grattan's Parliament. He said it supplied an example of the loyalty of the Irish Parliament to the Empire because one of its first acts after receiving extended powers was to vote Supplies for a war in which this country was at the time engaged. I quite admit that. But hon. Members must know that Grattan was distinguished for two political qualities above all others. He was distinguished for his loyalty to the English connection and for his detestation of democracy in all 'forms. Grattan's Parliament was not a democratic Parliament at all, and I entirely question, as a matter of fact, whether the mass of the people outside that Parliament were loyal at that time. My hon. Friend, the Member for Torquay quoted in his speech yesterday the opinion of Napoleon that the French Expedition of 1796 would have been successful with a little more luck and better weather. The same opinion was held in Ireland. There is a letter written at that time by a member of the Beresford family, in which the opinion is expressed that owing to the favourable reception by the native Irish in the South of Ireland at that time the French, with a little better seamanship and a little better weather, might have gained Ireland. But that would have been impossible if there had been that loyalty which the right hon. Gentleman thinks exists in Ireland at the present moment. We are told that we have only to pass the Home Rule Bill and the Irish people will immediately become loyal—we are, in fact, to have a union of hearts. That may be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope it will not be taken to be disrespectful if I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not so well qualified for indulging in prophecy as the most famous of his namesakes. We are told that the movement to-day is the same as the movement of O'Neill, Wolf Tone, and Robert Emmet. But the hon. and learned Member for Waterford the other day repeated that he was carrying out the movement of men like Wolf Tone and Robert Emmet. But we have on record Wolf Tone's interview with Napoleon Buonaparte, in which an invitation was extended by him to Buonaparte to invade Ireland, and we have, too, the fact that Emmet on the scaffold avowed that he had invited a French invasion of his native country. That is our example of what Irish disloyalty has done in the past. You may or may not condemn them, but surely it is idle, when hon. Members who are leading the majority of Irish opinion at the present day are telling us from time to time that these historical examples are the ones they still hold up to veneration, and which they are still proud to follow, to tell us that when this Bill passes all this disloyalty will disappear. The Secretary of State for War quoted Grattan's Parliament.

indicated dissent.

Well, somebody on the other side quoted Grattan's Parliament in this connection. Grattan's Parliament was a concession in its day to Irish opinion quite comparable with the concession now being made by the Government. That concession of Grattan's Parliament had a very slight effect in conciliating Irish opinion, for it was within a very few years after the granting of it that the greatest rebellion in Irish history took place. I was about to misquote the Secretary of State for War. I hope my next shot will be a better one. He went on to state that he spoke for the Government. We all took it for granted that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for the Government, but was he speaking for the whole of the Government, or only for the Cabinet when he said the passage of this Bill would really strengthen us in time of war? It would be reassuring if we could be informed that he had taken into consultation the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If he was only speaking for the Cabinet, we have to assume that that great authority was left uncon-sulted. I notice that although the right hon. Gentleman was specifically asked whether he spoke for the Government and for the Committee of Imperial Defence, in his reply he was careful to say that he spoke for the Government, and said nothing about the Committee of Imperial Defence. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that that was merely an omission, and that he has behind him the authority of the Committee of Imperial Defence, we must conclude that those were the unaided reflections of the civilians who occupy the Front Bench opposite, which have not any high military authority behind them. A very strange argument the right hon. Gentleman used was this: He said, "You talk about Irish disloyalty in the time of the Boer war. You must not lay stress on the fact that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway cheered to the echo the news of British defeats. That is not the true test. The true test is: Were the Irish regiments disloyal? What about the Dublin Fusiliers?" Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that that is a sound argument? Of course, the Dublin Fusiliers is a most gallant regiment, whose loyalty is due to their military training. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. I think I can show that practically from the right hon. Gentleman's own speech. The right hon. Gentleman made use of a most extraordinary argument in answering a question put to him by my Noble Friend the Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine). He said:—

"The right hon. Gentleman has filled up the gap I was about to endeavour to fill in my reply to the Noble Lord. Those who fought for us in that war, whether they came from the South or from the North, and notably from the South, were some of the bravest regiments who have fought for us and were the most loyal of all. The gap is that those who thought that they had been wrongly deprived of the Parliament they once possessed were not friendly to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th December, 1912, col. 175.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Dublin Fusiliers do not miss the Parliament? Have they not got as much right to be Irishmen in civil life as anybody else? If their loyalty is not to be attributed to military training, why do they care less than civilians for Home Rule? The right hon. Gentleman is not successful in showing that there is any gap. I entirely disbelieve in the prophecy of loyalty and goodwill to this country as soon as this Bill is passed. I am quite willing to admit, because I have it on the high authority of the greatest of Irish historians, the late Mr. Lecky, that in some of the periods in the eighteenth century the sentiment of disloyalty in Ireland was much exaggerated and that is was sometimes very superficial, but I should like, while making that admission, to read a few words which have been written by the same historian on the subject of the sentiment of disloyalty. He said:—

"There is perhaps only one condition in which its unassisted action—"

—that is, the sentiment of disloyalty—

"can be a serious danger to the State. It is when legislation breaks down the influence of the educated classes of the community, and then, by a democratic suffrage, under the shelter of the ballot, throws the preponderating voting power of the country into the hands of the most ignorant and most disaffected. It has been reserved for the sagacity of modern English statesmanship to create this danger in Ireland."

It is because the Government are proceeding on the same course, and are wishing to give a further demonstration of the same sort of sagacity, that we on this side of the House support this Amendment and wish to save them from the folly of their own action.

The Debate on the Clause at present under consideration has covered a very wide field. The primary question at issue between the two sides of the House is a perfctly simple one. There can be no two opinions as to the fact that inconveniences might arise under a Home Rule system as the result of the division of Executive power. If at any time under a centralised Government one portion of the community is disaffected and disloyal, under those conditions that disaffected portion is a source of weakness to the community in a time of stress, difficulty, and danger. It is only a change in degree. It might be admitted, for the purposes of argument, that when you divide the Executive authority the source of weakness is to that extent increased. But even if we on this side of the House do make that admission, it does not go to the root of the matter we are now discussing. You have to accept an assumption which underlies every speech which has come from the other side of the House—an assumption that when a Parliament is set up under this Bill, Ireland will continue to be disloyal to Great Britain and to British interests.

No, no.

I think it is so. Apart from that assumption, this new Clause is useless. If it be assumed that the Irish Government and the Irish Parliament, supported by the Irish people, are going to be loyal to the British Government, then there is no ground for any fear, and there is no need for this Clause. If one examines the speeches which have been made, he finds that the main part of them has been devoted to proving that there is a serious danger of the Irish Parliament and the Irish Government being disloyal. A large part of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down has been devoted to proving that. He referred to the powers of the Postmaster-General as a prophet, and suggested that they were not quite equal to those of another member of the same race who bore the same name. But, after all, the hon. Gentleman opposite also sets up as a prophet, and we may be pardoned for thinking that the Postmaster-General is at least as good an authority in the region of prophecy as the hon. Member (Mr. K. M'Neill). I am not prepared to say that one is better than the other as a prophet. On grounds of pedigree, of course, the Postmaster-General is better than the hon. Member, and as he is to some extent a supporter of the hereditary principle I have no doubt he will on that ground yield the palm to the Postmaster-General. When we are dealing with these prophecies we are in the region of probabilities, and there are two grounds on which hon. Gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to justify their assumption. First of all, they refer to the form of language of hon. Members of the Nationalist party. That is a large part of their case. I think it was a large part of the case of the hon. Member and of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Burn) last night. He said, "They have said these things in the past, and surely when you have on record that language you are justified in believing that the same sentiments will govern their action in the future." I think we on this side are prepared to make certain allowances for the language which was used by Members of the Irish party in the past just as we are prepared to make allowances for language which is used by hon. Members representing Ulster in the present. I believe in the former case hon. Gentlemen representing the majority in Ireland were speaking under deep feelings of resentment against this country, and I believe that hon. Members representing the North-East corner of Ireland are speaking with equally deep feelings of apprehension in relation to the possible effects of Home Rule. But I think you will both forgive me if I say I decline to believe either the one or the other. If I were to believe them I should feel myself in a very strange position. I have heard some language of hon. Gentlemen on the other side in which they say for example that the passing of this Bill will be the end of the British Empire, and if Home Rule is granted it will not matter whether we are separated from Great Britain or not. Another hon. Gentleman said:

"We will disregard the decrees of an Irish Parliament; we will not pay any tax it may impose and if it is put upon us, we will be prepared to take even stronger measures."

The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) said:

"We will not be loyal if it comes to any tampering with our ancient rights."

Will the hon. Member kindly say when I said that. I have no recollection?

I have the reference here, I am glad to say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking at Lisburn on 24th December, 1910. Apparently the situation is this: If the Home Rule Bill is passed the majority in Ireland will continue to be disloyal, and the minority in the North-East corner will become disloyal, and now for once we are going to have a united Ireland. For the first time on record we shall have the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) marching together under the banner of disloyalty to the British Empire. Needless to say, I think we shall see exactly the reverse, and I base my reasoning on experience. I should like to deal with some of the history which has been placed before the House by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He has covered a wide field. He has gone to ancient Rome and modern Germany as well as to the British Empire. I am not quite sure that the parallel which he raised in connection with ancient Rome has any application to the position of the British Empire; but he was dealing with the argument of the Postmaster-General that a centralised Government was the weakest form of Government. He examined the statement in relation to a different state of facts from those which the Postmaster-General had in mind when he made the statement. He was dealing with the general conditions and sources of national strength. I think it can be proved by history that in the case of all widespread Empires, those which are highly centralised are weaker than those which give a large measure of local autonomy to the various parts.

I was assuming, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with the conditions mentioned in the Amendment—that is to say, the conditions in time of war or national emergency. I used no argument with regard to general considerations.

I distinctly stated that of course everyone agreed in time of war the control of the armed forces of the State must necessarily be centralised.

The right hon. Gentle-man has brought me to the point at which I was endeavouring to arrive. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. M'Neill) will admit that when I began to deal with this argument I stated clearly that I thought they were dealing with propositions in two different senses, and that that accounted for the disagreement between them, that the Postmaster-General had made this proposition in reference to general conditions and sources of national and Imperial strength, whereas the hon. Member opposite analysed his proposition in relation to conditions of war. I think they are both right, and that when you have a condition of war you must have a high degree of centralisation. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that in a widespread Empire the more play you give to the free action of different parts the stronger will your Empire be, and that, I think, as a general proposition cannot be disputed. It will not, I think, be disputed by any man who understands the spirit and principle of the British Empire.

If the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in that sense and in that sense alone, it was entirely irrelevant to the argument. The difference between us was not quite that. I understand the right hon. Gentleman admits that centralised control of the military forces is necessary. What we say is not merely of the military forces, but of the civil authority—not generally, but in time of war.

I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Of course, at the time when the Postmaster-General used that argument, he was dealing with the assumption upon which this new Clause is based, namely, that under a Home Rule system in Ireland you will have a disloyal condition in Ireland, and he was answering that proposition, which, after all, is the fundamental proposition. If we disprove that fundamental proposition, then there is no argument for the Clause. If they can make out a case for that proposition, then they not only establish a case for the Clause, but they establish a complete case against the Bill, and the Bill must go. If they can make out a case that after the passing of this Bill we are still to have a disloyal Ireland, then we have no right to give Home Rule-to Ireland. It is not an argument simply for this Clause. It cuts at the root of the whole measure. I think I am correct in? saying that the argument of my right hon. Friend was dealing with the general conditions of national strength, and as a statement of the general conditions of national strength it is accurate and it is in accordance, not only with the experience of the British Empire, but of every other great empire. It is even true of the Roman Empire, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In the days when the Roman Empire embraced the whole of the Mediterranean countries, and while it still continued in a position of strength, it was-largely because there was a large degree of autonomy given to the different parts of the Empire. There was autonomy in Greece and in various parts of Asia, and in many other parts of the Empire, and it was largely owing to that autonomy that in the earlier and better days of the Roman Empire that Empire was able to depend on the willing and ready support of such large numbers of trained and disciplined soldiers from those provinces of the Empire.

That is a new version of history.

It may be new to the Leader of the Opposition, but it may interest him to know that I have spent my Christmas holiday in reading Gibbon and Finlay.

Then you only studied the decline.

That is a very important thing. The decline began from the time they did away with local autonomy, and it may interest the Leader of the Opposition if I continue this line. I refer him to Finlay because Finlay came from Glasgow, like himself, and Finlay knew the sources of national greatness, and if the right hon. Gentleman reads his works on Greece and on the Roman and Byzantine Empires he will find very accurately set forth the causes which led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and it was mainly, in the words of Finlay, that they suppressed all local autonomy. By suppressing it there was no local patriotism to support the Empire. I come back to the British Empire. The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite would have applied equally to Canada in 1837. If Lord Durham had taken up the attitude which hon. Gentlemen take in regard to Ireland he would never have written his famous report, the report which more than anything else has founded the British Empire, because it is on the principle of that report that the British Empire has been built up. If he had said, "These men are rebels, you cannot trust them with self-government; we must hold them down with a firm hand," where would Canada have been now? She would certainly not "have been a contented member of the Empire, and she would certainly not have been offering "Dreadnoughts" at present. Then, again, what about South Africa? We remember that there was a minority which was opposed to the granting of self-government to the Transvaal—a minority in the Transvaal and a minority in Great Britain—and we remember that the then Leader of the Opposition, when the measure was going forward, said it would "be a disaster to the Empire and that he washed his hands of all responsibility. Does anyone doubt that if self-government had not been given to the Transvaal and to the Orange River Colony in 1906, we should never have had a united and contented South Africa? I do not think anyone doubts that. I think we are justified in arguing that the application of the same principles to Ireland will have exactly the same results as "have followed in every other part of the British Empire. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. Hope), in moving this Clause last night, referred to the unfortunate conditions that arose in Cape Colony at the time of the war in the later months of 1899 owing to the attitude taken up by the Schreiner Ministry. He said you might have the same thing in Ireland.

I referred to Natal too.

I will deal with Cape 'Colony. It is quite true, of course, that at that time there was a very difficult situation in Cape Colony. You had responsible government there, but everybody must remember the very difficult position at that time of our Colonists who were of Dutch extraction. But the question which hon. Gentlemen should put to themselves is this, not what were the inconveniences at that time, but what would have been the situation if, instead of having self-government in South Africa then, we had simply had Crown Colony government. I think there is no doubt that if there had been the Crown Colony system instead of self-government in South Africa, you would have had more widespread disaffection and rebellion in our own Colonies, but as a matter of fact the self-government which did exist in Cape Colony made many of those of Dutch extraction loyal to the Empire who otherwise would have been disloyal. We believe that self-government, which has been the means of creating loyalty in other parts of the Empire, will be the means of creating loyalty in Ireland. It is upon that general principle that we found- ourselves. We believe that it is a principle of general application, that it is proved by the experience of other Empires as well as our own, and, basing ourselves upon that experience, we say that there is no foundation whatever for the assumptions which hon. Gentlemen opposite have put forward in support of this new Clause. As they have failed by the teaching of experience to make good their assumptions the House is justified in negativing this Clause.

When the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. M'Neill) was challenged by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leif Jones) to state whether he would extend the principle of the Amendment to the self-governing Colonies, he declared that he saw no analogy between the two cases, and as his speech proceeded it became perfectly evident why that was so. It was proved when the hon. Member, replying to an interruption, said that there was no analogy—or so I understood him—because none of the Colonies formed, as Ireland does, part of a single and united Kingdom, such as the United Kingdom, but lay at a great distance from these shores, pursuing their own affairs in an orbit wholly different from that of the United Kingdom. No doubt that is perfectly true, but it must be clear to the House that that was not the real reason which, in the mind of the hon. Member for Sheffield, and those who support him, lay at the root of the application of this principle to Ireland. The real reason is, of course, that which was so ably dealt with by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Pringle), namely, the root conviction in the minds of hon. Members above the Gangway—a conviction which they have done their best, I think without much success, to impress upon the minds of the people of this country—that the Irish are an incurably disloyal people. For my part that is an imputation which I very deeply, very sincerely, and very hotly resent. Irish Members are often charged with saying one thing in this House, and another thing in Ireland. I shall say nothing here now which I am not willing to say in Ireland, and which, in fact, I have not said there. I have never understood, for my part, why the sentiment of "God save Ireland" should be supposed to be irreconcilable with the sentiment of "God save the King." I see no possible antagonism between the two things, and I have said so in Ireland before now. But, as we all know, certain historical causes have created in Ireland from time to time a state of things which has seemed to the mass of the people to make loyalty to the Crown, loyalty to the Empire, and loyalty to Ireland to be irreconcilable.

The hon. Member spoke of Grattan's Parliament, and acknowledged, as I understood him, that that Parliament itself under Grattan's leadership was loyal to the British connection. Indeed, it would be hard to deny, because one of the very first acts of Grattan's Parliament was to vote some 20,000 men for the service of the Navy, and from first to last Grattan's Parliament was distinguished in the same manner. The hon. Gentleman said, "That may be true of Grattan's Parliament, for Grattan was an aristocrat, a Protestant, and an anti-democrat, but it was not true of the mass of the Irish people." I agree with him that it was not true of the mass of the people. In heaven's name, why should it be true of the mass of the people at that time? I think I know enough of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division to believe that if he had been an Irish Roman Catholic living about the year 1797 under the operation of the penal laws, on the sufferance of a landlord of another creed, and if ho and his people had been subjected to the iniquities, the atrocities, and the abominations, which no one will now deny were perpetrated in the name of the King upon the mass of the people of Ireland—I know enough of the hon. Member to have a very shrewd idea where he would have been found. Let these things be remembered when it is made a subject of reproach that we have said from time to time—I have said it myself at the same time and to the same audience consisting of people who understood the connection between the two things—that our movement is the legitimate successor of the movement of Wolfe Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and Robert Emmet, What is the explanation? It is perfectly simple and plain to any man who will sincerely and honestly study the facts, that that was a time when there seemed to be no possibility of redress for the hideous grievances and the most abominable oppressions that ever weighed upon a people—no redress except that of armed rebellion. Everyone of these men, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Wolfe Tone, and Robert Emmet, tried first constitutional methods, and it was not until they found that every effort along these lines was utterly fruitless, until the iron had entered into their souls, and until they saw no chance whatever of freeing, I was going to say, their people, that they turned to other methods. As a matter of fact, they were men who might have enjoyed liberty under the favour of the Government if they had not cared about the liberties and the welfare of the mass of their fellow countrymen.

Every one of these men had tried and failed in the path of constitutional reform before turning to the path of rebellion. A great deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then. The stream of reform is sluggish at first, and even down to our own day there were many men who might justly despair, and who have justly despaired, of reform except it were extorted from the people of this country, if not by armed rebellion, for which the time has long since gone past and become impossible, at least by violent action of one sort or another. To many of the Irish people the Government of the King has seldom been presented except as the symbol of oppression, the sanction and protection of eviction, or the justification of coercion. I believe most sincerely, for one, that as soon as the people of this country have come to understand the real facts of the Irish situation that old, bad chapter has closed. But these old, unhappy, and evil lessons are not all at an end today. There are still people in Ireland here and there no doubt who, trained in the old school, without thinking much about it, probably have still lingering in them the notion that it is very difficult for a man at once to be a good Irishman and a loyal subject. I think there are such men still left, but I venture to say that they are fast fading away. I do not ask the House to excuse these men. It is not a question of excusing. Their feeling was not only natural, but it was right in view of the training they had received. It has been given to us to live in better times. I do most sincerely believe that during the last twenty years since this House has honestly addressed itself, as I think it has to the best of its capacity, to redressing Ireland's grievances, feeling in Ireland has most profoundly changed; and just as, if I may carry my mind back again through history, the coming of Lord Fitzwilliam, presaging as it was hoped Parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation, was hailed with a great new outburst of Irish loyalty, which was only to die away in despair and revolt when the evil influences over here prevailed in his recall, so the mere introduction of this Bill, the promise and the presage of the coming of national government in Ireland has caused already a great change, and already it is becoming clear to men in Ireland that they can be good Irishmen, good Nationalists, and at the same time good loyal subjects of His Majesty, and frankly accept this Parliament as citizens of the British Empire. That is what the promise of Home Rule has done already. The accomplishment of Home Rule I believe will do the rest.

I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the remarkable speech made last night by the Secretary of State for War; but before I refer to his speech, I may refer to that of the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle), who persisted in comparing Ireland with our Dominions beyond the seas. It appears to be perfectly useless to attempt to persuade hon. Members opposite that there is no analogy between the two. He said one thing that was worthy of comment. He gave us to understand that the behaviour of our Colonies in South Africa was everything that could be desired during and before the war.

I did not say that. I expressly made a reservation about Cape Colony of which I gave an explanation afterwards.

It was mainly the action of Cape Colony in allowing the guns and ammunition for our opponents to pass through their territory that caused the war to be not only possible, but to be prolonged. Precisely the same thing might happen in Ireland, and that is worthy of consideration. The last speaker said that we, on these benches, have an idea that Ireland is incurably disloyal. I, for one, have no opinion of that sort, but I have formed the conviction that as long as hon. Members below the Gangway permit themselves to preach disloyalty and practise a form of tyranny in the shape of boycotting. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the doctors?"] That is a very irrelevant observation. If that is the best that hon. Members from Ireland can do I am sorry for them. As long as hon. Members below the Gangway are guilty of preaching rebellion. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Carson?"] As long as they advocate boycotting and instigate cattle driving you must have disloyalty in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Civil war in Ulster."] The hon. Member for Donegal tells us that there is still a certain amount of disloyalty in Ireland. As long as that exists, as long as the Union Jack is torn down at public meetings, and they refuse to sing "God Save the King," surely that is the best argument that can be adduced in favour of this Clause. We in the United Kingdom have got to look after ourselves and not to be at the mercy of these few disloyal people in Ireland. The; Secretary of State for War was distinctly asked by my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded this Clause (Colonel Burn) and my Noble Friend, the Member for West Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine), what was the opinion of his military advisers on this question, and what was the opinion of the Committee of Imperial Defence and he carefully avoided that question altogether.

I can only reply to the specific question asked by the leave of the House, as I have already spoken. If I am asked if the Committee for Imperial Defence have discussed the Home Rule Bill, the answer is, certainly not. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware the Committee of Imperial Defence does not deal with matters of policy like this. It is an Advisory Department and not an executive body, and it is not possible to submit to the Committee such a question as the giving of Home Rule to Ireland.

Then I am to understand that the Secretary of State for War comes to this House and gives an opinion on the military position of the country in case Home Rule is granted, without having taken into his confidence either his military advisers or the Committee of Imperial Defence. If that is the case I would like to know what is the good of the right hon. Gentleman having either military advisers or a Committee of Imperial Defence? It reduces the whole thing to a farce. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did gallant service in South Africa, but. does that make him a judge from a military or naval point of view of what is good for this country or of what is not? I suggest that the sooner he does consult these bodies the better. The fact is he does not do so because he is afraid to tell the truth with regard to this position. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are a liar!"] Is it right that I should be called a liar? [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you call Seely?"] The whole of the Front Bench are sitting there not daring to express an opinion because they are under the thumb of the hon. Member for Water-ford. When did the Secretary of State for War change his mind on this matter? I am not going to give quotations, but it is within the recollection of the House that not so many years ago the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested that to grant Home Rule to Ireland was not to increase the security of this country. Now he says that Ireland might be hostile or that any part of these Islands might be hostile. Has he any reason to suggest that any other portion of these Islands has been hostile during the last hundred years? Has he any reason to suggest that the teachings of history are not better than the prophecies of the Postmaster-General or even of himself?

We have not robbed any other part of the British Isles so far by fraud.

Now he is coming to the fraud. I am coming to that. Only last night he stated that the Parliament was taken away from Ireland by fraud. I should very much like to know where he found it.

In Professor Leeky.

We cannot continue the Debate if the hon. and gallant Gentleman is continually interrupted. The best thing is to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

He said they were afraid to tell the truth.

Thank you very much. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Parliament was taken from Ireland by fraud, and also that if you give Home Rule to Ireland now it will bring contentment to five-sixths of the country. I deny both one and the other. Although he seems to know a great deal of what happened in Ireland before he was born, I think he knows very little about it now. I have the honour of living in Ireland when I am not in this country, and I live in the South of Ireland. We have heard a great deal about the North of Ireland in these Debates, but very little about the South. My humble experience is, in the South of Ireland, that so far from Home Rule being likely to give contentment to five-sixths of the people even in the South of Ireland, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would live, as I do, among farmers and go about and talk to them, I grant you singly, because if you get two together they dare not give an opinion, but if you get them alone they tell you they are living now in fear of getting Home Rule.

What about the ballot?

Do you suppose that those men who are now prosperous and prospering wish to be put, far more than they are now, under the thumb of hon. Members below the Gangway? Do you suppose that they wish their country handed over to men who are now ruling by the Hibernian League and by tyrannv? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now making really a Second Reading speech. This Clause deals with one particular object. I would advise the hon. and gallant Gentleman to address himself more particularly to this Clause.

I was endeavouring to answer the Secretary of State for War, and I will now come to the next statement which he made last night. He told us by way of showing how loyal Ireland might be under Home Rule, of the gallantry and magnificent performances of the Irish soldiers in South Africa. Not only in South Africa but, I am thankful to say, all over the world where I have had the honour of serving with them, I have found Irish soldiers not only the most gallant but the most true and the best to be depended upon, and as good as any we have in these Islands. But I deduce a very different conclusion from that which the right hon. Gentleman draws. What does it show? It shows that the moment you get them away from the influences brought to bear upon them at home, the moment you get them away from the influence of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and their friends, you have in them the true spirit of Ireland. I have no hesitation in saying that if you give Ireland a strong and benevolent form of government, which can only be given by this country, and certainly not by Home Rule. you will then have an Ireland which will loyally support you in every way. In order to try and get up a cheer on his own behalf the right hon. Gentleman told us that because Irish soldiers are loyal when serving in the ranks, therefore hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway must be so. Why, that is childish, and is treating this House with scant respect. This House has a right to know and is entitled to ask, and the country has a right to know and is entitled to ask—although the right hon. Gentleman has not consulted his military advisers or the Committee of Imperial Defence—on this most important point, whether he will give us their opinion about it, or, as he cannot speak again during this Debate, perhaps he will ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is interested in this matter, if he will give us his opinion and the opinion of his advisers as to whether the granting of Home Rule to Ireland will or will not be for the security of this Empire.

I only intervene in this Debate because of the speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member above the Gangway, who said that if the people in Ireland were left to themselves they are in reality not Home Rulers at all. I wonder if he really expects the people of this country to believe that statement. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as anybody in this House that there is no part of the United Kingdom where the people are keener politicians than they are in Ireland, where they have a more thorough grasp of the meaning of the Ballot Act and the power which that Ballot Act confers; and at election after election, ever since the franchise was extended in 1885, the Irish people have by an overwhelming majority returned to this House hon. Members upon these benches, who are described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as the tyrants of the Irish people. There is only one way of testing a statement of that kind, and it may be tested when the next poll is made of the people at the General Election, be it of near date or of distant date. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will then have an opportunity of appealing to the Irish electors, and to those farmers when he meets them one by one. If he goes before them as an anti-Home Rule candidate, they will vote one by one in the secrecy of the polling booth, and they will be quite at liberty, if they think fit, to vote for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. But we cannot forget, we who come from Ireland, that it is only a short time ago the hon. and gallant Gentleman used the language of such a disgraceful and defamatory character as to the people in certain parts of Ireland that the public board in the town of Carrick-on-Suir felt called upon to pass a resolution condemning him.

May I ask if the hon. Member is justified in accusing me simply on a charge brought against me in a newspaper, and which is absolutely untrue?

We recollect it.

I have not the faintest idea of what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, or what the resolution is, or what the body is who passed it. It really seems to me that this is utterly irrelevant to the Clause now before the House.

Is it in order for an hon. Member of this House to characterise a statement made by another hon. Member of this House as disgraceful? I myself was reproved by a former Speaker for using the word in connection with some utterance made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for War.

It depends in each case upon the circumstances. To quote some local body in Ireland who passed some resolution, again I say, seems to me to be absolutely irrelevant and pure waste of time. The House has very little time. We are called upon to discuss an important Clause, and the whole time is being wasted in ridiculous talk which might have been relevant upon the Second Reading of the Bill, but is utterly irrelevant now.

I certainly have no desire to waste the time of the House. But I submit to hon. Gentlemen opposite who heard the speech of the hon. and gallant Member whether it was not a speech of a character highly calculated to provoke at least some retort from hon. Gentlemen on these benches accused of not representing the Irish people at all. As to the way in which, Sir, you have characterised some of the speeches as being ridiculous, I have only to say that, while I have the very greatest respect for you, as to the character of the remarks I feel called upon to deliver, I will take leave to be the judge myself, and if I in any way go outside the rules of Order, I will at once, Mr. Speaker, bow to your ruling; but I do say that to apply the adjective "ridiculous" to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen trying to discharge their duty is, I think, somewhat hard.

My reflection was not confined to the speech of the hon. Member. It ranges over some of the other speeches with which we have been favoured this afternoon, and again I must repeat that they were absolutely ridiculous, as not in any way relevant to the Clause now before the House.

I assure you, Sir, that as far as I am concerned I only desire to reply to the charges made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and which he was allowed to make by you, Sir. Those accusations do not in any way represent the true sense of the Irish people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman found fault with the speech delivered last night by the Secretary of State for War, remarking that it was simply made for the purpose of provoking a cheer from these benches. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also said that Members on the Treasury Bench and on the benches opposite are supporting this Bill, not because of any true conviction, but simply because they feel themselves bound to follow the advice tendered in this matter by the Member for Waterford and Irish Nationalist Members. I have been over thirty years in this House, and I have taken a somewhat active part in discussing the cause of Home Rule under both Liberal and Conservative Administrations. I have never been sparing in my criticism of Members on either side of the House, when I thought their action deserved criticism, as far as Ireland is concerned. But I certainly never have, nor do I believe any of the hon. Members here have, expressed any opinion so insulting to elected representatives of the British people as the opinion we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that hon. Members are supporting this measure, not because they really believe in the desirability of Home Rule, but simply because they are the bond slaves of Irish Members. I submit that this statement is of a character which will merit and receive the contempt of the vast majority of the people of this country. This Amendment which is contained in the new Clause is supported because it is said that in time of difficulty or war a self-governed Ireland would be dangerous to the welfare of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that because in the Boer war a certain section of the people in Cape Colony allowed guns and supplies to be passed through their territory it was an indication of what would happen in Ireland.

I did not say anything of the sort. I said it was an instance that might be followed, and that what happened in one country might happen in the other.

I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that nothing is further from my desire or intention than to misrepresent him in any way, but certainly I think what he has just said bears out my contention. His argument went to show that because there was disaffection in certain portions of Cape Colony during the war, there will be similar disaffection in Ireland in the event of the United Kingdom being at war with some foreign Power. I say here, as an Irish Member, and I believe it is the opinion of every single Member representing an Irish constituency, that we endorse in the most thorough and hearty way the view expressed in this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War last night. The hon. Gentleman said that any portion of the United Kingdom in time of war being disaffected would be injurious and disastrous to the State at large. That of course is true, but I invite any hon. Gentleman in this House to quote to me a single instance in the "whole history of the world where a people had the power of self-government conferred upon them and exhibited afterwards hostility against the power that conferred those powers on them of self-govenment, and which was not, on the other hand, strongly disposed to show gratitude at the measure of liberty so extended. [HON MEMBERS: "Hertzog."] I do not deny, nobody can deny, that the Irish people have been disaffected in the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that that was because of the action of the Irish Members sitting upon these benches, and that if we only left the Irish people alone there would be no demand for Home Rule. Might I repeat what I once said in this House, that there is nothing more absurd in this controversy than to attempt to make out that the demand for Home Rule is the result of the action of the men of the present day or generation. Before a single Member who is now in this House sat upon these benches the demand for Home Rule was passionately made upon behalf of the Irish people. Before this century, before the last century, before the demand for liberty in Ireland was called Home Rule, as the hon. Member for Donegal showed in his excellent speech this afternoon, the demand of the Irish people for the power to control their own internal affairs was made persistently and insistently. And if by any unfortunate mischance the Irish people should be disappointed at the present time, and if the great hope which they feel of a future of unity and friendship and goodwill with the British people under this measure were destroyed, what would happen? I say that under the presidency of some other Speaker in the years to come, when every single Member of this House might have left it, this demand of the Irish people to restore to them the right to manage their own internal affairs would still be made.

If you like, pass this Clause, and by so doing mar and destroy the gift which Home Rule will confer on the Irish people; if you like, deny Home Rule entirely to the Irish people, but do not let it be done on the ground that the Irish people do not want it. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I for one can appreciate to some extent some of the arguments, groundless though I believe them to be, which are advanced against Home Rule, but there is nothing more futile and useless in this controversy than to attempt to meet the Home Rule demand by trying to prove that the Irish people do not want it. There has never been a single day since the Irish people lost their own Parliament under the circumstances mentioned by the Secretary of State for War when Ireland has not, as best she could, insisted upon her demand for the restoration of that Parliament. Sometimes it was, in moments of despair, by attempted rebellion; sometimes it was by persistent and strong agitation of a violent character, if you like; but, directly the masses of the Irish people got the constitutional right to have their views expressed in this House, directly the franchise was extended to them in 1885, and even before the franchise was extended, and when it was very limited in Ireland, the Irish people have always sent a large majority of their representatives here to ask for the restoration of the right of Ireland to manage her own affairs.

I fail to follow what relevance that has to the Clause now before the House. Perhaps the hon. Member will point it out.

I do assure you, Sir, nothing is further from my intention than to go outside the rule, but I submit, with great respect indeed, that when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was allowed to enlarge upon the argument, which he insisted upon, namely, that the Irish people in reality did not want Home Rule at all, and that it was merely the work of hon. Members here, then that I may certainly be allowed in all fairness to reply to that argument by showing, as I think I can show, that before one of us was born this demand of the Irish people for Home Rule was made, and that I believe it will continue until it is satisfied.

Let us assume that the hon. Member has disposed of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and let us now approach the Clause under discussion.

Whatever else we may hold different opinions about in this House, there is one point upon which there is no difference of opinion amongst Members of any party, and that is your extraordinary impartiality, and after the statement of fact which you have just made with regard to the hon. and gallant Member, there is not a single word further which is necessary for me to say, or anyone else to say, as to the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University in support of this Clause was that it was necessary to combat with the disloyalty of the Irish people. I say here what I have said in Ireland, and what I have said on many platforms in this country, that the Irish people have been disloyal in a sense if you like, but that the Irish people have never been even in the bitterest times of agitation, as far as I know, disloyal to the Crown of this country. Hon. Gentlemen may say that this Clause is necessary, because on certain occasions the Crown has not been presented with addresses in Ireland, and approached in the manner in which it is approached in this country. That is true, but it has not been because of any disloyalty to the Throne; it has been because it was found that whenever loyalty was expressed to the Throne it was unscrupulously and unfairly used as an argument in this country that the Irish people were so contented that they really did not want Home Rule at all. Everyman who knows the true inwardness of Irish life understands that position.

The hon. and learned Gentleman and others spoke of the action of the Irish soldiers in South Africa during the war. I say that the action of those soldiers alone ought to be sufficient to compel hon. Gentlemen to be careful of the charges they make of disloyalty against the Irish people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did you approve of it?"] The hon. Gentleman asks me if I approved of it. I certainly say that I never myself have been able to understand the action of any Irishman who, denied legitimate liberty in his own country, goes and fights and sheds his blood for the Power that denied that liberty; but I say here that in considering this Clause, it should be remembered that the Irishmen of the Munster Fusiliers, of the Dublin Fusiliers, of the Connaught Rangers, the Inniskillens, and the rest, I say those regiments are composed of men like the men who are here, the vast majority of them Catholic in religion, Home Rulers in their political views. They undertook to do this work, and they did it loyally, even though every man of them felt that his country was not being fairly treated in the matter of government. Who is going to get up here and say that this Clause is necessary, because if Ireland gets Home Rule, the Irish soldiers will be less willing than they were to keep their pledge and to fight for this Empire as they did at the time of the Boer war. I myself, more than once, saw regiments of Irish soldiers leaving Ireland to go to South Africa, and they cheered for Home Rule. I myself at one period of my career held a commission in an Irish regiment. Yes, and I say here one of the strongest political memories I have is, that at the time of training a General Election was on, and in the very town where the training was taking place, and where the election occurred, and when the poll resulted in the triumphant return of the Nationalist candidate, this regiment of 900 men strong burst into long and loud cheers for Home Rule, and raised their shakos on their guns and shook them in their triumphant joy. Those men are Home Rulers, make no mistake about it! And I say that no man ever stood at that box at the Treasury Bench and uttered a speech that was more true than did the Secretary of State for War when last night he declared that the effect of Home Rule would be so far from increasing disaffection to destroy disaffection, and to make the Irish people feel in Ireland that they are responsible for the government of their own country, and that it is incumbent on them to use with wisdom and discretion and power the authority which this Bill will confer upon them. I say that as the result of Home Rule that whatever lingering disaffection and disloyalty there may be in Ireland will entirely disappear.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin last night said that at the present time in Ireland the newspapers were discussing whether in the event of war between this country and Germany, Ireland would be best advised to take the side of Germany or of England. We on these benches are pretty familiar with the Press of Ireland, and, although I have inquired, I have not met a single one of my colleagues representing any portion of the country who is able to tell me of any responsible or reputable journal in Ireland which has ever published any such leading article as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that there is a sheet here and there which many of us have never seen, and is absolutely unrepresentative, which has been sent for very specific purposes to Members on this side of the House; but in reply to the Member for Trinity College I say that from North to South and from East to West in Ireland not a single newspaper of responsible position has published a leading article balancing whether Ireland would be upon the side of Germany or of England in case hostilities broke out. Let the truth be said upon this matter. The Irish people have never had any inherent hostility whatever to the people of this country. Even in the times of darkest agitation, when every vestige of the Constitution was suspended, when scores of men freely elected by the Irish people were sent to prison without even the slightest mockery of a trial, when the Irish people were exasperated to the last degree, their enmity was always expressed to the form of government imposed upon them in their country, and they never expressed nor felt the slightest hostility against the masses of the population of Great Britain. It is against the form of government that the people have rebelled, and we believe that this Bill will have the effect of bringing contentment to Ireland, of putting an end once for all to the disaffection which has existed there.

It is sometimes said that the Irish people in Ireland are misled and that their opinions are not truly voiced in this House. What, then, of the Irish national sentiment in every other part of the Empire? There is no coercion or pressure upon the Irish people in Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States, or anywhere else where the English language is spoken. There is freedom in those countries, and yet everywhere there is the most passionate and yearning desire upon the part of the Irish people to see this Bill passed. They do not hope through its passage to witness the commencement of new strife or the continuance of old strife. They believe that Home Rule will do for Ireland what it has done for every other portion of the British Empire, that it will make the people locally contented in exercising control over their own local affairs, and at the same time anxious to take part in the development. extension, and preservation of the Empire, which Irish Nationalist Catholics like myself have done quite as much to build up as citizens from any other portion of the realm. The Secretary of State for War need pay no attention whatever to gibes and sneers telling him that when he stands at that box he is afraid to speak the truth. He may be consoled by knowing that the speech he delivered last night has gone straight to the heart of the masses of the Irish people, and that in days to come when this Bill is in operation all men will wonder why it was not passed sooner. When the day arrives, when the Irish people and the British people are each independent in their own sphere, and yet bound together by the common unity of Empire, men will say, Why did it not come sooner? When that day comes peace will reign from the centre to the utmost limits of the Empire, and the King will be able to go into-Dublin or to any other part of Ireland and receive from his Irish Parliament, his Irish Ministers, and his Irish people as strong, as warm, and as hearty a welcome as he would receive in any other part of the Empire.

The Secretary of State for War may justly take credit to himself that speeches such as he delivered last night really do more to place the union of the Empire upon a firm and Liberal basis than all the taunts and sneers which are hurled at us at the present time, or all the references which are sometimes made in support of Clauses such as this to past moments of exasperation upon the part of the Irish people. After the Boer war the Dutch Minister came here and was heartily welcomed by the people. If hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway had had their way, instead of being presented with addresses of welcome, General Botha would have been presented, as we are to-day, with addresses containing long extracts from those bitter and violent speches which he made before and during the war when he was a stronger, more bitter, and more powerful enemy of England than the Irish people have been at any time. The speeches and declarations which are quoted against the Irish people to-day were made in moments of despair. Today, as the Member for Donegal truly said, there is born a new spirit in Ireland. The people there are watching the progress of this Bill, and noting the steady action of the mass of representatives of England, Scotland, and Wales in its support. They are keenly alive to what has been going on. They appreciate the action of Members who desire to give freedom to Ireland in a legitimate way. The time will come when the result of this great policy will be seen, not only in the contentment and the increasing prosperity of Ireland, but for the first time in its history in the absolute unity of the Empire. Hon. Members talk about the increase of armaments and the enlargement of our fleet. The greatest guarantee that England can have for her success and stability is the turning of the soldier-like Irish race, for the first time in their history, into the friends and not the disaffected subjects of the British Empire.

I fail to understand the relevance of the arguments in favour of Home Rule which have been addressed to the House at such great length by the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond). This new Clause presupposes that the Home Rule Bill will pass, and it deals with that situation alone. It proposes that the Government should keep in reserve certain powers to be used in case of war or national emergency. The Clause does not make it necessary that those powers should be used unless the conditions of war or emergency are such as to make that course essential for national safety. The Government have themselves recognised that powers must be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. All matters relating to the Army and Navy and to various subjects appertaining thereto are, under the Bill, retained to the Imperial Government; but the Government have not kept in their hands any means by which they can exercise those powers in case it is necessary to use them. Without some such machinery as the Clause proposes the reserved powers in the Bill will be a dead letter and of no avail. The Postmaster-General said last night that to exercise any powers such as these would be to throw the whole of the proposed Home Rule Government into chaos. It seems to me that that argument is effectively met by the fact that the Government themselves propose in case of war to reassume their control of the Post Office. If it can be done in one case it can be done in another, and it ought to be done in all cases where the national safety is involved. There is one thing that this Clause docs not do. It does not profess to get rid of the inherent difficulty and weakness of a divided Government. It is quite useless in this case to talk of a wide-flung Empire with a decentralisation of power. The British Isles can never be a wide-flung Empire, and this Bill deals with the British Isles alone. For war we must deal with them as an entity. All the greatest strategists and statesmen both of this country and of those countries which in times past have been our enemies agree that Ireland is vital to the safety of the United Kingdom.

What this Clause proposes is that in time of national emergency the central Government should reassume the powers necessary to maintain the safety of the nation—nothing else. There is no question of loyalty or disloyalty. The more loyal the Irish people are, the more anxious they are to protect the Empire, the more willing they will be that the central Government should take the powers which the emergency requires. All this talk about loyalty and disloyalty is not necessarily relevant to this question, but of course disloyalty will magnify the difficulties and render this Clause even more imperative. If I were going to argue the matter I should refer to the present position. It is not a matter of loyalty or disloyalty, but the lately discussed question of the possible neutrality of Ireland in the event of war. The essence of war is to be ready and to be ready quickly. With a divided Government time will be lost; there will be delay in negotiation and arrangement. The Government were asked whether they had consulted the Committee of Defence on this question, and the Secretary of State for War said that that was not necessary as this was a political question. It is not a political question. It is a naval and military question, and no other. I would prefer that inquiry should be undertaken by the National Defence Committee. Has the Bill been laid before the Army Council, and have they been asked if they are satisfied that in every respect in case of war or national emergency the powers necessary to be exercised by them are reserved to them in the Bill, and machinery given to them to exercise those powers?

We can, of course, do it under martial law! We were told that last night. But martial law is a suspension of constitutional government and the last resource in national emergency. We do not want the suspension of constitutional government. We want a constitutional way of taking the measures necessary for national safety. Has the Board of Admiralty been consulted? Have the Clauses referring to the naval and military powers of the Crown been laid before them, and has their opinion been taken? These are questions which should be answered. If they are not answered it shows there has been gross neglect and gross carelessness on the part of the Government in reference to national safety. I fail to see, as I believe every man who has given any real thought to this question must fail to see, the relevance of the Debate to which we have listened this afternoon. The Secretary of State for War is the culprit who led the Debate down upon these lines by making a gushing sentimental speech which did not deal with one fact of the situation which was relevant. He has misled Members, for his observations had no relevance to the business of his department on the question put to him. The matter is one which vitally affects this country, and if it is not dealt with, we can only assume that the Government is grossly careless and neglectful; or that they are indifferent to the matter, because they believe that this Bill is a dead letter, and not meant to pass.

I did not intend to intervene in this Debate when it was concluded yesterday, nor until I took up the speeches of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and re-perused them this morning. I was very much struck with the concluding sentences of the Postmaster-General on this very important subject. May I, in passing, say that of course the technical point is one which has always and very largely been considered by the loyalist people of Ireland in any scheme of Home Rule. We have looked at it from the point of view of a state of war, and what attitude Ireland as a whole would adopt; what difficulties she might possibly place in the way of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore this particular point, that of placing every possible security in the hands of the central Government in the case of war or preparation for war has always been one of the most important points to which we have looked in this very wide question of Home Rule. I was astounded to hear the Secretary of State for War, this afternoon, say that where great men have written most important articles Admiral Mahan and many others have been mentioned on this particular point—the present Government do not think fit to consult their naval and military advisers as to what effect this Bill would have on the defence of the Kingdom and the Empire. I was astounded at the statement of the Secretary for War. It occurred to me that even in discussing the question as to where our troops are to be posted at the present time, all sorts of much less important questions are submitted to the Committee of Defence, even the change of a regiment from one place to another in Ireland at the present time is so considered. All these matters are most carefully considered by the naval and military advisers of the Crown.

To say that this Bill is put forward from a political point of view and has never been submitted to the Board is an astounding statement, and one which I think really nobody in this House, and certainly nobody in the country, would have believed had it not been stated by the Secretary of State for War. To revert to the concluding statement of the Postmaster-General, whom I am sorry to say is not in his place. On that statement hangs really the whole of the few remarks which I intend to address to the House. He said—

"If you want security in time of war, in time of stress and danger, yon can only get it by giving liberty without which there can be no loyalty."

He went on further to say:—

"It is far better and safer in time of war and emergency to have by your side a friend that is free rather than an unwilling partner bound in chains."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 36th December, 1912, col. 169.]

Hear, hear.

Yes, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite will just listen for a moment. In what way are these people in Ireland, the Nationalist party in Ireland, bound in chains? The hon. Member cheered. It is exactly this sort of sentimental rubbish which is scattered in country places, and through our towns, where people have not got time really to follow the intricacies of questions of this sort. It is such ridiculous—I really cannot find a name to explain in the House what I think of this kind of speech. In this House the Members are supposed to have really studied this important question of Home Rule in all its bearings. I cannot see how they can get up and cheer to the echo sentiments of the sort, that without liberty there can be no loyalty. In other words the Postmaster-General, and I presume his colleagues, intend to convey the idea that in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, the Isle of Wight, and other parts, there is no liberty, and the people there are really in chains, until such times as a benevolent Government like the present comes along and severs these desperate bonds which are weighing down and cruelly ill-using hon. Members below the Gangway and their followers; until that time it is impossible really to look after the proper safety of the United Kingdom. Really it is too bad, that we should be treated to this class of argument by the Postmaster-General. It is on all fours with the class of argument used on the Front Bench, not alone in this House but in the country, on this Home Rule measure. False grounds were put forward and false promises were dished up in a manner to suit the palate, and they were sent forth as the grounds upon which this Bill was to be rushed through the House of Commons.

Let us for a moment come back to the new Clause as it was started by my hon. Friend and supported on this side of the House. In the first instance there is not a single Member who does not remember that all questions of disloyalty have been passed over as being outside the scope of this Amendment. The hon. Member who spoke last from the Nationalist benches and who evidently broke loose—I see that the Leader has now come in rather late—let us have that very interesting Second Reading speech. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not often get a chance of putting their case before the House. They are kept muzzled; but the hon. Gentleman advanced either intentionally or unintentionally arguments which are in my opinion overpowering for the acceptance by the Government of this new Clause. Anyone who has had knowledge of the difficulties of the preparations for and the carrying out of a campaign on a large scale necessary for the defence of the country knows that there must be immediately to hand the machinery for putting the whole organisation into its highest fighting form at the earliest possible moment, and without a hitch. Take the Amendment. It says that—

"the heads and officers of the Irish Departments shall comply with any directions given by His Majesty as regards Irish services."

In other words, instead of having a dual control from the beginning, you have one united control under the free and full control of this House. That is to say, this House would be able to discuss the suggestions thrown out as to the preparations necessary to be made in Ireland in the event of a sudden raid by a foreign Power, which after all would be just as disastrous to Ireland as to England or Scotland. Therefore I cannot conceive why in a case of this sort the Nationalist party do not come forward and say, "In the case of a great and sudden descent upon Ireland we have no objection to the course proposed." Their new born loyalty, their affection for the Empire which they are now rolling out with so ready a tongue, surely should be sufficient to make them say, "Here is a chance, a heaven-born chance, and certainly we shall accept this Amendment, because we are now swallowing all that is passed; everything we said during the past five of six years is entirely wrong; we are very sorry for it. We see a chance now of death-bed repentance; to come forward and to ask the Government to accept this Amendment." This Amendment is vital to Ireland as well as to this country. I cannot see why the Government on the one hand and the Nationalist party on the other should not welcome the Amendment—for remember it would only be put into operation when there is great danger to the whole country—why they should not accept an Amendment which permits the general, or field-marshal, or whoever it may be that takes command of the organisation of the whole of the forces throughout England, to have the power to immediately seize upon the officers at the head of the Departments of Ireland, and say to them, "Our policy is so-and-so, please carry it out." And further, in case any of the officers, through fear of their taskmasters in the new Nationalist Parliament, should stand out and decline, saying, "I am not going to risk my career under this Parliament by doing anything of the kind," that the military authority should have the power of immediate removal of such persons, and of putting someone in their place to carry out their work.

There is plenty of precedents for this sort of action. At the present time, if boards of guardians or any board in Ireland do not carry out their work properly, what happens? The board in Dublin send down an inspector, and, if necessary, replace the board by an officer of their own. That is a common thing. The power is vested in Dublin of superseding any officer or county council or rural district council or board of guardians—at least, I understand that there are these powers—I do not say quite accurately what they are, but there is a power of taking the matters into the hands of the Executive. Surely in the case of emergency in the country it should be necessary for some such power as this to be in the hands of the central organisation, who are responsible in this country for the defence of the country, so that they might take the moderate steps suggested by my hon. Friend. Hon. Members and the hon. Member for Clare, who has just spoken, have made very impassioned speeches on the loyalty of the soldiers in Ireland. This Amendment does not in any way attack the loyalty of the Irish soldier, because the Bill docs reserve the Army and Navy to the control of the Imperial Executive in time of war, and therefore that really does not arise at all. That was all window-dressing, for which I did not see any necessity at all. No one ever questioned the loyalty of the soldiers in Ireland; that is outside the scope of this Amendment, because the Amendment deals more with the Civil operations necessary in order to carry out the defences of the country in times of national stress. It deals with the Civil side in dealing with food supplies, the removal of troops, questions of horses and remounts, and with the natural assistance that any locality can give in time of national emergency to secure the good working in time of war. It is to that that this Amendment is directed, and not in the slightest degree to the Army and Navy. Then, of course, we had a very interesting speech from an hon. Member, who I see is in his place. I do not quarrel with him at all, and, with the exception of a misquotation of something I said, I think his contribution to the Debate was very reasonable. What was his point? I want to deal with it, because he himself seemed to get rather astray in drawing an analogy between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. Over ant; over again we have this pet theory of appealing to the sentiment in New Zealand, in South Africa, and so on, but there is no possible analogy, not a shadow of analogy between the South African case and the case which this House is dealing with to-day. These Colonies are thousands of miles away; you cannot control them in time of war from the Central Executive here; you cannot dictate to people with whom you are not in daily contact; and not one of His Majesty's Ministers would dare to interfere if the Colonies desired to take up a certain course. They act on their own will and they make a suggestion, and if it is agreeable to them of course His Majesty's Government are prepared to incorporate it in the scheme of national defence necessary at the moment. How can you compare that position with that of Ireland, which is only twelve miles from this coast? It is easier to get from here to Ireland than it is to get to the North of Scotland. I can get home to my home in the North of Ireland sooner than some of the Scotch Members could get to their homes. It is a stupid idea to draw an analogy between Ireland and Natal or the Orange River Colony, or Australia or New Zealand. It is that false idea running through the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen unfortunately that gives rise to so much unnecessary discussion in this House because there is absolutely no analogy whatever, and I will tell the House why. If this Bill, which proposes to set up Home Rule in Ireland conferred upon Ireland all the powers that the Colonies enjoy, then you would have to deal with Ireland as a Colony. The two things go hand in hand, but here you are reserving to yourselves under this Bill very large powers. You have the reserved services, showing by your own wording of the Bill that you consider it necessary, owing to the proximity of Ireland to run her land purchase scheme and so on, keeping a firm hand upon these particular matters, and also matters in relation to the Army and Navy, pointing clearly to the fact that you are treating her for this purpose as part of the United Kingdom. And if that is the case surely it is all the more necessary to take into consideration when you are reserving certain powers to yourselves, the very points which have been overlooked, but which are brought to your notice in this new Clause so that your whole machinery of defence in time of war may not break down. I ask the House to look at the matter from that sensible point of view, and not from the point of view of any Colonial analogy which does not exist, but rather from the point of view which must present itself to every hon. Member of this House.

This Clause is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary, but it is an optional Clause—that is to say, it shall be lawful that these things shall be done. There is no necessity to put the Clause into force if everything desired by the authorities is properly done. In the second instance, in my opinion, in time of stress, it would be absolutely necessary to take into your hands at once the very powers embodied in this Claus\e; the only difference is that you have not got the powers under the Bill as it stands. This Clause gives you the power, and it would be useful perhaps in times of emergency to put it into force. Why the Nationalist party should object to this Clause I cannot understand, except perhaps, as I conscientiously believe, they are unrepentant so far as their former declarations and speeches are concerned, and that they do not for one moment intend this Bill to be a final settlement of the Irish question; but, on the contrary, to use a famous expression of theirs in the immediate past, it is only to be a stepping stone for further enlarging the powers of Ireland, a nation, or, as one of their recent publications said, a Republic free of Saxon rule. Hon. Members have challenged us and said we were only quoting in support of these charges of intentional and deliberate disloyalty from old speeches, that we are only raking up some ancient speeches made when it was necessary to fill the hat when hon. Members were begging in Australia or when they were trying to cheer up the hearts of their followers in Ireland. That was not the case at all. I have in my hand here a speech delivered since this Government was returned to power, as they say with a mandate for this Home Rule Bill, and surely if peace and goodwill are to be established so far as the defences of the country are concerned, surely this Clause would not be resisted, but should be supported by the Nationalist party as a whole. I will read three short extracts to show what the feeling of the Nationalist party is and to show what the Government are bound to provide for and to guard against if they do not wish in the future to run the risks and the dangers which this country had to face in the past. Here is a speech delivered by Major McBride, a great Nationalist leader, who fought in the Boer war.

He has nothing to do with the Nationalist party.

It is very handy to disown your friends now.

Major McBride was never a supporter of the Nationalist party or of the Home Rule movement. He has from the very commencement up to this day been an open opponent of it.

The strongest Nationalist body in Ireland is the Dublin Corporation, and they gave him a place because, I presume, they had not got a place in Parliament for him. At any rate, what I say is this, that this class of man has a large following in Ireland, and it is not fair for hon. Members to get up and say, "Oh, So-and-so is outside our pale." These men in the public life of Ireland represent a large section, and in their speeches and sentiments they voice the opinion of a large section in Ireland, and here is what this gentleman said, and I read these words in order to show the class of people you have to provide against. He said:—

"England was not his country; the English King; was not his King. He owed no allegiance to England, and he indignantly repudiated the idea of an Englishman posing as censor of his words and acts in Ireland. The English King would undoubtedly receive a reception from his garrison and from the men who still believed they had a country to sell, but the manhood of Ireland would take no part in that reception."

And continuing he said:—

"Four distinguished statesmen would also visit their country during the coming summer, and he hoped the Press of the world would take note and emphasise the machined reception that would be given to the King of England and the splendid reception that would be extended to the four elected rulers of the four youngest nations of the world. The sword had fallen from their hands at present, but they hoped to take it up again and fight for Ireland, and they would not. stop until they had swept away every vestige of that Empire of Hell. There were ways and means of striking against England, and they should strike how they might against the Throne, the cursed British Empire, and for the freedom of Ireland."

I only quote that because it is dragged from me by speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway. It is no use whatever for them to come down to this House at the eleventh hour and profess their sentiments of loyalty. We know what they have said, all of them. They put up this afternoon one of the tamest cats in their ranks to pose as a loyalist and to give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity of quoting in the country from the OFFICIAL REPORTS, which always carry great weight in the country with audiences, this loyal patriotic speech made by one of the leaders of the Nationalist party, but that speech of the hon. Member will not for a moment I think stamp the whole Nationalist party as recruits to the loyalist ranks, as he would have the House believe they are. I have here a choice extract from the hon. Member for East Clare from a speech made in 1902, which was only ten years ago. The hon. Member said:—

"I take the Opportunity of admitting in this House that I am intensely disloyal, and the Chief Secretary knows that in making that admission I am giving the best and most adequate expression I ear, give to the sentiments of more than three-fourths of the Irish nation."

6.0 P.M.

So there we have the hon. Member stating that three-fourths of the Nationalists in Ireland are absolutely disloyal to the Empire and to this country, while hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite come down and in the suave tones of the Secretary of State for War make speeches of which he and his colleagues ought to be thoroughly ashamed. The right hon. Gentleman, fresh from his honours in the South African war, came and spoke for an hon. Friend of mine in my own Division, and now he turns round and made the speech he did last night. I have looked up his very words, which I intend to use when I go down to his Constituency, and he then said the very same things that I am saying here now. That sudden sort of onversion certainly is not from a military point of view, and I refuse to believe that the refusal of an important Clause like this, based on argument out of the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself, is not a proper spirit in which to approach this question. Let me quote the leaders of the Nationalist party. Speaking in 1907 in Dublin—I am not quoting from one of those rags which the hon. Member for Clare said were sent specially for the consumption of hon. Members on this side, but from the pet journal of the hon. Member, the "Freeman's Journal "—he said:—

"It was an admitted fact that the overwhelming majority of the Irish people are disaffected and disloyal to English rule."

There is not one of the old stalwarts of the Home Rule Brigade who will deny these facts, and that shows that the spirit of opposition and hatred towards this country has not been appeased or ameliorated by the sort of Bills which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced. If you go on with your measure, you should at all events put all these military and naval safeguards, and all that appertains to them, outside the scope of the political part of the Bill, so that, whether we are right or you are, at all events you will have the power at any time to use the machinery proposed in this Clause for the safety of this country as a whole. Surely that is not asking too much, considering the gravity of forcing this Bill through in such a hurry when there will be no time to amend the other parts of the Bill. Besides all these very serious statements made by the leaders of Nationalist opinion, both inside and outside the House of Commons, you can pick up any day in the streets in many towns in Ireland the most disloyal literature which is being scattered about to prevent people from joining the Army and the Navy. I will only read one out of a hundred I have in my possession, in order to show hon. Members that I am not picturing anything at all in the way of exaggeration, because this is the everyday life of the people, and what they are educated to by hon. Members below the Gangway. This is the kind of thing you are deliberately encouraging in your Bill. Here is the last of these famous circulars picked up in Wexford. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is responsible for it?"] I can only say that somebody is responsible for it, but do not let the House misunderstand me. I do not wish to accuse any Member of the Nationalist party in this respect, but month after month I have asked questions in this House upon this important matter, and I only refrained from asking more questions at the special request of the present Lord Chancellor when he was Secretary of State for War, because he said that such questions only emphasised a matter which it is much better to allow to pass over, because it would eventually die down, and he said that I was just as keen as he was not to do anything which would interefere with recruiting in Ireland. Of course, I agreed with him, and over and over again these circulars which have been circulated in small towns and villages in Ireland have been sent to me, and I have sent them back to those who forwarded them, stating that I thought in the interests of the Service it would be better not to make much of them, and not ask questions about them. But that does not affect the fact that there they are, and they are being posted up by those who have the same horror of serving His Majesty either Imperially in the Army or Navy or locally in the police force, and they are doing all they can to stop recruiting for those services in Ireland. This circular which I will quote is typical of the rest:—

"On the 27th of May. 1798. the men of Wexford arose to free their native land. The cause that called them will call you to-morrow. Another tight for the green again. The time is drawing near when we, their descendants, will be called upon to do the same. England is certain to be involved in a big war in the near future with Germany, and so it is necessary for each and every one of us to be ready for that time and to break away from England. Irishmen awake I Arm at once. Delays are dangerous. The dawn of invasion is at hand. rove yourselves worthy descendants of the men of '98."

[Laughter.] I have only given that one typical case and hon. Members will observe that it is met with hilarity upon all sides. Let me point out the effect that laughter and that jeering and supercilious way of treating a serious matter will have in Ireland. The papers will record, "Loud ironical cheers from the House of Commons." When I read such a statement as that practically the whole of the House of Commons, or at any rate the Radical party and His Majesty's Ministers, all laugh at my statement. And so it goes from bad to worse, and that very spirit of disloyalty which we deprecate and try out best to counterbalance in Ireland is fostered. For years and years we have done our best to-check this spirit of disloyalty, and when we bring these matters before the House of Commons, instead of being met with condemnation, they are met with the jeering laughter of those who are careless as to what happens to Ireland. I do not wish to go any further into this matter beyond saying that it is only one instance" trating the false promises on which a great many hon. Members of this House build their bright hopes for the future of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill. I think all this shows the importance of having a workable scheme when three-fourths of Ireland are intensely disloyal to the United Kingdom and the Empire, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for Clare have already stated in public.