House of Commons
Thursday, March 19, 1914
Private Business
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
London United Tramways Bill.
Ordered, that the Bill be committed.
Middlesex County Council (Western Road and Improvements and Finance) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Northwich Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Riddings District Gas Bill,
Corn Exchange Company (Mark Lane) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Port of London Authority Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill,
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Cardiff Railway Bill,
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Chelsea Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill,
Bedwas and Machen Urban District Council Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Clergy Mutual Assurance Society Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Leyland Gas and Electricity Bill (changed to "Leyland Gas Bill"),
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group A),
Mr. Mount reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Message from The Lords,
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Metropolitan Cemetery Company; and for other purposes." [South Metropolitan Cemetery Company Bill [ Lords. ]
South Metropolitan Cemetery Company Bill [ Lords ],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
British Plain Spirits in Bond (Scotland)
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 4th March; Sir John Dewar ]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Steamship Subsidies
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 16th March; Mr. William Thorne ]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 156.]
Trade Reports (Annual Series)
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5260 to 5262 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Crown Colonies, Etc. (Death Sentences)
Return ordered "showing the number of Death Sentences and Executions in British Crown and other Colonies and Protectorates during the year 1913, with the population of such Colonies and Protectorates, respectively (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 169, of Session 1913)."—[ Sir W. Byles. ]
Brewers' Licences
Return ordered "of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several Collections of the United Kingdom licensed as Brewers for sale, i.e. Common Brewers, Victuallers, Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises, Retailers of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and Brewers of beer not for sale, particularising each class in each Collection; and of the number of Licences issued to Victuallers and Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises and not to be drunk on the premises; and stating also the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes, used by Brewers of beer for sale, and of malt, and sugar used by Brewers not for sale, from the 1st October, 1912, to the 30th September, 1913. Of the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st October, 1912, to the 30th September, 1913, distinguishing Brewers for sale from other Brewers. Of the number of Brewers for sale (i.) who use malt and hops, or hop substitutes only, and (ii.) who use malt with substitutes for same and hops or hop substitutes paying for Licences, from the 1st October, 1912, to the 30th September, 193 3, separating them into classes, according to the number of barrels of beer charged with duty calculated at 1,055 degrees gravity, namely: under 1,000 barrels; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000; 20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000 and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 400,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 450,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 600,000; 600,000 and under 700,000; 700,000 and under 800,000; 800,000 and under 900,000; 900,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,000 and under 1,500,000; 1,500,000 and under 2,000,000; 2,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately, in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes used; and stating also the number of bulk barrels of beer produced, and the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class. And, of the number of barrels of beer exported from, the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to from the 1st October, 1912, to the 30th September, 1913, distinguishing England. Scotland, and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 9, of Sessions 1913)."—[ Mr. Montagu. ]
Selection (Standing Committees)
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Colonel Williams, and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Rights of Way Bill) Colonel Weston.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
Questions
Land Purchase (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that agreements to purchase their holdings were signed by the tenants on the estate-of Miss Annie Dolphin and others, Cross and Benbeg, New Inn, county Galway, six years ago; is he aware that the agreements were signed contingent on the distribution amongst them of the untenanted lands of the estate; is he aware that the tenants range in valuation from £1 to £8 and, considering the age of time, those-poor tenants are looking forward to some relief; and will he state if the property has been inspected, was it acquired, and when do the Commissioners hope to be able to bring relief to the district?
As the hon. Member has already been informed, this estate is not the subject of proceedings for sale by the owner to the tenants, but to the Estates Commissioners, and they have no knowledge of the agreements referred to in the first part of the question. If the Commissioners acquire the property, the tenants will be asked to sign undertakings to purchase at prices fixed by the Commissioners. The property has been inspected. It is not in priority for payment during the current financial year, but the question of making an offer for the purchase of it will be considered by the Commissioners during the coming financial year.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board acquired the Normangrove farm, the property of Miss Minnie Forster, Kinvarra, county Galway; and, if so, can he state when they hope to be able to deal with this estate?
The offer of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the estate referred to has been accepted, but it has not yet been vested in them. The Board cannot at present say when they will be in a position to deal with the property.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the delay on the part of the Congested Districts Board in taking over the estate of Blake Forster, situated at Kinvarra, county Galway; and can he give, approximately, the time when the Board hope to be able to deal with this estate and generally relieve congestion in this district?
The offer of the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate was accepted on the 24th April, 1912, but the property was not vested in the Board until the 31st July, 1913. New houses have been erected, but there has been some difficulty in getting the tenants to agree to the proposed rearrangement of the lands. They have, however, now agreed to the Board's proposals, and it is expected that tenancy agreements for the rearranged holdings will soon be executed.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware of the clear and definite understanding arrived at as between Viscount Gough, Lough Cutra Castle, Gort, and his tenants, in respect to the sale to them of their houses in the town of Gort; is he aware that the Estates Commissioners promised to make an inspection of the town section of the property with a view of adjusting the interest of the different parties concerned; and whether he can state what steps were taken by the Commissioners to carry out this undertaking, and with what result?
Any understanding which may have been come to between Lord Gough and the tenants as regards the premises in the town of Gort is not binding on the Estates Commissioners. The Commissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of the premises in the town of Gort, and, having regard to their nature and character, they do not propose to make an offer for their purchase.
asked the Chief Secretary for the names of all the holders of grazing lettings on Lady Chapman's estate, specifying those who have attempted to sell, to build, and to till, respectively, and who have been prevented by the landlord; the text of the agreement enabling the landlord to prevent; the Section of the Act under which such graziers can purchase; the number of acres held elsewhere by those graziers; the number of uneconomic holdings on the estate, including the rural village of Clonmellon; and what the Estates Commissioners propose to do in the circumstances?
As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Estates Commissioners are making further inquiries as to the tenure of the holdings on this estate, and I am not yet in a position to reply to the first four paragraphs of the question. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 5th instant, the village of Clonmellon includes some seventy non-agricultural holdings of less than half an acre, while on the agricultural portion of the estate there are fifty-four holdings of a valuation less than £7. The Commissioners have not yet acquired the estate and are not therefore in a position to deal with it.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts. Board have yet issued an offer to Lord Vaux for the purchase of his congested estate near Newport, county Mayo; and, if so, whether the offer has been accepted or refused?
The Congested Districts Board have recently decided to issue an offer for the purchase of this property, and it is now in course of preparation.
asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the estate of W. E. Churcher, county Galway, has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board; was it acquired; and when do the Board expect to be able to deal with it.
The Congested Districts Board have purchased a portion of the estate of Mr. W. E. Churcher situate in Tuam Union, County Galway, and they hope to deal with it during the coming financial year.
asked whether the estate of Lord Ardilaun, situate at Holly Park, Athenry, has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board; has it been inspected; and, if so, with what result.
A section of Lord Ardilaun's estate in the neighbourhood of Holly Park was offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board, and was inspected by the Board. On consideration of their Inspector's report the Board decided not to make an offer for the estate.
Clanricarde Estate (Police Services)
asked the Chief Secretary how many policemen are employed on protection duty at the Castle, Portumna, and the Kent Office Square, Loughrea, in connection with the estate of the Marquess of Clanricarde; what is the cost; is any portion of it included in the charge for extra police within the county; and can he give the cost of special police services on the Clanricarde estate since 1881?
Three policemen are engaged on protection duty at Portumna when Lord Clanricarde's agent is there, and five policemen when he is at Loughrea. With the exception of one of these men all the others are drawn from the free force of the county. A charge against the county at the rate of £34 9s. 3d. is made for the man drawn from the extra force. The information asked for in the last paragraph is not available.
National School Teachers (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary whether assistant teachers in Ireland who had given several years' highly efficient service before 1900 had their cases ever considered by the National Board either then or since; and why such teachers who reached the maximum of the third grade in the years 1900 to 1912 did not get the promotion to which they were entitled?
The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there was no special or general consideration of the cases of assistants such as are referred to in the question by the Commissioners except such as was given when the new rules of 1900 were promulgated. Prior to 1900, assistant teachers, no matter what their classification or the efficiency of their service with certain exceptions, were paid fixed salaries. Under the regulations of 1900 the financial position of all assistant teachers was improved. They were granted the income of third grade teachers, and in addition increments of good-service salary, and the Commissioners reserved to themselves the power of promoting exceptionally deserving assistants to the higher grades. Assistants who reached the maximum income of the third grade between 1900 and 1912 were not entitled to promotion. They could only be promoted under exceptional circumstances.
asked whether an undertaking was given to a deputation of Irish national school teachers, before the heating and cleaning grant was made, that as some managers have failed to keep their engagements to provide the local moieties under the scheme regulations would be made which would ensure that teachers would not be responsible for the manager's moiety of the grant; and when the regulations will be published?
The Commissioners of National Education introduced in 1911–12 a provision in their regulations by which they refuse to approve of any expenditure connected with the heating and cleansing of schools being imposed upon the teachers. This rule is still in operation, and if particulars be furnished of any case in which it has been infringed through a teacher being required to pay for the heating or cleaning of his school the matter will be investigated by the Commissioners.
Housing, Ireland (Local Rates)
asked the Chief Secretary whether it is stated in the Report of the Departmental Committee on housing in Ireland that three members of the corporation received rebates in local taxes in respect of property which is described in the Report as unfit for human habitation, and that the medical officer of the city had dispensed in these cases with the conditions laid down by the corporation in respect of rebates; and whether the Government of Ireland propose to take any steps to compel these members of the corporation to pay over to the city the amount of these rebates?
That has been answered.
Royal Irish Constabulary
asked if the actuary is still engaged on the investigation into the state of the Constabulary Force Fund (Benefit Branch); if so, how far he has gone towards the completion of his labours; when will his report be laid on the Table of the House; and when the Chief Secretary for Ireland will make a definite statement as to his intention of introducing a short Bill to wind up this fund?
The compilation of the data required by the actuary, which necessarily involved considerable research on the part of the Constabulary Office, was not completed until the middle of January last. As the observations upon which the report will be based relate to the history of some 18,000 members of the Fund, it is not anticipated that the report will be ready for some weeks, but every effort is being made to expedite the work. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will no doubt be in a position to answer the last part of the question when he has considered the report.
Convent National Schools (Graignamanagh)
asked the Chief Secretary whether the nuns in charge of the convent national schools, Graignamanagh, county Kilkenny, claimed £39 19s. 6d. from the Board of National Education as payment for the quarter ending 31st December, 1913, and received only £26 13s.; whether, owing to an epidemic of scarlatina, the attendance of pupils was exceptionally low during the quarter, and the attendance during the corresponding period in the previous year was still lower owing to an outbreak of measles and whooping-cough; if so, was not the claim of the nuns in accordance with the spirit if not the letter of Rule 2 ( f ), which provides that if the average attendance in any quarter is seriously reduced owing to exceptional causes, payment of the ordinary capitation Grant may be claimed on the actual average attendance for the corresponding quarter of the preceding calendar year, the claim being based on the attendance during the quarter ending 31st December, 1911, when there was no epidemic and when there was a normal attendance of pupils; and will he, under the circumstances, request the Board to reconsider the matter, and see that justice is done to those who without any payment for their personal services are endeavouring to maintain these useful and necessary schools?
The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs of the question. It was not practicable for the Commissioners to accede to the claim of the nuns, which was based upon the average attendance for the quarter ending 31st December, 1911. The rule referred to lays down that the claim should be based on the average attendance for the corresponding quarter of the previous calendar year.
Billeting Troops (Ireland)
asked whether the Irish Government has been consulted by the War Office as to immediate accommodation for additional forces in various parts of Ireland by way of quartering and billeting; and, if so, whether, in view of the scale of remuneration to those citizens who have troops billeted on them and the rise in the price of food necessaries, the Irish Government will make any representation to have the scale of remuneration raised?
The answer is in the negative.
Shooting Outrage, Clonboe, Galway
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that a shooting outrage occurred in county Galway on the night of 5th March, when the residence of Daniel Moylan, at Clonboe, was attacked by three masked men, who entered the house, carried off a gun, and fired a volley of shots through the windows from outside, and whether any arrests have been made in connection with the case?
The facts are as stated. The police are still actively investigating this outrage, but no clue has yet been obtained.
Cattle Driving, County Galway
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that cattle driving took place on the Ross estate, in county Galway, where forty-two head of cattle have been driven off the demesne land on this estate lately and the iron gates on the fields were thrown down, and the hair cut off the tails of twenty-two of the cattle; and whether anyone has been arrested or made amenable for this outrage?
The police inform me that on the night of the 10th instant forty-two head of cattle were driven off the property referred to, and the gates thrown down. The hair was clipped off the tails of twenty-two of the cattle, but no further injury was done to them. The police are pursuing their inquiries, but so far no person has been made amenable.
Dublin Cinematograph Exhibition (British Army Film)
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that disturbances occurred at an exhibition in Dublin of a series of cinematograph films depicting aspects of the British Army, which cinematograph films have been approved by the Army Council and have been exhibited before His Majesty the King; whether he is aware that on its appearance at the picture house in Sackville Street, Dublin, an organised crowd of young Nationalists boohed, groaned, and shouted, that cheers were called for the Germans, that some of these disturbers had to be removed by the police, and leaflets were distributed outside the picture house opposing enlistment in the Army; and, seeing that these disturbances were organised to prevent enlistment, whether any arrests have been made?
I am aware that during the exhibition of the British Army film at a picture theatre in Dublin a disturbance was caused by some young men in the audience booing and hissing, and at the request of the manager they were removed by the police. They were not arrested, as no charge was made against them by the manager. The incident is not likely to have any effect on recruiting.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is on behalf of these hooligans that the services of the British Army—
The hon. Member must know that a question of that sort can serve no useful purpose.
Dublin Distress Committee
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the expenditure which the Dublin Distress Committee has undertaken this season already includes £1,440 in improving the property of the Grand Canal Company; whether that sum is likely to reach £2,000 before the season closes; whether £1,170 has been spent in cleaning streets and lanes not in charge of the corporation and for the purpose of improving private property; whether £28 has been spent on the yard attached to a church and school, and £40 in laying concrete in a convent school yard; whether both of these latter sums are in addition to the distress committee's money spent last year; whether smaller sums of money are being spent in improving the property of private owners; whether the money now spent in improving the canal harbour will substantially benefit wealthy merchants who own the adjoining warehouses; whether, in respect of these payments, no recoupment is being asked for; whether the Irish Local Government Board is aware of these facts; and, if so, what steps it is taking to safeguard the Dublin distress fund from being spent in the interests of private people and more on behalf of unemployed workpeople?
The Local Government Board are not in a position to check the accuracy of the figures of the hon. Member, as they have not yet received the detailed accounts of the expenditure of the City of Dublin Distress Committee this year. The Board have already directed a careful inspection to be made of the works undertaken and being undertaken by the distress committee, and this is a preliminary to their making a final distribution of moneys out of the unemployed fund.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Dublin Distress Committee proved at the recent distress inquiry that they could not get work for the unemployed with full recoupment, that the committee waited until such time as they could get work, and that under these circumstances hundreds of people would remain starving and unemployed; and may I ask further whether there was an inquiry into the working of the distress committee, which lasted fourteen days, and whether the Report of the Local Government Board was in every respect in favour of the distress committee?
The hon. Member should give notice of that series of questions.
Has the Local Government Board of Ireland not got power to consider the schemes before they are entered upon, and impose conditions under which they must be carried out?
I do not know that that is so. The whole question is whether recoupment is possible. Obviously it is most desirable that it should be.
Government of Ireland Bill
Customs Duties
asked if under the Government of Ireland Bill it would be possible for the Irish Parliament in framing Customs Duties to differentiate between different provinces or districts of Ireland?
The answer is in the negative.
Cork County Council
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on the 16th instant a resolution was proposed and carried at a meeting of the Cork County Council repudiating the proposal he has recently made with regard to the temporary withdrawal of certain portions of Ireland from the scope of the Government of Ireland Bill; whether a copy of the resolution has been forwarded to him; and whether he has received similar resolutions from other wholly Nationalist bodies in Ireland?
The answer to the first two branches of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last branch, I have received somewhat similar resolutions from the central branch of the Independent Labour Party of Ireland, and from the Parliamentary Committee of the Irish Trades Union Congress.
Cork Convention
asked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to read the report of a convention held in Cork on the 14th instant, and attended by eight out of nine of the Parliamentary representatives of the county and city, at which, a resolution was passed by acclamation condemning the Government for rejecting concessions and amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill, which would have ensured to the Protestant minority an effective voice in the government of their country, and in proposing instead a division of the country which would divide Ireland into two camps of warring races and creeds; and whether this resolution was in his knowledge when he made his amplified statement and amendment to the Government of Ireland Bill on Monday of this week?
I saw a brief report in the "Times" of Monday, the 16th, of the conference referred to.
Chief Secretary
asked the Prime Minister whether, under the proposed amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill, the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will continue to exist?
I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Salisbury on the 4th, 26th, and 27th November, 1912. The matter is not affected by the present proposals of the Government.
Questions
Marlborough Street Training College
asked how many lectures on each of the following subjects were given by the professor of education in Marlborough Street Training College during the two sessions ended 30th June, 1913, namely, the history of education, general methodology, method of particular subjects, the logical bases of education, scholastic ethics, scholastic hygiene, psychology as applied to education, and the literature of education?
The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of lectures in the subjects mentioned given by the professor of education during the sessions referred to were approximately as follows: General methodology, 80; methods of particular subjects, 200; logical bases of education, 12; scholastic ethics, 12; scholastic hygiene, 21; psychology as applied to education, 72. There were no lectures given in history or literature of education.
Foot-and-Mouth Disease
asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has seen a resolution passed by the Wexford Rural District Council stating that no foot-and-mouth disease exists in any of those districts where restrictions are enforced; and, as farmers have no means at this season of the year of holding their fat stock for any considerable time, will he issue an Order permitting fat cattle, swine, and sheep to be removed to the slaughter-house for slaughter, and, in the event of a farmer having land on both sides of the road, that such farmer be allowed to move his stock on either side on which his land is situate?
I have seen the resolution referred to. The restrictions at present affecting the Wexford rural district have been imposed pending the tracing of a number of calves brought from Cork and sold in New Ross and Waterford. I am advised that until such tracing has been completed and all stock found healthy on premises where the suspected calves are, it would be unsafe to allow movements such as are referred to in this question. Inconvenience arising in consequence is much regretted. Farmers can assist in hastening the withdrawal of restrictions by affording information which may help the inspectors to locate the calves referred to.
asked what is the present position as regards foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland?
(who was imperfectly heard): Five fresh cases were reported yesterday in the scheduled districts in the county Cork. The disease has not appeared elsewhere. The real difficulty of the present situation is in connection with consignments of calves that were sent from Cork to various places in the south. In five cases these animals have been traced and the disease found. In the other cases the work of tracing is still going on in the counties Waterford, Wexford, and Kilkenny, but no outbreak has been reported. This work has involved the scheduling of large areas of the country. This is a measure of precaution which gives rise to great inconvenience, but I trust that it will be for a very brief time. In some cases the disease has been found to be connected with the cattle sales in the county and city of Cork.
Do I understand that all the outbreaks reported yesterday are traceable to calves sold in Cork; and how many scheduled areas are there now in Ireland?
I think that the hon. Gentleman should give me notice of that question. I have mentioned that there are several areas which are scheduled not owing to the existence of disease, but owing to the necessity of searching for these calves. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact number.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question—are all the five outbreaks reported yesterday traceable to these calves sold in Cork?
No. There were five outbreaks in county Tipperary directly traceable to calves. There were five outbreaks in Cork city and county in scheduled areas which were directly traceable to the sale in the yard at the end of February.
What was the number of the calves sold?
It is very difficult to say.
Is it not a fact that only twenty-six calves—that is, one wagon of calves—came from this sale yard in Cork to Thurles, that ten of these calves were not sold by the buyer, Dwyer, but were found on his premises and slaughtered by the Department, that that left only sixteen calves to be accounted for, that these have nearly all been accounted for in five districts where these calves were sold in twos and threes, and can the right hon. Gentleman say how many still remain to be accounted for?
There was a considerable consignment of calves which left Cork direct, and did not go by Thurles at all.
Is there any further report of the result of the investigations of the Department in Queen's County? Have any of these calves been found in that district?
No, not yet.
Sierra Leone
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to close the nursing home in Sierra Leone Colony to native practitioners possessing European qualifications; and, if so, upon what grounds is this decision based?
The Government of Sierra Leone have proposed to make a new rule, under which private practitioners would not be allowed to treat patients in the nursing home at Freetown. This rule would apply to all private practitioners, and would not affect native practitioners employed by the Colonial Government. The proposal is at present under consideration.
Ancient Monuments
asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will say why no Member of Parliament has been placed upon the Scottish Board constituted under the Ancient Monuments Act as is done only in the case of England; what is the reason for the English Board of Education being represented by a subordinate Minister of the Government in the case of England; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing a Member of Parliament on both the Scottish and Welsh Boards in order to secure the advantages that will accrue to England from the arrangement obtaining in the constitution of the English Board?
The Member of Parliament referred to by my hon. Friend was not placed upon the Board because he is a Member of this House. While the Bill was under discussion no wish was expressed that members should be nominated, and the First Commissioner would not feel justified in now adding to the bodies mentioned in the first Schedule.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the two Boards referred to, the Scotch Board and the Welsh Board, were added as an afterthought, and were never discussed at all, as there was no opportunity for expressing an opinion?
On the contrary, my recollection is quite clear that the necessity for the Welsh and Scotch Boards was made very apparent.
Is it not distinctly within the recollection of the hon. Member that myself and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the last night on which this Bill was being discussed here suggested those additions, which were then made?
Yes, that is so. The additions were made on the suggestion of the hon. Members.
How is it that my hon. Friend says that there was full discussion of the point which I raise in my question?
Notwithstanding that fact, discussion took place in the House.
Does not the Board as now constituted give the English Board an unfair advantage?
I do not think that the Scotch and Welsh Boards are at any disadvantage. If a Member of Parliament joins the English Board, he is there as a representative of the Board of Education and not as a Member of Parliament.
Port of London Authority
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Port of London Authority have submitted to him for approval any pension scheme for granting pensions to officers and servants in their employ in pursuance of Section 24 (6) of the Port of London Act, 1908?
The Port of London Authority inform me that they have assumed the responsibility for the various pension arrangements existing with the transferred undertakings at the appointed day, but that they have not created, so far, any additional pension scheme. The authority have, therefore, not submitted any such scheme for the approval of the Board of Trade.
Is the hon. Member aware that such a pension scheme has been promised for several years?
It may be so.
Cocoa (Importations)
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any cocoa is now imported into this country from plantations in Portuguese West Africa; if so, the quantity so imported in 1913; and whether any form of forced labour is in operation on any of the plantations where such cocoa is grown?
The imports of raw cocoa in 1913, which were consigned to this, country from Portuguese West Africa, amounted to 426,000 lbs. In addition, raw cocoa to the amount of 2,556,000 lbs. was consigned from Portugal, a large proportion of which was probably derived originally from Portuguese West Africa. As regards the third part of the question, I am not aware of any forced labour being employed in any of the plantations where such cocoa was grown.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the forced labour was in operation at that part; and how could the cocoa have been moved to Portuguese East Africa without it?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Julia Decies (Conviction)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the nature of the evidence for the defence given at the trial of Julia Decies at the Central Criminal Court, on Wednesday, 4th March; if he is aware that the jury, in finding the prisoner guilty, recommended her to mercy, and that Mr. Justice Darling awarded seven years' penal servitude; And whether, in view of the health of the prisoner and the whole of the circumstances of her offence, he can see his way to order a remission of her sentence?
As I informed the hon. Member last week, there is an application in this case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. While the matter is sub judice I cannot answer any question.
Coal Mines (Humidity)
asked the Home Secretary whether he is proposing to have rules issued controlling work in coal mines where the humidity in relation to temperature is to be considered as unhealthy?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the observations of the Royal Commission on Coal Mines, who considered this subject and came to the conclusion that no regulation was needed. I have no information, and I have received no representations, which would lead me to differ from this conclusion.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question correctly describes the conditions prevailing in this Chamber?
Charles Matterson (Conviction)
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Charles Matterson, who in October last was convicted of an assault on a men who had assaulted his (Matterson's) wife; whether he has received an application from Matterson for a verbatim report of the police court proceedings; and whether he will grant the application and so assist Matterson in his effort to remove the stain on his character which may militate against him in his work as a licensed cab driver?
No official verbatim reports of police court proceedings are taken, and I am consequently unable to comply with this application.
Epilepsy and Drunkenness (Charge against Taxicab Driver)
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a taxicab driver, named Richard Williams, who, on the 17th of February last, was summoned before Mr. Stipendiary Hopkins on a charge of drunkenness and was discharged; whether he is aware that the defence set up was that the defendant was ill and not drunk, and that three days after the alleged drunkenness, and before he was tried, Williams was taken ill again in precisely the same manner and had to be taken to hospital; whether he is aware that when Williams was taken on the first occasion to Cannon Row police station he was examined by the divisional surgeon, who said he was drunk; and whether, in view of the error of judgment committed, he will make representations to the various divisional surgeons that every care should be taken in the examination of persons brought up on a charge of drunkenness, especially in the case of a man holding a public licence whose future career would be seriously prejudiced by a conviction, as Williams's would have been had he not been taken ill under similar circumstances before his case was tried?
My attention has been called to the case. The magistrate very properly, in view of the subsequent illness and the medical evidence as to its being an epileptic fit, dismissed the charge, but it does not follow that the divisional surgeon was at fault; he was told by Williams himself that he was not subject to fits. I am having further inquiry made into the matter.
Suffragists (Prison Treatment)
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that Dr. Flora Murray and Dr. Frank Moxon, after interviewing and examining Miss Phyllis Brady on her release in February last from Holloway, stated that they had formed the opinion that Miss Brady had been given doses of bromide during her incarceration; and if he will state whether Miss Brady was given bromide or any other hypnotic drug whilst in Holloway?
The statements referred to were entirely without foundation. Neither bromide nor any other hypnotic drug was given to Miss Brady while she was in Holloway.
Pasteurised and Sterilised Milk
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state whether the Local Government Board have conducted or caused to be conducted any experiments with a view to establishing the effect upon infants of pasteurised milk and sterilised milk, respectively; whether either pasteurised or sterilised milk has been found to be prejudicial to child life; and, if so, whether it has been found possible to take any steps to neutralise such prejudicial effects?
An investigation of this question was made for the Local Government Board by Dr. Janet E. Lane-Claypon, and I am sending the hon. Member copies of her reports, which were published in 1912 and 1913.
Housing and Town Planning Act
asked the President of the Local Government Board (1) if he will state how many dwelling-houses inspected by local authorities pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, were found to be seriously defective from the point of view of danger to health or structural faults; and (2) whether he can state approximately how many vacant houses there were, on any convenient day, in England and Wales suitable for persons of the working classes?
In reply to this and the following question, I may state that I have recently asked the local authorities for returns as to these and other matters. A number of returns are still outstanding.
How many reports has the right hon. Gentleman received from the local bodies?
I cannot give the number. I think the majority have not yet been received.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, prior to the issue of the Local Government Board's circular, dated 27th February, 1914, any return has been called for showing the results of inspections made by local authorities pursuant to the provisions of Section 17 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, with a view to ascertain whether any dwelling house in the district of the local authority is in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation; and whether the Local Government Board have any return from any local authority showing the result of such inspection?
Under Section 44 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the Local Government Board every year call upon local authorities for an account of what has been done under Part II. of that Act, as amended by the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909. The information given in the accounts is summarised on pages 24 to 26 of Part II. of the Board's forty-second annual Report.
Have all the local authorities sent in reports?
I would not like to answer without notice.
London Coal Porters' Strike
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the London County Council Education General Purposes Sub-Committee have made a grant of £30 and other sums to the officers of the staff, stores, and other departments as a reward for energy displayed in January last in assisting to defeat the claims of the London coal porters for a higher standard of life; and if this disbursement of money is in accordance with the regulations of the Board and passed by the auditor?
I have no information whether any payments of the kind have been made. The remuneration of the staff of the county council is not subject to any regulations of the Local Government Board, and does not require their approval. The accounts of the council for the current year ending the 31st March will not be audited until after the close of the year. Any question as to the legality of any payment charged in the accounts would be one for the decision of the district auditor in the first instance.
Boarding Children with Foster-Parents
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Order that when children are boarded out it must be with foster-parents of the same creed can be modified in cases where the children have been certified as belonging to the Church of England, on account of the uncertainty as to the creed of the parents, and also in cases where there can be no reasons for believing that the parents would seriously object, and when good homes other than those of a similar sect can be found?
I do not consider that the Order could properly be modified in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. But if in a particular case a foster-parent of the same religious creed as that of the child cannot be found, the Local Government Board are willing to allow a departure from the Order if the foster-parent undertakes that the child shall attend a place of worship and a Sunday school of its own religious denomination.
Is it not the case that Church of England people frequently hand over children to members of the Salvation Army, and why cannot that be done at the discretion of the board of guardians?
That would be likely to give rise in particular cases to controversy on religious grounds, and would not be desirable.
Postal Employés (Holt Report)
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissatisfaction amongst postal employés, he will fix an early date for discussion of their grievances, and so enable the Postmaster-General to inform the House what he proposes to do with regard to the recommendations of the Holt Report?
This depends upon the exigencies of Parliamentary business.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he has given the same answer at least five or six times, and in view of the general interest felt on both sides of the House, can he not now fix a date?
I am quite aware of the interest that is taken, but we must get through our necessary financial business. There will be no undue delay, I can assure the hon. Gentleman.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed that the Member of the Cabinet holding the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall have a seat in the House of Commons; and, if so, when will this be arranged?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I cannot yet say; but I regret to have to add that my right hon. Friend is still indisposed.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether this is not a suitable occasion for testing the feeling of any English constituency, even though the one chosen is a seat so far called a Radical seat?
Is it not the fact that within very recent times Ministers of the Crown have held office for considerable periods without being Members of either House, notably Mr. Gladstone? [An HON. MEMBER: "Mr. Russell."]
Would it not be possible to arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to get a seat in another place?
Scottish National Antarctic Expedition
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received another application from the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition for a Grant of £3,800 to complete the publication of the scientific reports of the "Scotia"; and whether he can explain how it is that expeditions organised in England are able to secure Grants, while the country which he himself represents cannot?
I have received the application referred to. I would point out that a sum of £3,000 has already been provided by Parliament for the publication of the scientific reports of the Scottish Antarctic Expedition, so that the implication in the last part of my hon. Friend's question is not based on fact.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the money for this expedition was contributed before the expedition was begun, and that this money is absolutely necessary to complete the publication relating to this scientific event? Further, is the Prime Minister aware that Scotland contributes every year £3,000,000 to the National Exchequer over and above what is spent on her, and is she not entitled to have some of that money?
National Insurance Act
Actuarial Reports
asked the Prime Minister if it is competent for the National Health Insurance Commissioners to call for actuarial reports as to the financial position of any approved society, or if the consent of the Treasury is required before this can be done?
I would refer the hon. Member to Section 35 of the principal Act.
May I ask why the hon. Gentleman does not answer the question, but only tells us to turn up Section 35?
The relations between the Treasury and the Commissioners are fully defined in Section 35 and Section 83.
if that is so, is it not advisable that the Government should state exactly what is the position of the Insurance Commissioners?
I cannot possibly define their position better than it is defined in the Statute.
Audit
asked whether, when the accounts sent to the Insurance Commissioners by an approved society are found when audited to be incorrect, the society is informed as to what extent they are inaccurate?
The accounts of approved societies are audited, not by the Insurance Commissioners, but by auditors appointed by the Treasury, who inform the societies themselves as well as the Commissioners of any inaccuracies discovered.
Approved Societies
asked whether the Insurance Commissioners have abandoned the regulation proposing to restrict the liberty of branches of approved societies as to their place of meeting; and whether this House may understand that no such regulation will be issued during this Parliament?
I have nothing to add to previous answers.
Mercantile Marine Apprentices
asked if apprentices in the mercantile marine are liable to deductions in respect of health insurance contributions; if so, on what basis; and what arrangements are made for them to receive medical and other benefits when they are employed on voyages of extended duration?
Apprentices in the mercantile marine are insurable if in receipt of money payment, and liable to the same deductions as other insurable persons employed in the mercantile marine. They are not entitled to sickness, disablement, or medical benefit in respect of any period during which the owner of the ship is liable under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to defray the expenses of the necessary surgical and medical advice and attendance and medicine and maintenance.
Is it to be understood that the insured person has to pay without any possible chance of getting any benefits except those that are bound to be made good in the way of medical benefits by the owner of the ship?
No, Sir, that is not to be understood.
Tuberculosis
asked if J. M. Southard, an insured contributor under the National Insurance Act, who recently died from advanced tuberculosis of both lungs, was treated by the panel doctor attending him for rheumatism and cold; whether, in making this diagnosis, the doctor submitted Southard to a thorough examination; what time elapsed between the date when Southard was last seen by the doctor and the man's death; if the coroner's jury in this case censured the doctor; how many insured patients were included on his list at the time; and whether his name still remains on the insurance panel?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on Monday last, to which I have nothing to add.
asked what is the total number of insured persons in Great Britain and Ireland who have been certified to be suffering from tuberculosis; the number of those who are receiving residential treatment in sanatoria; and the total number of beds in sanatoria which are at the disposal of insurance committees for the reception of such patients?
I will refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on the 24th February.
Will the hon. Gentleman lay Papers on the Table?
Yes; they are in course of preparation.
When shall we have them?
I cannot say at present.
Panel Chemists
asked whether the Stoke-on-Trent insurance committee has officially stated that in round figures the chemists in their area will only be paid 85 per cent. of their bills for 1913; whether the cost per prescription has risen during the year; and whether he proposes to see that these accounts are paid in full?
My right hon. Friend understands that the drug funds of the insurance committee referred to (in whose area the per-attendance system was in operation for the first quarter of 1913) are esti- mated to amount to approximately 85 per cent. of the total chemists' bills presented. In the absence of any action by the chemists concerned to put into operation the surcharging provisions of the Regulations, the total amount available in the drug funds will be paid in settlement of their accounts as provided by the agreements into which they have entered. The average cost per prescription has risen during 1913, but the number of prescriptions has steadily decreased.
Questions
Scottish Estimates
asked the Prime Minister if he will state how many days he proposes to allot to Scottish Estimates this Session, and when he thinks such days will be available?
I fear I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.
Customs and Excise (Assistant Clerks)
asked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of assistant clerks (new class) employed in His Majesty's Customs and Excise, the number certified to have suffered from phthisis or other tuberculous disease since the 1st January, 1909, and the number granted prolonged sick leave, superannuated, and deceased, respectively, during the same period from tubercular complaints?
I am making inquiries in this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.
British Museum
asked the Secretary to the Treasury why in the new-galleries of the British Museum no arrangements were made before the buildings were finished for any communication from the main top gallery to the offices and store rooms used by the officers in charge of the collections; and, seeing that since the building was finished a portion has had to be cut out in the main ferro-concrete floor to permit of access to this great gallery from below and a stairway is now being built in such a manner that the symmetry of the gallery and the area of the floor space are both thereby impaired, whether steps will be taken to see that such errors of planning, etc., are not repeated in the new national museum at Cardiff?
It was found necessary, after the plans had been approved, to use the eastern part of the top gallery for a students' room. Easy communication was therefore necessary with the rooms below and the new staircase was formed, the concrete floor, not ferro-concrete floor, being cut through for the purpose. There has been no error in planning.
Why were the arrangements not made beforehand?
These were of a nature that could not be determined until the purpose of the gallery had been decided.
Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain what was the cost of this alteration?
It was about £100.
asked if the new special reading-room between the old and new buildings of the British Museum will have to be artificially lighted during the time of ordinary daylight to enable students to read in many parts of the room?
No, Sir, not as a rule.
Royal Navy
Vaccination
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will arrange for the insertion in the Annual Reports on the health of the Navy of statistics of the vaccinations and re-vaccinations of men and boys, together with the percentage of successful operations, as is done in the Army Reports?
We have no objection to giving the particulars asked for by my hon. Friend on the lines of the statistics given in the Annual Report on the health of the Army.
Woolwich Naval Clerks
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Naval Ordnance clerks in the Woolwich Ordnance Depot do not participate in the special London allowance enjoyed by the clerks serving at the Admiralty and the Deptford and West India Docks; and whether, in view of the fact that in the case of postal employés and soldiers serving in Woolwich the district is held to be within the London area, he will consider the possibility of putting the Woolwich naval clerks on an equality?
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of granting London allowance to the clerical staff employed at the Naval Ordnance Depot, Woolwich, has been carefully considered, but it has been decided that the conditions prevailing there are not such as to warrant the grant of the allowance.
Is it not the fact that a Committee recommended that this should be done, and will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
Ship Construction
asked what will be the number of ships of the "Dreadnought" type possessed by Great Britain, Germany, Austria, and Italy on the 31st of March, 1915, and on the same date in 1916, and will he give their names?
I must refer the hon. Member to the Return standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras.
Questions
Stafford Post Office
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has made a calculation of the loss in income suffered by employés in the Stafford Post Office by the altered staffing of certain railway mail vans; is he aware how many years these emoluments, now withdrawn, have been enjoyed; and has he made any arrangements enabling the staff to outset this substantial loss?
The trip allowances formerly paid to eight officers of the Stafford Post Office and now withdrawn amounted to £12 3s. 6d. a week altogether. I am sorry that the change involves loss to the Stafford staff, but I cannot recognise any claim to payment in respect of work no longer performed. I could not state, without further inquiries, how long the men have been travelling. The Stafford officers actually engaged on the travelling work at the present time are being afforded an opportunity of transfer to another office with a view to their continued employment on this work. No officer has a claim to continuous employment on travelling work.
Will the right hon. Gentleman state how long this has been going on?
I cannot say off-hand, but I will certainly inform my hon. Friend.
Post Office (Engineering Department)
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the state of unrest which still exists in the engineering department owing to the continued policy of refusing advancement to those officers who, for the past two and a-half years, have been borne on the redundant second-class engineers' scale, although a number of these officers are admittedly suitable for advancement; if he will undertake to ascertain immediately from the engineer-in-chief which of these men are, in his opinion, qualified for immediate advancement; and will he take the necessary steps to give immediate effect to such recommendations in order that the penalising of these men may cease as early as possible?
asked what steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take to reinstate and compensate those post office engineers who were officially condemned as inefficient in connection with the reorganisation of 1911, but whom, it is understood, the engineer-in-chief to the post office is prepared to recommend as efficient officers who are well qualified for promotion?
I will answer at the same time Question No. 62. The officers referred to have not been removed from the positions which they occupied before the revision; they retain the same title and scale of pay, and no question of reinstatement or compensation arises. For the new classes created under the revision of 1911 a higher standard of qualifications is required; and in the first instance the places in these classes were filled by the promotion of the best qualified officers. The claims of other officers who, though not so well qualified, can yet be regarded as suitable, have been considered in connection with vacancies occurring in the ordinary course, and a number of promotions to the new class of assistant engineers have been made. As further vacancies become available, consideration will continue to be given to the claims of officers reported to be suitable for advancement.
Johne's Disease
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if there is any information available as to the possibility of preparing a diagnostic vaccine for Johne's disease from the causal bacillus; and whether he is aware that no public report has been issued upon this subject since September, 1912?
The inquiry into Johne's disease which is being conducted by the Royal Veterinary College includes the question of diagnosis, and a large number of experiments and observations with regard to the relative reliability of different methods of diagnosis, including the use of "Johnin"—a test substance prepared from the causal bacillus—have been made. It is, however, considered advisable to obtain further evidence, and with this object "Johnin" is now being supplied gratis to veterinary surgeons for testing animals suspected of the disease. The college will publish a Report on the subject as soon as the evidence collected appears to be sufficient to warrant definite conclusions.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange, in view of the importance of this subject, that this specific question shall be brought to the attention of the International Veterinary Congress, which will meet in London in August next?
I will consult the authorities of the congress upon it.
Mrs. Pankhurst
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he was consulted in advance upon the methods adopted by the police for the arrest of Mrs. Pankhurst in Glasgow; whether he is aware that no attempt was made to make the arrest quietly before the meeting, and by whose authority a public meeting was raided in connection with the arrest; and whether he will cause an investigation into all the facts, with a view to the prevention, if possible, of a future recurrence?
I think my hon. Friend has put his question under a misapprehension. The Glasgow police are a municipal force. Their position is entirely different from that of the Metropolitan police. They are under no obligation to consult me, and did not do so. In view, however, of my hon. Friend's question, I have asked for information on the second and third points which he raises, and I am informed that every effort was made by the police to arrest Mrs. Pankhurst before the meeting and that the police had authority under the Local Police Acts to enter the hall, which is licensed by the magistrates. I have heard that a request for an inquiry has been, or is to be, made to the Glasgow magistrates.
In view of the importance of preserving the right of public meeting free from interruption, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a recommendation to the Glasgow police not to permit a repetition of this action?
I do not think I am called upon to interfere with the police.
Education (Parliamentary Grants)
asked the President of the Board of Education what provision has been made for increased Parliamentary Grants for the year 1914–15 to the local education authorities?
I have nothing to add to the answer given on Monday last by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for St. Pancras West.
Land Valuation
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a decision has yet been come to as to what extent the judgments of Mr. Justice Scrutton, in the cases of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Smyth and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Hunter, should be accepted or appealed against; and, if there are to be appeals, what steps will be taken to expedite the hearing?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, to which I have nothing to add to-day.
Do I understand that there is to be an appeal in both cases?
I cannot add anything to the reply. Both judgments will be appealed.
Increment Duty (Builders' Profits)
asked if legislation will be introduced in the present Session, and, if so, when, with a view to making it clear that builders' profits are exempt from Increment Duty under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and that such duty is only to be levied on the increment of value accruing to land from the enterprise of the community or the landowners' neighbours?
The Government propose shortly to introduce legislation in relief of builders on the lines of Clauses in the Revenue Bill of last Session.
Will steps be taken to secure its passage into law in this Session?
Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to address to the Prime Minister questions relating to the business of the House.
British Army
Royal Flying Corps
asked the Secretary for War why an officer to the Royal Flying Corps, who was injured by an accident to the aeroplane which he was piloting on 3rd February, but who has been only temporarily prevented from flying, has been docked of his flying pay for a portion of last and the whole of this month?
I am inquiring into this case.
asked the Secretary of State for War if any system is in force on the lines of that adopted in Germany for improving efficiency in aeroplane construction and skill in pilotage by the granting of prizes and bonuses, and generally for encouraging military aviation; if he is aware of the sums expended annually by Germany for these purposes; and if he will state what expenditure is provided for under these heads for the present year in this country?
The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative, and to the second part in the affirmative.
I beg to ask the Secretary for War a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether he can give any information as to the fatal accident which occurred at the Central Flying School to-day?
I deeply regret to say that Lieutenant Treeby, of the Duke of Wellington's (West Riding) Regiment was killed this morning at Upavon. He was flying a Maurice-Farman machine, and had apparently descended from about 1,000 feet, with his engine off, just above Jenner's Firs; he then flattened out and side-slipped from a height of about 250 feet. I have no further information, but inquiry is being made.
Foot-And-Mouth Disease
I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Is he aware that New Ross and District have been scheduled as infected with foot-and-mouth disease, although no trace whatever of the disease has been discovered, and will he see that the restrictions, which are paralysing the trade of the district and producing dissatisfaction and irritation, be removed as soon as possible?
I only received the hon. Gentleman's notice since I came to the House, but I am aware that New Ross has been brought within the scheduled areas.
Transvaal Provincial Elections
Deportation of Labour Leaders
I beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether his attention has been drawn to the result of the Transvaal provincial elections, which shows that the action of the Unionist Government in deporting trade union leaders meets with the decisive condemnation of the electors o£ the province most intimately and directly concerned, irrespective of racial distinctions, and whether, in view of that emphatic demonstration of public opinion, the Governor-General's assent to the Indemnity Bill will now be withheld until the new situation has been considered?
I have no official information on the subject of these provincial elections, and I see no reason why they should affect the position taken up by His Majesty's Government with regard to the Bill before the Parliament of the Union, as recently explained by me to the House.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any power over a provincial Parliament?
I must have notice for the consideration of that.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not intended that Clause 64 of the British South Africa Constitution should protect the people against legislation to which they were opposed; whether the result of the elections does not show that the action of the Government is opposed to the opinion of the people; and whether, under these circumstances, the opinions of the voters of South Africa is not to be taken into account by the Colonial Office on the lines indicated in the question of my hon. Friend?
As I have said, I have no official information as to the provincial elections. If the hon. Member will give notice of any further information that he wants, I will endeavour to procure it.
I will raise the matter to-night on the Adjournment.
Orders of the Day
Business of the House
May I ask what business the Prime Minister proposes to take next week?
On Monday, Navy Votes.
Tuesday, Report of Army and Navy Votes.
Wednesday, Consolidated Fund Bill, Second Reading.
On Thursday, we propose to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates, and to take the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to give any indication as to when the Budget Statement will be made?
I cannot give any definite information, but I hope that it will be before Easter.
Bills Presented
Highway Bill
"To amend the Highway Act, 1835." Presented by Mr. TYSON WILSON; supported by Mr. Clynes, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Gill, Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. Sutton, and Mr. Stephen. Walsh; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.[Bill 132.]
Auctioneers and Estate Agents Registration Bill
"To provide for the establishment of a Register of persons practising as Auctioneers or Estate Agents dealing with real estate; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. BOYTON; supported by Sir John Bethell, Sir William Bull, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Hinds, Mr. Walter Long, and Mr. Pretyman; to be read a second time upon Friday, 27th March, and to be printed.[Bill 133.]
Business of the House (Supply)
Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Government of Ireland Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—[ The Prime Minister. ]
Government of Ireland Bill
Proposed Vote of Censure
rose to move: into the House on Monday—in view also of the expressed approval of that speech which was given by the Prime Minister—an approval which he has not always given when asked as to the utterances of his colleagues—and in view of his own attitude on Monday, I really believe that the situation to-day is far more dangerous than it has ever been, and if a way of escape is found it will come from some cause which I am quite unable to foresee. I have said that this calamity, if it comes, would be due to the too rigid working of our party system. I think that is true.
After the first interview which I had with the Prime Minister four months ago, in giving an account of that interview to Lord Lansdowne, I wrote to him that in my belief, unless a way of peace were found before Parliament met, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find it afterwards. I had that fear because it seemed to me that when the opposing parties were brought face to face in this House they would be so strongly animated by party spirit—the essence of which is to secure victory over our opponents at the moment without much regard to the consequences—that there would be very great difficulty in getting a suitable atmosphere for a peaceful solution. Events, I think, have justified that fear. Now, Sir, I am going to-day to speak more frankly than I have hitherto spoken on my own position, on this question, for the accident which made me Leader of our party in this House has placed upon me a responsibility the weight of which I greatly feel. At one of the interviews which I had before the House met with the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure he will not mind me saying this because it does not concern him—I do not at all say it to suggest that we were reasonable and that he was unreasonable—on the contrary—I stated what is, I am sure, the belief of my right hon. Friend as well as my own, that the right hon. Gentleman was earnestly anxious to secure a peaceful solution if he could find the means of doing it. I said to him then that I felt so strongly the danger that confronted us that I should be prepared, if we could think of any tolerable solution—that I should be prepared to take great risks to make that solution effective. I made that statement. I repeat it now. It is not an idle declaration. All of us on this side of the House are opposed entirely to Home Rule in any form. There are many Members among our supporters, both in this House and outside—how many I do not know, but there are very many—who, just as the First Lord of the Admiralty said the other day, that there are worse things than bloodshed, are prepared to say that there are worse things than civil war. Men who hold that view strongly would have condemned, and perhaps condemned bitterly, any of their leaders who from any cause sacrificed what they believed to be a great, principle, and a principle which for more than a generation had been the mainspring of the policy of our party. I can understand that feeling. I do not share it. I do not take that view. There may be worse things than civil war, but I can hardly imagine anything worse. Personally, I should never be a party to-risking the lives of brave men for any political consideration, whatever that political consideration might be.
Holding those views, I am very anxious, if I can, to convince the House and the country—and I am sure I speak for all the colleagues with whom I have been in consultation throughout this crisis, as well as for myself—I am very anxious to convince both that we have not closed, and that we shall not close, the door hastily or without necessity upon any proposal which is put forward by the Government—put forward seriously—in the hope of securing peace. The right hon. Gentleman put forward his proposals on Monday of last week. If those proposals, are seriously meant, I think it is the clear duty of the Government to present them to the House of Commons definitely in the form in which they intend that they should receive legislative enactment. We do not make that demand, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to suggest on Monday, for the sake of getting a larger target on which we can direct our criticism. The position is too serious for that. But everyone must feel how difficult it wilt be for those proposals to be made to work. I could myself easily show, if it were worthwhile, what some of the difficulties are. Everyone must feel how difficult it is, but until we see the proposals in a definite form we cannot know whether they can at all be made to work; and that, at least, is something which we have the right to know. There is another reason, and a reason which seems to me absolutely unanswerable. Why, if the Government really mean those proposals as serious, do they not proceed with them in the ordinary way? They are put forward not to satisfy the Opposition. They are put forward to satisfy, or to try to satisfy, the demands of Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman has a majority in this House. He has the power to carry those proposals through this House in the ordinary way, and if they are then rejected the responsibility is not his. I should have thought that it would have been utterly impossible for any Government to seriously suggest that they are going to impose upon Ulster by force a Bill which does not contain provisions for the protection of Ulster, which the Government themselves have admitted are reasonable, until they have at all events shown their sincerity by doing everything in their power to put those provisions in the Bill before Ulster is asked to assent to them. I should like, if I can, to come more closely to the situation as it developed on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman has, I understood from the answers he gave to questions put by me, took this position, that he is not going to do anything more with his suggestions unless there is agreement as to the principle. From whom does he expect that agreement? He does not expect it, I am sure, from the Opposition. We have from the beginning clearly stated that we could not accept responsibility, in any shape or form, for any kind of a Home Rule Bill. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, and, indeed, he said it on the first night of the Session. It is not, therefore, from us that he can expect agreement, but I am not going to stand, at a time like this, on any technical ground, however strong it is. We all know that if Ulster is satisfied to the extent that her determination to resist is removed, the whole position of the Opposition will be changed, and our real opposition to the Bill will become of a different kind. We all know that as a matter of fact, and, therefore, I will not deal technically, but in reality, with the position which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up. When he says that there must be agreement in regard to the principle, I ask him what is the principle to which he asks us to agree, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer to that question, not with "considered vagueness," but with precision, and even, if he likes, with arrogant precision. What is the principle? Is the principle that Ulster, or a part of Ulster, is not to be driven out of this Parliament while it wants to remain in it, and is not to be compelled to enter a Nationalist Parliament which it abhors, against the will of the people of Ulster. Is that the principle? If it is, then we have not rejected it. On the contrary, I say to the right hon. Gentleman now that we accept it as a basis of discussion. But is that the principle? The Leader of the Nationalist party has made quite plain what he considers to be the principle of the proposal. Two days ago he used those words:—
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford speaks now not only as if the whole Home Rule Bill, with all its details, were a question which depended only upon him, but he speaks as if he had absolute control—to do with as he pleased—of the whole forces which are at the disposal of the Crown. After all the hon. and learned Gentleman, whatever his power, is not the head of the Government of this country, and I have a right to ask the Prime Minister to say, clearly and definitely, is that the principle to which he asks our agreement. I ask him to say is this the principle that the people of Ulster, whether they wish it or not, whether their hostility to it has been increased or not, are still, in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to be brought in automatically against their will? Is that the principle? If that is the principle then there is no advantage in ambiguity on our part. I say at once that we absolutely reject it, and if the people of Ulster, because of that so-called principle, continue their resistance, then. I can only say, so far as I am entitled to speak for the Unionist party here, and to what ever extent our power goes—and I am afraid it does not go very far—I am afraid the brunt of the calamity must, in any case, fall upon Ulster; but to whatever extent our power goes we will assist them in their resistance. The objections to such a suggestion were put, after the Prime Minister had spoken, with, I thought unanswerable force by my right hon. Friend beside me (Sir E. Carson). I stated them also myself as well as I could, and I do not think I could put them more clearly now, and I shall not take up much time with them. But there are two considerations I should like to put before the House. If it be true, as the Nationalist Members tell us, that the working of the Irish Parliament will make Ulster willing to come in—if they are willing to come in—what object is there in compelling them, and if they are not willing what right have you to compel them? There is another consideration, not so obvious, but which is perhaps worth putting. On what ground do you make this proposal of temporary exclusion to be automatically ended? Putting the case at the best from your own point of view, it is this: that they will only have to come in at the end of the six years if this House and the country which it represents have not decided that they are not to come in. Quite so! Your case, as I understand it, is this: that the country is behind you to-day; that the country would be behind you in compelling them to come in to-day. Well, the position from your own point of view would not be improved six years hence. It could not be better. If that be true, what possible object is there in having all the confusion and difficulty—so great that I am afraid that is one of the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman does not formulate his proposals—what is the object of going through all that difficulty of altering the Bill for so short a time, and keeping up for all this time, the tension and uncertainty which would be put an end to one way or another, and of really setting up in this country a Government which would hardly be in working order before you had brought it to an end. There can be no object, and therefore your reasons for excluding the part of Ulster which wishes to be excluded is not the reason you profess, which is that you do not feel justified in forcing them to come in against their hostility to-day. If that is true, how can you be justified in forcing them to come in against their hostility to-morrow? If the Government really adhere to this condition, I am quite sure that there is not one single Member in this House who believes that that condition represents the considered judgment either of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government of which he is the head. It is not their view; it is imposed upon them from without, and, more than that, I am perfectly satisfied that if this condition were freely and fully discussed even in his House, it could not stand the test of such a discussion. Why, immediately after the Prime Minister spoke, even the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) got up and said that on the face of it that did not seem to be an insuperable objection on a matter of principle, that it was one which could be easily got over, and I noticed next day that part of the Ministerial Press took precisely the same view. For instance, the "Daily Chronicle" used those words:—
If the Government think that it is not right to have a General Election, if they object to do that for a reason which I can well understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Well, I did not mean that reason—I am a party man, and I can understand party considerations—if they do not wish to do it for this reason: that it would seem to be a humiliation to run the risk of an election before they had got any fruits from their Parliament Act, if that is the reason which influences them, or if they think, and it is quite possible they think—the Prime Minister has said it—if they think that a General Election now—and, after all, there is a good deal of interest about Ireland, and the Prime Minister himself on at least one occasion in a letter to a candidate mentioned Home Rule—if he thinks that now the verdict would not decide the question of Home Rule, although he is quite sure it decided it in December, 1910, when he did not mention it to any candidate or hardly in any speech, and not in his Election address—if that is his view, well, there is another alternative. The Government have themselves, in those very proposals, pointed what that alternative is. They have suggested that this question should be settled so far as Ulster is concerned by taking the opinion of the people of Ulster. If that is a right method in regard to Ulster, it cannot be a very wrong method when applied to the electors of the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am going to make to the Government on behalf of the Opposition—and I wish to make it as formally and as solemnly as I can—an offer which I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will not reject without at least some consideration. If he chooses to put his new suggestions into his Home Rule Bill, and submits those suggestions to the country by a Referendum, and the country decides in favour of them, then, I have the authority of Lord Lansdowne to say now that so far as his influence in the House of Lords goes, that body will offer no impediment to carrying out completely, without alteration and without delay the decision of the will of the people of this country. Why should that seem to any Member of this House other than a reasonable proposal? Why should it? I cannot see why. Does the right hon. Gentleman really maintain that he has a right to make this great change unless the country is behind him? Does he maintain even—and this would be a more intelligible proposition—does he maintain that the country was behind him four years ago on this question, which, of course, I utterly deny; but does he maintain that they were behind him four years ago, and that therefore he has a right to do it even though they are against him now? Surely that is not a position that could be taken up by any Government in any free country. If in the face of the calamities which are really in front of us, and which I think the Prime Minister realises as fully as I do myself, if he refuses to take a course so easy and so obvious—[An HON. MEMBER: "Easy?"]—it is easy—if he refuses to take a course so easy and so obvious, it can only be because, in the words of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that he prefers that the question should he settled by bullets rather than by votes. Now, if in face of such a position, the right hon. Gentleman refuses, other means having failed—and I put it that way—other means having failed—if he refuses to take this course he will, in my opinion, incur a terrible responsibility, and a responsibility which he cannot share with any Cabinet—which he must bear alone.
It may be quite true, as the First Lord said, that there are worse things than bloodshed. That may be true, but surely bloodshed is never justified if there is any other possible course, and surely it is never justified unless you can see as the result of your successful coercion advantages which absolutely overwhelm the loss of blood which would be shed. I am willing to leave it there and stand that test. What advantages can you get, suppose you are as successful as you can possibly be, what advantages can you get? If it were only a question, as the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said the other day, of serious riot in Belfast—though I think that would be bad enough—if it were only a question of that, you might go on. But that is not the opinion of the Prime Minister. He himself told us on Monday of last week that the danger with which we were confronted in Ulster was not a danger of riot, but a danger of civil strife. If that be true, and we all know it is true, what possible advantage can you get if your coercion has been successful? What will be the position of Ireland? You will have done nothing except this, that you will have added another terrible chapter to the long catalogue of bitter and indelible memories which have been the curse of Ireland. Suppose you do succeed in bringing Ulster into the Nationalist Parliament and as a conquered province, as a new Poland, what prospect is there for a United Ireland?
And what about the Army? We really now have got to a stage when we must face facts. What about the Army? If it is only a question of disorder, the Army, I am sure, will obey you, and I am sure that it ought to obey you; but, if it really is a question of civil war, soldiers are citizens, like the rest of us. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It never has been otherwise in any country at any time. If it is civil war, whether it is right or wrong—and I say nothing about it, whether it is right or wrong—the Army will be divided, and you will have destroyed the force, such as it is, on which we depend for the defence of this country. And what about the United Kingdom? I think it is quite true —I do not for a moment deny it—that at present, so far as I can judge, though feeling is very strong here in Great Britain, there are no great masses of men on either side who are, as the people of Ulster are, willing to risk their lives in this cause. I think that is true; but I am sure of this, at least as sure of it as I can be of anything, that if blood is shed in Ulster there will be precisely the same outburst of feeling here as that which took place in the United States when the first shot was fired at Fort Sumner. There will be an outburst of feeling which will shake to its foundation the whole structure of society in this country. That really is, as I believe it, whether I am right or wrong, the prospect which is before this country now; and, if the right hon. Gentleman deliberately makes up his mind to risk it or to allow himself to drift into a position so that he cannot avoid it, then, I say that, in my belief, no party triumph—and I think it would be a temporary party triumph—can be worth such a calamity to our people.
I am afraid that for physical reasons I shall have to speak briefly, and to make an unusual appeal to the indulgence of the House. The Motion which you have just put is, for a Vote of Censure we most gratefully acknowledge, couched in mild and moderate terms, and I gladly recognise that the speech with which it has been introduced to the House by the Leader of the Opposition was characterised by a corresponding moderation of tone. I trust that nothing I shall say, or be tempted to say, will tend to inflame the discussion. I listened with very great satisfaction to two or three propositions which were laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, and to which I wish at the outset to subscribe my hearty assent. The first was that he was willing, and that we all ought to be willing, to take great risks to make any tolerable solution, however unpalatable to ourselves, an acceptable one. The second was that bloodshed is never justifiable if there is any other possible course. And the third was that at this stage, at any rate, in our dealing with this grave and momentous matter, none of us, if we can avoid it, should finally close any door to a settlement. To those three propositions I heartily assent.
I cannot give the same, or, indeed, any degree of assent to a proposition advanced by the right hon. Gentleman towards the close of his speech in regard to the duties and functions of the Army in case of civil war? Who is to be the judge whether any particular contest in which the armed forces of the Crown are called upon to intervene does or does not fall within the category of civil war? Is it to be left to the judgment of the individual soldier, of the officer in command, or of the general? Such a proposition as that seems to me to strike at the very root of military discipline. We are often charged with want of imagination in this matter; but do not imagine that you can isolate this particular case of Ulster, serious and in many respects unique as I admit it to be, and apply to it principles which are not capable of a wider, and a larger and much more formidable application, when you have in view, as we ought always to have in view, the possible contingencies in which, in a state of society such as ours, the intervention of the armed forces of the Crown in defence of the law may be required. I very much deprecate the laying down by a responsible Statesman of the right hon. Gentleman's position of any such doctrine—that it lies in the discretion of those in the service of the King to determine whether or not any particular contingency justifies them in acting as the right hon. Gentleman would seem to suggest.
The question, surely, whether a contest is or is not civil war is generally decided by both combatants. For instance, in the American war the South were regarded not as rebels but as combatants. That is the distinction.
The South, as a matter of fact, were always described as rebels. I do not want to go into that. I only wanted to enter my protest against what I thought was a dangerous and unwise proposition. Now I come to deal in a very few moments with a matter with which the right hon. Gentleman hardly dealt at all, namely, the Resolution which is now before the House. That Resolution purports to express regret for the alleged refusal of the Government to formulate their new proposals. The answer to that charge in point of fact can be stated in two or three sentences. The principle—here I come to the question which the right hon. Gentleman very properly put to me, and to which I hope I shall give a sufficiently precise answer—upon which our proposals proceed, and upon which everything else hangs, has not only I think been clearly stated, but I believe universally understood. I will state it again in language which I hope will at any rate relieve me on this occasion from the charge of ambiguity. The principle is this: That to allay the apprehensions felt in Ulster there should be given to that province local option by areas, voted, it may be, by a bare majority for exclusion, and if and when that option is exercised, areas so excluded are to come in at the expiration of a defined term of years, a term so fixed that during its currency the electors of the United Kingdom will at least twice have the opportunity of determining whether or not that automatic inclusion is to stand.
The right hon. Gentleman—it is a perfectly fair question—says to me: What is your object in putting in that term of years? The object, I think, is obvious, and it is two-fold. It is, in the first place, as I have already indicated, to give to the electors of the whole of the United Kingdom the opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the matter, but it is next, and this is far more important, to afford them such an opportunity when by actual observation and experience of the working of an Irish Legislature they can see whether or not the objections of Ulster to it are well or ill-founded. Surely at present we are dealing, and necessarily dealing in this matter, with speculation, conjecture, and even imagination. Then you will have —by the actual working, both legislative and administrative, of the new instrument of Government which you have called into being—materials at the disposal of the electorate of the United Kingdom, which, for most obvious reasons, are inaccessible and unavailable now. Let me say this. I do not want to deal with this matter from a merely party point of view. I do not want to speculate whether or not it is probable, in the course of two General Elections, that the party which is now in opposition may not find itself in the majority in this House. I should be reluctant to believe, at all events, that they think that is an impossible vicissitude in the course of the revolutions of the political wheel. But quite apart from that I say, with the utmost confidence, whatever party is in power, whether it be the Liberal party or whether it be the Unionist party, if it is proved by actual working experience of an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive, that oppression, persecution, and invidious, unfair, or preferential treatment is a real and actual danger, I do not care whether you have a Liberal or a Conservative majority in this House, I am certain they would not agree to any such thing. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would be automatic."] It would not be automatic at all. It would be automatic unless Parliament interferes, I admit; but it would not be automatic if it were a proved case, for then Parliament ought to intervene, as it certainly would.
When the right hon. Gentleman says, as he did towards the close of his speech, that we should not discard the possibility of a Referendum, I am going to ask one or two questions about that. Let me say, first of all, he is willing, apparently—and he told us he spoke with the authority of his colleagues and on behalf of his party—that this matter should be submitted to a Referendum. Suppose that Referendum were to produce a majority in favour of our proposal? Am I to take it that, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, that would carry with it authority, if necessary, to coerce Ulster?
indicated assent.
It does? [A laugh.] This is no matter for laughter. I want to get at a real understanding. We are dealing with this matter seriously in that sense, and that sense alone. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared, speaking in the name of the Unionist party, to say that if a Referendum is now taken in advance, and the answer given by the people of the United Kingdom is in favour of our proposals, he is prepared to go the length of coercing Ulster.
Not on our part.
Well, he is prepared to say we shall be justified in doing it.
indicated assent.
Very well. What is our proposal? Our proposal is that you should first give six years' trial, and that no attempt should be made to bring Ulster, or any part of Ulster, against its will, within the ambit of this scheme until you have had six years' experience of the actual working of the Irish Parliament, and not until then, and even then, subject to the decision which might be given, and which, in a fit case, certainly would be given in the sense of veto by this Imperial House of Commons, representing the whole of the United Kingdom. Is not the proposal of the Government more favourable—I am asking this question honestly, and I want to get a reasoned answer—is not the Government's proposal more favourable to the minority in Ireland than the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman puts forward? But I am not going to leave the matter there. I want, as strongly as the right hon. Gentleman himself, in a matter of this kind, and at this stage, that no door should be closed. I take note of this proposal, made with the authority of the Unionist party, that this matter should be submitted to a Referendum. I want to ask one or two questions upon that. What is it that is to be submitted?
The Bill.
The Bill as it stands?
With the alterations.
With the suggested alterations?
Yes! [HON. MEMBERS: "He said so!"]
And to what constituency is the appeal to be made? Is it to be to the electorate of the United Kingdom as it stands, or is it to be put, as I think was not only suggested, but more than suggested, by Lord Lansdowne and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) some years ago, to a constituency in which there is single and not plural voting? That is a relevant question.
I will answer it at once, if you like. We should be quite willing to accept it without any plural voting.
There is a further question, and here I think I ought to address my appeal, not to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but to his colleague who sits next to him, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. Would Ulster accept the decision?
Does the Prime Minister give me a firm offer? If so, I will answer it.
This is not my offer, but I want to know what the consequences would be.
Is not that a hypothetical question? Whore are the details?
I understand it is not answered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"] I will point out, further, what I have had to point out on many occasions before—I do not say it by way of reducing the idea of a Referendum in political matters to an absurdity—but let me point out this, that when we attempt to take a; Referendum on a matter of this kind, it is a complete delusion to suppose that the elector will isolate his judgment with regard to one issue and will not have regard to the general political situation.
You are suggesting it for Ulster.
I understand the hon. Member's point perfectly. I am really trying to argue this thing without any passion. I am desirous, as far as I can, to ascertain how much common ground there is. There will be, and must be, a burning dominant issue. One specific question is put to them, Will you or will you not come within the sphere of the new Home Rule arrangement? No one can doubt that that will be the one question in the mind of every elector who votes in Ulster. But when you are dealing with a constituency like the United Kingdom, however much—and we have seen it at all by-elections—however much the candidates, and the speakers, and the Pressmen on both sides have tried to concentrate the attention of the electors upon Home Rule, or the misrule of Ulster, we have seen how many other issues come in and cut athwart the main question, and to how large an extent the judgment of the electors is affected, not by Home Rule or by the issue in Ulster, but by all those other issues. I must say I entertain the gravest possible doubt whether, upon a question which divides parties as this does, a question the decision of the electors upon which must vitally affect the position of the Government—for how could the Government possibly stay in office and pretend to carry on the administration of the country if an adverse decision were given against them upon their principal Bill—political conditions being such as they are, I do not see any way by which we could bring the electors into a frame of mind in which they will vote on a single issue without having regard to all the consequences on other political issues. These are difficulties and doubts which must enter into the mind of every intelligent politician, on whichever side or in whatever quarter of the House he sits, when a suggestion is made for the submission of a matter of this kind to the Referendum.
I can only say for my own part that we here—my colleagues and the whole of my Friends behind me—I am not entitled to speak for hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sit below the Gangway opposite—but, speaking for myself, my colleagues, and followers, I say we believe we have, in the proposals we have now submitted, proposals which have those two features, that they give to Ulster, in the first instance, free consultation of the whole electorate as to exclusion, and that they give, in the second place, to the electorate of the United Kingdom at two successive elections an equally free and equally full opportunity of determining whether or not, in view of their experience of the actual working of the Irish Government the excluded counties shall continue to be excluded or shall come in. We have provided, on perfectly democratic lines, safeguards which make the coercion of Ulster an absolute moral and constitutional impossibility, which secure for the new Home Rule Government and Parliament a prospect which ought to be opened to them, unless indeed the Imperial Parliament should see fit in the meantime to intervene, of having as a subject of Irish legislation and administration, not a separate, but a United Ireland, and to prevent the faintest possibility against the will and judgment of the electorate of the whole of the United Kingdom, anything in the nature of persecution, oppression, or unjust treatment. That is our view. I want to know, and I have not heard it from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, if the proposition is stated in that way and if that is indicated as the governing principle. I want to know upon what ground it is possible, in the face of a proposal of that kind, to justify an appeal to resistance. There is not a single area in Ulster that will be compelled to come in when this Bill passes into law, if the opinion of the majority of the electorate is against it. Not till six years afterwards, not till twice the electorate of the whole of the Kingdom has been consulted, can the inclusion, which we believe ought to take place and will voluntarily take place as a result of that experience, become operative. When I am asked why we did not submit to the House further details with regard to adjustment and machinery—to do the right hon. Gentleman justice he has not pressed that point, and he said very little about it—if I am asked why we do not do that, I point out in reply that this is a unique case. We are quite content with our Bill as it stands. We believe it to be a fair, just, politic, and workable measure. It has twice received the assent of this House in successive Sessions, and I have not the slightest hesitation or doubt in saying it will receive that assent again. We believe we have had for it, whatever you may say to the contrary, for all its main principles, at any rate, the authority of the electorate.
The authority of Redmond.
If we have made proposals of the kind I have indicated, they are not proposals in the ordinary sense of the term by way of amendment or improvement of the Bill. On the contrary, most of us believe, I myself believe, that exclusion itself, even partial exclusion, even temporary exclusion, is an evil, and I believe that to be the opinion of the vast majority of the people in Ireland of all parties and all denominations. I indicated the other day my own preference, which is shared by some other people, for another way of dealing with the matter, and it was only because we found that upon this road of partial and temporary exclusion there was any avenue open to a pacific settlement that we were reluctantly compelled to take it. But we have taken it, and there is our proposal. It stands there. We do not recede from it in the least. In the same spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman commenced and, I think, concluded his speech, I do venture most solemnly to appeal to the House of Commons to think twice and thrice, nay, many times more than that, before they dismiss what seems to us, in good faith after much deliberation and, as I have admitted, with great reluctance, to be the only way upon the pursuit of which the real hope of a lasting settlement may be realised.
I had intended to intervene at a later stage of this Debate, but in consequence of many things that have happened, and not least of all in consequence of what I might call the trifling with this subject by the Prime Minister and the provocation, which he has endorsed, by the First Lord of the Admiralty last Saturday, I feel that I ought not to be here, but in Belfast. [An HON. MEMBER: "With your sword drawn?"] Therefore I wish to make only two or three observations. [Interruption.]
Hold your tongues.
Probably hon. Members opposite will try to show some decency. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about your own side?"] I know it is difficult for them, but in the circumstances they might try. The Prime Minister's statement today has added nothing to what we have heard before. The First Lord of the Admiralty has told us that the Government have said their last word in the offers they have made, and he was backed up the next day by that superb man, the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) at his Sunday meeting. We have it now, I think, from the Prime Minister that this is the last word. Very well. If it is the last word, what more have we to do here? If it is the last word, then I tell him to read the First Lord's speech, in which he said that I and others were guilty of treasonable conspiracy, and let them come and try conclusions with us.
They will not run away.
The Government have been up to this time, on this question, a Government of cowards. They have not had the courage to deal with what the First Lord of the Admiralty now says was a treasonable conspiracy. What right had they to allow it to go for two years? The reason they did not deal with it was because they tried to put off till the last moment the attention of the country being drawn to the reality of the situation in Ulster. Otherwise they have been cowards. They know perfectly well that the reason they will not take away this time limit for exclusion, which their own Press and man of their own Members opposite admitted was a reasonable application, is that they have been once more called upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) to toe the line. Yes, and they have toed it once more. It would have been just as well if they had never taken their toe away at all. Having been all this time a Government of cowards, now they are going to entrench themselves behind His Majesty's troops, and they have been discussing over at the War Office for the last two days how many they will require, and whether they will mobilise. They have been all this time, as I said before, manœuvring for position. The First Lord said on Saturday that if it came to an outbreak he would manœuvre for the great political position that you should rather have a soldier shot than a poor Protestant working man.
That is quite untrue.
It is quite true. [Interruption.]
I believe I can find it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He knows it is true."] This has always been the policy of the Government: "If we could only get an outbreak, if we could only get them to attack so that we might then have a pretext for putting them down." That is what they have been talking about. I should like to say this to them: Gamble in whatever else you like, but do not gamble in human life. The right hon. Gentleman says that I am unfair.
Hear, hear.
5.0 P.M.
In my controversial methods. I do not know whether the House will accept him as a good judge of controversial methods. At all events, I should long hesitate before I adopted his standards. No, Sir, I have never, throughout the whole course of this controversy, which is now coming to a climax, said one thing which I would regret, or kept back in the slightest degree, everything the people were thinking of and were doing in Ulster. I suppose those are methods of controversy which the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand. He says I am wrong on the merits, or something or other, and that I shall be handed down to history as being so, as if I care twopence whether I was or was not. I am not on the make. Yes, Sir, if I am wrong on the merits, who taught me to be so? The right hon. Gentleman's father, a man who thought of the people, and not always of himself. As we have had the last word, as I understand it, we accept the situation. Be it so. I repeat what I said before—that your proposals, in the form in which you have made it, is not worth the consideration of the people of Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman says Sir Edward Carson would need to bring it over to a convention. Just think of the awful cheek of it, wanting us to be standing on tip-toe outside the convention while they made up their minds. What a degrading position for any Government! What do you do when there are Nationalist conventions? What did you do when you told the country that the real solution of this question was devolution and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) accepted it, and then he summoned a convention, and he could not carry it with the greatest Government of modern times, with a majority of three hundred or thereabouts at that particular time. It was not the House of Lords on that occasion that threw out the Government Bill—it was the Nationalist Convention in Dublin that threw it out, and they acquiesced in it. But, forsooth, to consult the Ulster men at all! It is a matter which is beneath the dignity of the right hon. Gentleman. We know, then, that there is no proposal to be made to Ulster. All the finessing of the Prime Minister will never persuade any person who reasonably thinks the matter over that you are doing otherwise than playing with the people in suggesting that Ulster's limit of exclusion might be extended if at any time Parliament so desired.
I found that very difficult to fit in with the rest of the Prime Minister's speech. He says if you go to the country now on a Referendum you cannot get the country to consider it, but three or four years before the exclusion comes to an end the one small question of whether Ulster is to be brought in or not is a matter upon which you will rouse the country. No. I said to him upon the last occasion, if he is in earnest upon this subject, exclude those portions of Ulster until Parliament otherwise orders. Why will you not accept that? Is there not as good a chance of raising the issue, as you say it will be raised, the other way? What is more, you can raise the issue then on the magnificent success of your Irish Parliament after it has worked for four or five years. Let me put another proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. He has told us over and over again that this Bill was to be the precursor of federation for the whole United Kingdom. I always doubted it, but if that is so do you not get the time out of that? If this is only one Bill, and you have to reconsider the question within the next few years, why not put into your Bill that those Ulster counties shall be excluded until the whole question is reconsidered with a view to federation? Everyone knows who has considered this question that whatever objection you may have to federation, whatever objection any subject of the Crown may have to a Federation Bill, you at all events cannot say he will fight, because as a subject of the King he is receiving equal treatment with every other subject. But it is when you separate one class and say they are to have separate treatment from all the rest of the United Kingdom, and furthermore are to be handed over to their traditional enemies, then the right to fight arises, and you know very well that all your distinctions, all your analogies to strikes and everything else, entirely fail, because in the one case you are dealing with men who are satisfied and are allowed to remain inside the Government of this Parliament, and in the other case, you are dealing with men who are resisting because you are trying to turn them out.
You refuse to consult the people. So far as I am concerned. I could not ask for better conditions under which to carry out the policy which you are so clearly driving us to, and for which you are finding every day absolute justification. At the present moment there is a great English majority in this House, and a greater in the country against you on this question. That is not all. England pays the whole cost, and 90 per cent. of the Army are English, and forsooth, under those conditions the Army are to be ordered to Ulster, if this is not all a joke, at the instigation and the hands of a man who, with his colleagues, has never ceased insulting them, on behalf of a Government who are not to contribute one sixpence to their upkeep. In that state of affairs, with the whole Unionist party absolutely unanimous behind us you may go on with the disposition of your troops in Ulster, you may go on with your conferences at the War Office, you can go on calling in your Law Officers for the purpose of telling you when you are within your rights and when you are not, you can go as far as you like, but you can never, in the face of those facts, never, never, never, bring this country with you in the belief that what you are doing can ever send a message of peace to Ireland. I hate all this talk about the Army being sent to Ulster. Ulster people have always been, and are at the present moment, on the best of terms with your Army, and it is the only part of Ireland whore that can be said. Your Army is welcome there, as is your Fleet, as it was the other day, as much as in any part of the United Kingdom, so much so that you think, before you commence your operations, of removing the regiments which are there at the present moment. I have never asked that the Army should not be sent there. I have never asked that the Army should not do its duty when it is sent there. I hope and expect it will. It would be a poor sort of courage to tell men to arm and train themselves, and then ask that someone should hold back the Army from going. Perhaps you will consider before you go what will be the effect upon the Army. You will be all right. You will be no longer cowards. The cowardice will have been given up. You will have become brave in entrenching yourselves behind the Army. But, under your direction, they will become assassins.
I am sure the House profoundly regrets that during the latest stages of those Irish controversies the voice of Belfast has been practically silent. One would have imagined that when a question so deeply and vitally affecting the interests of that great city now and in the future were brought forward, the community of Belfast would have looked for its spokesman in this House, not to a lawyer in England, however distinguished he may be, but to some of those responsible commercial, and industrial exponents of our civic life, some of whom are in this House. We have listened with the same deep interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and with that attention which we always give to him because he is a brilliant English advocate; but for a gentleman in his position of responsibility I should have expected to hear a speech breathing a larger spirit of peace than that which has permeated the pronouncement which he has just addressed to the House. He commenced his speech with a personal attack on the First Lord of the Admiralty. I thought it was the precise sort of personal attack that the right hon. Gentleman could least meet. I do not know what a great lawyer means by a politician on the make, but I will tell the House what an untutored layman means by it. When a young lawyer, in a moment of youthful and generous enthusiasm, pins his colours to the banner of a great cause, and gives his youth to that great cause for the sake of all that it good in it, when he becomes an Irish Home Ruler, and subscribes to the principles of Home Rule, and when the forces of honour and justice are beaten, joins the forces of a powerful enemy—that is what I call a man on the make.
I wish to say that the observation of the hon. Member is an infamous lie, and he knows it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and interruption.]
The expression used by the right hon. Gentleman is not one which is generally used in the House of Commons. I think he will see that it is not a proper expression to use, however strong his feelings may be. I am sure he would not wish to use any words so unparliamentary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
I should be sorry, Sir, to offend the dignity of the Chair by any expression I use. This is a statement which has been repeated and contradicted many times. At the same time, I would ask leave to withdraw the words "infamous lie," and to say "wilful falsehood." [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
The National Liberal Club, is, I understand, a great Liberal institution. You are compelled on joining that club to sign a document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!" and interruption.]
We have been discussing this afternoon very serious and important matters, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman whether it is really desirable to introduce personal matters in this controversy which we have heard several times before. We are now approaching a very serious climax in the affairs of this country, and I would appeal to hon. Members to drop those personal remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
As my name has been brought in, may I say that I have not the slightest personal resentment in respect of any comments made upon me, and I certainly do not desire that anyone should take up the cudgels on my behalf.
Of course, I have no desire, nor had I any desire when I rose, to pursue this topic at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]
May I point out to hon. Members that I have not asked the hon. Member for West Belfast to withdraw anything? He has not made use of any unparliamentary expression. It is only when an unparliamentary expression is used that I call upon anybody to withdraw it. The hon. Member has made a statement which has been contradicted, but we do not ask every Member to withdraw statements which have been contradicted in the House. If unparliamentary language is used, then it is my duty to ask an hon. Member to withdraw what is unparliamentary.
I unhesitatingly accept your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I have taken no part in the Debates on this question practically for the last two years. I have remained silent largely because one would imagine if anyone has intense feelings upon this Irish and Ulster question, he is not to express his views on the side of Ireland lest it may irritate. I am asked why I do not go to Belfast. I was there a fortnight ago, I will be there a fortnight hence, and I will be there when I choose. I will be there when none of the hon. Gentlemen who sit on those benches will be there, and I carry with me from Belfast, the normal Belfast, this impressive fact which I said there, which I state here in this House, as I have stated outside the House, that there was never a greater masquerade, or a greater sham and fraud, than all this talk about civil war in Ulster. I have no doubt—I admit it—that large sums of money have been sent over by interested politicians in this country—there was nothing subscribed in Belfast, as far as I know, by the working classes towards this propaganda, but a thousand pounds was subscribed by the working classes in favour of Home Rule for Ireland—I say that this whole propaganda, and this whole masquerade, has been machined and engineered by the forces of reaction and Toryism in this country. You (the Opposition) are impoverished in British policy. You have no programme with which you can go to the country. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition smiles. He once had a policy—the policy of Tariff Reform—but he dropped it because it was not palatable, and now, having no policy and no programme, they have made this expenditure of public money to organise this bogus civil war in Ulster. [An HON. MEMBER: "What public money?"] The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech told the Government, and inferentially told his party and the rest of the people of Ireland, that they were skulking behind British troops. I have stated on platforms, and I repeat it now, that if this were to be determined by the arbitrament of the sword, and if you took your British troops, and British police out of Ireland, we, who hold passionately to the conviction that Ireland ought to have Home Rule upon logical, upon democratic, upon reasonable, upon historical, and upon traditional lines, are prepared to have that issue fought out in that way.
The right hon. Gentleman is very sensitive in regard to the use of British troops in Ireland. There was a time when shivering and starving peasants, outraged and persecuted by the most ruthless and relentless system of landlordism the world has ever known, attempted to have their grievances redressed by the expression of their views in public meetings, and you did not then object to the troops of this country being sent over to Ireland to break up, not an organised military force, but peaceful bands of supposed free citizens, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was the chief agent sent to Ireland, not only to justify the suppression of the right of free speech on the part of those peasants, but to try, before packed tribunals, and to imprison my colleagues on those benches, not because they had engaged in Ireland in a revolt against the forces of the Crown, but because they had—[Interruption]. I admit the right of interruption when there is no other form of intelligent articulation. Those are the Gentlemen who now tell us that the British troops are not to be used to uphold your laws, simply because they think that the troops sent over to Ireland would be used to uphold laws carried by a democratic Parliament and a freely elected assembly. The right hon. Gentleman made another observation. He said, "You want to provoke us into an outbreak." I have listened to almost precisely the same statement in every speech he has delivered for the last two years. He says, "You are provoking us into outrage. I will go over to Ireland, and we will make the next move." It was not the next move in civil war. It was the next dodge in the party game of politics. And what do you think is the character of the provocation which will force Ulster into civil war? I read this morning in the "Times" the following statement:— Let us now see what those terrible incidents were that were to "set the whole country in a blaze."
It was under an Irish Parliament.
No; it was during the hundred's years of Tory rule. It was during the last century. [Interruption.] The Noble Lord can make a speech when I have done. During those hundred years of your government in Ireland we lost five millions of our population. Six hundred thousand of the peasant farmers of Ireland were evicted from their homes. There were two famines. One million of our people died of starvation. Hundreds of thousands of the best of our race were carried in famine ships across the Atlantic to America. We knocked at the doors of your Senate House and we knocked in vain, and all that was left to Ireland was to rise in armed revolt against this system, and, instead of dying like dogs, to die like men. And then a great statesman who had consecrated his life to the cause of humanity in those lands arose, and he preached the policy to Ireland of endeavouring to have this question settled by an appeal to the spirit of justice of the British people, and he gave to Ireland, as well as to England, the constitutional right to express her will; and for thirty years three out of four provinces in Ireland have sent a united representation to this country asking for Home Rule for Ireland, and one-half of the other province has sent its representation to ask for Home Rule for Ireland. You tell us repeatedly—it is always spoken from those benches—that Ireland is weakening in her claim for Home Rule, and yet it was only last year that we witnessed in Ireland a majority of Ulster Members being returned in favour of Home Rule. There is the judgment of the Irish people, and that judgment is constituted as a demand to this Parliament to do what Lord Beaconsfield said every Parliament ought to do—that is, to do for a people, by peaceful practical Parliamentary operations, what the people itself would do by civil war.
The Noble Lord sneered when I said, "Appeal to the judgment of the British people." What is to be the final test of the British people's judgment? This question has been before the British people for thirty years, a great vital and burning political issue, in all your elections and controversies. During the last seven years, a thing unprecedented in the history of British politics, the Liberal party, with Home Rule emblazoned upon its banner, has been returned, at the last two elections by over a hundred of a majority, in favour of Home Rule. Even within the last few weeks we had a miniature General Election which I think determines the question as to whether the judgment of the British people is given on this precise measure which is now before the House. Since last August there have been eleven by-elections in England. At those by-elections the vote for Home Rule was 69,661; the vote against Home Rule was 50,885, and there was a majority of 18,776, not only for Home Rule, but for this Home Rule Bill as it stands now.
That being so, it would, in my judgment, have been the duty of the Government to have proceeded with that Bill as it stands. The British people have given them the mandate at the continuous elections—General Elections and recent by-elections. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition stated that we were responsible for those peace proposals, as they are called. We are not responsible for the proposals of the Government. In my judgment, there was no necessity for those proposals. If it was for the purpose of conciliating the irreconcilable we have had a manifestation to-day of how the spirit and the practical operation of conciliation are received by right hon. Gentlemen on those benches. They do not know what conciliation means in this or in anything else. They would threaten you with civil war in the country and they would endeavour to overawe you in this House, and when the Government made this proposal, a proposal giving them all they could legitimately ask for namely, the right of a part of Ulster to say whether it should go out of the ambit of Home Rule or not—when this is conceded to them, they tell us that you are adding insult to injury. What has been the whole foundation of their case? They have stated over and over again that they loathe Home Rule, and will not come into an Irish constitution. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister says to them, "Very well, you need not come in, if you do not want to come in. You can say so and you can remain out of it and you can continue to be governed by this Parliament," and they reject that in the same remorseless fashion as that in which they have rejected every proposition and every safeguard which have been offered to them in this House.
The whole hope of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen was that they would put the Government in a difficult position. They know that exclusion is unpopular in the North of Ireland. I heard the Prime Minister say to-day that, among the resolutions which he had received in regard to this matter, was a resolution of the Independent Labour Party at Belfast. The Trades Council of Belfast has passed resolutions. What are those bodies? I venture to say that 85 per cent. of them are Protestants, and they object to a divorce of any part of Ireland from the rest of Ireland as keenly as we Catholic Nationalists do; and there is another thing they fear: they fear exclusion by option, because exclusion by option means that you put upon the people themselves, and not on the shoulders of party politicians, the responsibility of declaring whether they are to remain under the guidance and government of this Parliament, or whether they are to remain as Irishmen controlling their own affairs, and being partners in the work of advancing their common interests. I believe, and believe profoundly, that if you pass this Bill, by the time the Bill comes into operation, or at all events by the time when they are called upon to decide for themselves, free from the inflammatory influence of men who come over from this country and use their platforms for party and for Tory ends, if you give them the opportunity of voting on this question, though there can be only four counties that may exclude themselves, it may not be possible to get a single county in favour of exclusion. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech talked about the ingenuity of the Prime Minister and of the methods by which he wants to lure those innocent Gentlemen into an agreement, and he told us "Why not leave it to Parliament to determine later on instead of having a six years' limit?" I will tell you one of the reasons why we are opposed to permanent exclusion. If you limit it to six years, during that period there will be an earnest desire upon the part of Irish Nationalists to do everything that is humanly possible to satisfy their wants and their desires, and even to meet their most violent prejudices and to win them as they will be won as surely as I am speaking in this House—to win them over, not at the end of the six years but at the beginning of the six years, and if they come in and join themselves with the forces of progress, they will determine the future interests of Ireland in the Irish Parliament.
But suppose you leave it to Parliament to decide instead, what will be the result? We will have the old passions inflamed, old prejudices reinforced, old hatreds encouraged. Three or four of the Ulster counties—one the county to which I am proud to belong—will be made the battle ground for factions, for party shibboleths, for racial and religious cries, and the old weary experience will go on, and the whole story will be continued in that one part of Ireland which, above all others, needs the influence of peace, because there we have problems to settle, there we have great questions to adjust which, in my judgment, are infinitely more important even than those agrarian and rural questions which have occupied so much of the time of Irish politicians in the past. I say, then, that in my judgment, in the interests of Belfast and of those Ulster counties alone, it would have been a great blunder to have permanently excluded them, or to have accepted the suggestion put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. The only policy is to bring them in at the end of this time, and if, as the Prime Minister said in his speech, any wrong has been done them, any injustice has been inflicted upon them, if any ruin has been brought to a single one of their interests, they will have two General Elections in which the tribunal of public opinion will listen to their case with a ready ear and with a ready conscience, and they will ultimately have two new Parliaments to decide whether they have been able to make a case for continuing to live outside the ambit of the Irish Parliament.
With regard to the position of the Irish Parliamentary party, I tell the House frankly that no one on those benches ever accepted the proposals of the Prime Minister with a light heart. I said before myself, and I say it for my colleagues, that we did not and we do not believe there was any necessity for those concessions. The Government have thought otherwise. Has it ever struck Englishmen, has it ever even struck Members of those benches, Hew much has been the sacrifice we have made? One would imagine that the sacrifice was all on one side. Why, here are four counties that have done such hard work for Irish nationality in the past. You will not find in Tipperary or in Connemara as intense a passion for legislative freedom as you will find in many parts of Belfast. If you go to two of those counties you will find that the plains of Down and the glens of Antrim have been sanctified with the blood of Irish patriots and Protestant martyrs who fought for their liberty as we are endeavouring, constitutionally, to fight for ours.
Every blade of grass in those counties is sacred to us, and to concede even a blade of that grass, to consent to have it excluded, even for a time, from the great and magnificent scheme of self-government, is a deep and bitter wrench. I am glad to say that with that spirit of unselfish devotion to Ireland, and with that desire for peace which I think the House will admit they have shown in the face of unparalleled provocation, the Nationalists of Ulster are prepared to go half-way in this compromise. I am not aware that the other side have even consented to go a quarter of the way. The Nationalists have been prepared to go half-way, and have reluctantly agreed to this concession, believing, as they did, that when those six years are over, Protestants and Catholics alike in those four counties will join hands together in that native Constitution which will afford to the genius of each section of the race the chance of applying itself, not to a task of destruction, but to the great and noble duty of nation building, and I believe that of those who contribute most to the future power and glory of Ireland will be the Protestants of Ireland and of Ulster who will come within the ambit of that Constitution six years hence.
No one can take part in this Debate without a very great sense of responsibility. We are in the midst of a great national crisis, and are discussing among ourselves Hew this House is to deal with it. I think it must be the aim, at all events of every Englishman who speaks in this Debate, if possible, not to raise, but rather to lower the political temperature of this House by endeavouring to contribute something, if he can, in the spirit rather of the Speech from the Throne than of the speech to which we have just listened. But the Government and their friends try us very hard. Just consider what has happened only in the last week, and since the Prime Minister's proposals were made. First came the speech at Bradford, which, if ever a speech was calculated to do so, was calculated to make agreement on this matter almost impossible. On Monday last the Prime Minister was asked to give information as to his proposals, which we, at all events, thought necessary in order to enable us to judge of them. He flatly refused those details. He asked us for a decision upon his new proposals without telling us what is to be the government of excluded Ulster or what effect the proposal has upon the British subsidy; he will tell us nothing about the Post Office or about the Customs or about the judges, and, in fact, we are without information on a whole number of points without which no sensible man can really make up his mind finally on those proposals. To-day my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made an offer to the Prime Minister, conceived in a spirit and put before him in a tone which were the spirit and tone of the Speech from the Throne, and yet what is the result.
The offer was, "Put your modifications into your Bill; put your Bill into the shape which you think the right shape to be adopted, and bring your Bill, when so amended, before the country; then, if the country approve, you shall have the full benefit of your Parliament Act, and your measure will pass through Parliament." What is the response of the Prime Minister? He treats us to a forensic cross-examination of Members on those benches about the details of their proposals, although himself unwilling to give his own. It was a process in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University did not get the worst of it. Having gone through that process, he, as I understand him, absolutely rejects the proposals made by the Leader of the Opposition. He will not put his Bill, even in its amended form, before the country. He is afraid—he who said that at the last two General Elections the people gave a mandate for Home Rule—that even on a Referendum, without the plural vote, he will not get the true feeling of this country on this measure, or perhaps will not get a decision in its favour. What confidence he has in his own Bill! And how, after that refusal, can anyone believe that the Government really think that in their proposals they are carrying out the will of the people?
The hon. Member for West Belfast is entitled to feel some sense of triumph to-day at the success and predominance of that militant spirit of which, no doubt, he has been the promoter. But we must do the best we can; I hope we shall keep our heads cool; and I want the House to consider, for a few minutes only, the offer which the Prime Minister made to us, and the conditions under which he asked us to reply to it.
6.0 P.M.
There are two main difficulties with which Parliament has to deal in this Home Rule question: one is the opposition of this party to any form of Home Rule, that is to dividing the political sovereignity of those islands, and putting this Parliament into the same position towards Ireland as she is in to-day towards South Africa. If after the grant of Home Rule an event occurs in Ireland such as happened in South Africa, it would be the case in Ireland as in South Africa, that we here shall have no power to give protection. The second difficulty is that Ulster refuses to submit herself to the new political sovereign whom you wish to impose on her. What is the suggestion? You do not deal with the first difficulty, you deal only with the second, and you deal with it in your own way. Let me give two answers to the proposals of the Government. The first answer is with regard to Ulster, that you must for your own sake, and not for ours, meet the Ulster difficulty. You may change the allegiance of a community, I think, only in two ways, either by conquest or by consent. You have not got the consent of Ulster—I mean, of course, the Protestant part of Ulster. You have not got the consent of Ulster, which objects to be transferred to a new political sovereign, either to-day or in six years, and objects to the passing to-day of an Act of Parliament for that purpose. Are you really prepared for conquest—because consider for a moment what it means? It will be a murderous and fraticidal war. Ulster will be fighting not, as I held, against law and order, but against the cession of Ulster to a new power, against the transfer of her territory and her people to the jurisdiction of a new Parliament. The men of Ulster will fight against that with all their might, and I do not wonder at it, because they know better than we do to what kind of jurisdiction, to what kind of rule, they are about to be transferred, and you are going to use our troops for that purpose. I was told only yesterday by an officer who saw it of a scene which occurred when he led his men down that street in Belfast which separates the Unionist from the Nationalist quarter. He said that from one side of it came cheers for the troops, and cheers for the King, and from the other side came jeers, and missiles, and broken bottles, and you are going to ask those British troops to turn their arms against the loyal quarter to compel those men to submit to the people on the other side. This appears to-day or yesterday, I am not sure which, in a Nationalist paper known as "Irish Freedom," and hear what they say:— That is how Irish Nationalists speak of the British Army.
Very unfair. No name to it.
If this happens, you will have half England and Scotland tingling with the desire to show in any way they can their sympathy with those men who will be rightly struggling to remain free, and anxious to show in any way open to honourable men that they will willingly bear, if they can, some share of the burden of responsibility which rests upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend to-day. In our case, and with our opinions, I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would shrink from taking the same course. Consider your own position. You who profess to be the friends of struggling communities and the opponents of coercion, you are going to use coercion against your fellow citizens. Your success will simply be the prelude to further disaster. I am confident that this thing cannot be done in this country, and that you must in the end consent to exclude from this Bill a definite area, and look to the future for winning that part of Ireland which you cannot now force in. This is no new discovery of to-day, and one is reminded of what Mr. Gladstone himself said in 1893:—
The second point I want to make is this, that you have no right to ask us to make it a condition of your agreeing to exclusion in any form, that we should agree to Home Rule. That is a thing that we cannot do. Our belief in the Union of the Kingdoms is the very basis of our political existence. It certainly has been the determining factor in my own political life, and in that of very many of my hon. Friends, and we cannot give it up. If we did, we would be giving up not our own convictions alone, but also the desires of those who sent us to this House. Therefore, whatever course may be taken as regards the exclusion of Ulster, or part of it, we must use every Parliamentary means at our disposal to oppose the grant of Home Rule. You have not found a solution by the way which you have chosen. Is there not a better way which might lead to a solution of both those points, or, at all events, form a basis for discussion between us?
There is, I believe, a considerable volume of opinion on these benches that is quite prepared for a further measure of devolution of powers throughout the United Kingdom. I think many of us would be prepared to set up in Ireland a provincial government of one or of two assemblies, which would make Dublin and Belfast stand to the United Kingdom in the same relation in which Pretoria and Durban stand to the Parliament of the Union in South Africa. Such a proposal would give to the Irish the regulation of purely Irish affairs, and it would keep in the hands of this Parliament the effective direction and control the ultimate appeal on all that went on in Ireland. We should not give up our power to legislate for Ireland; we should have the same power in Ireland which the Parliament of South Africa has over the provinces of the Union of South Africa. You would in this way create a precedent for dealing with other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not now propose that you should deprive Ireland of that priority which the Prime Minister has promised to her. But, at all events, you would lay down the lines upon which we might, hereafter deal with Scotland and with other parts of the United Kingdom. You might even accomplish more than that. It is impossible to consider this question of devolution without coming across the question of the powers and constitution of the Second Chamber, a matter which lies right athwart this question. You might, in the course of dealing with this matter—this grave matter, as I agree—on lines such as I have outlined, find that you were also disposing of that other and possibly even greater question. You render lip service to the principle of discussion and agreement, but you have done no more. It is late, perhaps too late, to put forward a proposal of this nature; but is it not just conceivable that if we were asked to discuss this great question upon some sort of basis such as I have referred to, the basis that all parties shall concede the principle, the need, of some kind of devolution of powers, we might come to an agreement which would prevent a terrible contest.
It would take a few months, I agree; but the Constitution of the United States took some years for discussion, and, in the same way, some years were occupied in Canada and some years in Australia. In South Africa, where the difficulty was perhaps greater in some ways, but where the urgency was greater too, the Constitution was settled in a few months. I do not think that more would be needed in this country after all the discussion we have had. Surely a few months of delay, during which your Bill could be kept in some sort of suspended animation, would not be wasted if it led to a settlement on a matter of such great importance? There is, I know, the obstacle—per haps an insuperable obstacle—in the way of this course being taken in the obligations you have undertaken to the party below the Gangway. What you have promised to-them of course we do not know. If you have promised to them the breakup of our Kingdom, then you have promised what is not yours to give, and I trust it may not be in your power to keep a promise such as that. But if you are free, this I believe is the way to peace. You may not be able to travel it to-day, but I am glad to have at least had this opportunity of pointing to the road, and I am not without some hope that in happier days—perhaps after an era of conflict—this question may arise again, and that then at least we on both sides of the House may be able to tread that road.
The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has made a particularly conciliatory speech, which is very different in tone from some of the speeches which preceded it. I regret to say that the proposal which he made is not, to my mind, one calculated to offer the slightest prospect of an agreed settlement or any inducement to the Government, and certainly not to the Nationalist party, for whom I speak, to enter upon that course of prolonged negotiation and delay to which he invited us. The basal and fundamental facts underlying the whole of this long controversy, which for thirty-five years has, to a large extent, dominated English politics, and confused and more or less broken up the whole course of legislation in this country, is that you cannot get rid of the Irish question except by some final settlement that will to a large degree, at all events, satisfy the national demand of the Irish people. The hon. Member, as I under- stood him, indicated that a large portion of the Conservative party would be willing to consider very advanced proposals of devolution, more or less in the nature of provincial councils in Ireland. The day for that has gone by. That proposal was made in 1886, and, after deep consideration, rejected. We could have obtained that in 1886, but our people, we ourselves, and those for whom we spoke then and for whom we speak now, after thirty years of the vicissitudes of politics, would not tolerate it. Let me say this to the hon. Gentleman, whom I recognise to be a friend of peace, and one who, I am certain, is sincerely desirous of bringing this long controversy to a conclusion: Supposing it were within our power, as it is not within our power, to accept this proposal. I say it is against our own judgment; but even if our judgment went in favour of tolerating that proposal, our people would not tolerate it. We should be repudiated by the Nationalists of Ireland if we dallied with such a proposal at all. But what would follow if such a proposal were possible, and you had these bodies set up? It would only give a fresh weapon to those who control these bodies, which would be immediately used with the object of going further and of obtaining more concessions. The healing influence of a settlement would be utterly wanting in such a scheme.
There was another point in the speech of the hon. Gentleman to which I was glad he alluded, because it gives me an opportunity of correcting a false impression which has been made on many Members of the party above the Gangway, and which has also been made on similar occasions before. He drew a picture of the cruelty and intolerable character of the suggestion that you should call upon the British soldier to march against the loyalists of Ulster, and in order to heighten the colour of that picture he read an extract from a Nationalist paper called "Irish Freedom." Those of us who live in Dublin, and know "Irish Freedom," see that that illustration cuts in a diametrically opposite direction to what he expected it to do. "Irish Freedom" attacks us as strongly as it attacks the British Army, and more strongly. "Irish Freedom," which I buy very frequently out of curiosity, is the organ of those who have systematically for thirty years denounced us as traitors, because we sought to bring our people to trust this Parliament and the British people to do them justice. It is the organ in Ireland of the "Clan-na-Gael," and the revolutionary party. Therefore, when the hon. Member, I am sure in ignorance, endeavoured to fix upon us responsibility for the language used in "Irish Freedom," he might just as well have tried to fix upon us responsibility for the language used in the "Pall Mall Gazette" or the London "Times." I am certain that, after this explanation, the hon. Gentleman will never again lend his countenance to that.
One other point before I deal with the general issue of this Debate, of which really the Leader of the Opposition kept very clear in his speech—I mean the Resolution which has been proposed. He hardly touched that at all. Before I deal with that, I wish to say a word with regard to his offer of a Referendum. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) was extremely careful to avoid that subject. He said nothing of what the effect of a Referendum would be on the people of Ulster. Personally I am, and have always been, a strong opponent of the Referendum, because I consider it to be the most undemocratic and the most anti-democratic of all these modern devices for ascertaining the will of the people. Look at what happened the other day in Camberwell. A Referendum was taken, most elaborately and at great trouble, on this very question of Home Rule. The electors, as far as I remember, number 18,000. A card was sent to every elector, and what was the result?—6,400 voted against Home Rule, 342 in favour, and 12,000 never voted at all. Supposing a Referendum were taken within the next month, and not more than 50 per cent. of the electors voted—I think that a very high estimate of the number who would vote on a Referendum. Would that be accepted by anybody in the United Kingdom as any fresh contribution towards ascertaining the real will of the people on this question of Home Rule? Everybody knows what the result would be. Whoever failed in the Referendum would point to the fact that not half the electors had voted, and treat the result with ridicule and contempt. I say a Referendum is an absurdity, because whichever side was defeated would have a dozen reasons to explain why they were not bound by it. It would, therefore, only delay the matter and confuse the issue. [An HON. MEMBER: "Then why is it proposed for the Ulster counties?"] The reason it is proposed for the Ulster counties is quite different. It is assumed that there is a great and intense desire—which I believe to be largely exaggerated—to escape from Home Rule, and it is proposed for the Ulster counties as preferable to civil war. The offer is made to the Ulster counties—I will say in a moment what a great sacrifice we have made in the matter—because it is assumed that people who had any common sense at all would prefer to vote themselves out to shooting themselves out or being shot in the endeavour to keep out. That is quite a different matter from a Referendum in this country where there is no question of civil war at all.
What is the percentage of voters on a Referendum in Australia?
I do not know, but Australia is a very different country from England.
rose—
The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking later on.
The Leader of the Opposition, at the beginning of his speech, said—and this is the way in which all offers of concession have been treated—"It is now manifestly impossible for the Government to press upon the province of Ulster proposals which they themselves have admitted to be unreasonable." The Government have never admitted their proposals to be unreasonable, nor do we. On the contrary, the Government have for two years systematically contended, and I think amply proved, that the proposals are reasonable, workable, and ought to be accepted. The Government carefully guarded themselves repeatedly against any interpretation of that kind. They brought forward these suggestions not as amendments to their Bill; the Government never said that they were improvements, and certainly they never asked us to admit that they were; they brought them forward as the price of peace, and then they are told that they have admitted that their Bill is imperfect and ought not to be pressed upon Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask what is the principle of the proposals. He asked the Prime Minister to give him an answer with precision and without arrogance. The Prime Minister was certainly precise; he never is arrogant. What is the principle?
Let us recall for a moment, in order to appreciate the principle, what has been the consistent and persistent demand of the right hon. Gentleman himself throughout these Debates. He has said, "Give us an election, not on the Bill as amended, but on the Bill as it now stands. If that election goes against us we will abandon Ulster to her fate." That has been the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Here is the principle of the Government offer. We ought to know it, God knows, because it was a very bitter draught for us to take. We were against the policy; there is no concealment about it. You talk about our arranging everything according to our own will. If we could have arranged everything according to our own will these proposals would never have been made at all, because we do not believe in them; we have all along been of opinion that they would be received and used as weapons against the Government and against the Bill. Here is the principle: The Prime Minister comes forward and says, "I take you at your word. All that you have asked for is that Ulster shall not be forced to submit to Home Rule until after she has had an opportunity of appealing to the people of this country. I give you an appeal to the people of this country; nay, I will give you two appeals before any coercion can be placed upon Ulster."
Any reasonable man would have said that a more generous, a more reasonable proposal could not have been made. To us, I must say, it was a very bitter proposal, and we ran considerable risks, I do not deny it, with our own people, in saying that we would advocate it. We did, indeed! We ran considerable risks, and I think it is a great triumph of good sense and political instinct on the part of the Irish people that the Nationalists of Ireland backed us up, and that we are now in a position to say that we speak for the whole of the Nationalists of Ireland, with, of course, negligible and trifling exceptions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear." and laughter.] That is not a cause for laughter at all. We did run risks in agreeing to the proposal. But now let me say this—and I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying it, because sneers have been directed at us, and it has been said we only agreed to these proposals because we were particeps criminis with the Government in a political manœuvre and a party intrigue—let me tell hon. Members above the Gangway that they do not understand Ireland as we do, and that this is a very false and unfair charge. We ran this risk, and so far as I am concerned—I am taking every opportunity of stating it outside in the presence of large bodies of intensely Irish Nationalists—that we did it honestly. I do sincerely desire that Ulstermen will accept these proposals. I wish they would. Sincerely I desire it, because I believe it would strike at the very root of bitterness that has divided us in Ireland for so long, and has been, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the withering curse of Ireland for over a century.
I believe if we could induce these men to agree to the Bill in a way that would save them from humiliation of any kind, it would be well. After all, there are to be two elections, and six years to consider the matter. I believe this would be the beginning of peace. Therefore, I say I have been a party to this offer, and after a hard struggle, knowing I was running a considerable political risk at the hands of our own people in Ireland and at the hands of our own people in America. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Why do hon. Members above the Gangway make that interjection? [An HON. MEMBER: "Dollars"] Now, after all, that is very fine and very magnificent, but I did not notice that the Leader of the Ulster Unionists rejects any dollars from sympathisers. If anyone in Australia, or Canada, or the United States cabled him some dollars, he flourishes that cable in the face of the world! I am certainly not ashamed of American dollars, which have been a great source of strength to our movement. It is all very fine for hon. Members above the Gangway to sneer at America, and to sneer at the Irish in America, but they are a great element of power in the world, and if you want to maintain good relations with America and with the United States—and what sane Englishman does not so desire?—I tell you you have got to make peace with the Irish race in America. We, if you only knew it, are the best friends of this Empire. We are endeavouring, in spite of your sneers and your hostility, to win the Irish race at home, in Ireland, and in the United States of America to friendship with England. Why should you make that a matter of reproach? That is what "Irish Freedom" condemns us for. That is why "Irish Freedom" tells us that we are taking all the sting out of Irish nationality by teaching our people to come and make friends with the people of England. That is our crime. I will say that I am honestly a party to this offer. I most solemnly declare so, because I desire and believe that it would be possible to begin the operation, the blessed operation, of making peace between the Protestants and Catholics of Ulster and the Catholics and Nationalists of the rest of Ireland.
I notice with pain and regret an expression that fell from the Leader of the Ulster party (Sir E. Carson) in his speech a little while ago. He spoke of "handing over these people to their perpetual and implacable enemy." I put it to hon. Members above the Gangway who are Ulster men: Is that the idea that they have in their minds, that for all futurity three-fourths of the Irish people are to be regarded by the Unionists of Ulster as their implacable enemy? Is that the idea that the statesmanship of England is willing to accept? I say that condition of things is a condemnation of the whole system of the Unionist government in Ireland against which it is impossible to argue! If a Hundred years of that system of government has succeeded in producing such passions as we have seen given expression t o to-day, the system is condemned! Some hon. Members speak continually as if there were an historical, continuous, and unconquerable hatred between the Protestants of Ulster, the Catholics in the South of Ireland, and the Catholics of Ulster, which never has been bridged and never could be bridged, and which has gone on with undying fury from the days of the Battle of the Boyne and the Civil War. Is that true? Such a statement is in the very teeth of history. Remember this: in 1708, when Grattan commenced his agitation for a free Parliament in Ireland, the Protestants of Ulster and the Catholics of that province combined together to win a free Parliament. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes"] I am very glad to have that assent from the hon. Member just above the Gangway who knows Ulster so well. Although in that Parliament no Catholic could sit, and although for a hundred years Catholics of Ireland had been groaning under the most savage system of penal laws ever known throughout any civilised community, yet so great was the healing power of the system of freedom that that bad spirit began to wither under the magic influence of Grattan's voice, and the Catholic serfs of Ireland rallied under the leadership of Ulstermen—for there were no Orangemen in those days—and well for those days that it was so—but under the ancestors of the present Orangemen they went to the church of Dungannon. The officers of the Ulster volunteers assembled—no Catholics were inside that church, for no Catholic then could be an officer of the volunteers or bear arms—but when the Protestant officers of the Ulster volunteers assembled in that church they passed a resolution asserting the liberty of Ireland and her right to a free Parliament. The next resolution they passed was a resolution declaring for the liberty of the Catholics.
That was the result of the agitation for freedom. In the course of the first fifteen years of that Parliament, up to 1795, when through Lord Fitzwilliam and the action of Mr. Pitt, the Irish Parliament was completely abrogated, and the spirit of liberty completely withered away, all the hatred of the century, all the wrong on the one side and the suffering on the other—and this is an historical fact which I challenge any Ulsterman to deny—revived. In the year 1795, I think it was, the delegates of the Catholic Association of Ireland were going to George III. to lay a petition for Catholic rights before the King, and the Protestants of Belfast invited the Catholic delegates to pass through Belfast on their way to London. When those delegates arrived at Belfast, the horses were taken from their carriages, and the Protestants dragged the Catholic delegates through the streets. Again, the Protestant Parliament of Grattan, inside which no Catholic could sit, in 1793 passed the first great Emancipation Act, which struck the first fetters from the limbs of the Irish Catholics, and gave us votes, for then we were not allowed even to vote for a Member of Parliament. If it had not been for the interference of the British Minister, there can be no doubt in the mind of anybody who has studied that history of that Parliament, that within another ten years they would have virtually abolished the penal laws, and given freedom to the Catholics of Ireland—one of the noblest acts ever done by any ascendancy party in the whole history of the world. How then can any man with any regard to historical truth tell us that this awful hatred, based on a wrong almost unparalleled in the history of the world, that this awful hatred which had devastated our country and cursed it for 200 years, is un-bridgable, when we have before us the un-contradicted record of one happy period of fifteen years, during which the Catholics and Protestants of Ulster—and even of Belfast—shook hands, were friends, and bore arms together in the common cause of Irish liberty?
How can you tell us, Catholics of the South, who trusted our Protestant fellow-countrymen, who followed their lead both in Parliament and in arms—for we were enrolled in the volunteers under the leadership of Protestant officers after they opened their ranks to their fellow countrymen—how can you tell us to tear out from our hearts the hope that we may again be instrumental in inaugurating another such time? How can you tell us to look upon the Union as a success which killed that blessed plant just after it had begun to grow, and substituted in place of it the Orange Society, which was founded in a day of evil omen for Ireland, in 1795, the very year Lord FitzWilliam was recalled, and which has been ever since the root of bitterness and hatred in this country! No! It is idle to tell us to abandon that hope. We will not; we cannot. We believe that there are still kindly feelings between the Protestants and the Catholics if they are left alone. We believe that the Protestants in Ulster in a little time will come to trust us. We believe that one of the reasons—and I really say this without the slightest intention of offending anyone—one of the great reasons for the anger and extreme spirit with which these proposals have been received is because the Ulster leaders cannot trust the Ulster Protestants. I think that is so. I frankly admit that the Ulstermen at present are bitterly opposed to Home Rule, and that they will go a very long way to kill it. But I say that this policy of exclusion, on its merits, has no friends at all in Ireland, none neither among Protestants nor Catholics, Unionists or Nationalists, and that it has been brought forward in our Debates solely for the purpose of killing the Bill, and that it is used as that weapon; for if the Bill were once put upon the Statute Book and an Irish Parliament were about to be set up, I doubt very much if any of the four counties would vote themselves out. And, therefore, one of the reasons for this great objection is, that they are afraid that the result of the poll of the counties would be a very great surprise. Now let me turn for a moment to the very important question raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. That is the question of a time limit. They want to know why, if Ulster is to be allowed to vote herself out now, she should not have the same option at the end of six years. I will give them one reason.
We have, from our point of view, made great sacrifices. We have gone to the very utmost limit that the Irish Nationalist people in Ireland could be induced to go, and to us, between this proposal of exclusion of counties by option with a time limit and exclusion without a time limit, there lies an absolutely impassable gulf of principle. We recognise and accept, though not very happily, that if Ulster—the four counties and the city of Belfast—vote themselves out of the Bill it will be open to this Parliament if the Tory party come into power—not an unlikely contingency in the next six years—by a one-Clause Bill to make that perpetual, and many of our people in Ireland have thrown this in our teeth, and have said, "This is a nice position, that it can be made perpetual by a one-Clause Bill." That is the concession we have made. We know the great risk we have run, and we did it with our eyes open. The difference is this: we cannot and never can be a party to agree to the division of Ireland permanently. If that is done by the Tory party when they come into power, it will be done against our protest, and our hands will be clean. But to ask us, to use the words the right hon. Gentleman used, to be consenting parties to what we believe would be the ruin of our country and the destruction of our nation, is to ask us to do an impossibility, and people who ask us to do that are not friends of peace, but are simply trying to get us into a difficult position. The difference must be apparent to the strongest Unionist, and surely it is not too much to ask that if the cause of Ulster is so good—a cause as they believe it to be—and if the Ulster people are prepared to spill their blood rather than come under the control of a Home Rule Government in Dublin, how can they take up the position that I referred to of what they call civil war? That is what they call it, but I think that is euphemism. In the old days it was called rebellion, and it would be as clear a case of rebellion as any in the history of this country.
How can they say they would be justified in resorting to rebellion to resist an operation which this House at any time during the next six years could undo? And mark this. I do really desire to get hon. Members above the Gangway to try and appreciate the difficulties we were placed in and I do not want to make any concealment about it. Mark this, that not only this House will be able to deal with the case of Ulster if this proposal is agreed to, but this House will be able to deal with it with our power almost annihilated. We will not have eighty Irish Nationalists here as at present. We will be cut down to half. These Ulster counties will retain their full representation, and we will be cut down to no less than half our strength. Therefore they will have an enormous advantage in any appeal they may make to this House. I ask any hon. Members who look at this question with a sincere desire for peace to try and put themselves in our position, and to ask themselves this question: Could we have gone further than we have gone; and that being so, have we been fairly met? We are told we declared war upon Ulster, and we are threatened every day with the premature explosion in Ulster. I think really that is a very unfair way to state the case, and I think there is nobody in this House, even on the Unionist side, who, if they tried to put themselves in our position, would not say that we have been hardly treated, or that we have not made every effort and very great exertion, and exposed ourselves to great abuse, and that we ought to be met in a different spirit from that displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College. We are told we are now really at a very grave crisis in this country.
I am an old campaigner in these matters, and I have been a long time in this House, and I am honestly and deeply impressed with the gravity of the present crisis. We are threatened every day with what is called a premature outburst. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, to tell the truth, was certainly very provocative, but I can understand, or try to put myself in his place. His position is a very cruel and difficult one. Of course if I were to state all I feel, I would be inclined to use very harsh words of blame. But there is no use for that, and he has gone away, and I know his position is a very cruel one. He, and one of the Members for North Antrim, have gone over to Ulster to keep the peace, as they tell us there is danger of a premature outbreak. Why? What has happened to Ulster? What has been done to them? [An HON. MEMBER: "The Bradford speech."] Let us examine this point. I ask in all sincerity and honesty—and this is a very grave matter—what has been done to the Ulstermen to justify even talk of a premature outbreak? Who are they going to attack? An outbreak means violence. Are they going to fire on British soldiers because of the Bradford speech?
They are going to defend themselves against coercion.
To defend themselves against what? Against coercion says the hon. Baronet.
And trickery.
They know little of coercion. I can tell you that if we had done in the old days one-tenth of what Ulstermen have done we would be all lying on plank-beds, and very little sympathy we would get from hon. Members here. Let me go back and ask what is the ground on which is based these threats of premature outbreak. We are told that they have been flouted and insulted by the Bradford speech. Is it seriously contended by any Member of this House—and I would like an answer to this question—that because a politician makes a strong speech, they are entitled to indulge in outrage and violence and to attack British troops? We have been told their patience has been strained. What has been the condition of Ulster for the last two years? They have done everything they like. They have marched and drilled, and armed, and have grossly outraged and insulted the Catholic population. The Catholics have been obliged to utterly obliterate themselves, and I confess I never admired the Catholics of Ulster so much as during the last two years. They have abstained from all political demonstrations, and, mind you, they are not afraid of the Orangemen. Some hon. Members opposite have had an opportunity of seeing what kind of men, and fighting men, the Catholics of Ulster can turn out, and have seen them marching in their thousands. They are just as good fighting men as the Orangemen are, and they know it quite well. These men have obliterated themselves, they have been obliged to see bodies of armed men marching about the country in the most threatening way insulting them, and they bear it all, and have borne it in the past. If the Catholics of Ulster were to send us word that they could stand it no longer, and that they meant to assert themselves, I could understand it. They have done nothing of the kind; they have, on the contrary, not only submitted in perfect order to this command to obliterate themselves, but they have agreed to their everlasting credit, bitter as it was—and it was bitter—to permit us to be parties to this proposal which cuts out some of the finest Nationalists in Ireland from Home Rule. Yet we are told that these gentlemen who have obtained a licence unparalleled in the history of any civilised nation, such a licence as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College twitted and taunted the Government for allowing to go on—we are told that their patience is nearly exhausted and that they will break out.
7.0 P.M.
If you break out, you must do something and attack somebody. Who are they to attack? Are they to attack British soldiers or police, or their Catholic neighbours? That is a question to which there is no answer, and I do not think any answer is possible. I say deliberately that this talk about the insults and outrage that have been put upon the population of Ulster to such an extent as to bring their patience to the breaking point, is one of the most monstrous things ever suggested in the history of the world. The story of the wolf and the lamb was not in it. The fact is, all the outrage and suffering has been upon the other side, and these men have been allowed to ride roughshod over the whole province, and are not interfered with, and I think they would be well advised if they possessed their souls in patience until they are attacked. I do not know whether I ought to give them valuable advice as an old politician, but if I do, I would say they would make a very great mistake if they began. I noticed, and notice with considerable interest, because it is a very important matter, that the Leader of the Opposition, and, indeed, even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, said very little or nothing on the question of area. That used to be a very contentious question. From one sentence that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, I thought he was prepared to accept the county poll. It was open to that interpretation. He said nothing about the question of area. Some area and principle must be adopted, and on the whole I challenge anyone to suggest a better principle than the one contained in the offer of the Government. To suggest that the whole of Ulster should poll is grotesquely absurd. The greater part of the province of Ulster is Nationalist, and intensely Nationalist, and to contend that the City of Belfast and the greater part of Antrim and Down should be allowed to outvote the province would be pure madness, and the rest of Ireland would say, "If it is to be all Ulster, why not all Ireland?" A great part of Ulster goes with the south in all political considerations. What has been the argument always used in every single speech made by the Leader of the Opposition? He has always said you have in the north of Ireland a homogeneous community. Protestant in religion, and Unionists in politics, and all that we ask is that this community may be exempted. How are you going to get at it? That homogeneous community does not exist, and there is no such thing in the north. Is West Belfast homogeneous? Are the glens of Antrim homogeneous? My hon. Friend lives in the midst of a Catholic neighbourhood, and that is as Catholic a part as Mayo with the same political sentiments. You cannot get at this matter by province, and you must take some unit. South Down, South Armagh, are strong Nationalist divisions. The glens of Antrim and West Belfast are also strongly Nationalists. The only other way is by constituency, and in that case West Belfast would be Home Rule, and the other three divisions would be outside the Government. No proposal based on this principle can be final, or can be defended as thoroughly satisfactory. The Prime Minister said most freely that he made his proposals not as a settlement, but as an expedient, and that is his defence of the time limit. This Government could never be a party to the permanent division of Ireland, because you could never settle this question permanently on that basis. The Government do not pretend that. This is offered as a temporary expedient to obviate disturbance and trouble and to try and conciliate.
It is idle for hon. Members here—and I notice the Leader of the Opposition absolutely ignored his own resolution on this point—to pretend that the details of reconstruction to adjust this proposal to the Bill ought to be considered until the question is settled whether the proposals are on a reasonable basis and are accepted. I am convinced that if these proposals are accepted the adjustments are perfectly simple. They would have what Ulster asks—that is, to leave them as they are. They would be governed by this Parliament and the same machinery—a very bad machinery—to which they have been for so many years accustomed, and all you require could be done by Orders in Council, just like the other machinery of the Bill. The real truth of the matter is that this proposal is a genuine attempt to make peace. It is an endeavour on the part of the Government and on our part—and we approach the question with an earnest desire to go to the utmost limit in making our contributions—to put an end to this abominable spirit. What is the character of this spirit? It is embodied in the famous and historic letter, which I have quoted once before in this House, when it was disowned by an Ulster man—I mean the letter of Lord Wolseley, in 1893, on the occasion of the last Home Rule Bill, a letter which was written to the Duke of Cambridge, and endorsed the other day by Lord Roberts in the House of Lords. This is what Lord Wolseley said:—
This important and very interesting Debate began with speeches from the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, couched in language of great moderation. There were afterwards speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir Edward Carson), and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), in which some heat was displayed. The Debate continued in calm waters during the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), and I do not think the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has disturbed that tranquil atmosphere. There are many points in the hon. Member for East Mayo's speech which tempt one to reply. The hon. Member disowned the language used in the newspaper quoted "Irish Freedom," but it is impossible to forget that the Nationalist party, who now profess so much respect for the British Army, cheered loudly when the British Army were defeated in the Transvaal, when Lord Methuen was wounded and taken prisoner. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not true!"] The Irish nature can never gauge rightly English credulity, and they think the English will believe even that our own senses mislead us.
Your statement is not true.
If the hon. Member denies it that shows that his statement is quite worthless.
That is a very offensive observation. I only ask, in view of the observation made by the Noble Lord, that I may be allowed a sentence on this point. I was sitting here during the incident referred to, and I know exactly what happened. It was this—I know this because I was sitting here and listened to the whole thing—[HON. MEMBERS "So were we."]—the Secretary for War was reading out a telegram announcing the British defeat. He got to a passage in the telegram in which there was a great eulogy of General Delarey for the extraordinary generosity with which he treated Lord Methuen as a prisoner, and five Irish Members loudly cheered that passage. I reproved them on the spot, and warned them of the misunderstanding that was likely to take place, and that was the explanation they gave.
What about the message sent from Philadelphia?
It is perfectly notorious, and the hon. Member does not make his case any better by what he has said. It is notorious that the whole attitude of the Irish party was hostile to the British Army at the time, and this expression was only the most extreme form of many similar incidents. The Debate upon which we have entered arises in this way, that the Government have made a proposal and the Opposition are invited to assent to the principle of that proposal. When the Opposition ask for the details of that proposal the Government only say, "We cannot give you the details until you assent to the principle." The Debate, even so far as it has gone, has cleared up the issue of the deal. It is clear the Opposition assent to the principle, if that principle is interpreted to mean that Ulster shall be excluded as long as Ulster desires to be excluded. If it be the principle of consent, then we agree; but if it be the principle of coercion or compulsion, whether now or six years hence, then we disagree. That is a perfectly plain and intelligible matter. We do not assent to it because we relax our opposition to Home Rule. We do not assent to it on any such ground as that. We assent to it for the avoidance of civil war and in order that this great calamity may be averted, if possible. Then we are told that an essential part of the proposal—I do not think the Prime Minister can intend to say that it is part of the proposal—is that six years hence Ulster is to come in whether she likes it or not. That is how we understand the position.
That is the misunderstanding.
I hope that point will be made clear, and I certainly do not want to misunderstand it. If the Government will say that their intention is that six years hence there shall be another Referendum, and the part left out shall have another opportunity of deciding, I think we should be agreed on the principle of the matter. I understand the Government position to be that at the end of the six years "statutory Ulster," which is the Prime Minister's very convenient phrase, is to go in whether it likes it or whether it does not, and that is the principle we dissent from.
If nothing has happened in the meantime.
The true principle in the matter is the principle of consent. It is perfectly true that a newly elected Parliament can use its authority, even though it uses it unjustly, but that is the answer to what the Prime Minister said about the Referendum. We admit the sovereign authority of the people when they really declare their will, but we do not admit that the people in declaring to coerce Ulster declare either wisely or justly. We submit because they are the sovereign authority. The essence of our position is this: If you are going to come to a righteous decision, that righteous decision must be based on the consent of the people concerned. I find it difficult to believe that the Government will ultimately refuse their adhesion to a principle so simple and so liberal as that. If you do once accept the principle of assent, the time limit becomes a very silly proposal. Can we take the time limit as seriously intended? What would be the condition of Ulster during those six years? It would be one of continued unrest. No one desires to keep up all the clubs and organisations and the perpetual condition of tension for six years. The Government cannot wish anything of the kind. How can we really believe that such a proposal as the six years' limit is intended in the interests of the people?
And what is to happen in English politics during those six years? Hon. Members who belong to the Labour party are always saying that they want to get rid of the Irish question. But it is the essence of the Government proposal that you are not to get rid of it. There is no meaning in their appeal to future elections unless those elections turn on the Irish question. They are mainly to turn on that question, and for six years we are to be for ever discussing the Irish question on public platforms. Can that be a serious proposal, seriously intended to be accepted? I have no doubt the Government would abandon the time limit to-morrow if the Nationalist party would consent. Why do not the Nationalist party consent? Because they one and all adhere to the position that Ulster must be brought in, willy-nilly, and by coercion, if necessary. To that principle we cannot consent. I am sure the great majority of the people of England will never consent to it. They adopt our view, that the consent of the population concerned—the consent of statutory Ulster—must be the real basis for the settlement of this question.
I see on the Paper an interesting Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Pirie). Of course, I could not vote to leave out of the Resolution the words my right hon. Friend has put in, but if the words suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen became the substantive Motion, I personally, except for a single phrase, should have no difficulty in voting in favour of it. The single phrase is, "For the settlement of the Irish question." That would seem to imply assenting to Home Rule, and it would, therefore, be impossible for any Unionist to vote for it. If, instead, the hon. Member were to say, "For the settlement of the existing unrest in Ulster," I could vote for the Resolution, as it would then stand. It is well to show perfect candour in these matters. Nothing is gained by being in the least dishonest or disingenuous. I anticipate I should find myself not understanding the closing words of the Amendment, regarding the provision of a general system of devolution for the United Kingdom, in the same sense as the hon. Member who proposes it. The sort of devolution I should favour would be extremely different from the sort the hon. Member probably means, but, taking the declaration in its literal and grammatical sense, I have no objection to a general system of devolution, although it would be of a very different character to one which the hon. Member favours. If the hon. Member is anxious to obtain such a basis for settlement in his Resolution, so far as conversations which I have had with hon Friends enable me to judge of their opinions, I believe that would be the general sense of hon. Members on both sides. It is very important to show hon. Members opposite that we differ from the Government, we differ on points which are really substantial, and not on mere matters of words. We differ on an essential distinction, a distinction between consent and compulsion. If the Government adopts the principle of consent, then we shall find ourselves in harmony with this proper and legitimate purpose of avoiding civil war.
As to the question of agreement in principle, I frankly say I cannot help wondering why the Government are so anxious that we British Unionists should agree to anything. Our agreement makes no difference—they are masters in this House, and they have not shown the slightest desire in the past to consider our wishes or feelings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I should have thought that to carry Bills of a violently controversial character by an unprecedented use of the guillotine could not be said to be treating the Opposition considerately. I suppose the Labour party are surprised that we have not been subjected to corporal punishment, but, short of that, I do not see how we could have been treated with a greater lack of consideration. I repeat I do not see why the British Unionists are asked to agree. I do not understand really why, if a proper system of exclusion is adopted, Ulstermen need care. If they are cut out of the ambit of the Bill they are out of it, and there is nothing for them to resist. I therefore do not understand the purpose of the demand for agreement. It is quite true that owing to the singu- larly unworkable law which hon. Members insisted on passing, it is necessary to get the consent of the House of Lords to any amendment of this Bill.
Observe that the Government in this respect find themselves in a difficulty, owing to their own conduct in the past. If they had kept their pledged word, if they had carried out their obligation of honour, they would not have had to deal with the House of Lords in this matter. They might have had a reformed legislative assembly, through which they would have been able to carry their Bill, with any Amendments they pleased. But for their own purposes, they wilfully delayed reforming the House of Lords, and now they are forced to submit their Amendments to an inefficient body. It works in an awkward way, not only for the Government but for the House of Lords. It puts that Assembly in a grotesque position, when it is convinced that Home Rule is a bad thing, to make it the actual instrument for converting it into a workable proposal. It only shows how that exceedingly bad Parliament Act works in its present truncated form. I have no authority to speak for them, but I should be very greatly surprised if the House of Lords shows itself reluctant to discuss thoroughly exhaustively any conciliatory proposals put before it, so far as they relate to the avoidance of civil war. That Assembly is unpopular with the other side, but I doubt if anyone on those benches believes that any Member of the House of Lords desires civil war or is reluctant to avoid it any more than Members of this House. Therefore, I do not understand this claim for agreement being made so vehemently at this stage. Whatever we do, we cannot possibly diminish the responsibility that lies on the Government. The Government, as the Government of the country, are fully responsible. They are supported by the majority in this House. We could not, if we would, relieve them of their responsibility. Responsibility is not like an umbrella. You cannot take it, if it does not belong to you, and we cannot take their responsibility, or by verbal agreement in any way diminish that responsibility. If they really believe that this proposal is desirable in the interests of peace, they must take the responsibility for it. I quite recognise that they think it is not the ideal form of beauty which is already realised in their Bill. They no doubt look upon it as an ugly piece of brickwork which spoils the beautiful lines that were there before. Whatever be their real opinion of the measure, it is perfectly clear, in the circumstances of the case, that they regard the Amendment as an improvement. I do not think the hon. Member for East Mayo, who dissents, can have reflected that when they put forward a proposal they put one forward which in their opinion is going to improve the scheme. We must look upon the proposal, therefore, as in their view an improvement. I want the Liberal party to clearly understand our position. If this proposal be an improvement, if in the circumstances of the case it is an improvement, the Government cannot escape the responsibility of doing their best to carry it through. It is an improvement in the actual circumstances of the case. It is not, of course, an improvement in an ideal set of circumstances, which do not exist.
The Government, therefore, I conceive, should press these proposals forward in this House in what form they like. I do not know what the best form is, whether by means of suggestion or by a Bill to be submitted to the House of Lords in a proper manner. In that way they will act up to their sense of responsibility which the Chief Secretary fully admits. I understand he does not deny the responsibility that does and must lie upon the Government. If they do not do it, if because they do not like the tone of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, or the articles in the Unionist Press, if they do not make a proposal which in their conviction is desirable in the interests of peace, surely a moral responsibility which no honest man would dream of incurring would rest upon them. We are told that there are worse things than bloodshed. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that, but there may be occasions on which blood is rightly shed. They arise, however, on graver matters than decisions affected by the tone of speeches or of Unionist articles in the newspapers. The only way in which the Government can get rid of their burden is by doing their utmost to carry the proposals which they themselves think necessary in the interests of peace. If they do that they are free from responsibility. But they must not act as the touchy maiden lady who thinks she is not treated with proper respect.
I should like to refer to a recent speech at Bradford, and I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in his place. The Patronage Secretary to the Treasury told the meeting at Bradford that a General Election was not coming for a considerable time. But when I read the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty I thought that the Patronage Secretary must be mistaken. The First Lord resembles one of those toys used for showing the weather, in which one figure comes out for fine weather and another for foul weather. I thought the sensitive organisation of the right hon. Gentleman's mind seemed to feel the approach of a General Election in the distance, because the statesman had gone indoors and the tub-thumper had come out. The right hon. Gentleman descended to a sort of rhetoric which I always think is unworthy of his really very great literary talent. It reminded me of cheap champagne—a mixture of gooseberry juice and vitriol—which sometimes has an exhilarating effect at the moment, but which proves nauseating sooner or later. Although it was undesirable rhetoric, he said one or two things which no doubt would have weight with the public. In the first place, he said something about bullets and ballots. The point was that if the choice were given to Ulstermen, they ought not to fight. We admit that. If the choice is a genuine choice, if you really adopt consent, of course all moral grounds: for civil war disappear. But do you accept the principle of consent? Then, he said, that there must be one law for all. I quite agree. He meant, or course, that we must not treat resistance in Ulster any more respectfully than we should treat resistance anywhere else. The truth is that the Government are already treating the resistance of Ulster with a disrespect which no Unionist or Liberal Government would ever have shown to a similar body of opinion in Great Britain. They have shown a disrespect for that opinion, which no Government would have shown for a similar body of English or Scotch opinion. Supposing you found that a body of opinion in Great Britain were so bitterly moved by a Bill which was before Parliament that they' were actually proposing to lay down their lives rather than submit to it, do you suppose that it would ever pass a Second Reading, much less be passed three times? Of course not.
Supposing, under your scheme of Home Rule all round, Cheshire wanted to be put into Wales, or Monmouthshire wanted to be put into England, and were prepared to fight about it, do you think that any Parliament or Government that has ever been seen would not give way the very first time the question was raised? Of course they would. There is the opposition of the Labour party, of which we are so often told that we ought to be afraid, though I am not sure whether a revolution laid by the present Labour party would be very intimidatory. Supposing we had a Bill before Parliament, let us say establishing compulsory arbitration in labour disputes, and that over the greater part of England it was accepted, but that it was violently unpopular in Lancashire, and there was a prospect of riot or an appeal to force of any kind, do you mean to tell me that any Government would ever march troops into Lancashire to shoot down the artisans of Bolton, Oldham, and Manchester in order to enforce the Bill? [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly.] Of course not. Hon. Members do not know their countrymen, and they do not know their official countrymen above all. They do not know the two Front Benches. No Front Bench ever seen would ever do so; they would, of course, give way promptly, and say, "We will make a special exception of that district; perhaps, later on, the matter may be adjusted." The thing would never come. There would be no question of it. As soon as this violent, strenuous, and earnest opposition was declared the Government would give way, and every Government in a free country ought to give way; otherwise, freedom is a mockery. Freedom does not merely rest on the machinery of representative Government. We were a free country long before we had the elaborate democratic system we have now. It rests on the Government respecting the wishes of the country. Sir Robert Walpole was at the head of a Parliamentary majority, and he could have forced the Excise Bill through Parliament, but when he saw it was so violently opposed he gave way and withdrew it. Statesmen have always treated the British people so.
Therefore, when you say one law for all, we say: "Yes, give to the Ulsterman not all, but one-tenth of the consideration you would give to a similar body of British opinion, and you would exclude Ulster without more ado or delay. It is said to be very undesirable to yield to force. No doubt it is a great blunder to put ourselves in such a position that you have to yield to force, or else encounter force by force; but very great men have yielded to force. The Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel yielded to force. They yielded in a far more surprising manner than anything asked of the present Government, because they used their authority to carry into law the measure for Roman Catholic emancipation which they had always resisted and opposed. Nor does anyone blame them for yielding. What they are blamed for is that they did not see long before that the thing was wrong, and did not make the concession more gracefully. The Government have gone a long way in imitating the mistakes of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington, and the best thing they can do now is to imitate their tardy repentance. I think it is a pity that more than a year ago the Government did not listen to the very solemn request addressed to them by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) and his colleagues from Ulster. When the Bill was before this House on the Report stage a letter was addressed to the Prime Minister which set out briefly the grounds on which exclusion was asked for. I will only quote two sentences from it. They do seem to me to state in a nutshell the case which is really to be made for excluding Ulster:— recognises it. My answer about the question of areas would be this: We all know—it is not a matter of controversy—what we mean by Protestant Ulster; we mean the remains of the great foundation settlements of 1870, and the population they affected. I did not quite agree with the hon. Member's very interesting account of what took place at the end of the eighteenth century. The population is historically bound together by very close bonds of union, and, after all, it is too late now, as I conceive it, for the British people to complain of the attitude of the Ulstermen. They were sent there to be just what they are. They were sent to bind Great Britain to Ireland, and to bind Great Britain to Ireland with links of iron, and links of iron they remain. They were sent there to be British and Protestant, and British and Protestant they are. Our ancestors did these things, and nothing could be a baser or meaner thing to do than to turn our backs on what our ancestors did because in our time political parties think it convenient to try and invert the whole national character of these people. I say national, because it does seem absurd to pretend that they are of the same nationality as hon. Members of the South and West. When we listened to the heated discussion between my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) I could not help wondering what hon. Members opposite thought of the union of hearts. In their theory Ireland is a nationality, and a nationality, among other things, implies that the members of that nationality are bound together by such warm affections that they stand against everybody.
Are you and the party opposite such warm friends?
The hon. Member would see, if Frenchmen and Germans were present, that we should not quarrel in the presence of a common enemy. It certainly does not seem to me that the two sections of the Irish representatives are bound together with such affection that they can be termed fellow nationalists. I wanted to say one word about this theory of the harmlessness of bloodshed. It is quite true that there are worse things than bloodshed, but it so much depends upon whose blood you propose to shed. To shed your own blood is sometimes foolish, but it is never ignoble; but to shed somebody else's blood is generally criminal, and always a very regrettable and terrible necessity, and to send some third party to shed a fourth party's blood is a still less amiable form of indulging in the shedding of blood. When the First Lord of the Admiralty was addressing the gory Radicals of Bradford they appear to have felt a snug complacency at the prospects of the British Army going and shooting somebody else. I have no sympathy with that attitude of mind. I do not sympathise with the Ulstermen if they put forward the case that they are going to kill somebody else. What moves my sympathy is that they are prepared to die themselves for what they believe to be right. I believe that their claim is right, but, if I did not agree with them, I should still respect the seriousness and earnestness of their purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Sir Edward Carson?"] Whatever my right hon. Friend's faults are, he is certainly not lacking in personal courage.
I want to say one word of appeal on this great question. We are, of course, fundamentally divided on the subject of Home Rule. No one detests it more than I do; no one is a more bitter opponent of it, but I do think and I do feel that, for the moment, Home Rule is a little overshadowed by the pressing danger of civil war, and I cannot believe that the Government will persist in that attitude of refusing adherence to the plain and natural principle which seems at first sight to be implied in their own proposals—that the Ulstermen should be allowed to determine whether they come in or go out, and that freedom to determine should not be limited to six years, but as long as they please. Hon. Members say that they cannot consent to permanent exclusion, but if it depends upon the will of the Ulstermen, it will only be permanent if they wish it. It is not in terms permanent exclusion, but an exclusion resting on the will of the Ulstermen. If it be true that the Nationalist party are going to win over the Ulstermen—they do not look like it at present—then the exclusion will only be temporary. Why is it that Liberals are so afraid of trusting Liberal principles? Why is it that they will not say frankly, "We base ourselves on the principles of consent and liberty, and are prepared to enter into discussions and negotiations with those who, like ourselves, recognise these sovereign principles."
Amendment Proposed
I beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words "would welcome a common ground as the basis of agreement for the settlement of the Irish question, and is of opinion that with good will such might be found in the exclusion from the Government of Ireland Bill of counties of Ulster until legislative provision for a general system of devolution for the whole United Kingdom be ready to come into operation, such provision to take place within six years."
The House has never listened to a greater truth than that stated by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that a happy solution of this Home Rule question was the most important factor in securing the good will of our American kinsmen. A truth more bound up with the welfare of the world and the progress of the Anglo-Saxon race it is impossible to imagine. It is with the object of securing a satisfactory settlement of this matter that I have put down this Amendment on the Paper. Since I first put it on the Paper several suggestions have been made with regard to alterations in it in order to make it more acceptable, especially to the party led by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). I have added therefore the words at the end, "such provision to take place within six years." Those added words ought to recommend the proposition to friends and foes alike. From the point of view of those who never favoured a Federal scheme, it ought to be an inducement to bring about a Federal scheme all the sooner, and it ought also to be an inducement for the others to hurry on a satisfactory solution of the question. As for the views of the Ulster party, and especially the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), I can assure him the Amendment is very largely based on the views he has stated to the country. I welcome the two speeches with which this Debate was opened, those of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, as showing that they, the Leaders of the two great parties in this House, thoroughly realise the gravity of the situation with which the House finds itself face to face to-day. I think the country will welcome the announcement by both those right hon. Gentlemen, that the doors are not yet closed, and that anything that can lessen opposition and secure the co-operation of the whole of Ireland in a settlement ought to be encouraged.
The House will believe that my only inducement in moving this Amendment is to secure agreement. It is not exactly the solution I should have advocated, because I should prefer that the whole matter was dealt with in one Bill. In 1912 I voted for the proposal of the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. Agar-Robartes), that the four counties of Ulster should have a chance of declaring by popular vote whether or not they would come into this Bill. But, as things are at the present moment, this House, and every individual in it, must exercise mutual forbearance. The point of my Amendment is that, as far as possible, I seek to register the points of agreement that have been reached, rather than to register the amount of disagreement which exists. Although, perhaps, it may be advocating a counsel of perfection, after the discussion which has taken place and will take place, I believe the country would welcome my suggestion that a solution should be discussed. A Division, after all, is a purely mechanical operation, and can serve, in a case like this, no good purpose. I ask the House to go back to the spirit which existed between the Leaders of the parties last November. If it had been possible, I should like to have asked the House to go back two years, when this Debate first originated and the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division moved his Amendment. Perhaps some of us regret very much that more effect was not given the opinions of those who voted with him on that occasion. If they had been, a great deal of trouble might have been saved. However, that is asking for the impossible. At the same time, I would point out that the country must regret more and more the failure of the Conference of 1910. I mention these facts because time is going on, day by day it gets shorter and shorter; and it therefore becomes more than ever imperative to make ourselves aware of the reality of the situation. It is becoming more and more difficult to go back, even for a week or so, in times like the present. Therefore, let us consider for the moment the situation as it was a few months ago. The outstanding feature of that situation was the conditions put before the country by the Leader of the Ulster party as being conditions on which he would consent with his party to a settlement. Speaking at Manchester on 3rd December, he said that there were four principal conditions, each of which I maintain is covered by my Amendment:— would appeal to hon. Members opposite, more especially when I cite another great authority which ought to appeal to them, in favour of a federal solution of this question. Lord Grey, whose name must receive respect for the work he has done for the Empire, is now in New Zealand. On 11th March he was interviewed with regard to the Prime Minister's proposition as to the six years' exclusion. He is reported in a telegram as follows:— making in the West of Ireland, of the formation of Irish Nationalist Volunteer corps. He said the Irish political leagues treated the Ulster movement with mockery, but that the Irish Nationalist Volunteers admired the spirit shown by the Irish Volunteers. I think from the admiration which is shown on each side of the gallantry which is inherent to the Irishman's nature, that a much happier future might be found for him than the prospects of civil war. We are at present, as a great Irishman (Lord Dunraven), writing to the "Times" yesterday, said, in a position of stalemate. It is impossible, in my view, for the Prime Minister to put forward the details as requested by the Opposition until he knows, not whether the Opposition will agree to his proposition or not, but the extent of the country which will take advantage of it, and therefore the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is unfair, and I am sure on reflection—neither he nor the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) showed very much sign of it to-day when they spoke—he would realise that the accusation against the Prime Minister of the proposition being a hypocritcal sham could not be maintained in any way. The Prime Minister at present is helpless and the country is in a position of stalemate. If only a proposition such as I have put forward could be adopted in principle the Referendum would take place in the areas selected in Ulster quietly before the Bill comes into operation, and then with the area known which had elected exclusion and the area known for inclusion, a different proposition could be put before the House, or, better still, a conference for the mutual settlement of this great question. I think we ought to sink ourselves in this matter. We ought ourselves to contribute something for the common solution of this question, which is the greatest one which has conic before the country and the House for nearly a century.
I beg to second the Amendment. All of us have not always agreed with my hon. Friend, but I think everyone will appreciate the single-mindedness with which he has devoted himself to this question of the federal government of this country. I am pleased to second the Amendment, because it has struck me for a long time that every step we take along the road to Home Rule for Ireland takes us necessarily nearer to a federal govern- ment in this country. It has been curious to see how the force of circumstances has driven the Government and hon. Members who represent the great majority of Ireland towards a solution which does not shut, the door, but, on the contrary, as I believe, is the first step towards a federal government of this country. I am not seconding this Amendment in any spirit hostile to the Government's proposals. I am merely doing what I think all of us ought to do, trying to grope along and find some way out of the tangle into which we have got ourselves.
You are making it worse.
It may be worse, but it may be a happy solution which will let us out of the maze. That is the object with which we have put it forward. But I realise to the full the statesmanship shown by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond). It must be obvious to anyone that the solution proposed by the Government is abhorrent to everything that the Irish Nationalists have preached for nearly a century, and yet I have not heard a single hon. Member opposite say a single word acknowledging the greatness of that sacrifice towards the cause of peace, and in the same way those who sit on this side, my hon. Friend (Mr. Pirie) and I, totally disapprove of any policy which cuts out one part of Ireland from the living body. But we, in the cause of peace, have agreed to support the Government in this connection that they put forward. My hon. Friend and I believe that our solution is a better one, and that is why we put it forward, but I recognise the greatness of the sacrifice on the part of the Liberal and Radical party, and of the Nationalist Members of Ireland in the solution which they put forward under the Government's proposals. I want to treat this in the most considerate manner, because really it will be a blot and a disgrace to the statesmanship of this country, if when the two great parties are so near together, when a speech like that of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) can be delivered from those benches, we are to seriously talk of civil war. As I take it there is one great fundamental fact which must be faced, and that is that the coalition party is in a majority in the House, and therefore has the power of governing this country. In reading a speech made by President Lincoln in 1861 the other day, I came across these words, which I took out, as they struck me as so peculiarly apposite to the present position: tion which seems to us capable perhaps of being of some use in this controversy. There was one other point which struck me in the speech of the Noble Lord. He said, "What a mad world it is. Here is a Government and they have forced upon a province a policy which they would never think of forcing upon Lancashire or Monmouthshire, or upon any place which protested in this way." He talked as if there was only one problem to be faced. The problem we have to face is not that Ulster objects—if that was the only problem it would be easy of solution—but that three-quarters of Ireland insists also that after 100 years of constitutional agitation they should have their wishes considered now.
It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.
Private Business
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 21) BILL.—(By Order.)
( Suspended under Standing Order of 11th August, 1913. )
Third Reading deferred till Thursday next, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Government of Ireland Bill
Proposed Vote of Censure
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Question, "That this House, having heard the statements of the Primp Minister, regrets the refusal of the Government to formulate their suggestions for the amendment of the Government of Ireland Bill, and is of opinion that these suggestions ought to be formulated before the resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill."—[ Mr. Bonar Law. ]
Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "would welcome a common ground as the basis of agreement for the settlement of the Irish question, and is of opinion that with good will such might be found in the exclusion from the Government of Ireland Bill of counties of Ulster until legislative provision for a general system of devolution for the whole United Kingdom be ready to come into operation."—[ Mr. Pirie. ]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
I was saying that that was the problem we have to face in Ireland. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are always saying to us that we do not take their proposed rebellion seriously, but have they taken the proposed rebellion seriously? It is very difficult to take a rebellion seriously which is under the patronage of the nobility and gentry. You have it announced that the Duke of this, and Lord So-and-so, and Lady Agatha somebody else, have signed the Covenant, and that they are anxious to go and rebel among the men of Ulster. If anybody is to blame for this trouble in Ulster bearing a comic opera aspect, it is those who have so carefully manœuvred the Press and the party organisations in the way I have suggested. That is one of the points which strikes me. Then another point in the Debate to-day which has struck me very much is this: That the solution that is before the House is always the wrong one. Hon. Members say, "If only there was sonic other policy before us, we should accept it gladly. We are most anxious to meet the Government, but this particular solution which the Government propose is one we cannot possibly agree upon." Tonight we have heard a great deal about the time limit. Quite by accident I found a little magazine called "The Empire Review," which is edited by the hon. Member for Devonport. There is an article in it called "The Ulster Point of View," and it is signed by Mr. Frederick J. Higgin-bottom. Its tone can be imagined from the final words, "Ulster appeals from patriotism to patriotism, and such an appeal has never before been made in vain to Englishmen." It is all like that. It says:— Ulstermen would be exclusion under a time limit. Now, when the Government propose to exclude Ulster under a time limit, hon. Members get up and say, "The one thing we cannot stand is a time limit." We have had four solutions suggested, including the one now before the House. We have had the Referendum suggested. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College in his speech used a lot of strong language—I entirely failed to follow his argument—but he did not say a word about the Referendum. He confined himself entirely to the time limit. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) wanted provincial councils—Belfast to be the head of one, Dublin to be the head of another, and Liverpool the head of another, I suppose, and so on. We have had finally the federal solution presented by my hon. Friend. What we on this side feel is that there is no real desire on the other side for a settlement of any kind. Whatever we put forward—and really the present proposals are of the most generous character—it is picked to pieces on the other side, and we are told that if it was only a little bit different, it would be accepted. The responsibility of those Gentlemen is great. After all, this is a very ancient country. Our time is a very ephemeral one, and I do suggest to every thinking man that to say we must have a rebellion to-day because we differ on some trivial point such as we differ upon now, is either-hypocrisy or else it is such a foolishness as this great country, at any rate, has never seen. I venture to suggest to hon. Members opposite that they really cannot believe that the peril is as great as they say, because I cannot believe that any sane man would provoke a crisis to-day when it could be put off six weeks, and much less for six years. What I am afraid of is that the men who do at the bottom of their hearts believe all the things that are troubling them, may do something foolish and precipitate events we would greatly regret.
To-day the tone of the Opposition has been that they desire to smooth everything. They say that they have striven to hold the wild horse, but that it has almost exceeded their power to do so. They say, "If we could get a push on the saddle again, we could master him." I think the reverse is true. If agitation has ever been fostered, it has been fostered in Ulster. We have had the Leader of the Opposition going over and reviewing volunteers. We have had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College doing the same thing, and every Member who has had a holiday has gone over to Ireland to help to pour, not oil on the troubled waters, but petrol on the flames in Ulster. It is idle for them to come to us and say, "We have done our best, but we are being overcome." If they are being overcome, it is a thing that they ought to have foreseen. We have to deal with facts as they are, and what I do suggest is that by the very fact of the Government being compelled to make the proposals they have made, the Opposition have undoubtedly gained a very great victory. I do not wish to minimise it. I admit that when the next election comes they are entitled to say, "By our agitation and by our threats we have spoiled the Home Rule Bill as it was foreshadowed by the Radical party. We have made them leave out some counties in the province of Ulster, though they were reluctant to do so." I say to them, having gained so much, they should be content. We do not object to constitutional opposition. We expect it. But one last word on the general proposition. Hon. Members opposite say something like this, "What unreasonable folk you are. You cut Ulster out, and then say that she must come in after six years, unless Parliament otherwise determines. How absurd it is. If you Liberals are in power, you can put her in, and what more can you want." But that is exactly what we cannot do. If we had a decent Constitution we could do so. But what happens? Suppose we win, not only the next election, but, as hon. Members opposite seem to anticipate, the election after that, and the time comes when, as we honestly believe, the Home Rule Bill has been a success, as far as its truncated condition allows it to be, and the day comes when we desire to take Ulster into it. Do you mean to say that the Opposition would not begin to stir up all the old hatreds again? Would not their obedient servants over there in another place immediately throw out the first Liberal Bill sent up, and would not we have to send that Bill up three times, and have all this agitation lasting all the time that we were endeavouring to complete this work?
On the other hand, if the party opposite are in power during any of those six years, they have only got to pass a Bill making the exclusion of Ulster effectual, and they know that it will reach the Statute Book by the quickest method which the Constitution of this country allows. I should say this in all sincerity. We on this side have proved that we will go a very long way to secure peace. Cannot hon. Members opposite do something in the same direction? Cannot they be masters in their own party. Must they for ever drag at the tails of the men who have led them from disaster to disaster? I do not mean their official leaders. They have not led. I mean those who write hysterically in the newspapers, those who make speeches calling themselves "Die-hards" or some other ridiculous name. These men will lead the great Conservative party down to destruction with absolute certainty, unless that great party does become master in its own House. I do not believe that the common sense of any party can approve of some of the things that have been done recently in the name of the Conservative party. I know that all of us find ourselves in strange positions, because we happen to be party politicians. There is a party discipline. There is a great party machine, which stirs up one's constituents, if one ventures to annoy it. But I believe that much good would be done if a few hon. Gentlemen opposite had the courage to come forward and say, "Enough of this foolery. Let us, as sensible men, put our heads together with other sensible men on the other side. Let the violent people of all parties meet in a room and abuse one another in that room until they are tired, but let us, the people who represent the common sense of Great Britain, come to some satisfactory solution of this problem." The Government have opened the door very widely, and I think that it would be a tragedy if advantage were not taken of this fact.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, alluded to the shots fired by the Southern States at Fort Sumner, when the Government of the United States was endeavouring to victual that fort. It was an ominous reference from the point of view of the hon. Members opposite, because let them remember that when those shots were fired, the whole of the British Press, almost everything that was fashionable and intellectual in England, laughed at the North. They said the Southerners would sweep them away. It was seen in this latter age, one of the most remarkable examples of one-sidedness that the country has ever seen. Everybody practically in this country, except a handful of Radicals, was on the side of the South. People laughed at Lincoln and the men of the North. They talked about the "uncouth bumpkins," and how the gentlemen of the South would sweep them away; and even when the Southern armies were on their last legs, and when the great surrender had almost taken place, there still were articles in the English Press saying how the South were winning. And when people talk about Fort Sumner, let them remember that the talk that fell from the lips of their predecessors was quite as light-hearted as the talk that falls from their lips to-day, and that the problem between the Northern and Southern States of America was only settled after six years of bloody warfare, and that a little statesmanship on the side of the minority would have prevented the whole of it. In the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend we have a solution very much on the lines of the Government's present proposal, which will do what the Government have said it is their intention to do—introduce a system of Federal Government into this country. Is it not time that we had it?
Those who have sat in this House for even a few years, as I have done, know that, just as a few moments ago our Debate was interrupted because of something to do with Luton, Wakefield, and Cambridge, so constantly we have business of enormous importance to the British Empire, business dealing with the affairs of the English nation as a whole, interrupted by some of the most trivial details which could be brought to the attention of a parish council. A federal solution will get rid of all those difficulties. It will hurt nobody's feelings. There will be no question of Ulster being prostrate beneath the heel of Dublin, because Ulster will be in exactly the same position as any other part of Great Britain, and this solution of ours will unite Ireland, because Ireland will be one unit in our policy, and it will also, as I hope, lead us straight to a reform of our constitutional system, which will really at last give both sides in this great country fair-play. That is what we believe will be the result of a federal system, and it is with that belief that we move it. But on the main question I end by saying, once again, as the phrase goes, "On my heart and on my conscience," I believe that the Government and the hon. Members from Ireland have nothing with which to reproach themselves in this matter. They have shown extraordinary patience, it may be too great patience. We have had to sit here day after day, and listen to taunts and sneers and insults. These things do no good to anybody. My appeal to-night to hon. Members opposite is to-sweep away these wild threats from their minds. We on this side have given them a wide field enough for attack. With the least little statesmanship they are as certain to come back into power, more or less shortly as the night is to follow the day. But as-long as they try to take short cuts to power, and such short cuts, the country will have none of them. We are a very patient people, we are amused at suffragettes and other people of that sort, but there is a limit beyond which we cannot go; and I do suggest, in all seriousness, to the Opposition that they are, in their endeavour to hurt us, nearing a point when they will not hurt us only but will hurt the whole fabric of this ancient country of ours. It is in the hope that, in however humble a degree, I may help to suggest some solution of our present difficulties that I Second this Amendment.
I think the House will welcome the friendly and conciliatory spirit in which this Amendment has been Moved and Seconded, and I am sure, Sir, you will allow me to consider it, pari passu, with the alternative solution put before the House this afternoon. I believe that it will not be difficult to convince the Prime Minister that he has made a mistake in estimating the character and the effect of the Referendum which was proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister based his objection to that proposal on the difficulty there would be in isolating the judgment of the electors, and the reason he assigned for the difficulty in isolating the judgment of the electors was that they would be convinced that the fate of the Government was involved in the Referendum. If the fate of the Government were involved in the Referendum it would destroy nearly the whole, if not the whole, of its value, and it would be the duty of the Leaders of both parties to make it perfectly plain to the electors that the fate of the Government was not in the least concerned with the result of the Referendum. I believe that even if we failed to make that clear to the electors they would see it themselves, because they would realise that whatever the issue of the Referendum it would be bound to be followed, at an early date, by a General Election. I am sure the Prime Minister did not mean to suggest this afternoon that it would be necessary, as a result of the Referendum, for the Government to resign before going to the country, for that would be repeating what was the mistake of the Unionist party at the end of 1905.
The electors, in the event of a Referendum, realising, as they would, that they would have another chance at the closely following General Election of deciding the fate of the Government, would for the first time be able to give an absolutely disinterested and not a party vote. There are many electors, especially Nonconformists, who vote habitually for the Liberal candidates—they are not enthusiastic supporters of Home Rule, and in many cases are hostile to it—and they realise that to vote against Home Rule at a by-election, still more at a General Election, would jeopardise a great many causes which they hold dear, and quite legitimately they think that they are released from voting according to their consciences. In the same way, it is no use denying that there are electors who habitually vote for the Unionist party, that detest the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all his works, and who, at the same time, do share largely some of the aspirations of the Nationalist party. They would be strongly inclined to give a vote for a Home Rule Parliament if safeguards were in the Bill against the coercion of Ulster, if they did not feel that in giving that vote they would be helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer and prejudicing the return of the Conservative party. I submit to this House that, if this question and other great questions like Tariff Reform and Women Suffrage could be decided by separate votes on each separate issue, the people who would really gain in dignity, self-respect, independence, and in political power would be the electors themselves, because they would feel that they were really taking a part in self-government and not enjoying what they are enjoying, sham self-government and being defeated by log-rolling.
The second point is one which I am anxious to submit to hon. Members who sit upon the Nationalist Benches. I suggest to them what the House and the country most earnestly desire to hear from them to-day is, that they have definitely renounced from now on and for ever the idea of compelling and coercing Unionist Ulster to come in under the Dublin Parliament, and that they only desire her as a partner if they can win her of her own free will. There should be some sort of admission that if Ulster is in the same mood six years hence as she is now, coercion will be no more practicable then than it is to-day. I can quite understand that even if we do get, as I hope we shall get, that admission from the Nationalist party, they would still want the retention of a time limit in the Government proposal. They may argue, and I think reasonably argue, from that point of view (and I am quite ready to admit that they have made considerable sacrifices) that the time limit will give a bias in favour of inclusion, and that it will make the Imperial Parliament disinclined to interfere with the settled terms of a Statute already in operation, and so it will help to reconcile the United Kingdom and Ulster herself to inclusion when the time comes. If that does correctly represent their views, I would ask whether it would be a great concession, a much greater concession, to include one addition in the proposals now made and, without withdrawing the time limit, to add a provision that the same machinery may be employed by Ulster on a future occasion to veto inclusion whenever it ripens under the Statute? I am quite sure that if the Nationalist party would agree to that, although I cannot say what the Ulster Unionists would say, and I am only speaking for myself—I am quite sure that in that case the duty of British Unionists, in the interest of peace, would be to urge upon the Ulster Unionists to proceed at once to further negotiations. That would be a complete security for Ulster that she would not be included without her consent at any future time, while at the same time it would preserve the time limit as a point of eventual union, which would be automatic unless one of the prospective partners gave notice of dissent.
My third point is this. I desire to submit one observation to members of the Unionist party—I do not know whether they are represented in this House, but they certainly are fairly numerous in the country and well represented in the Press,—who object to any settlement, and even object to settling the basis of avoidance of civil war altogether. Their position is a perfectly simple one and a perfectly honest one. They say, "The Government have got into a great difficulty and it is not our business to help them out. If they attempt the coercion of Ulster, they will be ruined, and why should we lift a finger to save them from ruin?" I want to submit to those members of our party that the impending civil strife is a much greater calamity even than the continuance of a Radical Government, which of course it is our most legitimate object to get rid of at the earliest, date, and that it may be our duty from a patriotic point of view to take steps which may have the effect of helping the Government, and which may have the effect of causing them to stay in office longer than might otherwise be the case. There are three considerations which appeal to that section of our party: Firstly, they say that the Government is bluffing; and, secondly, they say the troops will not fire; and, thirdly, they say that on the firing of the first shot the Government will collapse. The Government might be bluffing, but it is as difficult to diagnose when a Government is bluffing as it is very often to diagnose when a man is malingering.
What I want to suggest to them is that it is safer and a more prudent and wiser course to assume and to act upon the assumption that the Government is not bluffing, and that when the Prime Minister says that adequate steps will be taken to enforce the law in Ulster, and that when the Foreign Secretary says that violence will be met by violence, they may be misguided, but that they are also determined men and mean what they say. With regard to the second point, that the troops cannot be relied upon to fire, surely our paramount duty is to work for a solution in which the troops may not be put in that position. Of course, when the troops once get into the position to fire, whatever happens will be bad. Either they will fire, and no doubt if they fire upon Protestant working men the Government will be gravely injured; but far more than the Government will be injured, the whole structure of society will be shaken. On the other hand, if the troops do not fire, that would be an equally great calamity, because the discipline of the British Army would have been done to death. There is the third point, that on the firing of the first shot the Government will collapse. It may well be that the firing of the first shot might take place under circumstances which would bring great public indignation against the Government, and overwhelming public sympathy for the Ulster Unionists. Can we be absolutely certain that that would be the case? I yield to no one in my admiration of the discipline and control and restraint which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) has exercised over his followers throughout this long period of trial, but among the high-spirited men whom he leads can we be absolutely sure that in consequence of some provocation a shot may not be fired—first, second, or third—not against the Protestants but against an unarmed Catholic, and so bring a great deal of public sympathy not to us but to the Government? Is it wise to trust to the chance of a scuffle or melée? That is rotten, quaking ground for Unionists and patriots to tread on, and it is our duty to appeal to them not to tread upon it.
There is this further point, which I wish to urge on my hon. Friend, and that is that there is one important aspect in which the Government offer, even unamended, and I am not for one moment suggesting that we should or could or ought to accept it without amendment, is better than our official policy of a General Election, and that is this, it does give us for certain exclusion for a period, whereas our policy gives us, if the result of an election should be adverse to us, immediate submission, because that is what we promised through the mouth of our leader, to Home Rule for all Ireland, including Ulster. When we find ourselves in a situation like that, ought we not to look very carefully at the state of the country before we break off negotiations, and decline to consider proposals? Ought we not to look at the lessons which the by-elections in the last autumn and winter may yield? I venture to say that a man, looking dispassionately and impartially at the by-elections as a whole, which have occurred since the end of last Session, will draw two inferences. First, he will draw the inference that both parties are strong. He will recognise that those by-elections have revealed an increase of strength and an increase of support to the Opposition, who have won four seats. But I think he will also recognise that in regard to the position of the Government, the by-elections have re-revealed that, although the Government have lost ground, they have lost substantially less ground than is usual with Governments at such an advanced period of their existence. He will also bear in mind that the result of a General Election may in part turn, not upon anything the Liberal party do, not upon anything the. Unionist party may do, but, if I may say it without offence, upon the financial resources of the Labour party. When he gets so far, it may be that that imaginary prudent and reasonable man will draw the the inference that, if the elections were held soon, the Government would no doubt lose a number of seats, but perhaps they would not lose enough to deprive them of their majority and their power of carrying on the Government. If that is a prudent forecast, surely it becomes doubly important to secure concessions now, even if they are not all that we demand, before everything is put to the hazard of a General Election.
9.0 P.M.
There has been enough fierce and bitter feeling brought into this controversy in the past two years, and now, at its climax, there have been since last Monday two entirely new and very large logs of fuel added to the flame. The coalition were annoyed and angered at the reception which we gave to their offer, particularly in the Unionist Press. On the other hand, we were bitterly annoyed and offended by the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty at Bradford. I do not know anything about the feelings of hon. Members of the coalition, but I am quite sure of this, that so far as our feelings are concerned, we ought not merely to restrain them, but absolutely to suppress them. In a word, we ought, so to speak, to meet the First Lord's cheek with our other cheek. This feeling of irritation on both sides is inevitable. It is inevitable that hon. Members opposite should find difficulty in arguing with a party which, in certain circumstances, has promised support to armed resistance. They naturally feel that rifles and conciliation are not good bed-fellows. We, on the other hand, feel equally strongly that the Parliament Act and conciliation are not good bed-fellows. We have to control these feelings of irritation. We have surely to remember also that when civil wav has broken out, there has hardly ever been a case in which history has held that one side was entirely in the right and the other entirely in the wrong. Certainly, history does not hold that either the Cavaliers or the Roundheads were absolutely responsible for the Civil War at the time of Charles the First. If we remember that, surely we ought to urge upon the leaders of both parties to proceed to free and unfettered negotiation on the details of the Government offer. I am one of those who think that this afternoon we have seen a very considerable advance. That advance was clearly revealed in the Prime Minister's speech. It seemed to me to be this—that he is clearly not contemplating the deferred coercion of Ulster. He said in his speech last week that he offered the prospect of the union of Ireland, not by coercion, but by consent; and he said this afternoon that under his proposals the coercion of Ulster would be a moral and constitutional impossibility. Unfortunately, in their present form, these concessions do not satisfy or remove the fears of our Ulster fellow-countrymen. Only a small difference now divides us from the Prime Minister. We ask him that that which he describes as a moral and constitutional impossibility shall be made a statutory impossibility as well.
We have listened to a couple of very admirable lectures from the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division (Mr. Beck) and the hon. Member for the Watford Division (Mr. A. Ward). I am not really certain whether the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division was seconding the Amendment, as his speech was hardly of the kind one would expect from a Seconder. As the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) said, an Ulsterman might almost accept that Amendment if the word "Ulster" were substituted for the word "Irish." I cannot speak for Ulster, and I have no intention of supporting the Amendment. I am a native of the South of Ireland, and for that reason this particular Amendment does not appeal to me at all. In his speech this afternoon the Prime Minister put forward a new reason why his proposal with regard to a six years' limit should be accepted. We have heard all about the two elections, one of which we may possibly win if we are lucky, but both of which we may possibly lose. The Prime Minister put forward as his reason for the device of six years that in that time it would give a chance to the Nationalist party to be on their good behaviour towards their fellow countrymen in the Southern portion of Ireland. If, during the six years, they kept their hands, off their fellow countrymen in the Southern provinces, it would be perfectly obvious at the end of that time that they could be safely trusted with the management of the whole of Ulster, and the whole of Ireland; in other words, if there is no St. Bartholomew's Day for six years, then the hon. Member for West Belfast and his fellow Members can be safely entrusted with the destinies of the great city of Belfast and the whole of the North-Eastern counties! That is a very easy test! I, for one, have said in this House, and say it again, that we in the South do not fear persecution. I do not really know what the definition of the word "persecution" is in Johnson's dictionary or any other, but if any hon. Member imagines that we fear, if Home Rule is passed, that we will have our throats cut, that is a mistake. We do not. For all that, I do object, and very strongly object, to the cool assumption of the Prime Minister that half a million of Protestants of the Southern provinces can be handed over to the government of the Nationalists of Ireland, not for six years, but for all time. We shall be handed over to what may be the tender mercies, in certain ways, of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and its Grand Master. I said we were not afraid of persecution, but there is a point which has often been made in this House and outside, and it was made this afternoon by the hon. Member for West Belfast. It was this, that the three Southern provinces have for the last thirty years been absolutely solid in returning Members to this House who are in favour of Home Rule, and that there has not been one single Unionist Member for thirty years returned for the Southern parts. That is not quite correct. South Dublin County for many years returned a Unionist Member, and an hon. Member below the Gangway reminds me that the city of Galway did the same.
Pledged not to vote against Home Rule.
South Dublin returned a Unionist, but that is not an argument anyhow. Here, it is said, is the solid South that year after year, Session after Session, and Parliament after Parliament, has returned a solid body of Nationalist opinion. And why? Is there any other civilised country in the world where so large a body of Unionist votes would be unrepresented? Such a case would be absolutely impossible in the Austrian Parliament, where members are returned representative of their nationality. In Belgium there is proportionate representation, and in Switzerland the same. In our civilised country we have no idea of that sort, and therefore for the last thirty years 300,000 people have been unrepresented in this House. We have been told a great many times lately that once the Home Rule Bill becomes law and; is on the Statute Book, once a Parliament has been established in Dublin, things will be very different. The minority will have its chance of fair and full representation. A burnt child dreads the fire. Recollect this, that we Unionists in three Southern provinces have heard all that before—every word of it! Fifteen years ago the Conservative Ministry put through for Ireland a great scheme for local government. Inside and outside this House there were protestations and promises made by the leaders of Nationalist opinion in Ireland that we were going to have a chance—that the loyalists were going to share in the work and honour of local Government. Let me quote a couple of speeches made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford. Speaking at Cork, in 1897, he said:—
"We will accept this local government scheme … and we will use our power and influence in Ireland to see that it is worked in a spirit of freedom, of toleration, and of justice to all creeds and classes of our fellow countrymen."
In Dublin the hon. and learned Gentleman said in the following year:—
"We desire toleration in the public life of Ireland. We desire to see the best men elected to all these public bodies in Ireland. We think that to adopt the policy of excluding from those public bodies every man who differs from us politically and religiously, would be an absolutely suicidal policy for Irish Nationalists to adopt."
Another hon. Member of the Nationalist party, the efficient Whip (Mr. P. O'Brien), speaking at Kilkenny, appealed to us landlords not to sulk. "Do not sulk," he said; "quit your tents, come down and stand for" election, and you will be elected." We all did stand. I stood, as did also many of my friends. Not one of us was elected. I was beaten by 200 votes, and I made a fairly good fight. Not a single man in county Cork was elected.
County Waterford elected two.
Hon. Members below the Gangway may say that this is only tit for tat, and that while we the ascendency party all these years had it our own way, no Nationalist was ever elected. That, I think, is not the fact. The last time I was in Cork I took the trouble to go round to the office of the county high sheriff, and asked the sub-sheriff there to let me have a list of the people whom in 1898, when I was high sheriff, I summoned on the grand jury. I summoned twenty-three, five of these were Roman Catholics. I asked these five Roman Catholics to serve on that ultra-Protestant body, a Cork grand jury. As a matter of fact, one of the men that I asked to serve was a gallant Irish officer, who a few months later was killed at Pieter's Hill. I am sorry to say the monument to his memory was defaced the other night by some Cork miscreant. Hon. Members below the Gangway may say that this is only a small thing. I do not know that it is a small thing that you should not be able to be: elected on any public body in your own native county. It is not a small thing that you have got to come over to England to be elected if you are wishful to serve your fellows in the public life of the country. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and myself have come from Ireland, and we have been fortunate enough to be honoured by English constituencies, and are Members of this House. That does not make it any the better. I would far, far rather represent a Division of my native county of Cork than I would a Division in England.
You will.
Become a Home Ruler and you shall.
It is quite true that we will be told: "Though this power is denied to you, though we do in the South of Ireland and other parts mingle ordinary politics with local elections, and we do keep people like yourself out who will not say shibboleth of Home Rule, at the same time we do not refuse to select men who are not Nationalists for offices in the various parts of the country as road inspector, doctor, civil officer, and so on." I agree that may he said, but is it the case. I do not think it is. The other day a convention was held in Cork of the "All-for-Ireland League." Certain speeches were delivered. I will quote to the House a very short extract from the speech delivered by a gentleman who, though he is a Protestant and a landlord, is a member of the "All-for-Ireland League." This is what he said:— livered by a member of the Cork County Council, in supporting a resolution that the proposals of the Prime Minister should not be accepted. This man is Mr. James O'Neill, a man of great prominence in the local life of the city of Cork, and he said:—
Supposing, as a matter of fact, the four North-East Counties are allowed to vote themselves out, there would be left practically half a million Protestants in the rest of Ireland, and this half-million will be represented in the Irish Parliament in Dublin by six members. If we had the good fortune to keep a seat in Tyrone and Fermanagh, and four seats in Dublin City and County, we would have six Members representing us in the Irish House of Commons. There would be six Members for 500,000 people, and in Munster and Connaught a great many thousands of people will not have a single Member at all, while the remaining three million of Catholics will be represented in the Dublin Parliament by 118 Members—in other words, the Unionists will have one-thirtieth of their proper strength. What I am surprised at is this, Why do not hon. Members below the Gangway come forward and say, "That is an injustice we would like to rectify?" We want the loyalists to be fully represented, and more than represented, and then they would prevent the Prime Minister making any advances towards us in this way. Questions have been asked about the Customs and Excise and about the Post Office, and we have been told to "Wait and see," that the proposals were being carefully considered and would be brought forward in a short time. I put two or three questions as to what representation the loyalists in the Southern provinces are to have, and the Prime Minister said on each occasion there is going to be no change at all. We are to be handed over on an unfair system for all time, and I object to that.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will not think me wanting in courtesy if I do not in the few minutes which I intend to occupy the attention of the House, deal in detail with the arguments he has addressed to us. I quite admit that in all parts of Ireland, as in other countries which are labouring under a sense of national grievance, you get a national cleavage in politics, in regard to all local authorities. You get it in Finland and Bohemia, and you get it in all communities where there is a great national demand for a change in the Government of the country. When that change is effected that line of cleavage inevitably disappears. When it is no longer a question in Ireland as to who is a Home Ruler and who is not, the merits and charm of the hon. Member will no longer be disregarded in the county of Cork.
But he will not change his religion.
I was not aware that the hon. Member's observations were directed to the question of religion, and I am sure that the cleavage in the south is not upon religion. But I rise to make a comment on the very interesting speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, and to make a few remarks on the position in which the House finds itself to-day. I think we all realise the gravity of that position, and I think that most of us welcome any appreciation of that gravity in moderation of tone and statement from whatever side of the House it comes. I desire to express my sincere obligation to the hon. Member for Herts, Watford (Mr. Arnold Ward) upon the merits of the speech he delivered. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford, who always interests us and nearly always helps the intellectual framework of Debate, was a little embarrased in his efforts this afternoon. He said many interesting and pointed things, and he asked the Government why they could not go further than they had in the suggestions, because he said the issue was between the principle of consent as regards Ulster, upon the Opposition side of the House, and the principle of compulsion as regards Ulster on this side of the House. Some of us have arrived at that time of life in which we enjoy epigram, but we distrust it, almost as much as we enjoy it. When you try to put a great political controversy into the closely packed framework of selected words you lose as much grip of the fact as you gain in sharpness of presentation. This is not a question between the principle of consent put barely and the principle of compulsion. The principle we understand the Opposition to stand for with regard to Ulster is the principle that the consent of a local majority in the presence of a large local minority which is in sympathy with the majority in Ireland, should predominate for all time. The principle on this side of the House, as embodied in this Bill as it stands, is that there should be uniform treatment for the whole of Ireland, subject to exceptional treatment in detail if that is asked for in loyalty to general principles. If those are the two principles held on each side of the House respectively, no compromise or no attempt to bring the two sides of the House together can possibly be successful, or can possibly be worth the attention and support of the United Kingdom generally, if it meant that one side was surrendering entirely to the other side.
The argument of the Noble Lord was that the parties in this House which constitute a large majority of it, and are united in favour of the Bill, should abandon the principle of the Bill and accept his principle and the necessary consent of a local majority against large local minorities for all parts of Ulster. His principle may be right or ours may be right. I am not concerned so much with that, but I am concerned to put it to the House that it is not a fair test to apply to the efforts of the Government to meet a situation of great gravity by saying that we care nothing for your efforts unless you come over entirely to our side, and accept our proposal in all its bearings and without any modification at all. I, for one, desire to express my satisfaction that the Government have made these proposals at this time. Where you have one side asking for this absolute veto for county majorities in Ulster, and you have the bulk of the House in pursuance of the great political movement which has lasted for a third of a century asking for self-government for Ireland as a whole, the only possible line must lie in something which does not entirely violate the principle which actuates the majority. In these suggestions what do we find? We find the suggestion put forward that there should be exclusion in Ulster counties, if asked for by a majority, for a period of time long enough to show, not only to Ulster or to Ireland, but to the United Kingdom, whether the fears of this part of Ulster are well-founded or not. You do not register of necessity the wishes of a local majority upon anything or everything unless you are assured that those wishes at any rate have considerable ground of sound foundation, or unless you are convinced that their fears are not wholly wanton or uncalled for. The very object of these proposals, as I understand them, is to give a long enough time to show in practice whether that which the Protestant majorities in Ulster counties fear is lightly feared or not. A great poet once wrote:— and there are many of us in all parts of this House, whatever view we take of the special Irish problem, who do believe that in the end and in the long run you must apply the federal principle to the government of these islands because of the growing complexity and increased difficulty of government, and because this House and the local authorities of the different parts of the United Kingdom are made quate to deal with the problems of local government.
What I submit to the House is that nothing could possibly advance a federal solution of this problem so much as the acceptance by this House and by the other side of the House of the suggestions made by the Prime Minister. If you pass Home Rule without these suggestions I still believe that federalism would be developed. If the Opposition were successful by any means in defeating Home Rule altogether, do you believe that federalism would be advanced at all? You would go back to the position of the last twenty years, in which an open sore was the greatest asset of the Conservative party. But if these suggestions become law, the fact that you had this interval, during which you had the-attention of the public directed both to the peculiarities of the Irish problem and the imperative importance of the general problem of federation, would, I am convinced, advance that problem better than any other solution. Therefore it is that I, for one, am glad that the Government have made these suggestions. I believe that these suggestions go as long a way as it is possible for sincere Home Rulers to go in the direction of conciliation and of compromise, and of the wish to have a peaceful settlement. I support them on that ground, but I do respectfully say also that, while we thoroughly realise the difficulties which attach to hon. Members opposite in going far from their political moorings of the last thirty years, we ask them to recognise fully the impossibility of our abandoning the principles of Home Rule, for which we have worked, and possibly suffered, during the last twenty-five years, when Home Rule was not the most popular political creed in many parts of this country. It has been said, sometimes with vehemence and sometimes with moderation, that the Government will go further if it were not for the influence of the Nationalist Members. I do not believe that for a moment, and I speak as an English Member in touch with my Constituency, and as one who has been a sincere Home Ruler for twenty-five years. I have no hesitation in saying that to go further and abandon the principle of a United Ireland, as would be done by the abolition of the time limit, is not possible for us. My final word is, that while that is impossible, I do hope that, as weeks go on, and as the gravity of this situation sinks into our minds, hon. Members opposite will believe that we also desire to meet them as far as possible. We believe that, in the suggestion of the Prime Minister, there does lie a way which combines proper and temporary choice to a locality with the principles which this House has approved repeatedly, and they embody also the permanent convictions of three great parties of the State.
On an occasion like this even, the humblest Member must feel a strong sense of responsibility in speaking of this dangerous political situation. I will try to follow what I admit was the great moderation of tone of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I wish to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He spoke of the gulf existing between the two sections of the Irish population, and he said that he could not believe that that gulf could not be bridged. The hon. Member added that these historical difficulties have been exaggerated, and he said that he believed that all would recognise that amongst Irishmen the past would be forgotten. I believe that the gulf is not unbridgeable. I believe that as far as the religious difficulty goes, that that is the least difficulty, strange though it may seem for me to say so. In my observation of other countries, for instance, in Hungary, the religious difficulty is the least that separates the population. The racial difficulty is greater, and the traditional difficulty is the greatest. I would not for one moment say that in time all those difficulties might not be overcome, but I do say that if you wish to overcome them, the very worst way any man or any Government could take is to insist on the proposals now before the House. The gulf is admitted, and the gravity of the situation is admitted. Surely it is idle to say—let me grant, for the sake of argument, all that is said of their unreasonableness—that the way to make these men work in a national system of Ireland, is to tell them for six years that they may have a chance of agitating, and that, if they fail, then, at the end of that period they are to be forced to come in by the iron rod. They are told that they may persuade the people of this country and have two different General Elections to maintain the exclusion that is offered them for six years. That was told them in the very speech of the Prime Minister in which he said that at the present moment neither a General Election or even a Referendum ad hoc would bring out a certain view of the country. They are asked to live in this state of agitation and confusion for six years on the chance that one or two General Elections may bring about what is admitted, according to the theory of the Prime Minister, that neither a General Election nor a Referendum will do now.
I will now bring the argument back to the point taken by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) I would just add this in Prime Minister and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) talked of the difficulties and the abuses of the Referendum. Do they forget that the Referendum in the most democratic of our Colonies is now in efficient working, and that a Government has been in power in Australia which, on its vital constitutional proposals, has been twice beaten on Referendum, and yet have remained in office. The hon. Mem-for Kingston touched the right note in the speech which he made this afternoon. This, after all, is not merely a question as between the North and the South of Ireland. I have followed with admiration the career of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, and I have brought on myself my share of odium for supporting him. He, of course, must have first in view his own people, but we British Members must have in view as the paramount question the safety and welfare and strength of the Empire at heart, and we must examine proposals like this from the Imperial point of view. These proposals are brought forward as a palliative against the appalling dangers with which we are threatened, but at the same time they do open up the whole question of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. I have long thought that if you have any alternative to the Union at all that alternative can only be a system on something like the Canadian lines of federation, with Ulster, define it as you will, as a separate entity. I do not profess to love this solution. It weakens the central power. Financially it is inconvenient to the last degree. It is dislocating to a Union Government once created; and it has, I think, no parallel in history All other examples have been to bring together disconnected units. But, if it were honestly and sincerely put forward as a solution for present needs, can any man doubt that it would receive from our party a serious and sincere consideration?
The Prime Minister contemplates partial and limited exclusion, but, partial and limited as it is, that very exclusion brings up many of the greatest problems and many of the greatest difficulties with which we have been face to face in considering this Home Rule Bill. Take the Customs. It is almost inconceivable that in Ireland there should be an irregular internal barrier. Again, it is almost inconceivable that separate postal services would survive under his plan, which, he admits, might, by the action of this Parliament, become permanent. And with those two things go two of the big objections to the Bill from the federal point of view. He admitted also that the judiciary would have to be considered, and he certainly indicated, as Mr. Gladstone proposed in his Bill, that the judiciary would be reserved to the Imperial Parliament as it is reserved to the Federal Parliament in Canada. He admitted, in answer to a question I asked, that there would be a separate organisation for education, with a guarantee of the existing rights of minorities in whatever parts they may be. The need of financial adjustment is equally obvious. The position would be rendered much easier in proportion as more or less services were reserved to the central authority. The wide, anomalous and conflicting powers of the Lord Lieutenant has been one of the greatest arguments against the Government of Ireland Bill, but if he has the same status in the South of Ireland as a Lieutenant-Governor of a Canadian province, and there is another in the North of Ireland, these difficulties are greatly removed; and if you can devise some plans to make the continuance of his Governorship not dependent on whether he can get a Ministry at any particular time or not, then one of the biggest objections goes.
It is sometimes said that any such scheme of federation would be impossible if Ulster were to be treated as a separate entity. I have taken some pains to see what the position of Ireland will be under such a system. I find, taking the posi- tion of the Southern provinces and comparing them with the self-governing Colonies, that these three provinces have a greater population than any single unit in any British Colony whatever; Ulster itself has a greater population than any, save Ontario, Quebec, New South Wales, and Victoria; and the four counties have a greater population than seven provinces, of Canada and four states of Australia. The thing is possible, and it would have this advantage: You could have greater safe-guards for the minority than you can have now, and each minority would have in the other unit hostages for its own protection. Why do I dwell on a plan which. I confess I do not love? Because I admit I am horrified by the prospects before us. My right hon. Friend and those who act with him are perfectly right in all they have done hitherto, and if I were in their position I would have done the same, but you have to distinguish between the justice of a cause and the consequences. I believe most heartily in the justice of the Balkan League in their great war, but anyone who knew anything of the conditions of those countries could not doubt that once the war had broke out the most appalling atrocities would be perpetrated. I am not going to press that analogy. It would be unfair to all sides, but I cannot disguise from myself how grave and how irreparable the consequences would be.
I do not talk of all the good constructive work that has been done in Ireland. That would cease. I will not talk of the cruel dilemma in which you are putting the consciences of the officers of your military forces. I desire to pay tribute to the iron discipline my right hon. Friend has been able to maintain, but can we be sure that if the worst came that discipline would always be maintained? My hon. Friends see one danger which I also see. I understand and sympathise with them in; regard to the position in which they are placing their young men. I also see the converse, that there will be bitter and cruel reprisals, and I fear that on both sides it will be the innocent who will suffer. I fear an outbreak of hatred such: as we have never seen in our generation, and such as only my travels in South-East Europe enable me to appreciate. When ancient hatreds break out there is no telling to what length they will go. The innocent will suffer. Churches will be desecrated and destroyed, and all the evil passions of 1708 will break out again. It is these things we want to avert. We, equally with hon. Gentlemen opposite, are willing to make large sacrifices to avert them. But the condition laid down by the Prime Minister as the only condition he will accept, a condition which he emphasised to-day, is a condition which no sensible man would accept, and no chivalrous man could accept. If he will go further, then I am quite sure—though I speak purely on my own responsibility—that he would meet with a ready response from the bulk of our party. But he must not insist upon a surrender. He must ask for a treaty, and, if he goes upon those lines, he will find no lack of good will and no luck of ability to meet him.
Anyone who has listened to the course of this Debate must be impressed by the fact that a spirit of conciliation and compromise, not very satisfactory in the opening speeches, has grown more manifest as the Debate has continued. It opened under somewhat doubtful circumstances. If we are to believe the records of the military correspondent of the "Times" newspaper, there is in Ulster at the present moment a curious historical reproduction of the state of things which existed in Ulster in the spring of the year 1798 as described by Mr. Lecky in his "History of Ireland in the 18th Century." Arms and ammunition have been imported, and the drilling of Protestants has taken place with the obvious intention of overaweing the Government. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition a gloomy picture was drawn of the possibility of the population of these islands being drawn into a conflict, and of even finding the military forces divided upon one side or the other. But in the very able speech, delivered I am sorry to say to a too empty House by the hon. Member for the Watford Division, a tribute was paid to the sincerity both of the Government and of the Nationalist party in the sacrifice which they are prepared to make for the sake of arriving at a settlement, by good will and consent, of the difficulties now facing them. I will occupy but a few minutes in venturing to pay a like tribute, which I think should be paid by someone on this side of the House, to the advance which has been made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the same goal, a goal so much to be desired as the settlement of this matter by good will and consent. It is now clear from the speeches delivered by the Leader of the Opposition, by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord-Hugh Cecil), and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, Dublin. (Sir E. Carson) that the party opposite are now prepared to consider the proposals of the Government as a basis of settlement, subject only to the one point, as to whether there ought not to be substituted for a time limit an indefinite period of exclusion for such part of the province of Ulster as may avail itself of the option given by the Government.
I think it would not be right that this Debate should pass without some recognition of the fact that the expressed willingness to treat upon terms of that kind does indicate a spirit of conciliation on the part of the Opposition which ought to be recognised. What did the Opposition originally stand for in this matter? They stood, and they stand, for the unity of a United Kingdom in the refusal of Home Rule to Ireland at any price or on any terms. To treat on the basis upon which it is now clear responsible leaders of the Opposition are prepared to treat, is to sacrifice that principle in the interests of peace. What in the second place does it involve? It involves not merely that for the sake of an honourable settlement the question of Home Rule for Ireland shall be put on the Table as a thing to be conceded, but it involves also that the question of Home Rule for Ulster should be put on the Table as a thing which should be frankly considered as a possible factor by both parties. Therefore the proposals which the leaders of the Opposition are prepared to consider, are proposals which do not provide for the total exclusion of Ulster from the operation of a Bill for Local Government in Ireland.
What is left between the two parties? The difference between whether a few counties of Ulster are to be excluded for a fixed period of time, subject, of course, to any decision of the Imperial Parliament in the meantime, or whether they should be permanently excluded until Parliament otherwise provides. I have only one word to add. I do not propose for my own part to enter into any controversy on these points. This Chamber is not a very suitable instrument for the purposes of dealing with points of controversy of this kind, if the object of the discussion is to arrive at a settlement by conciliation and consent. On this point the Government are more Unionist than the Unionist party themselves. We say that when local self- government has been given to nine-tenths of Ireland, including a part of the province of Ulster, it is inconceivable that the exclusion of the remaining counties of Ulster will be permanent, and the only task for statesmen is to see that the process by which they may ultimately become included in the Parliament of Ireland shall take place without risk to themselves and tinder such circumstances as will make the political union between Ulster and the rest of Ireland a union of hearts.
I would venture to make this final suggestion, with all humility, to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We are prepared to admit, for the purposes of this discussion, the serious risk that lies before us of disturbance in Ireland. Proposals have now been made, not on one side of the House alone, but on both sides of the House, which we are surely prepared to admit are put forward honestly, with the design and intention of rendering disturbance of that kind impossible. These are matters which must be the subject of further discussion, either in formal Debate on the Floor of this House, or, as I should think preferable, in informal debate between the responsible Leaders of one side of the House and the other. It would be a very curious episode in a great national attempt on the part of the two great parties in this House to settle by mutual consent and agreement a question which, in the opinion of many people, contains a menace to the peace and tranquility of the kingdom, if, in the middle of the negotiations, one set of negotiators were to attempt to smooth the machinery of conciliation by pressing a Motion for a Vote of Censure upon the other negotiators. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, who I believe is sincerely anxious to do all in his power to smooth the possibility of a settlement by any honourable means, that one obvious method lies open to his hand, which is not to press this Motion to a Division, and to allow it to go forth to the people of this country that at a time of considerable political crisis there was not enough patriotism in the House of Commons to abstain from a party vote while grave matters of this kind were under discussion, and while proposals made both on the one side and on the other were still under the consideration which we still hope will bear fruit.
10.0 P.M.
I had not intended or thought that I should be called upon to take any part in this Debate, and I speak, under circumstances of great gravity with very little opportunity for thought as to what I am to say, for it had been thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) would conclude the Debate on our behalf, and he would have done so had he not thought, in consequence of what appeared to be well-authenticated reports, that it was his duty to go to Ireland in spite of the gravity of the discussion in which we are engaged. I think that anyone of us would have been glad to be excused from the necessity of speaking at this moment. We stand in the shadow of a great national calamity. The storm clouds are lowering darkly over us, and no man can say at what moment they may burst. To speak in these circumstances must be a grave task for any man, and to speak with little opportunity for thought or preparation is a task which any of us would be glad to avoid. But I cannot shirk the duty that has fallen to me. I can only hope that in the language I shall use I shall do nothing to aggravate the crisis, which is sufficiently acute, or to precipitate events which, I fear, are only too near. We have before us at this moment an Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for North Aberdeenshire (Mr. Pirie) which I hope he will excuse me from treating at any length. I recognise that his motive in moving it was one of peace. I recognise the perfect consistency of the attitude he has taken up, and those who know my past utterances will know that I do not underrate the importance of the suggestion, which is not, if he will permit me to say so, very clearly expressed, but which still lies at the back of the Amendment he has moved. If that Amendment had been moved by the Government and offered by them for our consideration, I should have addressed myself to it. It is, after all, in the short time that lies before the House, above all to the attitude of the Government that we must address ourselves and not to unauthorised suggestions, whatever their value, which come from private Members. I recognised, or thought I recognised, in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down a real desire for a peaceful solution of this question. I will not stop to criticise some of his language. I only suggest to him that he does not make it easier for the Opposition when he claims the efforts which my right hon. Friends have made in order to avoid the calamities that confront us as being an abandonment of a principle on which our party was formed.
indicated dissent.
The hon. Member shakes his head. I am quite content to take that sign as, indicating that he never meant his language to convey that meaning. It only shows on what thin ice we tread and how difficult it is to express peaceful ideas in language which conveys no provocation. For my part, I am ready heartily to acknowledge, as the Prime Minister did of the language of my right hon. Friend and Leader, that the language of the Prime Minister was moderate and was unexceptional in its tone and temper to-day. Is it not a remarkable thing that the only provocative speech, the only thoroughly provocative speech which I have heard this evening, came from the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin), who represents, in a special degree, the Nationalism and the national spirit of his Ulster fellow countrymen, and who must be taken as the exemplar of the moderation, the good will, and the friendly feeling with which they will be welcomed into a united Ireland. He thought it—I was going to say decent—he thought it expedient in this Debate, and at this moment of all others, to describe my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson)—to whom, no Member of the Government will deny it, and I take their judgment on it—the peace of Ulster during these two years is due as an English advocate. I did not say no Member of the Government party will deny it. I said no Member of the Government would deny it, and I challenge the Prime Minister to deny it now. He knows it is true. My right hon. Friend is a member of the English Bar; to his honour be it spoken, and to the honour of the Bar. But was it in that spirit that the hon. Member, professedly seeking to advocate and to promote the union of the Irish people, singled out my right hon. Friend, an Irishman like himself, to describe him as an English advocate. That is the character he had from his countrymen. And for the Ulster movement generally, he can find nothing better to say than that never in all history had there been a greater sham or masquerade. Contrast the language of the Prime Minister, who desires conciliation, with the language of the man in whose hands the fate of conciliation would rest under these proposals. Then you know why it is that if Ulstermesn could trust the Government, they canot trust the forces behind them.
I turn to the speech of the Prime Minister himself. It has become a common habit with him to complain that speeches from this side of the House have no reference to the Motion to which they are addressed. He complained that that was the case with my right hon. Friend's speech. What is the Motion which my right hon. Friend has moved? He has asked that the Government should lay before the House the proposals which they have in their minds for conciliation before we proceed to the Second Beading of the Bill, and that is the proposal which the Prime Minister thinks is unreasonable, and which he refuses to entertain. I do not want to unnecessarily complicate by denials and interjections the argument which I laid before the House, and therefore let it be assumed that the attitude of the Government is that their Bill is as perfect as it can be made, and that in proposing any alterations they are not in the least casting doubts upon the wisdom of the course they have hitherto pursued. But, at least, they have expressed to the House their readiness to consider other proposals, to introduce what, in fact, is a substantially different Bill. What is it that they ask? That we should read that different Bill a second time before we ever see it in print. Was such a proposal ever made to any House of Commons? When we read a Bill a first time on the sketch which the Minister in charge of it gives us, as far as the memory of man reaches, the House has been entitled to see and to consider the proposals in print before they were asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill. It is not an unreasonable request that we make. The Prime Minister and the Government cannot pretend that the sketch which he made would enable anyone to say what would be the scheme which they would lay upon the Table of the House, if ever they lay one at all. For myself, I honestly say I think their proposals are unworkable in regard to area and unworkable in regard to finance. We do not know what they would propose in regard to Customs and Excise, or to the Post Office, what they would suggest in regard to the judiciary, how they would deal with particular areas which might, as the result of the Bill which they propose, be isolated. And yet the Prime Minister says, until you have agreed to swallow, until you have undertaken that you accept the sketch I have given you, I will not fill in, not the details but the main skeleton of the fabric, without knowing which no one can have any idea of the structure which may be eventually raised."
The Prime Minister was asked by my right hon. Friend to explain the proposals which he had in mind, and to define what was the principle on which he was acting and to which he required our acquiescence. He refuses to give us the proposals which he has in mind, but he defined the principle as being that in order to allay the fears of Ulster there should be given to that province local option by areas to vote for exclusion, and that the areas so excluded are to come in at the expiration of a definite term of years, and he added that the twin objects of this proposal were to give the United Kingdom an opportunity to express their opinion upon it, and to give them that opportunity after they had seen the working of the Irish Parliament. I do not say that we have derived nothing from that statement. There is a certain measure of agreement between the two sides of the House, and in circumstances so critical, even the least measure of agreement is valuable, should be treasured, and should be noted as it occurs. What are the two things which, as it appears to me, were agreed upon? We are agreed that there are in Ireland two communities, two peoples, with different traditions, with different ideals, with different histories in the past, different hopes in the future, different beliefs, and different fears in the present, and we are agreed that provision ought to be made for the separate treatment of these two peoples. That is something. We have not always had that acknowledgment, and now that is acknowledged.
The second thing we are agreed upon is, that as to the ultimate fate of the minority and the smaller of these two peoples the United Kingdom ought at some time to be consulted. Let us note that agreement. But what are the limitations which the Government put to it. There are more than one, and I can only deal with one. The essential limitation is that the United Kingdom shall not be consulted now, and that the separate treatment which is accorded to the separate peoples shall come to an automatic end unless Parliament, after it has disposed of this Bill, again takes up the subject and reverses the judgment recorded in this Parliament. I think I state the Government case fairly, but will Members of the House, in whatever quarter they sit, ask themselves what is to be the state of Ulster and the United Kingdom for the next six years. The Prime Minister and the Government have come very late to the recognition of the reality—I do not say of the sound foundation, for I do not want to attribute to them anything they have not admitted—of the fears and of the resolution of Ulster. For two years we have discussed this question, and for two years never have we had art act of concession or of goodwill. Only now at the last moment are these proposals made. Only when the action taken in Ulster has brought home, at any rate, to the gentlemen there, who have the responsibility to bear which is not upon the gentlemen behind them who, if they will permit me to say so, shelter their irresponsibility under their obscurity, for the responsibility cannot be brought home to them individually as it is brought home to the Ministers whose "Aye" or "No" means civil war or peace—it is only now at the last hour, when the action of the people of Ulster has brought home to the Government the reality of the dangers to them, that any effort is made to meet and allay Ulster fears, and you ask the people of Ulster to break up their organisation, to separate themselves from those with whom they have entered into a solemn pact. [Laughter.] Really I despair when I hear laughter like that. I despair when I hear men, every one of whom, if he thinks for a moment, must know on both sides of the House that we are discussing such a question as this House has not known for 200 years, and that every step we take and that every word we speak weighs in the balance for peace or for strife, I despair if the House of Commons cannot discuss these things seriously. It is only at the last moment when the organisation and the unity of this Ulster population have secured some hearing for their fears, that you make some concession, and then, as a condition of that concession, you say that they are to separate from those with whom they covenanted. They are to disband their organisation and trust to what the next six years bring forth for the satisfaction of their ultimate hopes and the safety of all that is near and dear to them. Is the prospect much more alluring for Englishmen? If there is one thing which Englishmen, and Scotchmen too, hoped from the passing of a Home Rule Bill it is that they may be relieved of this perpetual Irish question. What chance is there in this for the freedom of the House of Commons from this question?
For the whole of these six years Ulster must keep up its organisation, Ulster must live at boiling point, in order to impress upon us and our constituents that the danger is as near as ever, and that it is as unsafe six years hence to attempt the coercion of Ulster as it is to-day. And during all those six years, every English question and every Scotch question may be decided in the play of parties with a bare majority, not by the interests of England or Scotland, but by the votes of Irishmen who will have no further interest in what concerns us, who will not be affected by the legislation that we are passing with this very object, and whose one object is to secure that at the end of the six years their prey falls into their hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Conciliation," and "Order, Hemmerde."] Do you not think that it is better to try and conciliate them first, and then induce these people to come in, than to say to them: "You shall come in, and you shall be conciliated"? I do not understand the attitude of men who in the name of peace and conciliation are always shaking their fists in their fellow-citizens faces. What is the meaning of this six years' time limit? Do you think, does anyone think on that side, that Ulster will have the same opportunity of a fair trial at, the hands of the people of the United Kingdom if you pass this Bill with the automatic inclusion of Ulster at the end of six years, leaving her only the chance that that may be altered, as if you give her exclusion until Parliament says that she shall be included? Does anybody think that that is the same? The hon. Member for East Mayo does not.
Certainly not.
The Prime Minister is trying to persuade the people of Ulster, and still more the people of England, that it is the same. He is trying to persuade the people of England that he is giving Ulster a better chance than if the people of Great Britain were asked their opinion before a decision was arrived at. The hon. Member for East Mayo said:—
"If the Unionists win the next General Election they can repeal the Home Rule Act if they dare."
Quite so. You think that, if you once put the Act upon the Statute Book, even if within a few months afterwards you had an election, and the people were proved to be against it, we should not dare to repeal it. Where is democratic Government? To continue the quotation:—
"Or, they could cut out Ulster by an amending Act."
That is what the Prime Minister invites us to do. The Nationalists would not be bound. They would renew the struggle with all the added power of an Irish Government at their backs. I put this to the Prime Minister and the Government Their line is that they prejudge nothing, that they leave the Ulster case open to the judgment of the country. Their allies accept their proposals because everything is prejudged, and because this is judgment first and trial afterwards. Can they pretend in the face of the hon. Member's own declaration that they are preserving the rights either of the people of Ulster or of the democracy of this country or of this House of Commons. The Prime Minister said something more. He said if this period of six years is given we shall have experience of Nationalist Government, and if there is any invidious, unfair, or preferential treatment of any class, creed, or political, party, no matter what, it must interfere on behalf of Ulster to extend or to make permanent her exclusion from the National Parliament. We have had some experience of Irish National Government working on a small scale in the case of local authorities. Many of us remember the Irish Local Government Act, and recollect the declarations of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and other Nationalist Members—though soft words butter no parsnips—as to how they would work in co-operation with all Irishmen, and that no man need fear that differences of politics, creed, or party would exclude him from working for his country. That was before the Act. When the Act was passed the hon. Member for East Mayo went to the West of Ireland and said:—
"One of the great weapons we have obtained by our work in Parliament is the control of the district and county councils. Let it be known beforehand that no man need come and ask for your vote unless he has proved himself to be a friend of the people."
Read on!
I apologise to hon. Gentlemen for having allowed myself to be betrayed into a pause at that point. I ought to have gone on.
"Let it be known beforehand that no man can come and ask for your vote unless he has proved himself to be a friend of the people by joining the United Irish League."
That Act passed ten years ago or fifteen years ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "In 1898."]—and in the spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo it has been worked ever since. Does the Government say, "There has been invidious, unfair, And preferential treatment, and until that stops and a new spirit prevails we must postpone the grant of self-government to Ireland"? Not a bit of it; they press on their Bill. Do you think that if the same spirit prevails that they will do more for the protection of Ulster six years hence than they are doing for the protection of the loyalists of the South and West? It cannot be said that in the light of these things and the declaration of the Prime Minister that what he offers is a reasonable solution or one which he could ever have supposed the people of Ulster would accept. It is one of two things. Either the Prime Minister knew when he made this proposal that it could not be accepted by the people to whom it was offered or he never sought to learn their opinions upon it. I am not in a position to say which of those two alternatives is true, but that he could never have derived a hint from any competent source, public or private, that this could be a solution of the question, I or anyone who knows anything of the subject may be content to stake our reputations upon. Is there then no alternative? Are we to sit by and watch and see the storm clouds break? Two alternatives have been suggested in this Debate. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), in a speech which I should describe as of remarkable moderation, except that it was only on a par with that moderation which is characteristic of all his utterances, sketched the possibility of another settlement on the lines of general devolution to provincial, if you like to call it so, national councils, which would give equal treatment to every man throughout the United Kingdom, which would make no one inferior, and which would treat none as a subject race. That night be a solution. I ventured with some of my colleagues in the Autumn Recess, to make suggestions on the same lines. I thought they held out the prospect of hope. The Prime Minister studiously, and I suppose deliberately, ignored them throughout. To-night the hon. Member for East Mayo, speaking for the Nationalist party, definitely rejected them.
Hear, hear.
How conciliatory! Another proposal has been made, the principle of which is admitted in the Government's proposal by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law), with the authority and support of Lord Lansdowne. It was to submit this question to the people by Referendum, and the Prime Minister, who finds a sufficient warrant in a General Election, where he hardly mentioned the subject, and where his colleagues and himself spoke a column on other subjects for every line he spoke on this, who finds in such a General Election a warrant to upset our Constitution and reverse our history, feels that you cannot get any warrant from the people for anything by asking them expressly, yes or no, "Do you want this Bill to pass or not?" We have done our best.
The hon. Member for Northampton came very near the truth when he said that, in our anxiety to avert from our country the evils that we foresee—God knows how great, how widespread, how deep-reaching—we have risked the accusation that we were betraying the principle for the support of which our party was formed, and to the support of which every one of us owes his seat. We have gone further than many of those who sent us here like to see us go. We have taken upon ourselves responsibilities that we have been obliged at times to question to ourselves our right to assume. We have done this in the interests of peace. There is no peace along the path the Government are treading, if the Prime Minister will have as a principle, not merely that Ulster, and Ulster alone, shall be consulted, and shall follow its own will for six years, but that at the end of those six years its fate is to be automatically sealed, and if he will have the particular areas that he chooses to be part of the principle too. The tone may be moderate, the language may be restrained, but it is when the tone is most moderate and the language most restrained that it is often most dangerous. Along that line there is no peace. But even now I cannot, I will not, believe that the Government will commit the crime of coercing men who desire to do nothing but share our rights, our privileges, and our duties, because they will not obey a domination which is hateful to them, and a domination to which neither on the one side nor on the other, outside the ranks of the party there [the right hon. Gentleman pointed to the Nationalist benches] are there twenty men who would commit their own fortunes or those of their own wives and children.
If may venture to give one word of admonition to the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as peacemaker, I would say that a peacemaker must never despair. I do not propose to despair. Certainly if a jeer from an opponent or an inappropriate peal of laughter were to make me despair, I should long since have ceased to be a peacemaker at all. After listening, unlike most people, to the whole of this Debate with the exception, for which I apologise, of one speech and a-half, I have been very much struck in almost all the speeches—here and there there may have been exceptions—by an undoubted disposition to approach this grave and serious question, at a grave and serious time, with an honest intent to see what it is that is between us, and to represent the proposals which the Government has made—I know it is a very difficult thing to do—not in the language of party, but in the language of facts, and with an honest desire to put them plainly and clearly before the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition began his interesting speech by apologising to the House for not reading the terms of his Vote of Censure. He said we all know them. If we did we all forget them very rapidly indeed! I think in that the right hon. Gentleman himself and almost all the subsequent speakers showed the sound intrinsic sense of the House at a time like this in avoiding what may be not an unimportant, but is nevertheless a trivial point as compared with the real question, "Aye" or "No." Can we settle or come to an agreement upon this Ulster problem? I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the way of peacemakers is indeed hard. I certainly, up to this time, have always felt that our chances of dealing with the question were very much complicated by the fact that, of course, there is between us on this side of the House and most of you opposite a great gulf fixed on this question of Home Rule.
You hate Home Rule. We love it. During the whole of my political existence I have ever been an advocate of Home Rule, and I say my opinions and feelings in regard to it have been intensified, deepened, and strengthened by every year of the eight years I have been in occupation of the office I now hold. I stand here and say that it is only along the lines of Home Rule that Ireland as it exists to-day can ever find its full accomplishment and full place, and attain to its full strength, not as a mere political function, but as a nation. It can only do it in that way. Therefore I have always felt, you not sharing that view, that there was this great gulf between us, and that it was unreasonable for us to expect you to give up your opinion There is present the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), whom; we are all glad to see. I am quite certain I shall never live to hear him get up and say that he has ceased to be an opponent of Home Rule for Ireland. That I know, and that was the difficulty with us and between us, and it was impossible, or seemed to be impossible, for us to deal with you on this point, because in the earlier periods of this discussion, and in the earlier periods of our Debates, the right hon. Gentleman himself, the Member for the University of Dublin, only employed the question of the possibility of the exclusion of Ulster because it was an argument showing that Home Rule was impossible. He has said so in the most pointed and marked way. I am in favour, he said, of the exclusion of Ulster, because you cannot have Home Rule without Ulster. So long as that spirit prevails, so long as that conception of your duty prevails it was impossible to proceed very far with any question as to the exclusion of Ulster.
But now we have made progress in that matter, and without in any way committing you to express approval of Home Rule, or asking you to vote for the Second Reading or the Third Reading of Home Rule—that I admit would be unreasonable—we are here now debating this whole difficulty, and we have debated it on another, in regard to the position of Ulster on the basis of exclusion. That in itself is a very considerable advance. I confess, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, I am infinitely more concerned with the question how to win over Ulster, how to conciliate Ulster, how to get Ulster in course of time into a mind and temper in which she may be willing to play the great part she is destined to play in the administration of the affairs of the island of which she is an integral part. I feel that as strongly as anybody, and it is the immobility of Ulster that makes me anxious, and I am not at all concerned with the mobility of the leader of one of the parties in this country. I know what might happen to any of us and what can be done, and I confess I do not care very much as to what the Unionist party in this country may do after an election or a Referendum, or anything of that sort. If Ulster remains immobile, Home Rule must always be for the rest of Ireland a difficult truncated and puzzling problem. Therefore I look at this case from that point of view, and I want Ulster to look at it from that point of view. I was amazed at the right hon. Gentleman, though admitting quiet candidly he knew nothing about it, taking upon himself to assume that in all probability the Prime Minister, and those associated with him in this proposal, only made it because they felt sure it would not be accepted. For my part, I had every hope it would be accepted.
My statement was, you had taken no steps in the months in which the conversations went on to "to ascertain what the feeling of Ulstermen were here.
I do not at all believe that the only way to ascertain the feeling of Ulstermen is by conversations between Members of the Front Benches. There are a great many Ulstermen in Ulster who are not represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been in communication with scores of Ulstermen of business living in Ulster in regard to the matter. I do not say I think this was a proposal at which they would cordially jump, but I do think, and think still, it is a proposal the more they reflect upon the more they would be prepared to accept it. Something has been said about restraint exercised in Ulster during the last two years. I think I am bound to say a word upon that, because I recognise there has been a most remarkable restraint noticeable in Ulster and upon its tumultuous and lively population; but when the right hon. Gentleman opposite gives the whole credit of that to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, who, remember, all that time has been at the head of a great propaganda, who has been so very much in evidence and showed himself about in every place in public, and when it is said that it is he and he alone who has exercised this restraint, I ask what about the restraint exercised in other parts of Ulster among the Catholics and Nationalists? Have they not exercised restraint? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, I see, gladly acknowledges that is so. I say that their restraint is by far more remarkable and wonderful; they have not even smiled for three weeks. Take the county of Monaghan. This came to me from an unexceptional source. In this county the Catholic population have for months past been subject to what I should consider the most trying of all things. Whilst walking along their quiet country lanes in the evening, Ulster volunteer sentries pop out upon them and treat them as if they were wandering about in a foreign country, asking them for watchwords. If you talk about provocation, I cannot think of anything more provoking than that. This is the sort of thing which has happened over and over again, and other things which would occur to the imagination of everybody. This has been a remarkable movement and has excited a great deal of attention all over England and in Ulster itself, and I say that the restraint exercised by the people of these areas has been most remarkable, and it is an indication that the time has arrived when a settlement ought to be arrived at when you find people capable of exercising such restraint. After listening in this Debate to speeches like that made by the Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord H. Cecil), the hon. Member for the Watford Division (Mr. Arnold Ward), and other speeches, this does seem to me to be a time at which we may hope to arrive at a settlement. Hon. Members heard the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) speak. He said that the Nationalist party had consented most reluctantly to the Government's proposals, and they were most reluctant in going back to Ireland and representing them as something which ought to be accepted. Surely they are entitled to be heard, and their opinion is not likely to be set on one side. We have given up a great deal. English Home Rulers have given up a great deal, and so have Irish Home Rulers. They have agreed that those counties where there is this large Protestant population should come out for six years, Hon. Members speak of six years as if it were nothing and as if two elections were nothing, and nothing happened, but that is not the view of the Nationalists of Ulster. They by no means share the confidence that you have, that a Tory majority may be in in the course of the six years. What could be easier, and what more proper under certain circumstances? If six or five: years of an Irish Parliament revealed a bad state of things, incompetency and incapacity, and an unjust position, you say that the English people would not be thinking about it. They would not be thinking about it all day, but they would be watching them far more carefully than they watch the proceedings of foreign Parliaments, in which they do sometimes take a lively interest. What I venture to say will happen in the Parliament which I hope to set tip in Dublin will be that there will be proceedings which will be watched with the closest interest, and everything they do will be considered and criticised, not only in this House, but in the country. It will be an experiment which will be watched with the greatest attention. To say that the Parliament here would not reflect the opinion of the people as to the intention of the Irish Parliament and as to the reasonableness of the Ulster attitude is quite ridiculous. They will take that view, and the Ulster Nationalists in agreeing to these proposals do undoubtedly feel very deeply upon what you may call the permanent exclusion of Ulster. If this Parliament hereafter chooses to
turn the six years into sixty years, or to impose other terms and conditions in any other way, or to impose a new plebiscite at the end of the six years, it could be done. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is how you settle the question."] I do not wish to introduce any note of irritation. I have attended this Debate most closely, and I have followed it with great care, and I leave the subject, I will not say with any happy convictions, but at all events with a disposition to believe that the people of this country—aye, and even hon. Members of this House—will on further reflection and consideration come to the conclusion that the proposals we have made offer a temporary solution" of this Ulster question, and are proposals worthy of your consideration, and well fitted to get rid of any of those difficulties.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 345.
Question proposed, "That those words—['would welcome a common ground as the basis of agreement for the settlement of the Irish question, and is of opinion that with good will such might be found in the exclusion from the Government of Ireland Bill of counties of Ulster until legislative provision for a general system of devolution for the whole United Kingdom be ready to come into operation, such provision to take place within six years']—be there added."
It being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Transvaal Provincial Elections
Deportation of Labour Leaders
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
The matter I have to raise is a very important one. Everybody admits that certain recent events which have taken place in South Africa are of very grave Imperial concern. Whatever the view is of self-government, when a Dominion enjoying self-government takes upon itself the responsibility of tearing up the most fundamental rights of British citizenship, its action ceases to be one that specially and exclusively concerns itself, and relates to the whole Empire. I should be the last to refuse to admit that the speech of my right hon. Friend delivered in reply to one I made on a previous occasion this Session, had not a good deal of substance in it. But the elections which took place in the Transvaal yesterday, following the by-elections which have taken place elsewhere, really indicate to my right hon. Friend that the Governor-General should take some action in the matter. The facts are before the public this morning in the newspapers. The Labour party went to the Transvaal elections holding two seats in the provincial council. They emerged from the election yesterday holding twenty-three. On the admission of everybody the election was fought upon the action of General Botha's Government. The Unionists claimed merit for it. I was only reading to-day an account of one of their meetings which was sent to me by post, and which arrived by the last mail, and there every speaker said that he was supporting General Botha's Government and that a vote for Labour was a vote of censure upon that Government. All parties agreed that that was so. The Unionists had a majority of seats when they went to the election, and so far as I can read, what I admit is a somewhat ambiguous cable, they emerged yesterday wiped out. They have two members, apparently, returned instead of a majority. In the Free State they are absolutely wiped out, and they have no member at all. The Labour party has twenty-three members returned, and the Council consists of forty-five members, therefore the Transvaal in future is going to have a Labour party majority, a Labour party executive, or whatever may be the name by which the administrative authority is called. But that is not the only fact. In order to get this majority, anyone who knows the Transvaal, and I know it slightly, knows that the English working-class vote could not have done it. There must have been a combination of all the races on the Rand before those twenty-three men could have been returned. Therefore it is not an English majority. It is not, strictly and narrowly speaking, a British majority. It must have been a combination formed between the Dutch and the British population in order to effect the result. To-day we have just received a cable from the Canadian Trades Union Congress associating itself wholly and completely with the Imperial move to get South Africa to undo the evil which has been done, more particularly by Clause 4 of the Indemnity Bill. I do not resist that Bill, and I have never done so. It is part of the duty of a self-governing Colony to proclain martial law if circumstances require that to be done, and I believe it is the duty of the Governor of that Colony to agree to the proclamation of martial law. But what we say is, that the Indemnity Bill should not include Clause 4, which is now before Lord Gladstone, as the representative of His Majesty. That is the gravamen of our complaint, and surely the events of yesterday, coupled with the election in the Free State, in addition to certain by-elections, three of which the Labour party has won in constituencies which are no more labour than St. George's, Hanover Square, is labour, should be taken into consideration. Owing to the strong feeling which has been created against the Government these constituencies have returned the Labour candidates to represent them in the provincial Parliament. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend does he disregard these facts, and is Lord Gladstone going to disregard them? Are they going to go on under the impression that the Imperial authority—I do not care whether it is the Crown or this Parliament—nominally it is the Crown, but in reality it is not—are they going to go on as if the Imperial authority had nothing to do with political events in South Africa since the deportations and the introduction of the Indemnity Bill? It is quite easy to say that the Indemnity Bill must go through. It is Clause 4 of the Indemnity Bill that ought to be disallowed by Lord Gladstone, and which the elections of yesterday and two or three weeks before have given Lord Gladstone a mandate to disallow. I hope we may have some statement to-night suggesting that the action of the South African people, in vindicating their rights and liberties, is to be backed up by the Imperial authorities.
I think, perhaps, I may say, first of all, as to the Indemnity Bill that, having been amended in the Senate by the omission of the perpetual banishment clause, and having been passed by large majorities in both Houses of the Cape Parliament, it was assented to by Lord Gladstone in the name of the King this morning. The hon. Member has directed attention to the results of the elections to the Legislative Council in the Transvaal. On the sparse knowledge we possess of these elections, it would be wrong at present to say what is the precise meaning of these elections to the provincial councils. I cannot myself admit that the provincial council elections would greatly or gravely affect the course taken in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa. We have, of course, in this country had similar experiences. We have known when a Conservative Government was in office great Progressive majorities to be obtained on the London County Council, and we have known when an equally strong Liberal Government has been in power majorities to be obtained on the Moderate side on the London County Council. We should never on these occasions, even when a poll has been taken of the whole of London, imagine that any form of influence could be exercised upon the policy that was being pursued in the Imperial Parliament. The hon. Member and I do not always agree, but at least in the Debate on the Amendment to the Address we agreed to this extent. I was able to quote a very forcible passage from a speech made by him in which he set out what I thought ought to be the procedure on the part of those who wished for the reversal of the policy which was then being pursued in South Africa. He had said:—
"The Union Parliament is the proper battleground. We cannot fight these battles from the House of Com- mons. It is the trade unionists of South Africa through elected labour members who have got to fight their own battles in that self-governing community."
I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member. I may quote a short passage from my own speech. I said:—
"The Union Government is responsible to the Union Parliament. If that Parliament gives them that support and passes the Bill which indemnifies their action"—
which it has done by an overwhelming majority in both Houses—
"then it will be in the highest degree unwise and impolitic to attempt to reverse that decision here. If the democracy of South Africa is dissatisfied with this Government it should put pressure upon its representatives to reject that Bill and to turn out the Government. If they fail to do so they will have an opportunity of a General Election, which, like our own, cannot be delayed beyond the end of next, year; but with that early and sufficient opportunity you will not, if you are wise, attempt to interfere with the discretion of the Union Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1914, col. 377.]
I do not think that I can add to what was said on that occasion both by the hon. Member and myself. I feel that on the very day of the declaration of the polls, in reference to the provincial council, it would not be wise and would not be possible for this House to ask Lord Gladstone to take any action other than to follow the advice of his Ministers, who still have the overwhelming support of the Parliament to which they were returned.
I must say that the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) is the reply that was expected. What surprises me is that the hon. Member for Leicester made the appeal he has made to the Government. The hon. Member for Leicester and his party would have this House believe that they represent in the best sense the true democratic principle. The hon. Member for Leicester and his friends were powerfully interested in granting a Union Government to South Africa, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a Union Government representing the whole of the democracy of South Africa. The hon. Member the Leader of a party in this House, in this Imperial House of Commons, comes and asks the Crown to do what never has been asked by a single province in the whole course of the career of this Empire. Such a thing is absolutely unknown among what we may call Imperial politicians. If any hon. Gentleman present can give me a single instance of such an interference or of such an appeal, I will at once withdraw the remarks I have made.
Can the hon. Gentleman give any precedent for deportation?
I am not arguing the question of deportation. What I am arguing is this: Is it the policy of a Leader of a party in this House, who may sometime, as he hopes, be in power, to appeal to the Government of this country to undo what the Government of South Africa has done—a Government to which we have given responsible, autonomous Government—in absolute defiance of all the principles which the hon. Member has ever maintained?
Can the Government in South Africa establish slavery?
Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the time when this Government was responsible for the Government of South Africa? There is no analogy between the two. The people of South Africa are responsible for the acts of their Government. If that Government does anything to displease them which is not in consonance with their views, they can turn them out. But for the hon. Member to suggest, because there was an election yesterday in the province of the Transvaal, which has a legislative council about the size of a little county council, that this Government shall take it into its consideration to authorise the Governor-General of South Africa to withhold his assent to the Indemnity Act, or any portion of it, is a thing which has not been heard of. Let me give him an example. In Canada the other day the province Saskatchewan gave a majority strongly in favour of reciprocity, and is it suggested that the people of Canada should consider for one moment that that should have any influence upon the general decision as to whether the whole Dominion should accept the policy of reciprocity? And so it is with this. Are the people of South Africa to take into consideration the decision of the Transvaal as to the Legislative Council and to condemn the Botha Government for its action, and to reverse the decision they came to the other day through their elected representatives to support the Government in passing the Indemnity Bill? The position which the hon. Gentleman has taken up is one which may be effective with his own party inside this House, but outside this House I am absolutely certain will be recognised as only a feeble attempt to demonstrate a position which is untenable, both by tradition and history and also by reason and logic.
Is it not the fact that Clause 4 has been taken out?
I have stated that the Amendment was made and it was telegraphed to the papers here. I have no other knowledge of it. My knowledge is exactly the same—that the Clause as to perpetual banishment has been taken out.
I apologise to the House for intervening at this late hour, but I feel that the urgency of the question I am going to raise—
It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.