House Of Commons
Wednesday, 29th April, 1914.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Housing Of The Working Classes
I beg to present a Petition from the Urban District Council of Pembroke (county Dublin) praying this House to pass such legislation as will enable municipal authorities to carry out housing schemes for the working classes.
Private Business
London United Tramways Bill,
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Dee Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
China (No 1, 1914)
Copy presented of further Correspondence respecting the Affairs of China [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Commercial Intelligence
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 28th April; Mr. Burns]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
National Insurance Act
Copy presented of Return as to the Administration of Sanatorium Benefit from 15th July, 1912, to 11th January, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order, dated 27th April, 1914, made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Transfer of Deposit Contributors) Order (Scotland), 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Navy (Gunnery)
Copy presented of Result of Test of Gun-layers with Heavy Guns and Light Quick-firing Guns in His Majesty's Fleet, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Temporary Laws
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
Register of Temporary Laws for the Fourth Session, Thirtieth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [pursuant to the Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866]; to be printed. [No. 203.]
Oral Answers To Questions
Royal Navy
Chaplains
1.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Rev. B. H. L. Oswell and the Rev. G. H. Harcourt, who have recently been appointed chaplains in the Navy, have since their ordination been curates of churches, Mr. Oswell for four years at St. Columba's, Haggerston, and Mr. Harcourt for seven years at All Saints, Notting Hill, which are head centres of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, a society for the restoration of the mass and the confessional in the Church of England, and in both of which churches the law as laid down by the King in Council is habitually defied; and whether he will take steps to secure that appointments to chaplaincies in the Navy shall in future be made in accordance with the Resolution of the House of Commons dated 11th April, 1899?
All ordained Deacons and Priests of the Church of England are eligible for appointment as chaplains of the Royal Navy, and I have no reason for thinking that the appointments that have been made during my tenure of office at the Admiralty are not representative of the whole body of the Church.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Resolution of the House of Commons of 11th April, 1899, and is he aware that it was carried in this House during the period of office of the Conservative Government almost unanimously?
Yes, I am aware of it, but I have satisfied myself it has not been infringed.
Naval Mechanicians
2.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain the Government policy with regard to the employment of naval mechanicians in place of dockyard mechanics on board His Majesty's ship "Dominion"; and whether this is a special case or part of the general policy of the Admiralty?
The employment of naval mechanicians for such repair work of the fleet as is within their capacity is entirely within the discretion of the fleet officers. At the inspection of His Majesty's ship "Dominion's" defects the admiral superintendent and the fleet officers decided together what work should be done by the dockyard and what by naval ratings.
May I ask how many years this has been in operation?
It was under Clause 9, Article 1092 of the King's Regulations.
Royal Flying Corps
3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Royal Flying Corps has recently ordered any German aeroplanes; and, if so, will he say how many, and why?
Up to the present one aeroplane of a German type has been purchased for instructional purposes.
Vaccination (Henry Plant)
4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the case of Henry Plant, who entered the Navy as a second class stoker in September, 1911, and who was invalided from Haslar Hospital as suffering from diseased bone and peritonitis; if he is aware that Plant was compulsorily vaccinated in September, after passing satisfactorily a thorough medical examination; that he entered the hospital in October and remained there until invalided in the following February; that after leaving the Service, Plant had to have his left arm amputated; that the disease which necessitated this step has spread to the man's chest and right arm; and that he has become totally unfit for any ordinary occupation; if any medical report has been made to the Admiralty since Plant was invalided; if so, whether such report dealt with the possible connection of the disease from which Plant suffered with his vaccination; if any other persons were treated with the same vaccine; and, if so, whether inquiry has been made as to the results; if any report has been asked for or received from the medical men who treated and operated upon Plant after he left the Service; whether he will explain why the Admiralty has declined to grant any compensation to Plant; and if he will afford access to the medical reports upon which that decision is based?
I would point out that vaccination is compulsory in the sense that vaccination and re-vaccination are conditions of entry into the Service a candidate not being entered if he declines to accept these conditions. Plant signed the usual statement accepting these conditions. I am informed that other persons were treated with the same vaccine, in all cases with satisfactory results. No medical reports have been received from outside practitioners since the date of invaliding, but in the reports made by Service medical officers the aspect of the case alluded to by the hon. Member—namely, the possible connection between the disease from which Plant suffered and vaccination—has been dealt with. As I stated in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 5th March, as the disease was not attributable to the Service, and Plant had served for less than a year, he is not eligible, under the terms of the regulations, for any award by way of pension or gratuity from Naval or Greenwich Hospital funds. As regards the last part of the question, I shall be happy to discuss the case with the hon. Member if he so desires.
May I ask whether this poor man had not passed a very searching examination, and whether he had not signed on for twelve years, and therefore whether under the special circumstances something cannot be done by the Admiralty?
Yes, he passed the usual test and he signed on for twelve years. The loss of the arm has nothing to do with vaccination. I am assured of that by all the medical testimony. Therefore nothing can be done from Greenwich Hospital or Naval Funds. Without raising hopes unduly if means can he found to assist him I shall be glad.
Would it be possible to find him a messengership in one of the Government Departments?
That is a matter I have under consideration—some light work of that kind.
Armoured Ships (Refit)
5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the regulations now in force governing the withdrawal of armoured ships from the squadrons of the first fleet for purposes of refit, etc.?
No, Sir, the subject is in the main confidential.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1904–5 regulations regulating the refit of these vessels were issued and do they still hold good?
I cannot say, because I do not know, without notice, but I am advised that it would be contrary to naval interests for us to publish the regulations under which we are working.
Construction Programme, 1912–13
7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the orders were placed for the destroyers of the 1912–13 programme; what were the contract dates for the completion of the several vessels; and how many of these so far completed were delivered within the contract period allowed by the contract?
Orders were placed for twenty boats, sixteen in March, 1912, and four in May of the same year. The contract dates were in all cases except two for delivery of the boats at the end of the year 1913, these two being due in February and March of the present year. Of nine boats which have actually been delivered three were delivered within their contract periods.
Hms "Isis" And The Ss "Carbineer"(Collision)
10.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, at the time of the recent collision between the "Carbineer" and His Majesty's ship "Isis," the latter ship was carrying sufficient boats to take off the men on board if necessary; whether he will state the" number of boats available with the accommodation; and whether they were all supplied with oars?
I understand that the "Isis" carried the following boats: Two 28-ft. cutters, two 30-ft. gigs, and one 30-ft. cutter, and that each boat was fully equipped with oars. This number of boats, though fully sufficient for her complement as a Third Fleet ship, would not have accommodated the number of men on board at the time of the collision. Further inquiry is being made into the matter.
India
Commercial Intelligence Department
16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what will be the cost to the Indian taxpayer of the creation of the appointment of Director of Statistics in order to free the head of the Commercial Intelligence Department to tour in commercial centres while stationed at Delhi; whether it is further contemplated by the Government of India to sub-divide the present office of Director-General of Commercial Intelligence into two offices with headquarters at Calcutta and Bombay; if so, at what cost to the Indian taxpayer; and whether the cost of these measures is included in the Governor-General's last estimate of the cost of making Delhi the capital of India?
The net additional cost of the appointment of Director of Statistics is £500 a year. There is no present intention of subdividing the office of Director-General of Commercial Intelligence. The reorganisation was considered advisable for reasons largely unconnected with the transfer of the capital. The answer to the last question is in the negative.
Did not the duplication of the offices directly arise out of the transfer of the capital? Was it not a singular coincidence that it happened at the same time?
No. I understand that the division was made for reasons wholly unconnected with the transfer of the capital.
North-West Frontier
17.
asked whether the punitive measures that have recently been resorted to on the North-West Frontier have had any satisfactory result in repressing or averting the probability of raids and outrages there occurring?
The measures taken against the Bunerwals have resulted in the submission of the tribe and the payment of a fine of Rs. 7,000. On the Afghan border the representations made to the Amir, and the detention of a number of Khostwals in British territory, have led the Afghan authorities to arrest some thirty of the outlaws who had been using Khost as a base for their raids, and to procure the release of several Hindu captives.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the existing frontier arrangements were made by Lord Curzon, whether they have been seriously considered by the Indian Press, and is he satisfied with them?
I must ask for notice of that.
Post Office
Telephone Service
25.
asked the Postmaster-General whether Stanmore is more than ten miles distant from London, so as to be included in trunk telephone calls; whether all places in Middlesex should be ordinary calls, seeing that it is in order to be connected with London that telephones are installed in houses in the country and in small towns and villages in Middlesex; and whether, under these exceptional circumstances, the present regulations, entailing delay and expense, will be amended or altered in this behalf?
Stanmore is more than ten miles distant from London, and under the existing arrangements calls between that place and London are properly treated as trunk calls. It is not possible to arrange that calls between all places in Middlesex and London shall be treated as local calls, but the question of telephonic charges generally is at present receiving my right hon. Friend's careful consideration in connection with the proposed revision of the rates of charge for telephone service, when more suitable arrangements will be made.
Mount Pleasant Refreshment Department
26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will in quire into the cause of the dismissal of an employé at the General Post Office refreshment branch at Mount Pleasant, named H. Robinson; whether he will ascertain the nature of the complaint alleged against him; whether he will in quire as to the reason for giving him a fortnight's wages in lieu of notice; whether the man has ever been given an opportunity of facing his accusers; and whether he will endeavour to afford this man an opportunity of answering the charges made against him, with a view to bringing about the re-establishment of his character and obtaining his reinstatement in his employment?
I am not in a position to answer the hon. Member's question. Mr. Robinson was not a Post Office servant. He was engaged by the Refreshment Branch Committee, and was entirely under the committee's control.
Engineering Branch (University Men)
27.
asked whether, seeing that Mr. Slingo, the engineer-in-chief to the Post Office, stated in his evidence at the Holt Committee that the outside men brought into the engineering branch of the Post Office from the university had not come up to the anticipations formed of them, the system of bringing young, inexperienced men from the universities will be discontinued?
The system under which competitions for engineerships in the Post Office were limited to university candidates was discontinued over two years ago. For the future recruitment of engineers it is proposed to adopt the recommendations of the recent Select Committee on Post Office Servants.
Does the hon. Gentleman still hold that the qualification of these men from the universities are superior to those of the men who have been rejected, many of whom have been stated by the Postmaster-General to be suitable for the posts?
No. We found that we were not getting a desirable class of men from the universities, and we discontinued the system two years ago.
Foot-And-Mouth Disease
19.
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the power exercised by some local authorities in Great Britain of excluding cattle from Ireland is a power conferred by Statute, and, if so, what Statute, or a power conferred by Regulations issued From his Department; and whether any local authority has power to admit cattle from one healthy area and exclude cattle from another equally healthy area within the United Kingdom?
The power in question is conferred upon local authorities by an Order of the Board made under the Diseases of Animals Acts. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Order itself, of which I am sending him a copy.
Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Order was issued?
1895.
Mexico (British Oil Companies)
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any damage has been done to the property of British oil companies at or in the neighbourhood of Tampico; and whether the United States Government has been asked to safeguard such interests?
I have received no information that the property of British oil companies has been damaged at or near Tampico; for the answer to the second part of his question I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to his question of 14th April. No further representations have been made to the United States Government on this subject.
What protection is being afforded at present to these interests?
As they are not in danger and have not suffered it is not necessary to afford special protection. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, there is a very complete presence of our battleships about the coast of Mexico.
New Hebrides
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during his recent visit to Paris, he discussed with M. Dommergue and the French Minister for Foreign Affairs the situation in the New Hebrides; whether a conference has been agreed upon or is expected to take place between the two nations; and, if so, whether the Commonwealth of Australia will be invited to send a representative; and, if no such invitation is contemplated and assuming a conference to be held, will he undertake to communicate the result to the Commonwealth of Australia before the decision is ratified?
The question is under discussion between the two Governments, and I hope an agreement as to holding a conference will soon be reached. As to the last part of the question I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Colonial Secretary to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire on 23rd April.
Can the hon. Gentleman give any hope that this conference will meet within a reasonable time?
We cannot say until we get the reply of the French Government.
When docs the hon. Gentleman expect it?
We have to give people proper time to consider the matter. We shall inform the House as soon as we get the reply.
Portuguese West Africa (Rev J S Bowskill's Arrest)
15.
asked whether His Majesty's Government has yet received any report from His Majesty's Consul instructed to proceed to San Salvador to report upon the circumstances of the arrest of the Rev. J. S. Bowskill?
A telegram was received on 20th April from Mr. Vice-Consul Bell, through the Acting Vice-Consul at Boma, stating that the Governor of the Congo accepts responsibility for the arrest of Mr. Bowskill, but has given no satisfactory reasons therefor. The trial will be held at Cabinda, and not at San Salvador, before a civil tribunal. I think that as the trial is pending it would be well not to give further details of Mr. Bell's report at present, or, at any rate, to wait till the dispatch from Mr. Bell is received giving a full account of his inquiry.
Has the Foreign Office assured itself that Mr. Bowskill will be adequately represented at the trial?
I do not know by whom he will be represented at the civil trial if a civil trial takes place, but we have made representations to ensure that the representation will be sufficient. If there is not proper help in the ordinary way we will try to see that he is assisted, if possible, by one of His Majesty's representatives.
Richmond Park (Supervision Of Plantations)
20.
asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received complaints of insufficient supervision of the plantations in Richmond Park; whether the staff is insufficient for the purpose; and whether, in any case, he will take steps to ensure that the plantations be visited in future at much shorter intervals than heretofore?
There are 308 acres of woodland, with undergrowth for the protection of wild life. These are visited twice a week by keepers. Complaints have occasionally been received, but without a great increase in staff thorough supervision seems impossible.
Office Of Works (Edinburgh)
21.
asked whether the principal architect of His Majesty's Office of Works in Edinburgh is retiring; if so, from what cause; whether his successor has been appointed; and what is to be the position and status of the office under the new appointment?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The retirement is voluntary in the ordinary course at the age of sixty. No successor has yet been appointed. No change is contemplated in the position and status of the office.
Is it not the case that the Office of Works proposes to transfer the Edinburgh office to London?
I have not seen that statement in the Press. The facts are as stated in my answer.
National Insurance Act
Panel Fund Surplus
22.
asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the Government has sanctioned the distribution proposed by the London Insurance Committee of the unallocated surplus of about £200,000 in the panel fund to the doctors on the panel; and whether legal advice has been taken by the Insurance Commissioners as to the legality of such distribution?
The proposals of the London Insurance Committee as to the manner in which the sum at issue (the amount of which is overstated in the question) is to be distributed among the doctors, have not as yet been submitted to the Commissioners.
Would it be possible for the unpaid chemists' bill to be paid out of the surplus before the surplus is distributed?
I must ask for that question to be put on the Paper.
Will the Insurance Commissioners distribute this amount in this manner if a legal opinion to the contrary holds the field?
When the decision of the insurance committee is submitted to the Commissioners, they will be able to come to a decision.
Unemployment Benefit
28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount paid, to the 31st March, to associations under Section 106, Part II., of the National Insurance Act on account of unemployment benefit paid to their members who are not employed in insured trades under the Act?
The total amount actually paid to associations under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act to 31st March, 1914, is £14,878 11s. 9d. Of this sum £7,401 3s. was paid to associations of workmen who are not employed in the insured trades. The balance of £7,477 8s. 9d. was paid to associations which have also made arrangements with the Board under Section 105 of the Act. The majority—but not all—of the members of these associations are workmen in the insured trades, and it is impossible to say how much of the sum of £7,477 8s. 9d. was paid on account of insured and uninsured members respectively. A number of claims under Section 106, however, are still outstanding, and the above figures, therefore, do not at all represent the amount that is likely to be paid under this Section in respect of unemployment occuring up to 31st March. I may add that the estimated expenditure under the Section for 1914–15 is £70,000—a figure which, of course, would be largely increased in a year of bad employment.
Labour Exchanges
30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the Labour Exchange service persons who have served in the Army or Navy may deduct from their actual age the time they have so served, with a view to bringing their age within the prescribed limit of twenty-eight years; if so, whether any limit is placed on the number of such men to be employed in proportion of the staff; and whether regard is had to the advantage of having clerks and others with a knowledge of industrial and trade union affairs?
In accordance with the General Regulations made by the Civil Service Commissioners candidates for appointment to clerical posts in the Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance service who may be over the normal limit of age for entry are allowed to count any period of service in the Navy or Army in reduction of their age. Recommendations of candidates suitable for appointment are made by the Civil Service Commission according to merit, and no limit is placed on the number or proportion of ex-soldier or ex-sailor candidates to be recommended. In making appointments to the clerical and other grades in the Service considerable importance has been attached by the Commissioners to the possession of industrial knowledge and experience.
St Andrew's Day
32.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has noted that St. David's day is celebrated under official sanction in elementary schools in Wales; and whether similar provision can be made for the celebration of St. Andrew's day in the school life of Scottish scholars?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, I shall be prepared to consider the matter when representations to that effect are made to me on behalf of Scottish local authorities.
Docs not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Englishmen also have an interest in this question?
I do not think so. It has not been the habit in Scotland to recognise Saints' days.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say which is St. Andrew's Day?
The information is open to the hon. Member by consulting a calendar.
Metropolitan Police
33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there was any increase in the number of charges at Kentish Town Police Station in 1913, compared with 1912; and will he give the figures for 1911, 1912, and 1913 respectively?
The figures for the three years are 87l, 762, and 1,024.
34 and 36.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether a charge allowance of 5s. per week has been granted to the sub-divisional inspector in charge at Marylebone Lane Police Station; what is the reason for the granting of this allowance; and will he state the number of charges at this station during the years 1911, 1912, and 1913; and (2) whether a number of sub-divisional inspectors of the Metropolitan Police have been granted a special allowance of 5s. per week; whether this allowance is officially termed a charge allowance; whether this has his approval and consent; can he state how long this allowance has been instituted; and whether this allowance has any bearing on the continuous increase in the number of charges for trivial offences in connection with drunkenness, etc.?
Both these questions seem to be based on a misapprehension. The so-called charge allowance has nothing whatever to do with the charges brought against offenders. It is an allowance given to officers having the responsible charge of certain police stations where that responsible charge is specially onerous and exacting. This applies to Marylebone Lane, the chief station of the D Division, where the duties of the officer in charge are peculiarly exacting. The first of these allowances was given in 1906 with the approval of my predecessor, Lord Gladstone, and others, including Marylebone Lane, have since been added. The figures of charges against offenders at the last-named station for the last three years are, 643, 743, and 916. There has not been a continuous increase in the number of charges of drunkennesss and disorderly conduct in the Metropolitan Police district. There was a noticeable decrease from 1906 to 1909, and since 1909 there has been a similar rise.
35.
asked the Home Secretary the reason for the transfer of Constable Thomas from the C Division of the Metropolitan Police; can he give the number of persons arrested and charged by this constable during the six years 1908 to 1913; can he state how many of the persons charged were prostitutes soliciting or loitering; and can he give the total number of charges at this station during these years and the total number of police?
Constable Thomas's conduct was the subject of an inquiry, and, though no serious charge was proved, he was found to have committed certain irregularities which made his transfer to another division desirable in the public interest. No record is kept of the number of charges preferred by any individual officer; and the number of charges made at this station is not immediately available. The number could be, ascertained, but it would involve a good deal of time and labour which I am unwilling to impose on the police unless for some special reason.
37.
asked the Home Secretary if the constables of the S Division of the Metropolitan Police force who are serving north of Golders Green are obliged to serve from nine to twelve hours a day, while those who are serving south of Golders Green are on duty for only eight hours a day; and, if so, will he explain the reason for this differentiation in the duties of men of the same division serving in different localities?
The constables referred to serve the same hours as all others in the Metropolitan Police district—eight hours a day.
Pedigree Stock (Importation)
38.
asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he can give the procedure under which pedigree stock can be imported into Ireland from England?
In existing circumstances pedigree stock can be imported into Ireland from England under the authority of a permit from my Department. Applicants for permits are required to furnish certain particulars, and to supply a declaration and a certificate on prescribed forms. If these are deemed satisfactory when received a permit available for a specified period (usually ten days) may then issue.
Can ordinary store cattle come in in the same way?
I am not prepared to answer that question at the present moment.
Established Church (Wales) Bill—Petitions
39.
asked the Chair man of the Public Petitions Committee what was the total number of petitions received from Wales in 1912 against the Established Church (Wales) Bill; how many of those petitions were rejected; what was the number of signatures appended to the rejected petitions; and whether any petitions were subsequently received and passed from any place or places whose petitions had been rejected, and, if so, what was the number of signatures so received?
The reply to the hon. Gentleman is in to-day's OFFICIAL REPORT [Written Answers]. I sent a copy of it to the hon. Gentleman last evening.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. May I ask if he will also send a copy to the hon. Member for Merionethshire?
Yes.
Land Purchase (Ireland)
40.
asked the Chief Secretary the dates of the first and of the latest letters from the Estates Commissioners to Mr. Gradwell, and of that gentleman's reply, with reference to the M'Cullough farms on his estate in Westmeath, which are required for distribution among the congested and landless people in the vicinity; and if he will state the aggregate area of those farms, the number of persons who have applied for portions of them, the cause of delay, and what the prospect is of distributing this land?
On the 12th December, 1912, the Estates Commissioners furnished Mr. Gradwell's solicitor at his request with an estimate of the price which they would be prepared to offer for the purchase of the lands provided formal proceedings were instituted before them under the Land Purchase Acts for the sale of the lands to the Commissioners freed and discharged from all occupation interests. In reply to their letter of the 5th November last the owner's solicitor on the following day stated that the owner did not intend to proceed further at present in the matter. The lands in question comprise 613 acres. Applications have been received on behalf of thirty-one persons for portions of these lands in the event of their being acquired by the Commissioners. Up to the present no proceedings for sale have been instituted under the Land Purchase Acts, and the Commissioners are not in a position to reply to the last portion of the question.
41.
asked the Chief Secretary the nature of the offer received by the Estates Commissioners from one who desires Grangemore mansion, on the Magan-Topping estate, Westmeath, with little or no land attached, for the purpose of an institution; the entire area of untenanted land on that estate; the number of congested and landless applicants for portions of it; and, having regard to the need for distribution of all the available land arid to complaints of the Commissioners making presents of large farms with mansions to persons never contemplated by the Acts, if he will say what oilier offer or application the Commissioners have received for this mansion, with or without land, and how they intend to dispose of the untenanted land on this estate?
This estate, which has recently been acquired by the Estates Commissioners under Section 6 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, comprises some 1,900 acres of untenanted land. When, as in this case, there is a large mansion house on the lands, it is the practice of the Commissioners to preserve such mansion house, and to sell it with such land as will preserve its amenities. The Commissioners have let the mansion house and some 120 acres of the adjoining lands, including plantations, to the Rev. B. M. Ryan at a yearly rent of £100, with the option of purchase, and he intends to use it as a training institute for the blind. The Commissioners are not yet in a position to state how many of the applicants for allotments of untenanted land fall within the classes indicated by the hon. Member. All the applications received are with the inspector, who is at present engaged in framing a scheme of allotment.
New Arterial Roads
31.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, for the information of local authorities and sectional committees constituted at the recent conferences who will have under consideration the question of the proposed new arterial roads in relation to town-planning schemes, ho is in a position to make a definite statement as to the proportion of the cost of such roads which the Government will be prepared to bear?
One of the main objects of the conferences referred to has been to ascertain how far what is necessary in the direction of additional or improved through roads could be secured by means of town-planning schemes. So far as this can be done, any large immediate expenditure may be avoided, and I am very hopeful that this will be found possible. With respect to Grants in aid of maintenance, I cannot anticipate any statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have to make in introducing the Budget.
Divorce Commission (Reports)
92.
asked the Prime Minister if he will endeavour to find time for a discussion on the Reports of the Divorce Commission, in view of the fact that the House was deprived of the only opportunity of discussing this subject since the publication of these Reports?
I fear I do not see my way to give the special facilities suggested.
British Army
Khaki Shorts
90.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in a Territorial battalion, if the commanding officer approves, the battalion scouts can, as is done in many Regular battalions, wear khaki shorts instead of regulation trousers?
Khaki shorts do not form part of the regulation uniform of and are not officially recognised for the Regular Army, and it is not thought desirable to recognise them in the case of Territorial units.
Could this not be done when the commanding officer is willing?
It is not considered desirable that they should be worn on regimental duties.
Territorial Force
97.
asked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the bounty of £1 proposed to be given to recruits in Territorial battalions attending camp for the full period of fifteen days, whether it is to be confined to those who have performed forty drills by 1st August, or whether, in order to encourage those recruits who join in the months of January, February, March, and April, it will be also given to such as perform twenty drills by 1st August and complete the forty drills by 1st October?
The intention is that the full forty drills must be performed before the annual camp, whether that begins on 1st August or any other date.
Status Of Officers
98.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can now give the House any information as to the official status of officers who were to be permitted to disappear?
I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply which the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for the Wirral Division on the 7th April, and to the White Paper.
Has this new class of disappearing officer a status, and, if so, should it not be stated to the House?
It has been stated already.
Royal Flying Corps
99.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the flying of the B.E. aeroplanes by officers of the Royal Flying Corps has again been stopped; if so, for what reason; and whether in all squadrons or in certain squadrons only?
No, Sir.
100.
asked whether it is the intention to fit all B.E. aeroplanes with wings of a different type from those used at present; and, if so, whether this is being done because the present type of wing, which has to be twisted or warped in order to control the lateral balance of the machine, is considered unsafe; and, if so, why the change was not made before?
It is contemplated that B.E. 2 aeroplanes shall in future have aileron instead of warp control. This is an improvement in design, and it must not be assumed that when an improved type of wing is adopted it is because the type displaced is unsafe. That is not so in this case.
101.
asked whether the rudders and elevator flaps on B.E. aeroplanes in use by the Royal Flying Corps are to be changed, or have been changed recently, for stronger ones; and, if so, whether the discovery that these organs of control were too weak was due to any of the recent fatal accidents to officers of the Royal Flying Corps, or to such organs bending or showing weakness when machines were being flown by pilots employed by the Royal Aircraft Factory?
The steel tubing in the rudders of some B.E. aeroplanes is being replaced by tubing of increased size, not as the result of the accidents mentioned, but independently and in consequence of experience obtained by the flyers of the Royal Aircraft Factory. The rudders were not too weak, but everything observed which points to the possibility of improvements or increased safety is, of course, at once investigated.
Is it merely a coincidence that this has taken place?
It is a coincidence of a kind
103.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the aero engine recently produced by the Royal Aircraft Factory has yet succeeded in completing a six-hour full-power test run; and whether it is the intention of the authorities to enter it in the aero engine competition against the products of the motor industry?
A six-hours' test run has been satisfactorily completed under the supervision of the inspector of engines. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
Civil Service
24.
asked how many persons have been appointed to permanent positions in the Civil Service in connection with the working of the Labour Exchanges, Land Valuation, and National Insurance Acts, respectively; in how many cases it has been necessary to dispense with the services of such persons, or to ask for their resignations, on the ground of inefficiency or unsuitability; and whether all such persons have been called upon to undergo the same examination for medical and physical fitness as those entering the service by examination in the ordinary way?
As regards the Land Valuation Department, I will give the hon. Member the information which he requires if he will give me sufficient notice to enable me to get it for him. As regards the rest of the question, he should address himself to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and to my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East.
Government Of Ireland Bill
Naval And Military Movements
8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is customary in the Navy to embark additional field guns for hypothetical bad weather; and why, in particular, bad weather was anticipated at Lamlash after the 20th of March this year, as per telegram of 20th March from the Vice-Admiral of the Third Battle Squadron?
I have nothing to add to the reply given on Monday last to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the exact spot at Lamlash where you could exercise field guns, and also can he furnish us with the reports which made it unnecessary to put the guns on the ships?
No, I am not prepared to give any more information.
9 and 65.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether His Majesty's ship "New Zealand" was among the warships recently ordered to proceed to Lamlash Bay in connection with the anticipated contingency of active operations in Ulster; if so, whether the Government of the Dominion of New Zealand was consulted before the ship was ordered to participate in this particular service; and (2) whether in the event of civil disturbances in the United Kingdom ships contributed to the Imperial Navy by the dominions or dependencies of his Majesty overseas are considered liable for service in such conflicts; if the Governments of any dominions or dependencies have been consulted on this subject; if not, whether it is proposed in future to consult them before such ships are so used; and if any British Government overseas has been consulted on this point, what the result of the consultation has been?
No, Sir. The "New Zealand" was not among the ships ordered to proceed to Lamlash.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every self-governing Colony of the Empire has declared in favour of Home Rule?
11.
asked at what time on 20th March the communication from the vice-admiral of the 3rd Battle Squadron, with regard to the embarkation of field guns, was despatched?
I have nothing to add to the information already given to the House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman decline to give the information, and if so on what grounds?
I think quite sufficient information has been given about all these subjects, and I am not going to give any more.
12.
asked what was the occasion on 11th October, 1912, upon which the Admiralty approved of the embarkation of extra field guns on battleships?
The occasion was (as indicated in the telegram to which it is a reply) the impending departure of the Third Battle Squadron for the Mediterranean.
Was it in connection with possible active service in the neighbourhood of Scutari or thereabouts?
No, Sir.
What was the occasion?
We knew nothing about "Scutari or thereabouts" at the time the Third Battle Squadron started for the Mediterranean. Profound peace reigned in that sea at that time so far as any operations that we could conceive were concerned. Therefore it had nothing to do with military operations at all.
Are we to take it that His Majesty's Government knew nothing of the probable outbreak of the Balkan war?
46.
asked the Prime Minister on what date the reports began to be received by the Government that raids were apprehended on Government stores in the North of Ireland?
As I have already stated, reports were received from the police on this subject on various dates principally from December last.
47 and 48.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether Major-General Friend is still a resident magistrate of the counties of Antrim and Down; whether this officer is to be permanently employed in this capacity; and (2) why Major-General Friend was appointed resident magistrate in the counties of Antrim and Down; and why it was thought necessary that this officer should obtain authority over the police?
As I have already stated, Major-General Friend was not appointed resident magistrate for the counties of Antrim and Down. The reasons for his intended appointment are given in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Colchester on Monday last.
49.
asked the Prime Minister why General Sir Arthur Paget telegraphed on 22nd March to say that the cause of the attitude adopted by the 3rd Cavalry Brigade was a determination to take no part in active operations against Ulster; and if it was a fact that such operations were not contemplated?
The misunderstanding, and the reasons for it, have been explained in the House and in Sir A. Paget's statement published in the White Paper. The last part of the question has been fully dealt with in Debate.
50.
asked the Prime Minister why it was necessary for the Cabinet to decide the ordinary routine connected with the disposition of a battle squadron on 11th March; and whether such dispositions have always been arranged by the First Sea Lord on the part of the Admiralty?
I have nothing to add to the statements already made on this subject.
51.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee handed full instructions to Sir John French, Sir J. S. Ewart, and the other heads of Departments at the War Office; whether these heads of Departments warned the late Secretary of State for War that such orders would create a strong feeling in the Army; whether some of the heads of Departments threatened resignation; and, if the original instructions were in writing, whether he will submit them to the House?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the other branches the matter is one of the internal administration and discipline of the War Office, and I am not prepared to answer questions on the subject.
52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he was present at a meeting of the Committee of the Cabinet on Thursday, 19th March, when Sir Arthur Paget received his further instructions previous to returning to Ireland?
No, Sir.
53.
asked the Prime Minister the date upon which, and the reasons why, the Cabinet formed their recent Special Committee to attend to the present condition of Ireland; had the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary declared themselves unable to carry out their ordinary duty of preserving order and of protecting property; whether the Lord Lieutenant attended, or was invited to attend, any meetings of the Inner Cabinet Council; and whether there is any precedent for such an important change, whereby the usual authorities were practically superseded, without previous and special announcement in this House?
The Cabinet formed this Committee, as they do other Committees, for reasons of policy which seemed to them sufficient. There was no question of superseding the usual authorities.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the general situation referred to was wholly connected with the movement of troops?
Primarily.
54.
asked the Prime Minister what were the arrangements for the general situation which General Sir Arthur Paget stated had been made in telegram No. 16 of the 20th March?
The general situation connected with the movements of troops as explained in the White Paper.
55.
asked the Prime Minister what were the legal questions to which it was anticipated the action of the Great Northern Railway might give rise?
The hon. Member can draw his own conclusions.
56.
asked the Prime Minister what was the difficulty about sending the battalion by train to Dundalk referred to in the telegram from General Sir Arthur Paget to Major-General Friend on the 19th March?
The difficulty is explained in the telegram No. 9 in the White Paper.
57.
asked the Prime Minister if he will communicate to the House the text of any documents issued to Major-General Sir N. Macready defining his powers and duties as General Officer Commanding the Belfast district and a Divisional Magistrate respectively?
No documents were issued to Sir N. Macready when he went to Belfast last month.
When were the documents issued?
None were issued.
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say this officer was given these new powers entirely on verbal instructions?
No, Sir.
Arising out of that answer, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any written instruction has been sent since?
Oh, yes.
Will it be produced?
I do not think so.
53.
asked the Prime Minister the number of arms and also the quantity and nature of stores at Armagh, Omagh, Dundalk, and Carrickfergus on or about 17th March?
At all the places named there were considerable stores of arms and ammunition. I am not prepared to give precise details.
59.
asked the Prime Minister whether General Sir Arthur Paget has submitted to the Secretary of State for War a written statement containing the orders which he gave and also an account of what took place at the second conference on the 19th March; and, if not, whether he will ask him to prepare such a statement?
I really do not know to what conference the hon. Member is referring. If he is referring to the conference on 20th March I have got an answer in reply to a subsequent question; but I am not prepared to ask Sir A. Paget to prepare any further statements.
60.
asked the Prime Minister whether by the King's Regulations, paragraph 666, a court of inquiry may be assembled by the Army Council or by an officer in command to assist in arriving at a correct conclusion on any subject on which it may be expedient for them to be informed; and, if so, whether he will appoint such a Court to ascertain exactly what was said, what orders were given, and what occurred at the two conferences held by General Sir Arthur Paget at Dublin on 19th March?
The answer to the first part is in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that these questions are prepared by a bureau headed by Mr. Rosenbaum?
61.
asked the Prime Minister on what date Sir Arthur Paget was informed that battleships and de stroyers were to be sent to Lamlash in order to be ready to support him in case of serious disorders occurring; and how the information was conveyed to him?
No, Sir; I do not propose to go into any further details on this subject.
62.
asked the Prime Minister whether certain ex-sergeants in the Army received an official letter from the War Office on 20th March last asking them if they would rejoin the Army if called upon; if so, will he say what was the object of the War Office in making this request; and in view of what eventualities did the Government take this step?
I understand that one sergeant, about whose discharge there had been some informality, was asked if he would like to rejoin the Army.
63.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state either exactly or approximately on what day the memorandum of the interview which took place on 16th December last between the Secretary of State for War and the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief was actually drawn up and initialled by the late Secretary of State for War?
83.
asked the Prime Minister whether the undated memorandum, numbered 1 in Part I. of the Command Paper 7329, was written on the same day that the interview took place which it records or composed from memory of that interview at a later date; and whether he will say on what date the memorandum was written?
The terms of the statement which the Secretary of State for War made to the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief was decided on before the interview took place. The actual published document contains the substance of this statement and was prepared by Colonel Seely from a confidential memorandum dated 9th December in response to the request for the publication of Papers so that the House should have full information of material events.
64.
asked the Prime Minister whether any telegrams, despatches, or letters were sent by himself or by the late Secretary of State for War to, or whether any such communications were received from, General Sir Arthur Paget between the 22nd March and the 2nd April; and, if so, whether he will publish them?
Yes, Sir, there were communications, but I am not prepared to publish them or to add anything to what has been stated in the House.
66.
asked the Prime Minister whether General Sir Arthur Paget has at any time expressed a desire to resign, or to be relieved of, the chief command in Ireland?
I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 27th April.
67.
asked the Prime Minister whether it was in consequence of instructions given by General Sir Arthur Paget, and with his sanction and approval, that General Sir Charles Fergusson addressed the officers and men of his brigade at the Curragh on the 21st March last; and if he will say what was the purport of General Sir Charles Fergusson's statements?
Sir A. Paget states in his published memorandum that any such questions were put under a misapprehension. As regards the latter part of the question I would refer to the last two paragraphs but one of Sir A. Paget's memorandum.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the propriety of issuing a Paper giving a complete list of the misapprehensions?
I do not propose to issue any more Papers or after this week to answer any more questions upon this subject.
May I ask the right hon Gentleman if he can inform us what steps the Government and War Office took to allay the misapprehension?
That has already been amply stated.
May I ask whether this is a reply we should receive from the head of a so-called democratic Government?
Arising out of the statement that no more Papers will be issued, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the issue of summons?
68.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to lay upon the Table any report from General Sir A. Paget of his speech to the officers of the 3rd Cavalry Brigade on the morning of Saturday, 21st March?
No, Sir.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that report was received?
I have answered the question in the negative.
69.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the first dispatch for warded on 22nd March by General Sir A. Paget with reference to the conference which took place on the morning of 20th March?
No, Sir. I have informed the House of the only substantive revision made by Sir A. Paget.
70.
asked the Prime Minister what was the nature of the misunderstanding between General Sir A. Paget and the late Secretary of State for War as to the intentions of the Government with regard to military operations in Ireland?
As far as I know, there was no misunderstanding.
71.
asked the Prime Minister whether the officers by whose instructions orders were posted on the 20th March, or following days, at the head quarters of each unit of the 5th division in Ireland, as to the movements at short notice of all regiments and units with medical and surgical appliances and stores, as to the requisitioning of mobilisation stores, packing of kit, and the stoppage of leave, acted on their own responsibility?
I am informed that this is the case.
72.
asked the Prime Minister whether General Gough was present at the afternoon conference between General Sir A. Paget and his officers on 20th March?
No, Sir.
73.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table a report of the conference between General Sir Arthur Paget and officers under his command held at 2 p.m. on Friday, 20th March?
Sir A. Paget reports that at the second conference he repeated much of what he said at the first for the benefit of officers who had not been present in the morning. He then indicated the military dispositions which he would make in the event of the precautionary moves being resisted by armed force or a hostile attitude being adopted by the Ulster Volunteers under their responsible leaders.
Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Sir Arthur Paget's own report?
No, Sir; certainly not.
Did it contain any allusion to the possibility of having to send troops to some parts of the South of Ireland?
I cannot answer any question of the kind. It is a purely confidential document; the Statement to the officers was also confidential. I cannot understand how they have been disclosed.
Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to hush up the whole affair?
I am not going to disclose for public information the military plans and preparations which Sir Arthur Paget had in view.
74.
asked the Prime Minister why General Sir A. Paget was unable to inform General Gough at the morning conference on 20th March that no duty as ordered or contemplated involved the initiation of active military operations against Ulster?
I have nothing to add to the information I have already given.
75.
asked whether the trains which were detained at Newbridge and Kildare stations during 20th and 21st March were intended for the conveyance of troops and military stores; and, if so, what was their destination?
I am informed that the only train ordered for the conveyance of troops at Newbridge or Kildare was that which conveyed the battalion of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry on 20th March from the Curragh to Dundalk and Newry.
76.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give the times at which the various telegrams contained in Part I. of the new White Paper were dispatched; and whether the times of receipt of certain of these telegrams printed in the first White Paper may be regarded as accurate?
I am not prepared to add anything to the full information already published. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
78.
asked what information the Prime Minister has with regard to the numbers, arms, and organisation of the Irish Nationalist Volunteers; and whether it is with the sanction and approval of the Government that this force is being armed and drilled?
As regards the first part of the question, the Irish Government are fully informed with regard to the numbers and proceedings of the organisation referred to by the hon. Member. As regards the second part, the Government have not interfered with the arming and drilling of this force or with that of the Ulster Volunteers.
79.
asked what orders were issued to the officers commanding troops at Lichfield and Aldershot with reference to immediate or contemplated service in Ireland?
No such orders were issued.
81.
asked whether the written statement of Sir Arthur Paget, forming Part III. of Command Paper No. 7329, was in response to any written request; and, if so, why such request is not included in the White Paper?
Sir Arthur Paget prepared and handed mo this statement entirely on his own initiative.
82.
asked what reason Sir Arthur Paget had for supposing, when in consultation with the War Office on 19th March, that any officers were likely to feel deeply on the subject of protecting depots from attack by evilly-disposed persons; and what concessions Sir Arthur Paget endeavoured but failed to obtain for such officers, other than the exemption of those domiciled in Ulster?
As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 11 of Sir Arthur Paget's statement. As regards the latter part I am not aware of any other concessions.
84.
asked if any evidence exists to show that the contents of any documents connected with the recent movements of troops in Ireland issued from the War Office, and marked confidential, have been made known by officers to Members of the Opposition; and, if so, what steps have been, or are prepared to be, taken in the matter?
As I have already stated, I should be loth to believe that any officer in the Army would divulge confidential instructions.
Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the statement made by the hon. Member for Leicester in the speech he delivered at Newcastle last week?
85.
asked the Prime Minister if the statement made by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law it would not come into effect until another General Election had taken place was made with the authority of the Government; and, if so, what is the earliest date when it is expected that the Bill can come into force in the event of the country endorsing the policy of the Bill?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Clause 49 of the Bill.
88.
asked the Prime Minister whether he took part in any of the conferences between Ministers, military members of the Army Council, and Sir A. Paget on the 18th or 19th of March?
I have already stated that I was present at a conference on 18th March. I was not present at any conference on the 19th March.
87.
asked the Prime Minister at what precise hour on 20th March Sir A. Paget received the letter from General Gough asking for information as to whether the initiation of active operations against Ulster was the object in view in the questions addressed to officers (No. XX. in the White Paper)?
I cannot state the exact time, but I am informed it was about 8 p.m.
Is it not evident that General Paget had something like three hours in which to answer General Gough's queries before he telegraphed to the War Office, and in view of that fact was not the Prime Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield on the 23rd a misleading answer?
No, Sir. All I am informed is it was 8 p.m.
Did not the Prime Minister inform my hon. Friend that the reason why General Paget could not deal with the letter he received at 8 p.m. was the War Office telegram which was dispatched from the War Office at 12 p.m.? Was not the implication that the Prime Minister's answer—
That is a matter for argument in Debate.
88.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will publish the acutal written orders issued by General Fergusson on 20th March to officers of the Fifth Division stating the terms of the option offered to officers by the War Office; and (2) whether the written orders issued to officers of the Fifth Division by General Fergusson on 20th March, and purporting to be issued with the authority of the War Office, referred to the possibility of active operations in Ulster?
The purport of the orders addressed by General Fergusson to the majority of the officers under his command is given in General Paget's statement published in the White Paper. I am not prepared to publish further Papers.
If the Prime Minister is not prepared to publish any further Papers, is he prepared to fulfil the promise he gave to the House on 24th March, that he would publish any memorandum, if it existed, of the instructions given to General Paget?
I have fulfilled all my undertakings in that respect.
The right hon. Gentleman has not fulfilled that undertaking.
Does the Prime Minister say that the orders issued by General Fergusson were not in accordance with the instructions of General Paget or of the War Office?
General Paget says so.
Is this a misapprehension?
Does the Prime Minister deny—
That is a matter for discussion, and that is the object of having the Debate to-day.
91.
asked what steps he proposes to take with reference to the incorrect statement telegraphed to the Secretary of State for War on the 22nd March that Major-General Friend had been appointed resident magistrate for Antrim and Down; and what explanation has been given of this disobedience of orders?
There was no disobedience of orders. It was intended that Major-General Friend should be appointed a resident magistrate for Antrim and Down, but General Friend was recalled before the warrant was completed.
93.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgent necessity of preventing, as far as possible, an accidental and unpremeditated outbreak of civil war in Ireland, he can give an assurance that neither the Navy nor Army will be used for the coercion of Ulster until the people of the United Kingdom have been given an opportunity of ex pressing their approval or disapproval, either by a General Election or Referendum?
I can add nothing to what has been stated in the House on this subject.
Are we to understand that the Prime Minister would rather risk civil war than give the assurance asked for? Is he aware that the Foreign Secretary, speaking for the Government, said it was impossible to coerce Ulster until they had had an election?
94.
asked what was the text of the order instructing the Bedfordshire Regiment to proceed to Enniskillen, Omagh, and Armagh, referred to in No. VII. in the second White Paper?
I am not prepared to publish the text of orders of this kind.
95.
asked why orders for the mobilisation of the 6th division in Ireland were issued in the course of last month?
Nothing is known at Irish Command Headquarters of any such orders.
Is anything known at the headquarters of the 6th division?
104.
asked the Secretary of State for War if there was any authority for the intimation conveyed by Sir A. Paget to the officers in his command that active operations were contemplated in Ulster, or if anything transpired at the interview which he had previously had with the late Secretary of State for War which could be construed as conveying such an intention on the part of the Government?
I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend last night.
105.
asked the Secretary of State for War if new mobilisation orders were issued to Reserve officers in England during March; and if warning was conveyed to them that they might be required to take up duties before mobilisation?
The only orders issued were those referred to in a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division on the 7th April.
Ulster (Drilling)
42.
asked the Chief Secretary whether the meetings and assemblies of persons in Belfast and other places in Ulster under the directions of a general on the Indian Army retired list for the purpose of training or drilling themselves, or of being trained or drilled, to the use of arms or for the purpose of practising military exercise movements or evolutions have received any lawful authority from His Majesty or the Lord Lieutenant or two justices of the peace, as required by the Act of Parliament, 60 George III. and 1 George IV., c. 1, to prevent the training of persons to the use of arms and to the practice of military evolutions and exercise; and whether, in pursuance of the Statute, any justice of the peace or any constable or police officer has dispersed any such unlawful meeting or assembly or arrested and detained any person present at or aiding, assisting, or abetting?
I am unable to say whether in all such cases the authority of two justices of the peace required by the Act referred to has been obtained, and, in any event, such authority would not extend to drillings for an unlawful purpose. The answer to the final paragraph is in the negative.
Why has no attempt been made to suppress these unlawful assemblies?
I am engaged in very peaceful pursuits in Ireland, and I must ask my hon. Friend to repeat that question to the Chief Secretary on Monday.
43.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he has received information that any justice of the peace or person in the lieutenancy of any county has been present at or attended any unlawful meeting or assembly for the purpose of training or drilling or the practice of military exercises prohibited as dangerous to the peace and security of His Majesty's liege subjects and of his Government by the Act 60 George III., c. 1, or has assisted or abetted the same within the meaning of the Act?
It is undoubtedly the fact that certain justices of the peace and persons in the lieutenancy of counties have been present at drillings of the Ulster Volunteers. Whether such drillings are unlawful within the meaning of the Act referred to depends upon whether their purpose was seditious or not.
Was the presence of justices in pursuance of the Act under which two justices have to give their consent before such meetings take place?
I am not able to answer that.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Londonderry is a lieutenant of the counties of Down and of Belfast, and that he took part in these demonstrations?
I am aware of the fact that Lord Londonderry is a lieutenant of both places.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Londonderry is a lieutenant of the county of Down and not of Belfast, of which Lord Shaftesbury is lieutenant?
Will an inquiry be held as to the presence of these magistrates, in order that people who are breaking the laws may not be continued as ministers of justice?
The hon. Member had better wait till the Chief Secretary is in his place. The Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture cannot answer that question.
Financial Resoution
5.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can say when the Financial Resolution for the Government of Ireland Bill will be introduced?
I cannot yet make a statement.
May I ask whether the suggestions will follow or precede the Financial Resolution?
That, again, is a matter on which I should prefer to reserve judgment.
Mr Churchill's Appeal
I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether the suggestion made by the First Lord of the Admiralty was made with the authority of the Government and whether it was intended to indicate that the Government would consider favourably the exclusion of Ulster from the operation of the Government of Ireland Bill upon certain conditions, and, if so, what exactly those conditions were?
My right hon. Friend's proposal was made, as he clearly stated, on his own account, and not upon the authority of the Cabinet.
Arising out of that answer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it a desirable practice in matters of such vital importance for Cabinet Ministers of high position to make a proposal of this kind without the assent of the Cabinet?
No, Sir, the circumstances are very exceptional, and I think that anybody who can contribute to a pacific solution is entitled to do so.
rose simultaneously—
On a point of Order. May I ask you, with great respect, whether it is in order and whether it is consistent with the dignity and freedom of this House, that one hon. Member should violently pull another hon. Member down?
I did not see the pressure applied to the coat-tail.
Perhaps you will allow me to explain, for the benefit of hon. Members who did not hear, that you had already called upon me. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the suggestion of the First Lord of the Admiralty has the approval of the Government, even if it had not got the authority of the Cabinet?
I understand that my right hon. Friend meant to invite, particularly from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson), an offer in the spirit indicated, and so far as that goes I am heartily in sympathy with him.
Blocking Motions (House Of Commons)
On a point of Order. I want to ask your ruling with regard to the private Members' time this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) has a notice down for the presentation of a Bill for the acquisition of land. If he presents that Bill, will it prevent the Resolution with reference to the ownership of land that is down for 8.15 this evening being discussed?
Before you answer that point of Order—it was my intention to ask a question with regard to my own Resolution—may I point out to you that my Resolution covers a great deal more than is in the Bill? My Resolution covers the public ownership of land generally, and it would be possible to speak quite appropriately for a considerable time on the public ownership of land without in any way touching the question of the acquisition of land.
Before you answer, I would save time by saying that I understand that the Prime Minister has promised to put down as the first Order on an early day the Resolution with regard to the whole of this subject in respect of which my notice was a protest. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to proceed with my notice on this occasion.
Notices Of Motion
To call attention upon Wednesday, 27th May, to the conditions and circumstances of underground workshops and workrooms, and to move a Resolution.—[ Sir W. Ryland Adkins.]
To call attention upon Wednesday, 27th May, to the incidence of rating and taxation, and to move a Resolution.—[ Mr. Higham.]
To call attention upon Wednesday, 27th May, to the fiscal question, and to move a Resolution.—[ Mr. Shortt.]
Private Bills
Private Bills (Group C),
Sir Harry Samuel reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at a quarter before Twelve of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Market Rasen Water Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Private Bills (Group D),
Sir Edwin Cornwall reported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That Mr. Daniel Boyle, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Private Bills (Group E),
Colonel Bathurst reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That Sir Mathew Wilson, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Railway Bills (Group 3),
Mr. Soames reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That Mr. Douglas Hall, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Railway Bills (Group 3),
Mr. Soames reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Brentford Gas Bill [ Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Message From The Lords
That they have agreed to,—
Army (Annual) Bill,
Alexander Scott's Hospital and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Solicitors." [Solicitors Bill [ Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate and convert the capital of the Brentford Gas Company; to authorise the acquisition by the Brentford Gas Company of the undertakings of the Staines and Egham District Gas and Coke Company, Limited, and the Sunbury Gas Consumers Company, Limited; to confer further powers on the Brentford Gas Company; and for other purposes." [Brentford Gas Bill [ Lords.]
Selection (Standing Committees)
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Criminal Justice Administration Bill): Mr. Keating; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Lardner.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Standing Orders
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:
Resolutions agreed to.
Orders Of The Day
Government Of Ireland Bill
Naval And Military Movements (Inquiry)
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [ 28th April].
"That, in view of the serious nature of the Naval and Military Movements recently contemplated by the Government against Ulster, of the incompleteness and inaccuracy in material points of the statements made by Ministers, and of the continued failure of the Government to deal frankly with the situation, this House is of opinion that there should be a full and impartial inquiry into all the circumstances."—[ Mr. Chamberlain.]
Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
What the Opposition has been asking for for some time past is an inquiry into the circumstances which have been the subject of such animated debate in and out of this House. The Government have refused, and apparently are going to continue to refuse, to give any such inquiry. The justification for their refusing the inquiry was given by the Prime Minister a few days ago, when he said that the proper place in which the honour and the credit of Ministers were to be vindicated was the floor of this House. The doctrine may or may not be right, and may or may not have exceptions, but at all events those who announce the doctrine should follow it. Having insisted that instead of an inquiry we should have a Debate, surely it is their bounden duty to take advantage of that Debate to explain the contradictions and the lacunas in the whole story laid before us, and which are not brought before us now for the first time, but which have been put in the most specific language by persons of authority on previous occasions on which an answer, if there is an answer, could easily and satisfactorily have been given. These opportunities were never taken advantage of, but I certainly thought, when at their own suggestion and under pressure, I may almost say, from the Prime Minister, we asked for a day to discuss these things, that the Government would take advantage of that opportunity and reply seriatim to the various statements, charges, and difficulties which have been made or felt on this side of the House. Nothing of the sort has occurred. They put up the First Lord of the Admiralty to reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Chamberlain). They might have known by experience that, when the right hon. Gentleman is put up to reply in detail to specific and perfectly clear charges made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, the invariable result is an outburst of demagogic rhetoric which may be very appropriate to certain occasions and in certain places, but which is not appropriate, if he and the House will allow me to say so, when the subject in dispute is statements or misstatements made by the Government of which he is a Member. It was his business to deal with these statements. After he had dealt with them, after he had, to the best of his ability, given a reply to them, any little outburst of eloquence which he might have thought fitting or appropriate to the occasion would doubtless have been received with toleration on this side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was made up of two wholly dissimilar parts, neither of them relevant to the subject under Debate. There was the demagogic part, which lasted for most of the hour and a half during which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was not thought too long by hon. Members opposite, of course, but it lasted the greater part, at any rate, of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made to us. Then there was the statesmanlike part which came as a peaceful close towards the end. Neither of these parts had had anything to do with the Debate—well, that is going too far. Neither of these parts supplied a specific reply to the specific allegations; these the right hon. Gentleman altogether ignored. Whether he was trying to imitate the best platform style of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the most tactful persuasiveness of the Prime Minister—whichever of the two models he tried to copy—on neither one side nor the other did he make the smallest effort, to deal with the particular charges which we have desired here to raise. I quite admit that though the right hon. Gentleman has not thrown any light on those charges, though he has not attempted any specific or detailed defence of the position of his Government, or of the statements made from time to time by that Government across the floor of the House, he has thrown a most interesting and important light on the whole course of events between the 9th March and the 21st or 22nd—during that fortnight or three weeks that followed the 9th March. What is the story the right hon. Gentleman told us? What is the impression which every impartial auditor must carry away from the account which he gave? I will venture to the best of my ability to tell the story as I reconstruct it, or as I deem it to have occurred after hearing what the right hon. Gentleman said. He told us that in his view the turning point of the whole Ulster question, the critical moment in this episode, was the rejection, as he called it, of the offer made by the Prime Minister in his speech of the 9th March. What occurred is tolerably obvious. The right hon. Gentleman was deeply indignant that the offer to exclude Ulster for six years, and then bring her in, whatever the circumstances were, whether Ulster liked it or not, was one which ought to have been accepted greedily by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law) and by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson). He must have known—he did know; the Government must have known—they did know, that it was quite impossible that peace and reconciliation should be established on that basis. It might form a subject for discussion—well and good; but that offer, as it came from the Government, was to be accepted in the form in which it came from the Government. That is obvious; and anybody who knows the circumstances of the case knows that it could not be accepted, and was not expected to be accepted, by a single Member of the Cabinet who made it. Nevertheless, so infuriated was the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty that, from that moment apparently, a new policy was adopted, by him at all events; I do not say by the whole of the Government—I rather think it was not adopted by the whole Government—but it was adopted by him and by those whom he could persuade or influence, and it was that policy which has led to all the subsequent trouble. The right hon. Gentleman worked with, amongst others, the hon. and learned Member who leads the Irish Nationalist party (Mr. John Redmond), and with the hon. Gentleman who sits for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). It is a matter of newspaper notoriety that they consulted together. I understand, though I do not read the fashionable news, they twice breakfasted together at a critical moment.No; I did not have the pleasure of having either of those Gentlemen to breakfast.
The fashionable news is, as it often is, completely incorrect, and if it is regarded as an injurious charge against the right hon. Gentleman I entirely withdraw it.
That is accuracy.
4.0 P.M.
But the right hon. Gentleman and the two Nationalist Members of whom I have just spoken, made immediately afterwards three speeches in rapid succession, and I do not think that those speeches can be dissociated either from each other or from the movements, military and naval, which accompanied them or shortly followed them. I need hardly say it was perfectly proper, being engaged on a common enterprise, that they should pay each other very full-flavoured compliments in these three closely associated speeches. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Nationalist party talked of the "superb" speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the First Lord of the Admiralty talked of the "patience, wisdom, and eloquence" of the learned Gentleman. Lest there should be undue favouritism he talked of
These reciprocal compliments were all in order—nobody would object to them—but they emphasise the fact that all these Gentlemen were driving at one object, and that object certainly was not peace in Ulster. In the "superb speech" we know that the First Lord of the Admiralty had almost ad nauseam talked of putting things to the proof, that he talked of the possibility of extensive bloodshed, and that he explained to his audience that when the first British soldier or sailor or coastguardsman perished in a riot or an engagement, or whatever it was, the whole British nation would be roused to fever heat, and I think he said that the foundations of society would be shaken; in other words, he suggested that the time had come when steps should be taken to see whether Ulster meant business or not, and that if, as a result of that most dangerous and wicked experiment, a single man in His Majesty's service suffered, then the whole of this country would be in a blaze, Ulster would be crushed by the might of Britain, and the future thereafter must look after itself. That was his suggestion. He was backed up by the prudent, wise, and eloquent Leader of the Irish party, who said that"the brilliant and courageous speech of the Member for West Belfast."
and by the courageous and brilliant Member for North-West Belfast, who said that the whole Ulster movement was a sham, a fraud, a humbug, and shameless bluff. So you had in these three speeches, made almost on three consecutive days, made within a very short space of each other, every element of provocation to Ulster, combined with every effort to incite the British nation to deal with the superior strength of the British arms against their countrymen in Ulster. So far these were merely preparatory speeches. They merely prepared the ground in this country for what might occur in Ulster. But when that was over, or in part while that was going on, the right hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him were reflecting how these matters were to be put to the proof. The device they hit upon was to discover that stores which had been in danger apparently since last December for the first time required looking after in the middle of March. They also discovered that in order to look after those stores which had been in danger from the middle of December to the middle of March, it was necessary not merely to move a company or two of troops, but to make almost as extensive military and naval preparations for dealing with Ulster as the United States are now making to deal with Mexico. The result was, as we know, that ships were directed—that a Battle Squadron was directed—to go to a spot within easy reach of the possible scene of action, that a Military Governor was appointed for Belfast, that Naval attachés or Naval advisers were added to the staff of the Commander-in-Chief, and that 20,000 men were to be ready to be on the line of the Boyne. I believe that even Aldershot was given notice that further troops might be required. All this, mark you, in order that stores which had been in danger from December should be protected when nothing new whatever had happened. The result might have been absolutely disastrous to the whole future of this country. There might have been, not unnaturally, though most lamentably, provoked some kind of resistance which might have led to bloodshed, however trifling. Then we know that in the language of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, England would have been in a blaze from one end to the other, and the foundations of society would have been shaken. That was the scheme. Through no merits, so far as I can see, on the part of the Government, the scheme miscarried. Mark you, I do not think, I have not said, and I do not believe that the Government as a whole desired this plan or were conscious of all that they were doing. I may be wrong in that, but I think I am not wrong. In any case wiser counsels prevailed. It was clear that it was impossible in the then state of public opinion to force the pace in Ulster, or to carry out with a high hand any of those schemes which appear to have crossed the minds of some Members of the Government, in other words, it was impossible, in the language of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to put matters to the proof. Let me observe here, that there has been a counter explanation. Everybody will admit that the story I have told requires explanation. There is a counter explanation. [An HON. MEMBER: "It only requires denial."] I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If he reflects on the admission of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the turning point in the whole matter was what occurred in this House on the 9th last, if he considers the speeches thereafter made, and if he considers the orders to the Fleet and to the Army, imperfectly as we are allowed to know them, he will feel that something requires explanation, and that a mere denial is totally and utterly insufficient either to persuade contemporary opinion, or, let me tell him, the opinion of those who in future times will investigate, with more knowledge than we are permitted to have, the transactions of these three weeks. After the courteous interruption of the hon. Gentleman, of which I do not complain, I return to the alternative explana- tion upon which I think I should say a word. It has been given, I think, in more than one quarter, but the most authoritative quarter in which it has been given is that of the late Secretary of State for War (Colonel Seely), who gave it with great lucidity last night, and has given it before. The theory he wishes us to accept is this: That all the Government wanted to carry out was a perfectly insignificant and innocuous military operation, little more than a purely police measure, but that the information they received indicated that this might grow and grow and grow until the force required to carry out these trifling acts of protection might require a gradually increasing amount of support until, apparently, almost without limit, the military resources of the Kingdom were to be strained and the Fleet were to be drawn into requisition. That, let me tell the House and the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me, in itself is a most extraordinary story. I do not at all suggest that the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) does not fully believe it."Force must be met by force,"
Hear, hear!
I do not suggest that. But has it occurred to him that you have got into a state of things in which the whole military and naval forces of the Crown are to be used in order to protect a few rifles and a few military stores in Ulster—that things have got to a point at which something other and different should be done? If you are, as I think, wicked enough and insane enough to think that the proper course is to coerce Ulster, then frankly coerce her. I think that is a terrible policy even to contemplate, but go in frankly, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said—and as, to do him justice, I believe he would have done—go in frankly and say, "We are going to fill Belfast with troops; we are going to cover every perilous spot with our Artillery; we are going to see that nothing goes along the high road except by our permission—[HON. MEMBERS: 'By permission of King Carson!']—and we are going to strangle the whole Province in the strong grip of our superior military and naval forces." That is a wicked and insane policy, but I think it is a frank and open policy. This idea of gradually getting in all your troops under the excuse of a row to protect a few rifles and ammunition cases seems to me not frank, and seems to me to be in the nature of what is constantly called, and always will be called, "a plot," and which has all the evils which attach to the open and frank policy of the First Lord of the Admiralty, without its simplicity, its candour, and not undue or unnecessary concealment.
You have no right to say that.
I rather think I have. In that connection let me point out to the late Secretary of State for War why I think it is quite impossible to accept this theory that round the nucleus of these two or three companies of Infantry gradually were organised the whole naval and military forces of the Crown, and for no other purpose than to protect these stores.
No. That is a totally inaccurate statement, made quite inadvertently no doubt. Had the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said on this and previous occasions, the object was not to use all the forces of the Crown to protect these particular stores, but in order to maintain law and order and to support the civil power in its ordinary duty. The whole forces of the Crown might have been required, and had they been required would have been sent so long as I had the power, but not in order to protect these stores.
I think the light hon. Gentleman has hardly apprehended my point. Surely what he has just said confirms what I was pressing upon the attention of the House. They were to begin by a perfectly innocuous movement of two or three companies. This was to produce civil disturbance. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] This might have produced civil disturbance. There are plenty of subjects on which we may very well differ, and I do not wish to bring in others unnecessarily. In his view this might produce disturbance. That in turn might require the assistance of soldiers; that in turn might require you to introduce more soldiers; and that in turn might require even Aldershot to be drawn upon and the Fleet.
made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
I will ask the hon. Member to try and break himself of the habit of constantly interrupting. It does not lead to orderly debate in this House. It is very difficult, if the hon. Member indulges in it, for me to restrain hon. Gentle- men on the other side. He has made a practice of doing it, and I would most respectfully suggest to him that it is not the best way of carrying on debate.
I merely observed that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson)—
It was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member to repeat his observation, whatever it was. It is not the first time the hon. Member has interrupted. If it had been, I would have passed it over. I have noticed that the hon. Member time and again has adopted the same procedure, and that makes it extremely difficult for hon. Members to speak and extremely difficult for me to restrain hon. Members on the other side from interrupting.
On a point of Order. Is it in order when you deal with a private Member of this House, and that hon. Member gets up to make an explanation, and it may be an apology to the Chair, for him to be shouted down, as the hon. Member has been shouted down?
I have heard no apology from the hon. Member.
I have never complained of individual interruption as far as I myself am concerned, though, of course, I am not discussing the general order of the House. I was trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War why it is that. I cannot accept this theory of his about the slow accretion of force which would be required, and I find it impossible to believe that that was a true and complete account of all that passed through the minds, at all events, of some of those who were responsible for what took place. I cannot reconcile it, for example, with the action taken about the Fleet. I never heard of a First Lord of the Admiralty who thought it necessary to go to the Cabinet to get leave to move the Fleet from one position to another in the ordinary naval routine. That may be the practice of the present Government, but it has certainly never been the practice of any Government of which I ever heard in the past. Then I should like to know how that theory is to be reconciled with the statement that officers connected with Ulster might temporarily disappear. It is one of the unexplained contradictions which have occurred in the course of these discussions. The Prime Minister at one time stated that this was a general order given as far back as December. I do not see how to reconcile that with Sir Arthur Paget's statement that it was a concession extracted in March from a semi-reluctant Minister for War. It is not with the contradiction that I am dealing now, it is with the fact that Sir Arthur Paget quite clearly, when he went to the Secretary of State for War, and begged for this concession, anticipated that there were to be great operations in Ulster in which it would be cruel to involve men who were themselves connected with Ulster. Then I do not see how it is to be reconciled with the appointment of the Governor of Belfast, because that was a hurried measure. The officer first designated for the post happened, unfortunately, to be ill, and another man had instantly to be put in his place. How is all that to be reconciled with the theory of the right hon. Gentleman?
Then there are two other grounds which I would respectfully bring before the House. One is—it has been mentioned before, but it has never been explained or answered—how is it that General Paget did not put an end to the whole difficulty when he got the letter from the officers explaining that if they were only to go to Ulster to protect life and property and to carry out the ordinary duties of a soldier in supporting the civil authority, they were all prepared to go, but if there were to be military operations in Ulster they were not prepared to go, and were prepared to sacrifice all their professional prospects rather than go. If it had been in Sir Arthur Paget's power to say to them, "Gentlemen, you have quite mistaken the intention and the policy of the Government. I shall ask you to do nothing but protect property and life; all you are asked to do is what soldiers have to do, namely, to support the civil authority in case of disorder, which cannot be controlled by the magistrates and police"—if he had told them that they never would have resigned, their resignations would never have been sent to London, they never would have been summoned over to London, they never would have been dismissed, they never would have been reinstated, and they never would have required reinstatement. Hon. Members do not see this argument staring them in the face on the White Paper because the documents have been put in the wrong order. There are three documents in succession. The first is a telegram from Sir Arthur Paget to the War Office saying that officers had resigned, then a telegram from the War Office telling them to come to London, and then a letter from the officers to Sir Arthur Paget. A hasty reader might think that these events occurred in the order in which they appear on the White Paper, but the first document should have been the letter from the officers to Sir Arthur Paget. It is on the basis of that letter that the General Commanding-in-Chief telegraphed to the War Office, and in that letter the officers declare that they are perfectly prepared to carry out those duties which are the ordinary duties of a soldier in supporting law and order, and if Sir Arthur Paget could have honestly told them that in his opinion they would have had to do nothing else, it is clear that the whole of these incidents would never have occurred, and all these difficulties would have been avoided. Therefore, I point out to the late Secretary of State for War that in Sir Arthur Paget's view it was perfectly clear from that telegram of his to the War Office alone that he contemplated something much more than the mere preservation of life and property. Then there is one last argument that I shall bring before the House in this connection which by itself ought to persuade the late Secretary of State for War that he is mistaken. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us yesterday that the pith of all these transactions, the central point from which they all sprang, was the Debate in this House. How can they have sprung from a Debate in this House if they were concerned only with rifles and ammunition?I have stated before that I had urged on my colleagues that we should protect these stores long before we had that Debate—two months ago.
Quite so. The right hon. Gentleman first began to urge upon his colleagues when he first heard in December that these stores were isolated, and that there was possible danger from ill-disposed persons. But his appeals fell on deaf ears until 9th March—until you have got, in other words, to what the First Lord of the Admiralty calls the critical occasion. Then you have the whole transaction. I ask the late Secretary for War whether it is conceivable that the protection of a few rifles, and a relatively small amount of ammunition, should have sprung from a Debate in this House with regard to the terms that were to be offered, or not offered to Ulster? The truth is that the whole of this minimising case was given away yesterday, and given away for ever by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and it is the attempt to minimise that which it is difficult to minimise, or impossible to minimise, which has led to all these un fortunate discussions across the House as to the truth or untruth, consistency or in consistency, of Ministerial statements. No body can deny that there have been contradictions in the Ministerial statements. Nobody can pretend that the accounts they gave of transactions within their own experience correspond with each other. Nobody, for example—I merely give it as an example—can pretend that the account given by the right hon. Gentleman himself in this House of the events of the clay which preceded his first resignation were at all in conformity with the account of the, same transaction given in another place by his own colleague, Lord Morley. Nobody can pretend that the statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday about the free use of troops politically to coerce Ulster were in conformity with the doctrines to which the late Secretary for War has often given expression, and to which, as I understand, he still unreservedly holds—
Hear, hear.
Namely, that it would be criminal and impossible to use the forces of the Crown to exercise political pressure on Ulster.
Political.
The same doctrine was preached by the Lord Chancellor in another place, by Lord Morley in another place, and even in this House I heard myself the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs say that the idea of coercing Ulster without first appealing to the people of this country was a thing he would never contemplate. All these things are inconsistent with each other, and show that the Ministry were not agreed either as to what ought to be done, or even as to the general principles which should govern what ought to be done in the case of Ulster. I suspect that even the right hon. Gentleman animated, irritated, and infuriated by what he thought the improper rejection of what he offered on 9th March, had become incomparably more violent in his attitude towards Ulster since that fateful day. Nobody, I think, who looks over all the statements that have been made in the two Houses of Parliament, who tries to make out a coherent story from them, who tries to reconcile the assertions made by one Minister on one day with those of another Minister on another day, will not see that the Government had got info a hopeless tangle, and that they were helplessly struggling to get out of all that has been brought upon them by the unfortunate policy which broke down. I confess that little as I think those contradictions and errors and misstatements made by Ministers are to the credit of the House, still less, I think, is it to the credit of the House that they should never have been explained when opportunity of explanation presented itself. Melancholy as I think it is that we should be in the position of being told that there was an explanation given yesterday, or that there would be an explanation-given to-morrow, but that there was never an explanation forthcoming to-day—melancholy as is that example, I think all these unfortunate Parliamentary incidents show almost white and innocent compared with the larger scheme, the possibility of which certainly loomed before the minds of some Members of His Majesty's Government. The First Lord of the Admiralty made a most violent speech yesterday—at the beginning—and he told us that when we brought forward this vote of censure it was rather like criminals bringing forward a vote of censure against the police. There is one character disgusting to every policeman, and which even the meanest criminal thinks inferior to himself in point of morals, and that character is the agent provocateur.
I presume the right hon. Gentleman is now going to bring forward some evidence in support of that statement?
The evidence which I think amply sufficient is in the right hon. Gentleman's own speech yesterday, interpreting the speech he made in the country, and throwing a light on all the transactions in which he has been concerned. I do not want to quarrel unnecessarily with the right hon. Gentleman. Nor do I think anybody will think that so great a master of vituperation as the right hon. Gentleman has any special claim to tender treatment from those from whom he differs.
I am not asking for tender treatment. I know the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that he has made a charge as shocking as it is possible to make. I am certainly not asking for tender treatment, but I invite him to prove the charge.
I think we might have an inquiry. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have an inveterate dislike to that form of investigation. Let me briefly point out to the right hon. Gentleman, as has been pointed out before, that he himself has made certain public statements which no other explanation will satisfy bat that he contemplated operations in Ulster which, if they had produced any result at all, would have brought out the result of repressing Ulster at the cost of much shedding of blood. I base that statement on his assertion that everything began with the rejection of the Prime Minister's proposal on 9th March; that that was followed by his famous speech at Bradford; that that was followed by all these unexplained movements of the Fleet and the Army; and that he openly told the country and his own followers—and they enthusiastically received the statement in this House—that of course if, in these transactions, a single soldier or sailor were shot, all England would rise, and the bases of society would be shaken. He lent himself to transactions which might easily have caused the loss of life in Ulster. He did it knowing the danger, and he apparently boasts now that it is the first and fundamental privilege of His Majesty's Government to use soldiers in as provocative a way as they like. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Quote!"] Will you read his speech? [HON. MEMBERS: "Quote!"] I am not going to read his speech, because I have not got it before me. Is it denied by those who heard it that the right hon. Gentleman said in this House that everybody would admit the right of His Majesty's Government to march troops up and down Ulster exactly as they liked?
I said that, though it was our right to do so, I thought it would be a very unwise thing, and we had never contemplated it.
Let me quote a statement:—
That is the view of your Lord Chancellor. It is not an obiter dictum of the Lord Chancellor. It was the statement given by the Lord Chancellor in evidence before a Com- mittee to look into this very difficult question of the relation of the soldiers to the civil population, and it was in the course of that evidence, given on his responsibility as a great lawyer dealing with these cases, that he laid down that proposition. We now, at all events, know that the opinion of the Lord Chancellor as regards the law governing the relation between the civil and military population is not the view of the law entertanied by the right hon. Gentleman, who has so much knowledge on many matters. I have already spoken longer than I intended, and perhaps more controversially than I intended, but I must leave the right bon. Gentleman in his character as a demagogue and come to him in the character which, I hope, is more natural to him, and which certainly suits him bettor—his character as a statesman. In his character as a statesman the right hon. Gentleman made certain proposals yesterday, and made certain suggestions. That travels, I think, far beyond the limits of this Debate; but when a Minister of the position and authority of the right hon. Gentleman travels from the comparatively narrow issue raised by my right hon. Friend's Resolution, it is inevitable that those who follow the right hon. Gentleman should take some notice of his statements. It is clear to everybody, whether he be a Home Ruler of the Nationalist type, or of the British type, or a convinced Unionist like those who sit on these benches, that there are two questions which have to be considered in the grave position in which the Government now finds itself. I cannot exaggerate my sense of the gravity of the position. I believe that it is shared by many who differ profoundly from me in general opinions, and perhaps by some who are offended at what I have said this afternoon, but I do not think that anybody can doubt it. I am not going to discuss the ethics of civil war. The right hon. Gentleman appears to hold a view, which, so far as I know, has never been held by responsible British statesmen—at any rate, not for centuries—that there are no circumstances in which it is justifiable for a population to resist the Government. They must be most rare. Such circumstances in any reasonable community must be of a kind which could only occur once in two or three centuries without shattering the whole fabric of society. But they may occur; they have occurred; and there has never been any question with regard to some of us on this side of the House that the coercion of Ulster, in the sense of compelling Ulster to leave a free Government under which she is happy, and put her under a Government which she detests, is one of those cases, I hold now, and I held nearly thirty years ago, that if Home Rule was forced upon Ulster, Ulster would fight and Ulster would be right. I have held the same view consistently ever since, and have never wavered from it. But, because I have never wavered from it, does anybody in this House suppose that I do not think that it is one of the most appalling and terrible calamities that could ever happen to a great nation? I do not merely contemplate or even chiefly contemplate its results in Ulster. To think of that great industrial community devastated, perhaps ruined, perhaps permanently losing its great industrial position through civil war, is in itself a reflection of horror, but I do not believe that even that would be the greatest calamity that would ensue. The very discussions which we have had show how, when you over-press these problems, when you drive your legislation to the breaking point, you will get discussions which I think are utterly demoralising to the general community. You think that they are demoralising only to us. They are demoralising also to you, and even now at the point which we have reached I believe that some injuries have been done which cannot easily be repaired. I believe that what I think—though you may differ from me—are the unscrupulous attacks made on the Army have been more disastrous to that force than the loss of a pitched battle. I believe that we are not only suffering now, as the First Lord of the Admiralty told us yesterday, but that we are going for a long time to suffer in the councils of Europe by what has occurred, and I think that if to these evils are added the further actual evils of civil war the ills which will follow on it are beyond the power of human computation. I have said, and perhaps I am still going to say, though I hope not, things which are not likely to appease the bitterness which exists between the two sides of the House; but I felt bound to be candid on this matter. But we have to consider, surely, whatever views we take of Home Rule, what the result of civil war will be. To judge by the sort of language in which, in a part of his speech, the First Lord of the Admiralty indulged, and to judge by the cheers with which those observations were heard, he contemplated the possibility of having to crush Ulster with fire and sword. I have no doubt that it is in their power. May I ask who is there, and what are the opinions of him, who thinks that any cause that any of us hold at heart is going to be furthered by that transaction, which is to be done in the interests of Home Rule? Do you think that Home Rule would be possible after you had done it? Peace and good government to Ireland with Ulster devastated and trampled under foot—the thing is an utter absurdity. It would ruin Ulster. It would ruin a great deal more than Ulster. Would it help Home Rule? Not a bit of it. There is no cause, whether of social reform, political reform, Home Rule, the federation of the Empire, or a federal system in this country, that would not be ruined by such a catastrophe. Then let us hear no more. I beg the House, of putting things to the proof. I listened with the deepest attention to the final words of the right hon. Gentleman, and I confess that when I heard them yesterday, I thought that they had in them the potency and the promise, not indeed of a solution of the Irish question, not indeed of the settlement of the Home Rule question, on any lines which I should consider tolerable, but at all events the promise and the potency of a settlement which would avoid this final and irreparable catastrophe of civil war. I do not know how to interpret the observations, made by the Prime Minister at Question Time to-day, upon the subject of his colleague's suggestion. The Prime Minister himself, I believe and I know, has earnestly desired a peaceful solution, however little in my opinion he may have contributed to this result, but the Prime Minister indicated, as I thought, that this was a mere experimental suggestion of the First Lord of the Admiralty—what the French call a ballon d'essai, and that it had neither his authority, nor the approval of Gentlemen behind him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—nor the assent of the Nationalist Members below the Gangway. If that is so, I do not know that it is worth either my while, or worth the while of the Leader of the Opposition or of my right hon. and learned Friend near me to say more about it. But when I heard the statement uncommented upon by the Prime Minister I certainly thought that a great advance had been made by the Government towards a solution which, however unsatisfactory to everybody, did at all events show a way of escape from the final and irremediable catastrophe. Because what was the suggestion? If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, the suggestion was this, that Ulster should be excluded, or, let us say, that the North-East of Ireland should be excluded, without time limit, from the operation of the Home Rule Bill, and that my right hon. and learned Friend should do his best after that arrangement had been put on the Statute Book to preach the doctrine that, when federalism or Home Rule all round—federalism, I think, it was called by the right hon. Gentleman—was accepted as part of our Constitution, Ulster should form with the rest of Ireland one of the units of that federal system. There was part of this proposal which in itself, I think he will agree, is a little fantastic. It was not an essential part of it, but it was on the fringe of it. I do not see how my right hon. and learned Friend can promise to spend the rest of his life in preaching the doctrine of federalism—I do not know what his views on federalism are—and accompany that propaganda with the doctrine that, if there was federalism, Ireland as a whole should be one of the constituent States within the whole system. But what it did show me was that the right hon. Gentleman had returned, if I may say so, to his pre-9th-of-March attitude of mind, that he did now really desire to seek a solution which would avoid civil war, and it indicated to me that he had grasped, what I think is the undoubted basic truth of the situation, that unless you exclude the North-East of Ireland from your Home Rule Bill, do what you will, you cannot get over the probability of civil disturbance, which would be an incalculable misfortune in itself, and would destroy all prospect of Home Rule for the present succeeding. 5.0 P.M. I do not believe that you would ever get Ulster to join the rest of Ireland in the future unless you exclude it in the present. Whether Ulster would ever be prepared to throw in her lot as part of a federal unit with the rest of Ireland, who on earth has prophetic power that will enable him to tell? Does it not turn upon how hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway manage their affairs? Does it not turn upon the most incalculable thing in the world, the progress of public opinion and the movement of human thought? And who is audacious enough to say that he can tell that by the time we have matured this prospective federal system, either what the Irish Parliament will have done or what Ulster will be feeling, or what the general views of the population of the United Kingdom may be? All those anticipations are vain. In my view, there is nothing this House can do which will save the horrors of civil war except the total exclusion of the North-East of Ireland, with, of course, provisions, if you please, when the North-East of Ireland alters its opinion, that its status should be altered. That is another matter. At all events, leave the future to take care of itself, not attempting to make impossible prophesies or to embark on impossible pledges as to what this House will or will not do in a future which cannot be immediate and may be remote. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister gave no endorsement—he gave no contradiction—gave no sign of approval of the suggestion made by his right hon. Friend, I do not know that it is worth discussing what other obstacles there may be; but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) was perpetually afraid lest those who dislike Home Rule on this side of the House should regard the exclusion of Ulster as a party triumph which will enable us to make some political boast over our opponents. I suppose that I and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) are the oldest Members of this House, and we have been concerned—certainly I have been concerned almost the greater part of my political life—in fighting the cause of the Union. And if anybody thinks that I should regard it as a triumph that there should be put on the Statute Book of this country anything which I regard with such horror as a Home Rule system, even without Ulster, they little understand the ideals for which I have striven through all my political life. There was a time, and it is not so very long ago, as my life is measured, when I cherished the dream that if law was restored in the Southern provinces of Ireland, if every grievance was removed, if every inequality was smoothed away, if every encouragement was given to legitimate industry, if every equality, and more than equality, were given to our Irish fellow subjects, ancient memories would gradually soften, men would look forward as well as backward, and there would grow up what there ought to be as between these two islands, a common hope, a common loyalty, confidence in the common heritage, and all this might be accomplished under one Parliament. For that— I must put it egotistically—I have striven; for that I have argued in this House and out of this House, for that I have worked weary hours at legislative projects, and striven to accommodate legislative details to the needs and necessities of the moment. If the result of all this is that, in order that civil war may be avoided, with all its incalculable horrors, that there is yet to be established in Dublin a separate Parliament, to the injury, as I personally think, of the Irish people, and not less perhaps of the British people, then I, for my part, may be an object of pity to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill); but he need not think that I shall regard such a consummation as a triumph over my political enemies. On the contrary, it is the mark of the failure of a life's work; it is the admission that the causes for which I have most striven, which I have most earnestly sought to accomplish, are fated to break down, and that long labours spent in this House and out of this House in political work have not borne the fruit that I once hoped they might."If the military, even within their rights, come upon the streets in circumstances when their doing so may create disturbance, they may be committing an offence against the law."
I hope the House will not think it improper if, in the first words I venture to address to the House, I desire to express the admiration, which I think we all feel, for the dignity, sincerity and skill of that memorable utterance to which the House has just listened. The right hon. Gentleman's opinions are his own; his position and his talents are part of the common property of this House. Whether we agree with him or not, or however profoundly we may be moved to most acute disagreement with his position, we are glad indeed to have his point of view presented to the House in so eminently and so admirable a way. There can hardly ever have been in the Parliamentary experience of anyone in this House a Debate more remarkable, more unreal in form and more profoundly real in substance, than the Debate which has taken place here yesterday and to-day. The House is asked to grant an inquiry as regards the action of the Government some weeks ago as regards their omissions in Debate or their imperfect and incomplete answers to questions. While this Motion calls the direct attention of the House to events of three weeks ago, there is no one in this House whose mind is not absorbed in the position to-day, and who is prepared to deal with the events of three weeks ago in the light of the knowledge we have to- day? The right hon. Gentleman's speech, like more than one of the speeches we have heard already, had great divergencies of tone and method. He recapitulated, with a dexterity that we all envied, his view of the events from the 10th of March onwards. He has constructed from those events, as he sees them, a theory which apparently comes to this, that while the Government were actually dealing with the necessary protection of the stores, they were dealing with it in a way which would lead, inevitably and designedly, to some movement of the troops in Lister, which, in the opinion of Ulster, was provocative of civil war.
It is open, of course, to every Member of this House to judge of those acts according to the evidence before us. But we have not yet heard from any Member of the Opposition in this House, nor have we seen any argument directed to it in any newspaper or from any person supporting the Opposition, that, in fact, contradicts the statement of my right hon. Friend that every order given for the movement of troops has been made clear on the White Paper, and that any further movements than those connected with the defence of the stores were contingent only on the defence of the stores being followed by disturbance on the part of evilly disposed persons. Unless and until the Opposition are able to show that the movements which did take place, and the abstinence from movements which followed thereupon, were part of a scheme to act independently of the action of evilly disposed persons, neither this House will believe, nor the public will believe in this monstrous theory of the troops having been moved for the purpose of bringing about a civil war. From what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen said on that side of the House one would imagine that in Ulster there were no persons armed, that there was no action other than that of ordinary political crowds, that there were no conditions which were laying the train for an explosion, that there was nothing being done by persons, having no connection with the Government, which rendered the atmosphere inflammable and the situation dangerous. And when blame is to be allotted, when responsibility is to be assigned, are we to hear nothing of those who have passed from political action to provocative action, month after month, and year after year? If we are to come to a just conclusion, if the country to whom we all alike look, is to give a sound judgment on the subject, are we to hear everything as to what the Government have done, and nothing of what has been devised, compassed, and carried out on the other side for more than two years now? We are told that the critical date was the 9th March, when the concessions of the Government were mentioned in so strange a manner. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) will find it consistent with the spirit of full revelation which is apparently current for the time being on those benches, to tell us what he meant in the famous letter of his, in which he said that the time has come for a new forward movement. What was there left in the way of a forward movement, except to break the King's peace by gun-running or some other action. When a person with the power of the right hon. Gentleman, a person with the traditions of the right hon. Gentleman, whose resoluteness and will has before now spoiled the best chance of the prosperity of Ireland, and who is more responsible than any living man for the failure of those projects of devolution and land reform, which will ever be associated with the name of George Wyndham, whom we all deplore, when, then, a person with the right hon. Gentleman's traditions and power and strength of will has said openly to a number of persons that he has trained and organised and armed, and when he talks about the time coming for a new step forward, what would anybody think, and how would anyone construe such language? The Executive Government, being made aware of that, would be faltering with their duties if they did not reconsider how far the King's peace in Ireland was put in fresh peril by what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if we are to go with the meticulous care of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire into the facts of all those days and hours, and if we are to have a large part of the time at Question Time occupied by the conundrums of the hon. Member who sits for a Division of Birmingham, we should, at any rate, remember that it was not only the reception of these concessions here, but that the action of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland and in that letter are material factors in seeing the consequence of events, and in judging of the currents of opinion and action which actually lay behind them. The Resolution that we are dealing with is in three parts. The first deals with the serious nature of what the Government did in March and in April. With regard to that, I would merely say that when we are asked to consider it, and to vote for an inquiry turning on that point, we are bound to ask what about the much more serious things which have happened since. Then we are asked, in the second place, to deal with the incomplete and inaccurate statements of the Government. We may very well leave that to what has been said by ray right hon. Friend who sits next to me (Colonel Seely), and to what was already pointed out by the Prime Minister in his intervention in the course of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. A. Chamberlain) and to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to-night. The third part of the recital, and the third ground which is put forward for an inquiry into these events of the past, is because it is suggested that the Government did not deal frankly with the House. When information is asked in this House as regards naval and military movements, surely not only the Government, but Members of the House, are entitled to know for what purpose those questions are put. How can anyone believe that it is for the public service to have any further information given to hon. Members who showed clearly that they are in the closest and most irregular touch with officers in his Majesty's Army, and who themselves in the whole of this Debate, and, so far as I know, at no time in this House, have ever said a word to deprecate that combination against the law which is now existing in the North-East corner of Ireland? Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University boldly, as he always does, affirms his responsibility for present illegality, and for further illegality as it suits him, it is intolerable that the Government should be blamed in this House for not providing ammunition or such arguments as can be constructed, and should be blamed for refusing to give information which would be merely used for the purpose of weakening the arm of the Executive, and bringing, unhappily it appears, not the Army, but individuals of the Army, into a frame of mind in which they would thwart the decision of Parliament and of the responsible Government of the day. So much for the plea alleged, and so much as to the ground on which the inquiry is asked. I think we are surely entitled in this House, when we are asked to vote for this inquiry, not only to deal with the reasons which are given, but to remind ourselves of the circumstances under which the Resolution is brought forward. What are the circumstances of the case to-day? Everybody knows at the present moment that neither Ulster nor any part of Ulster is being coerced, nor is there the slightest risk of its being coerced. All these questions have been used with great skill by those who argue from the other side of the House, but behind them all the fact remains that as long as the law is not broken by persons living in Ulster itself there is no Member of the Government, and there is no supporter of the Government, who is desirous of using armed force in the controversy at all. It is only when the initiation of law breaking is taken by those opposed to the Government that the Government is bound, if it does its duty, to use such arms as are effective so that the King's peace reigns there as in other parts of the United Kingdom. I suppose now we may take it that this combination against the law in Ulster which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has organised with such patience and care and skill now meets with the whole-hearted and undisturbed approval of His Majesty's Opposition. Of course it has the full and hearty approval of the hon. Member opposite whose methods take us back to the seventeenth century. It would be scarcely courteous to refer in this House to the name, but we are reminded of the days of the Popish Plot, and the mixture of faction and of fiction in which its promoters indulged by the action of the hon. Member. One would still imagine that there were some Members of the Opposition who thought that great political controversy, described in none too grave words by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, could be conducted without condoning offences against the law which happened last Friday. So, Sir, there is no question of Ulster being coerced now or of Ulster being coerced in the future. The offer of the Government to exclude North-East Ulster for six years, whether it be taken or not, has of necessity altered the situation materially. Those offers cannot be made in public without having a very great effect for good or evil upon the whole of the situation. Everybody knows that if Ulster be excluded from this Bill, or if any part of Ulster be excluded from this Bill for any period, short or long, that the final determination or destiny of Ulster would turn not upon the theory of Home Rule, but upon its success in actual practice. Therefore it is perfectly certain, and it is known outside this House to men of all political opinion, that there is no risk whatever, so long as people in Ulster are law-abiding, of the forces of the Crown being used to coerce them in any sense in which that word can be honestly applied. Accordingly, we are asked to vote for this Resolution at a time and under circumstances when there can be no question of coercing Ulster, and at a time and under circumstances when Members of His Majesty's Opposition have no word to say in support of the inhabitants of Ulster keeping the peace, and have no word to say in reprehension of what happened last Friday, and have no word of advice to give, or of moderation to exercise, upon a brave but prejudiced people, who have been exploited year after year for the political ends of an Opposition whose other methods are so absolutely a failure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) indicates with his genial courtesy his disagreement from the last contention I put forward. I will only remind him briefly that I am not here to embitter this controversy, but we, at any rate, and many people outside other than professing Liberals or Labour or Nationalists, have been impressed, perhaps not as they were intended to be impressed, by the famous utterance of the Leader of the Opposition in his Blenheim speech, by the statement of Sir Edward Clarke the other day, that there was no longer need to have any concessions in Ulster, because now the Army would not act, and by the whole argument which lay behind the surface geniality of the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), who, while saying that of course soldiers and sailors ought to obey, was equally of opinion that they would not—a new and dexterous bearing of the old saying, "Don't nail his ears to the pump." There are those speeches to which one refers, and of course there is the policy, the continued and no doubt quite conscientious policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, and even more remarkable because of its different tone was the speech last night of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave), who devoted all his legal acumen to suggesting that the Executive have no power to keep order unless the local magistrates ask them to do so. True that is so in normal times, but in abnormal times it is the Executive of the country which in the last resort is responsible for peace and order, and is to behave accordingly. What is to happen if magistrates are infected by those doctrines of illegal resistance against those who do not act in the way in which their political wishes accord. We have heard a great deal about Ulster. I yield to no man in this House in my desire to see this problem solved with peace in Ulster. The description of North-East Ulster as a solid body of protestors organised to break the law for righteousness sake is a caricature. There is not a little evidence that in North-East Ulster there are some of the elements of a reign of terror. Woe betide the man who does not agree with the local majority. Woe betide those there who do not make their utterances conform to the policy, and to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. Who can tell as to whether the precepts which we hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law), the constant reiteration that servants of the Crown would be right in taking sides, the constant suggestion that the person who is to be obeyed is not His Majesty, but the Anti-King from Dublin University, who can tell whether those things may not, God forbid they should, but who can tell whether they may not prove stronger in some cases than those of oaths of allegiance or military discipline. Therefore, under those circumstances we are asked to vote upon this Resolution, and those events of last Friday are present to the minds of all of us on this Motion. I wish to add a few words as to the spirit and the hope with which one votes against this Resolution. I say nothing here and now as to the possibility of varying concessions, or as to the ultimate issue of the legitimate constitutional controversy with regard to Home Rule. I, at any rate, have never said anything here or elsewhere to embitter that controversy within constitutional lines, but I have said strong things, and I would say far stronger things if I knew how, as regards these extra constitutional and illegal methods which are brought into use. I hope, as must as any man in this House, that the Irish question may be settled, if not by consent, by the assent of all parties concerned. In voting against this Resolution, and thereby voting confidence in the Government, I am confident that the public now require that law and order should be restored and maintained in North-East Ulster. We do not ask the Government to move hurriedly, or to do anything in a panic, but we look to them to see that actions like those of last Friday shall not be possible in the future. If it be that the proper instrument for maintaining order should break in their hands, the sooner that is known the better. If the intrigues of unscrupulous politicians have been effective, let us know. The Conservative party have of late abdicated their guardianship of law and order in these realms. That is now part of the burden which the Government exclusively have to bear. At the present moment there are two great multitudes in this country whose eyes are turned to the Prime Minister and the Government. There is the great multitude of those who think most of law and order, and of the maintenance of the King's peace, believing that to be an indispensable condition of any civic freedom at all. There is another great multitude whose minds are full of the question of self-government and of the supremacy of this House. They see the supremacy of this House threatened. They know what are the declarations of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. That great body of opinion also looks to the Government. If it adds to the Government's responsibility, it adds to the strength which is behind them. They have difficulties around them and in front of them, but they have no danger if they will maintain the King's peace, and not be bullied by anyone. It is because I have confidence in my right hon. Friend and the Government, as well as for the reasons I have already given, that I shall have no hesitation in voting against this Resolution. I am certain that it is only when these threats against the ordinary execution of duty by the King's servants have proved ineffective that all parties in this House will be in a frame of mind to consider on their merits the proposals for reconstruction in Ireland, and to find, as I believe will be found, that the solution of this great controversy is not by giving way to that side which would leave us with four-fifths of Ireland exacerbated instead of with one round spot of opposition, but by adopting means which will, if not solve the problem by consent, solve it in a way which will be increasingly successful as practice proves the dicta of political theory.
I should not intervene in this Debate at all, nor, indeed, would I be entitled to do so, having regard to the amount of time already taken up by this bench to-day, did I not feel that I am bound to state my views, having regard to the latter part of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty last night. Before I come to that, may I say to the hon. and learned Member who has just addressed us (Sir Ryland Adkins) that I willingly bear all the censure which he has bestowed upon me for my lawless action, and that I willingly bear any consequences of that action that may ensue. For two and a half years, weighing all the consequences, I have taken up the position that I have in leading men who have asked me to try to preserve their rights under this Imperial Parliament; and, while nobody is more anxious to avoid all the consequences which have been so well depicted of the forcing of this Bill upon the North-East corner of Ireland, as it has been called, I can assure the hon. and learned Member that neither I nor those who follow me have negligently or inconsiderately entered upon the course upon which we have entered. We have done it because we are acting morally in accordance with our consciences. We fear no abuse; we fear no terms of opprobium. And as regards any consequences that the law gives us, not only will we bear them cheerfully, but we will be glad to bear them, having regard to what our feelings are in relation to the wrong that is being attempted to foe done. The First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday read to us Statutes about treason, treason-felony, and other matters of that kind. Does he not think that I know all these laws? Does he think that I have not considered them? Does he not think that the men with whom I am acting have considered them? Perhaps he will allow me to read him a statement issued the other day by the trade unionists of Belfast—a statement which I never saw nor knew of until it was issued. I will read it because I want the House, if they will, at this grave and deplorable crisis in our history, to do me the honour of really trying to believe that I am not masquerading in this House, but that I am trying faithfully to represent the interests of those who are affected by this great controversy. Here is what they say. It is an appeal to English trade unionists:
The statement goes on:—"You have been told by the Radical and Socialist Press, and from Radical and Socialist platforms, that Ulster's resistance to Home Rule is an aristocratic plot, engineered by the aristocracy for its own ends, and for the oppression of the people. This is false. We, your fellow trade unionists in the North of Ireland, the only part of the country where labour is as fully organised and articulate as in your own country, tell you that this is false."
What I would observe about that is, that these men are members of the same trade unions as those who are represented by the Labour party below the Gangway. If any body of trade unionists in this country issued a document similar to that, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would be grovelling before them. And, after all, is there not something more to be learned from all this than merely to be lecturing us upon the penalties attaching to the breaches of the law into which you are driving us? [A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh or jeer at that statement, but do they think that men sacrifice their lives, as these working men say that they are prepared to do, unless they are conscious of the very deepest wrong, a wrong which they believe to be incompatible with the future existence of the rights which they have either as citizens of the King, or in relation to the business which they are carrying on? No; the lesson you ought to learn is the desperate reality of the question with which you have to deal, and when you are up against feelings of that kind, I would really ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what is the use of telling me or of telling these men, "If necessary we will send 40,000 troops against you to put you down. If necessary we will send my troops to put you down." I know that you can. I have made almost that speech myself over and over again. I have said over and over again, in Belfast and throughout the country, that I should be sorry to think that the British Army and the British Navy were not strong enough to put down a community such as is in Ulster. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, "We will conquer you, if necessary." Conquer you? Yes, Sir, a pleasant prospect—that Ulster should remain for all future time as a conquered province of Great Britain. A conquered province, and why? Simply because she wants to remain under this Parliament and an Executive responsible thereto. You are to conquer her, and, if necessary, to use force to the extent of conquering her, because she is trying to preserve what not one of you would give up. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking yesterday I often asked myself this question: Are we talking about a message of peace for Ireland, or are we talking about a message of war? Are we really discussing in this Session, the last Session in which it can come before the House, a Bill for the better government of Ireland? The whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as has been said to-day by my right hon. Friend, was far more suitable to the relations between Mexico and America than what we ought to be attempting to do in relation to a solution of the Ulster question. But, Sir, I see one gleam of hope in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—that was the violence of his speech; because I have always noticed that whenever the right hon. Gentleman has something to say towards a solution of a peaceful character he always thinks it necessary, with a view, I suppose, to sustain his position, to adopt the rôle of the demagogue on a platform playing to the gallery. I do not know myself whether that is the best way of introducing pacific proposals, but, for my own part, I deplore the condition of affairs so much that I do not believe any violence of speech, or any insults or taunts to myself would move me one iota from my desire to assist in any reasonable solution to prevent bloodshed in the North of Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, and the Prime Minister, will give me credit for being able to see all the disasters which are following at the present moment from the prolongation of the existing state of affairs. I do not mean merely at home, though I do think that six months ago, when Lord Loreburn's letter first appeared, it would have been far easier to come to terms than it is now. I am not referring to that, though I do think that is of importance, because what may happen from day to day may have a very great bearing upon the whole future of this question. I mean also foreign relations. I mean the question of the Army and the question of the Navy. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we are weakened in the councils of Europe by having domestic troubles and domestic quarrels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] I know hon. Members put it all down to me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] How absurd that is! Where would I get the power to create these disturbances? No, Sir, I can assure you, whether you believe me or not, that I am as anxious as any man living to find a way out of this Ulster difficulty which will avoid bloodshed. When I am told—I may be told—"Look at what you were engaged in last Friday," I take full responsibility for that. You need not drag it out of me. I take full responsibility. It is nothing new. I have for the last two and a half years said that these people would, in my belief, resist by force. What they did on Friday was only an act in carrying out what they said they would do. That is so. I am not the cause of it. I have not got the power to be the cause of it. It is the people themselves, who are determined not to submit. The right hon. Gentleman—and this is really coming to the point on which I wish to be very specific—at least as specific as I can be under the circumstances—the right hon. Gentleman says that I run great risks in strife. I do; I know I do—quite willingly! The right hon. Gentleman says that I might also run great risks in peace. I certainly would be prepared also to do that. Nobody supposes at my age that I prefer strife to peace. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman's treatment of myself in what happened upon the 9th of March was grossly unfair to me, and was an attempt to put me in a very false position in relation to all the events which have occurred since. He said, in point of fact, that it was my rejection, and the rejection of the Leader of the Opposition, that led him into the lamentable courses, as I think they were, that have followed since that offer was made. How unfair that is when all I asked in relation to the exclusion of Ulster was that when you fixed the six years' limit we should not be asked to come in until—what? Is it until Ulster dictated? Not at all. Until this Parliament asked us to come in! Because we asked for the intervention of this Parliament he went off and said that he was justified in preparing armies and fleets against us. It is quite untrue to say that I absolutely rejected the proposal. I did no such thing. I said I was quite willing to take it over and submit it to the people of Ulster. Nobody supposes that I am the plenipotentiary for Ulster! Take that limitation of six years away and put in instead: "Until this Parliament should otherwise determine." The right hon. Gentleman has now made a somewhat indefinite statement, which does not rest in a very satisfactory way, having regard to the statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon. I do not know whether, when the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to run some little risk, that he meant that if we received his proposal in a sympathetic way, he would help us even if others upon his side were opposed to it. But I am not going to quarrel now either with the indefinite language of the proposal, nor am I going to quarrel with the manner in which it is put forward by a Cabinet Minister, who says that he speaks not on behalf of his Government but on behalf of himself. The time is too short, and the circumstances are too difficult and too dangerous. I suppose what he means by his proposal is that if Ulster is left out until a federal scheme is proposed, I am to use such influence as I possess to try to bring about that, when that time comes, Ireland should form one integral unit in the federal system that is then proposed? I have already, I think, gone a long way in my former speeches on that very subject. I said in the autumn at Manchester that we could never complain if, as part of a system for the whole of the United Kingdom, there was—whether I like it or not—a federal system in which we got equal treatment with all the other subjects of His Majesty within the United Kingdom. In that case, so long as you are a subject of the United Kingdom, and you get equal treatment with all other subjects, it would be idle for anybody to say that there was any moral justification for resisting any Act of Parliament. The real substance of our complaint at the present time is that you are not—you do not care—treating us as other subjects of the King in the United Kingdom. You single us out for political and party purposes to drive us out of this Kingdom, and to do something more—to place us under those in whom we have no confidence whatsoever for our government and guidance in the future. That I put forward at Manchester. I have already said in this House that if it were put into the Bill that Ulster was to be excluded until such time as a federal scheme which you said you were going to bring in on the introduction of this Bill—were put forward, and that it should then be recon- sidered in the light of the action of the Irish Parliament, and how they got on, as to whether Ulster should form a portion of the integral unit—as the right hon. Gentleman calls it—or should get separate or different treatment or remain under this Parliament, I said I should be perfectly satisfied to go over and press that proposal in Ulster. I am not, then, very far away from the right hon. Gentleman in what he says. The right hon. Gentleman cannot mean that I am to say now that I can prejudge what should happen when this federal scheme is considered—if it ever is considered. How can I? 6.0 P.M. Supposing the Parliament is a failure? Supposing it is disastrous? He does not suggest that I ought to say beforehand that Ulster is to come in whether the Parliament succeeds or whether it is a failure? No, Sir, but I shall try to make an advance on what I said before. I will say this—and I hope the House will believe me, because though I do not want to be introducing my own personality into it—I am myself a southerner in Ireland—I would say this: That if Home Rule is to pass, much as I detest it, and little as I will take any responsibility for the passing of it, my earnest hope, and indeed, I would say my most earnest prayer, would be that the Government of Ireland for the South and West would prove, and might prove, such a success in the future, notwithstanding all our anticipations, that it might be even for the interest of Ulster itself to move towards that Government, and come in under it and form one unit in relation to Ireland. May I say something more than that? I would be glad to see such a state of affairs arising in Ireland, in which you would find that mutual confidence and good will between all parts of Ireland, and between all classes in Ireland, as would lead to a stronger Ireland as an integral unit in the federal scheme. While I say all that, that depends upon good will, and never can be brought about by force. Having said so much, I think I had better end. I think I have met—to some extent at all events—what I understand to have been the advance made by the right hon. Gentleman, and all I would say before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, is that while I take in this matter a prominent part, which brings me into hostility and I dare say some times into the contempt of hon. Members on the other side of the House, who are so rigid about the enforcement of law and order, may I say this, that there is no one in the whole United Kingdom at the present time who feels his position and his responsibility more acutely than I do, and all I want to do, and I hope I will do to the end, is loyally to carry out the promises I have made to those who trust me, and to get for them such terms as will preserve to them their dignity, and their civil and religious freedom."Have yon read that these workers are ready to die rather than be robbed of their right to be governed under the same laws and administration as yourselves—robbed by a Government which will not and dare not consult the people? If you have, you know that we are prepared to die fighting for our freedom, and for our birthright of British citizenship under a British Administration. How then can you think that we hold our lives so cheap as to become the dupes or cat's-paw-of any class or section of the community? Sir Edward Carson leads us, because we, the workers, the people, the democracy of Ulster, have chosen him as the champion of our stubborn determination to remain under the same Government as you do, and if anything befell him we would still find a leader, perhaps from the aristocracy, perhaps from the ranks of trade unionists, but the leader would he chosen by the people of Ulster to fight the battle of democracy."
It must be with a sense of the gravest responsibility that any Back Bench Member takes part in this Debate, and particularly if one happens to be a Member who has for a long time believed that the true solution of the Irish question must be somewhere on the lines that have been discussed this afternoon. I think yesterday any man who had any feeling whatsoever of responsibility, or of what is called patriotism, must have been in the depths of despair. I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember this—that we on this side of the House do not consider their Motion is a Motion for the protection of Ulster, but is a Motion practically condemning the exercise of the powers of Parliament in this United Kingdom. But the worst phases of the past two days have passed by, and to-day we have had two of the most remarkable speeches that it has been our privilege in this House to listen to for a long time. It would be impertinent for anyone who has sat in this House for as short a time as I have to express appreciation of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), but I wish to be permitted to welcome his reappearance in our Debates on so momentous an occasion, and to welcome so momentous a speech. I may say this for all of us, that while we profoundly admire him, we were really disappointed at the earlier portion of his speech. I think it showed that while he is the great Parliamentarian that we know him to be, and a great exponent of the old style with which we were familiar, we also saw in that speech a little of what is sometimes called the new style. On this side of the House we welcome anything which makes for a peaceful settlement of this question between us. We to-night will vote against the Motion before the House, although all of us feel it is a pity there should be any Division on the question which is to be decided to-day. We will vote against this Resoluton because we firmly believe, and we have heard nothing whatever which shakes that belief, that the Government is only concerned in using the necessary power to enforce law and order in Ulster. I do not assent to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He said one very profound thing, that we are deteriorating to a certain extent in the House of Commons. If he meant by deterioration that we are all of us more touchy, more nervous, more suspicious, than we were, then I am afraid that is true; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in fairness to us on this side of the House, to consider what we have had to go through during the last three years.
It is becoming, unfortunately, a commonplace in our Debates to hear the Leaders, whom we revere and respect, however much the Opposition may dislike them, accused of the most vile things that could be said of public men. We do not worry about what hon. Members of smaller calibre opposite say, but what does lead to exasperation is that right hon. Gentlemen who hold responsible positions should also lend themselves to that same course of argument, and that is the great danger of our present situation. I do not say that strong language is used only on one side, but I do feel that right hon. Gentlemen cannot say that we in this House or our leaders have accused right hon. Gentlemen opposite of any of the things which really touch their personal honour. This point is rather important. We may use strong language in attacking them, but we have not in this controversy made attacks upon their personal honour in the way that they have personally and repeatedly attacked right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. The danger of the situation is that people who hold Liberal opinions are slowly beginning to find the present situation almost intolerable. We have had our share in the government of this country for nearly ten years. During the whole of these ten years this type of Resolution has been the line of attack by certain people. Unfortunately now it is almost the only line of attack by the Opposition. We have always been told that we were bringing the country to the verge of some enormous calamity; but the calamity never arrives, and we have steadily, but slowly, driven right hon. Gentlemen opposite out of their various entrenched positions. This Resolution is resisted by us because it is typical of this sort of thing—that if they cannot beat us at the polls or by voting us down in this House, they call in some new ally which ought never to be summoned in our party polities. To me it has always been an amazing thing that Members of another place should allow themselves to be used for party purposes by the party opposite. It is one of those strange things which are always surprising one in this world. Men not elected by popular franchise, and who are born into their positions prove themselves to be more bitter partisans than any of us in this House who have to be constantly mixed up in party warfare. That is the situation, and we have to make the best of it. We understand that this Resolution practically says that it is not legitimate for the Executive of the day, which happens to be a Liberal Executive, to use His Majesty's forces in any way they consider legitimate to maintain order and security in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, and that is what I mean by saying that we are coming to a dangerous position. What I think is forgotten is that there has never been, perhaps for 200 years or 300 years, more dangers of the storm of civil war than at present. Does this House think that the people are so content that they fear a change? Are there not many hundreds of thousands of people who would be prepared to see any change as a change for the better? We in this House, who represent very largely, I am afraid, one class, are inclined to think that because we are more or less content with the world, and do not want to change, everybody outside holds this same view. I am afraid we are running a profound risk if that is our view, and what we feel is that this talk of force and of civil war falls not in Ireland only, but in this country also, on ground which is dangerously mined with discontent. I do not want to say anything unnecessarily controversial, but this point strikes some of us on this side very strongly. Our constituents have amazed some of us by the fierceness of their anger in this controversy. I think I might say, truthfully, they have frightened some of us. I beg hon. Members to believe that it is not our Front Bench that leads us on, but it is we that have to push that bench on, and if we take a more extreme view than right hon. Gentlemen on our Front Bench, I beg hon. Members to believe that those who sent us here take a still more extreme view, and that is the terrible peril of the present situation. I may be wrong, but I have been shocked at the fierceness that one finds amongst the British people to-day. I am told that it is still fiercer in the North. That is the real evil of the present situation. It is that situation which has brought about all the great catastrophes of the past. It is not the particular point we differ upon, but the method of our differing. As long as we differ along constitutional lines, we differ upon safe lines—that is to say, there is a feeling that whatever party is in power it is a party pledged to law and order. If the people of this country get into their mind that we who sit-to-day in the majority were driven out, not by constitutional methods, not by argument or vote, but by the use of force, I believe that will bring about the greatest catastrophe this country has ever seen for 300 years. That is the danger which I suggest is in all our minds. It is supposed to be a terrible thing to say that if force is used it will be met by force, but the terrible thing about all these great controversies is that once force is used you cannot tell to what it is going to grow on either side. It is because I feel this risk so strongly that I made a speech on the spur of the moment the other day about the Army. It is really idle to suggest that any man in this country is against the Army as an Army. If hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen choose to say that all Radicals are against the Army, it will be a pity, and it will be more serious for the Army than for the Radical party. What we feel is that however strong and genuine the passions may be of portions of our population on the great controversies of the day, it is our duty here, sitting as the supreme ruling power of the nation, to do all we can to minimise those passions and not to add to them, or drive them into acts of physical violence. It is because I firmly believe that the Government in any steps they took had this, and this only, in their mind, that I shall vote against this Resolution. My last word is, let us not believe that if once force starts we in this House will be able to control that force. Any of us I suppose in the present condition of affairs could, if we put our mind to it, light a fire in the great blast furnace of this country, but if we do the molten metal that comes out will be moulded by far fiercer hands than ours, and to-day we are not only discussing the perilous position in Ulster, perilous though it may be, but we are discussing the perilous position in which this old country, the centre of the British Empire, stands. I pray and I believe, after the speech I have listened to from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we are a great deal nearer peace than we were a few days ago. All of us, I believe, will not allow a few bitter men, a few men whose tongues are as reckless as their experience is small, to lead us away from our solemn duty in this matter. We can settle this question, or else British statesmanship is bankrupt, and I believe that this question can be settled in a way which will be entirely honourable to both great sides of this controversy.After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), who spoke from the point of view of Ulster in this controversy, and after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), a speech which moved me more than I have ever been moved before by any speech in this House, I should have been very glad to leave our case where it has been left by them. But that is impossible, and I shall endeavour as best I can to deal with the only speech which so far has been made from the Government Benches, namely, that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, which was comprehensive enough. That speech was divided, as the House will remember, into three completely watertight compartments. The first part of it pointed out the crime of the Opposition, and gave a disinterested lecture to the Leader of the Opposition. The second part, which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London had forgotten, because it was so brief, dealt with the Motion which is now before the House, and the third part was that in which the right hon. Gentleman made a suggestion which at least pointed in the way of peace. It came, I must say, in an incongruous setting. Perhaps that was part of the necessity of the case if the subject was to be raised at all. It came in an incongruous setting, but in whatever setting it comes, as the speeches from this Bench show, we are ready to welcome it, and give it a fair and honest consideration.
A portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealt with our shortcomings, and in particular with my own backsliding. That is not a novel exercise for the mental agility of the right hon. Gentleman. I remember, I think it was two years ago, at the close of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman disturbed the beginnings of a holiday by writing two letters "to my dear Sir George Ritchie," and so far as I can remember they contained in substance the whole of his lecture yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman accounted for all my actions, and perhaps I may commend this to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who spoke about strong language. He accounted for all my actions upon the ground of my hunger for office. That is the explanation which would naturally occur to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a simple explanation, and it may be the correct one, but I do not think so. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say—and if this had been true. I should have felt it more—that in the short time I had been the Leader of our party in this House I had destroyed their traditions, as I understood by my action mainly in regard to this question, which had been made by generations of leaders of our party. IF the right hon. Gentleman really holds this view, he shows an extraordinary ignorance of the political history of this country during the Home Rule controversy of 1886 and 1893. At that time every one of the prominent leaders of our party used in regard to this question language quite as strong, quite as clear, and quite as deserving of being classed as exciting to Ulster as any language which has been used by me. Such language was used by all the prominent leaders of our party. It was used for instance by the Duke of Devonshire and the Duke of Argyle, both of whom had been members of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet. It was used by Lord Randolph Churchill and by Lord Salisbury, and as the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City showed this afternoon, it was used also by him during that controversy. I shall only quote one speech, and I take that of a man who was generally regarded as most courteous in what he said, and whose weight in this country was largely due to the confidence people had in his wisdom and foresight. The Duke of Devonshire used these words:—If such language was excusable then, it is infinitely more justifiable now for this reason. At that time the Home Rule Bill could not be in force until there had been an appeal to the people of this country. The position is different now. The people of Ulster are being driven, as they think, out of a community with which they are satisfied. They are being made by force—at least that is their view—to do what is equivalent to changing their religion, and that is being done at a time when these people believe, and as I think they have a right to believe, that it is done clearly without the express sanction, and even done against the will of the majority of the people whose representatives are sent to this House. That is not representative or constitutional Government. It may be done in the form of law, but in essence it is as lawless as anything that has ever been done by any body of men in any country. Does not every hon. Member of the House realise that on this question we have got to a condition which really destroys all the guiding principles on which society generally rests. We are in the kind of position which, as ray right hon. Friend said this afternoon, only happens at intervals of centuries in a country when the ordinary rules have broken down. We have been in a similar position before in this country. We were in such a position at the time of the American War of Independence, and everything that is now being said about us, about our lawlessness, and about our preaching sedition, was at that time said with equal force, and in almost the same words in regard to the first Pitt, and to those who acted with him on that question. In the House of Commons, for instance, Pitt used these words:—"If, after weighing the character of the Government which it is sought to impose on thorn, they resolved that they are no longer bound to obey a law which does not give them equal and just protection with their follow subjects, who can say, how, at all events, can descendants of those who resisted James II. say, that they have hot the right if they think tit to resist, if they think they have the power, the imposition of a Government put upon them by force."
What was the reply of the Government of the day? The Attorney-General, who was very different from the right hon. Gentleman who fills that post in the present Government, cried out:—"Now if, as I assert. Parliament cannot tax America without her consent, the original contract, with the Colonies is broken, and they have the right to resist."
This is the account by the biographer of Pitt of what took place:—"My blood runs cold. The Gentleman sounds the trumpet of rebellion, for which he should he send to another place."
The conditions are not dissimilar. They were accused, as we are, of encouraging lawlessness, and what has been the verdict of history? On the whole, I think, that verdict is that the men who were accused of sedition were right, and that those who accused them were wrong, and I at least believe, I honestly believe, that if events are forced to the worst the verdict not only of history, but of our contemporaries will be that the responsibility does not rest upon us, but upon those who accuse us of lawlessness and sedition. The Debate to-day especially has had a note of seriousness which the facts justify. I confess that I am frightened—it is not too strong a word—by the position in which we stand to-day. It is not, I hope, fear of anything that can happen either to myself or to our party; it is a fear of what may happen to our country. Under such circumstances we are bound to look all round every question. Take the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, for instance. A great part of it was taken up on this theme: "Unless the people of Ulster do something, we will do nothing to them." That is the point of view, that it is a great thing to find out who is tie first aggressor, of which I have seen many instances in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, and which seems to fill a largo part of his mind. It is, really, to my mind, a very shallow view. If you bring things to such a condition that violence is likely to happen, who can foretell in what way it will first break out, and who can apportion the blame. To think that you can make it all right for yourself if the first blood is that of a coastguardsman, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman, is a very mistaken idea. I happened to remember that Hallam, in dealing with our Civil War, had considered the question as to who was responsible for beginning it, and I turned up the book, and I found that this is what he said:—"'Send me, if you dare,' in effect, retorted Pitt, and Lord North collapsed."
We may differ about that, but the point that I am wishing to make now is that it is really a small matter who strikes the first blow, and that if violence comes the judgment, both of our countrymen and of our posterity, will be directed not against those who first were guilty of it, but against those who made it inevitable. A great deal has been said—it has been the topic of all the interruptions and of many of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite—about the episode in Ulster on Friday last. It was, of course, illegal. But what is the lesson, if we are serious, we ought to draw from it? The easy and the obvious lesson, and the lesson which I know is being impressed upon the Prime Minister by the Radical Press and by many, and perhaps, the majority of his own followers, is that the law has been flouted and that he must at all costs put it down. Very well, precisely the same view was taken when the tea was destroyed in Boston Harbour. Lord North, in the House of Commons, used words to the same effect, though they were not so well expressed as those which were used by the Prime Minister the other day, and the House of Commons backed him up enthusiastically, but that did not alter the situation. It did not make Lord North and his Government right, and it did not save this nation from a great calamity. I really think, deplorable as it is, that there is another lesson to be drawn from it. I think it shows in a way which is utterly unmistakable that this movement in Ulster is not the work of my right hon. Friend as he himself has said this afternoon; it shows in a way that no one can mistake the unanimity and the determination of these people. I think it shows that. Does not that teach this lesson? The Prime Minister, in previous Debates, has often said, "How can you draw the distinction and say when an outbreak is civil war and when it is mere violence to be put down by force?" With the knowledge that the Government now have it is at least certain—I do not think anyone will doubt it—that if the Ulster volunteers are to be put down by force it will mean civil war, and nothing less than civil war. It may be possible to do that, though I am not sure that it will be very easy, for I do ask the House to remember that it is not merely a question of Ulster. When the hon. Gentleman who spoke last spoke about the whole country being in indignation about something or other he forgot that at least half the nation in my view would sympathise with Ulster. Is it not obvious, if half the nation were against the Government—as they would be there—that it would not be possible for us to engage in a foreign war? And how in the world do you think you can carry to a successful issue a civil war under such conditions? I think that there is a higher lesson. The natural feeling of any man in the position of the head of this or any Government would be that what has happened is an insult not only to him, but to the position that he occupies. But there is a higher law. I think it really ought to teach the Government this lesson, that at the time they introduced this Home Rule Bill they entirely misunderstood the reality and the intensity of the hostility of Ulster, and that the knowledge of that hostility and the intensity of it is a good ground and would not be a sign of weakness for asking them to reconsider the policy on which they have embarked. Take, for instance, as an illustration, what happened at the time of Majuba. I think that it is a very good illustration. The Boers declared that they would resist the doing away with their independence. Mr. Gladstone paid no attention to their threats. They took up arms and they defeated our troops. Then Mr. Gladstone gave them what they asked. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, very nearly so. He met them, at all events, in a very different way. There is plenty of matter about which we can differ, and ought to differ, but it is no use differing about that. He met them in a very different spirit. Why? Mr. Gladstone never doubted, and nobody doubted, the power of Great Britain to put down the Boer, but what he felt was that the fact that they were willing, and had shown themselves willing, to risk their lives showed that he was wrong in his policy, and he gave way. I am not sure that he was not right. At all events, it is an old controversy, and I am not going into it. At any rate, from his point of view he was right, but would it not have been wiser to have met the claims before there had been bloodshed and before defeat? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did!"] What I suggest now is that it was wisdom, not only for the Government, but for this House to recognise the fact, to realise the position, and to meet it before and not after blood had been shed. That, in my view, is the higher law. In my view, it is now the clear duty of the Prime Minister, who has a responsibility in this matter which no one envies him, and which nobody can share with him, to recognise now that the calamity with which we are faced is so awful that some way of peace at any cost must be found; and I can only say this, and I say it with all earnestness and with all sincerity, that if he does seek for peace, we on this side will do everything in our power to make a peaceful solution possible. The second part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the Motion which is now before the House. That Motion, as the House knows, gives as one of the reasons for demanding an inquiry, that we have not been able to extract the facts from the Government. I am willing to say this, that the last part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was so important that if the temperature of the whole House is not changed, mine has, and I should have been glad if it had been possible to leave this side of the question out altogether. The House, however, and I am sure hon. Members in all parts of it will recognise that is impossible. And all that I can do—and this I shall do if I can—is to make the case with as little bitterness as is compatible with the nature of the charges. Our charge against the Government is this: We say that they contemplated something in Ulster entirely different from what they had admitted. They decided, rightly I think for good reasons, not to go on with it, and having abandoned their plan they had to choose between telling the House exactly what they had intended, and concealing from the House what their intentions were. In my opinion they decided to conceal it from the House, and as a result of that attempt there has been an amount of suppression of what is true, and of suggestion of what is false, of which there has rarely been such an instance in our lifetime. It is necessary for me to give some illustrations, for I must attempt to prove the charge. I do not think I shall give all I have before me; they are not exhaustive, they are all those that have occurred to myself, and which my own memory supplies me with, and I only wish to say this about them—indeed, it was said by my right hon. Friend who moved the Resolution—that we do not say that the Minister who makes the statements which are misleading is himself responsible for misleading the House of Commons with regard to these matters. Our charge is against the Government, and everyone of these cases, in my opinion, is a case which is not merely an accidental error, but probably every one of them is a case where the point of view put before the House was necessary to make good the case which the Government were then presenting to the country. The first of these which I shall take—I have referred to it before in this House-is the statement of the Prime Minister to the "Times" on the Sunday. These are his words:—"The aggressor in a war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary."
Two days later the First Lord of the Admiralty, in answer to a question, said:"As for the so-called naval movements, they simply consisted in the use of two small cruisers to convey a detachment of troops to Carrickfergus, without the necessity of marching them through the streets of Belfast,"
I do not understand even now how these two statements can be reconciled. In an interruption made by the Prime Minister, when I first referred to this matter, he said that the naval movement referred to the movement of ships used for conveying troops. There is not a word in the paraphrase nor in the context to suggest that that is the meaning to be attached to these words. Then the suggestion has been made that this Battle Squadron, with the attendant ships, was something quite distinct from the other naval movement. This is the fact, as was shown by the answer to a question given by the First Lord of the Admiralty. I have it here if anyone wishes me to read it. The First Lord, in describing the naval movements, showed that all the orders were given on the same day and at the same time. How, then, is it possible for us to believe that they were not in connection with the same events? Then, in addition to that, as I understand, there is another explanation. It is that the movement of the Battle Squadron had nothing to do with the precautionary measures which were alone in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I do not recognise, and I do not think any of us do, the distinction between precautionary and other measures. We do not recognise it, but, even taken literally, that explanation does not stand examination. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in a speech on the 25th March, said:—"It was decided that the naval force, comprising a Battle Squadron, with attendant vessels, should be stationed at Lamlash, which is a convenient and usual station, where they would be in proximity to the coast of Ireland in case of serious disorders arising."
And he added:—"The squadron was allowed to hold on its course, steadily, so long as it was not certain whether the movements would he effected."
If it had no connection with precautionary measures, how in the world could it be a reason for countermanding it—that the precautionary movement had been satisfactorily carried out? On this incident I shall only repeat what I have said before in this House, that I hope the Prime Minister has some explanation to give of this discrepancy. If he does not explain it, this at least must be evident to every Member of the House, that he must indeed have been in a terrible strait when he took action so inconsistent as, I believe, not only with his position, but with his character. The next of these instances—I am passing over some of them—to which I shall refer has reference to the two White Papers which have been supplied to the House."As soon as it was clear that there was no serious opposition, and that the movements had been safely conducted, my right hon. Friend countermanded it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1914, col. 503, Vol. LX.]
May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman and ask whether he is going to pursue and substantiate another charge which he has made against me in connection with this communication to the "Times"—another deliberate charge of misstatement in regard to asking questions of the officers?
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes.
I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to do so?
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, but I have not got the statement here. May I look at it?
I will give it to the right hon. Gentleman [handing over paper].
7.0 P.M.
Here is the paragraph:—
I shall repeat, as far as I can remember, exactly what I said on that subject in the' House before. It was this: It is quite true that, taken literally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I said before that was the charge (I am not saying anything fresh), it is exactly what I said before—it is quite true that these words, taken literally, are true, but take them in connection with the context—the right hon. Gentleman says there is "a widespread impression" in connection with the events at the Curragh and elsewhere. What was that impression created by? Not by what was going to happen in the future, but by what had happened. Anyone who knew what had occurred and who read that paragraph would say the intention was to give the impression that there had been no such inquisition. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I did not leave that out because I was afraid to repeat what I had said before, and the House, I think, can judge that I had no such intention. The next inaccuracy to which I shall refer is in connection with the two White Papers supplied to the House. I shall venture to put this to the House: that if we had no other argument in our favour the difference between these Papers was in itself a justification for the demand for an inquiry which we have made. When the first Paper was supplied we were told that it contained everything relevant. I shall give words to justify that statement. The Prime Minister said this:—"The right hon. Gentleman says the third matter for misapprehension is to some extent the result of the second one. It concerns the recent action of officers of the Army at the Curragh and elsewhere. There is a wide-spread impression abroad that the Government contemplate instituting a general inquisition into the intentions of officers in the event of their being asked to take up arms against Ulster."
"All the facts"!—"The House will then be in possession of all the facts so far as they are contained in writing."
That was the first White Paper. The Home Secretary made it still more definite. He said:—"And any supplementary statement which has to be made with regard to oral matters will of course be given."
"No communications, dispatches, communications, or telegraphic messages." That was dealt with by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) yesterday, and the Home Secretary got up to defend it. The question which was put by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) was perfectly definite and referred to the whole matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The defence of the Home Secretary was not what his hon. Friends think, but it was that the supplementary question arose out of the original question, which only had to deal with the officers. I will take it at that. It shows the difficulty of defending yourself when you have got into a false position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite feel the difficulty. It shows the difficulty when you get into a false position. That defence at least admitted that everything connected with the resignations had been given, but if the House will turn to the second White Paper they will find that three most important documents directly dealing with the resignations are included in it. The next of these illustrations has reference to the verbal orders given to General Paget The Prime Minister said in regard to them:—"There are no written communications or dispatches or telegraphic messages relating to the matters in question which have not been produced."
Then the Home Secretary said that the instructions were the same; "there was no variation." I heard the Prime Minister give this answer to a question on the 22nd April:—"Then General Paget went back He had been instructed to do nothing, absolutely nothing, beyond carrying out these modest, but necessary, operations described in the letter of the 14th March."
There was no variation, yet here we have additions admitted, and, what is certain, there must have been other instructions of which we know nothing now. When otherwise was the authority given to General Paget to have this inquisition of officers? We do not know, and I think it is certain that it was given at that time. Why is it that we have never been allowed to know exactly what these instructions were? I do not want to go over this in any detail. [Interruption.] I think I have given enough, but I will give one more, since hon. Gentlemen opposite are not satisfied, or more than one if they like. It has a reference to the statements made in this House by the First Lord of the Admiralty and by Lord Morley in another place. I shall give the exact words, without adding any comment. The First Lord of the Admiralty said, in regard to the peccant paragraphs:—"The written instructions given to Sir Arthur Paget in the letter of the 14th March were orally supplemented by directions to safeguard Dundalk, where there were three batteries without escort, and by the authority given to him by my right hon. Friend to grant exemption to domiciled officers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1914, col. 923.]
Lord Morley said:—"Lord Morley never revised or examined these paragraphs or took any decision upon them."
Anyone, upon whatever side he sits and however bitter his party feelings may be, who has followed not these illustrations I have given, but the whole course of the controversy across the floor of the House, will feel that the only explanation of the inconsistent utterances of Ministers was given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald). What he said showed that he believed in the modest operations just as little as I do. His words were these:—"I made one or two very slight alterations not in the least affecting the tenor."
that is ours—"Is their accusation"
I leave it there. Now I come to what is, after all, more important than particular differences of statement—I come to the story which the Government themselves told. It really is a story which is incredible, and which I do not think is believed by any Member of the House in whatever quarter he sits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not think it will be difficult to prove that. It was proved up to the hilt by the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty yesterday. His whole speech, if he will allow me to say so, consisted of a double defence. The first was, "We did not do it"; and the second, "If we did, we were quite right in doing it"; and the second line of defence was the one which filled by far the larger part of his speech. Take the facts as he stated them. He told us, and it will not be denied by him, that these movements of forces by the Government were made as the result of the Debate in this House when my right hon. Friend and myself had refused a generous offer made by the Government. How could that affect the defending of defenceless stores? What has that got to do with defending stores? He went much further than that. The right hon. Gentleman said that our action showed that the real issue, raised not merely by ourselves but by the people of Ulster, was not the rights of Ulster, but that what we were doing was trying to prevent the carrying out of Liberal principles. He said—I am not quoting his exact words, but if I am wrong I am sure he will correct me—the question was not whether the Government would bully Ulster, but whether Ulster would bully the Government. That was his justification for the action he took. How could they prevent Ulster from bullying the Government by defending a few defenceless stores? Is not the whole case of the Government as defined by him based on what happened in this House. Is not their case that they then took action to prevent themselves from being browbeaten by Ulster, which they would not have taken but for our action in this House. Is that the truth? How is it consistent with the small movements for the protection of stores? If you want another proof that the story in its first form is incredible, look at the mystery with which everything is carried out. Why were no written instructions given to General Paget, and why has the right hon. Gentleman persistently refused to allow General Paget to give to the House and the country an account of the instructions which he received from Cabinet Ministers in London? It is contrary to the whole spirit of the War Office and to everything which is done in the War Office. An hon. Friend has sent me these extracts from the "Field Service Regulations." I will read two of them:—"against the Government that the Government really were taking precautions to maintain law and order in Ireland, but for purposes of expediency said they were only protecting stores? Is that the amount of the untruth that the Government is guilty of? If it is, if any untruth is justified, that untruth is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1914, col. 1607.]
The other paragraph says:—"The principles in this Manual have been evolved by experience. They are to be regarded by all ranks as authoritative, for their violation in the past has often been followed by mishap, if not by disaster,"
Why were these orders not confirmed in writing? If you want an additional proof of mystery, look at what happened in regard to the naval officers sent both to Dublin and Belfast. They were told they were to go in plain clothes. As my Noble Friend (Lord Charles Beresford) has pointed out, that is against the King's Regulations when they are on duty. Why was it done? I can imagine some reason for it in Belfast, but why in Dublin? The "Firedrake" came there to be of service to the Commander-in-Chief in certain eventualities. The vessel was lying there, but the officer in command had to go ashore in plain clothes. People saw the vessel, but they were not to see the officer in uniform. There is no difficulty in deciding from whose quiver that kind of arrow comes. It is melodrama, and it is suited to the Napoleonic genius of the Commander when he filled another office at the siege operations at Sidney Street. I must, of course—I should in any circumstances—give the Prime Minister full time to reply, and I shall only give one other indication of what makes it really impossible to accept the first story told by the Government. I refer to the appointment of General Macready as Military Governor of Belfast. Let the House remember that General Macready was appointed, and that he was ready to be in Belfast on Monday. But that was not soon enough. A substitute must be sent to be there on the Saturday, and a substitute was sent. What right had the Government to take that course at all I have never been able to understand. [HON. MEMBERS: "What right?"] Yes, what right? Governments are subject to the law as well as individuals. The right hon. Gentleman himself has laid down in my hearing more than once this definition of the law: That the military is only to be used in civil disturbances on the requisition of the civil authorities. Then why does he appoint a military governor who is to supersede the civil authorities in the control of the police? More than that, the military authorities cannot act as a rule—I believe it is universal—without the authority of a magistrate. What does the Government do? In order that there should be no difficulty and no delay they put the whole authority into the hands of a military officer and they make him a magistrate, so that he may himself give himself authority to use force if he thinks fit. I listened the other day to a Debate in this House on the Army (Annual) Bill, when an Amendment had been moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie). What was the substance of it? That the military ought not to be used on the requisition of a single magistrate, but that there ought to be at least three magistrates. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was in industrial strife."] Only in industrial strife? I do not think the hon. Member, who I do not see in his place, took that line. He said they should not use the military on the requisition of one magistrate only, but that there ought to be three. They are quite pleased when it comes to using force against the democracy of Belfast—[HON. MEMBERS: "Armed rebels!"]—that it should not be a question of three magistrates, but a question of making a nominal magistrate in order that the military may have absolute authority. I say without hesitation that a step of that kind would not have been taken unless something more was meant than has been admitted by the Government. I am sorry that the nature of the speech I feel it necessary to make has made it very difficult for me to refer at all to the suggestion at the end of the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty. Perhaps it is not necessary to say anything except this: that I identify myself in every way with everything that was said on that subject both by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). What we are thinking of really is not whether the best solution, or the solution which would most commend itself to us, can be got. What we are thinking of is finding any tolerable way out of an impossible position. As regards the suggestion about federalism or devolution, I can only say that it is not a subject which I have thoroughly studied. I doubt if anyone has. I do not profess to know what the difficulties are or how they are to be overcome. But this is not a question of principle at all; it is a question of expediency, and a question of good working within the United Kingdom, and we shall be perfectly ready and anxious to consider any proposal of that kind, and to consider it all the more anxiously and with all the more desire to find a solution through it, if it means an end of the present position in Ireland. I have only one thing more to say. I think the position is very serious. I think the Government feel that also. I do not think there is much time to be lost. If the Prime Minister believes that it is in the interest of the country that there should be a renewal of conversations with the leaders of our party—I do not suggest it to him—but if he is of that opinion, I say this to the House and to him: This is no time for personal considerations to come in at all, and if for any reason the right hon. Gentleman prefers to have negotiations either with Lord Lansdowne or with my right hon. Friend whom he met before, no feeling of wounded amour propre will stand in the way, but I shall gladly welcome such a proposal."Orders issued by the higher commanders will normally be prepared in writing. When orders, reports or messages are for any reason issued verbally or sent by signal, they will be confirmed in writing whenever it is practicable to do so."
The right hon. Gentleman had no occasion to apologise for the comparative acerbity of the middle part of his speech, because I can assure him that as we listened to him we felt no resentment and no anxiety, but a certain sense of mild surprise at having been invited here to meet a charge of plotting with sinister, and, I might say, fiendish, ingenuity to provoke the people of Ulster to revolt, and, as far as some of us, and I myself am particularly concerned, having deliberately deceived the House of Commons by a false statement, it was, I will not say with a feeling of relief, for I have never felt any necessity to be relieved in the matter, but with a feeling of satisfaction that we learned from the right hon. Gentleman, the authorised exponent of the case of the Opposition, its flimsy and contemptible character. This Motion purports to ask for a full and impartial inquiry. An inquiry by whom? We have not heard a word in the course of this Debate to suggest the body which is to undertake this task, which is apparently to call before it Cabinet Ministers, generals, colonels, and naval officers, to require from them the most confidential communications which they have had under the seal of official secrecy and of personal confidence. Some strange, undefined, unknown body is to be set up to which these great powers are to be entrusted, as every man opposite knows, to the infinite detriment and ruin of the discipline of the great Services of the State. And what is it to inquire into? A mare's-nest.
What is this "plot"? I was amused by the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuous statement that the whole demand for this inquiry rests upon the assumption that the Government contemplated or intended something in Ulster different from what they have avowed. They believe that, or, at least, they suspect that. I give them credit for believing it, though their standards of evidence are not very exacting. They suspect it, and I dare say the bulk of them believe it; and because they suspect it, because as these Debates have shown, Gentlemen endowed with an unusual stock of credulity believe it, this figment, which never existed in the world at all, is to become the subject of a solemn, judicial investigation. What are the grounds upon which this extraordinary demand is preferred? There are two. First of all, that we have withheld information from the House, and next that we have given the House misleading information. First of all, as regards the withholding of information, I can speak with some authority on this matter. I suppose I have answered, since I returned to the House after my re-election, some 500 questions with regard to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answered?"] I answered every one of them. What is very remarkable is that in the catalogue—the shorter catalogue—the right hon. Gentleman told us he had other things in reserve, but I have no doubt he selected the most conspicuous instances of misdoing—which the right hon. Gentleman read out to us—of misleading statements. I do not think I find one which is founded on an answer of mine to any one of those 500 questions. The day before yesterday I had to answer a hundred questions. To-day I had to answer something over fifty. In fact, the time-honoured and ancient practice of the House of question and answer—a most desirable practice, but a practice which, as these latter days show, is capable of abuse—has been perverted and degraded in a manner reminiscent of the worst traditions of the Old Bailey, and it reminded me more than once of the saying of an eminent Scottish judge when counsel who appeared before him apologised for the length of the cross-examination which he had been undertaking, and said, "I hope it was not too long." The judge replied, "Sir, it exhausted time and encroached upon eternity." Having gone through that experience, I hope with as much good temper as the conditions allowed, I want to give fair notice, which I now do, with all respect to the House, that after to-morrow I shall answer no further questions of any sort or kind on this subject. I say tomorrow because I see some that some hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walter Long), have some questions down. So much for the refusal of the Government to give information. Now as to the charge that the information given was misleading, and in some cases false. I will deal more particularly with the chief charges, personal to myself, which are to be found, by the way, not in a statement made to this House, but in a statement made to the Press, not that I suggest that a different standard of veracity ought to be applied according to the persons to whom communications are addressed. I made that statement to the Press—a thing I very rarely do, and which I do not think I have ever done since I have been a Minister—in very exceptional circumstances. It was on a Sunday. There was a great deal of excitement and very wild rumours were current. It was suggested, for instance, that there were 200 warrants either prepared or issued for the arrest of the leading members of the Ulster Volunteers and their party—a pure fiction which never entered into the mind of anyone—and that a general inquisition was going to be addressed to the officers of the Army to ascertain whether or not they were prepared to do their duty, and there were many other rumours of a still wilder character afloat. I thought it my duty under the circumstances to make the communication which I did, and two points in it only have been singled out by the right hon. Gentleman for adverse comment. The first is as regards the naval movements, and the second is as regards the inquisition of the officers. If anyone will read that statement he will see that my observation in regard to naval movements—the context makes it perfectly clear—had reference to what had been going on in and about Ireland during the last few days. It begins:—And, secondly, as to the so-called naval movements, they were confined to two cruisers, and I agree I ought to have added—I forgot it, I take all the blame for it, and stand in a white sheet—a torpedo-destroyer. That is perfectly true, and it is the whole truth. What is it suggested that I ought to have said that I did not say? It is suggested that I ought to have given some account of what has been done in relation to the Battle Squadron which had been ordered from Arosa Bay to proceed ultimately, not to Ireland, but to Lamlash, on the West coast of Scotland, where it would have been within convenient and easy distance of the North-East coast of Ireland in the event of serious disturbance at any time arising. The Cabinet ordered the movement of that squadron—I think it was on 11th March—that is, nine or ten days before these transactions—and it left entirely in the discretion of the Admiralty the time and manner in which it should be carried out. The precautionary movements in regard to the protection of the stores had not then been decided upon. They were not decided upon, and certainly not finally settled till something like a week later. They were entirely independent of one another. It was never contemplated or intended at any time that this Battle Squadron should have anything whatever to do with these operations. When my right hon. Friend ordered the Battle Squadron to move, which he did in his own discretion quite properly, but without communicating it to me—there was no necessity to do so—it could not possibly have reached even Lamlash, which was its destination, until two, if not three days after these precautionary movements were over, when such a course would have been belated and altogether out of place. The Vice-Admiral was ordered to report himself in London on Monday morning, the operations having been carried on on Friday night or early on Saturday morning. I heard for the first time that the Admiralty had actually ordered the movement of this Battle Squadron on Saturday morning. There was already considerable excitement in consequence of the events which had taken place on the previous night at the Curragh, and I suggested to my right hon. Friend that in the circumstances it would be desirable that these operations should be perfectly peacefully carried through; but my main reason, I admit, was to allay further excitement. I suggested to my right hon. Friend that in view of the state of public anxiety and apprehension which these inflamed and exaggerated rumours had produced, it would be desirable to postpone for a time and to countermand the movement of the ships. They were a very long distance away from the Southern coast of England at that time, and they could not have reached the scene of operations if they had gone at full speed ahead. However, the movements had been countermanded on the Saturday, and I made this statement on the Sunday night, and the statement was the strict truth. Why was I not to confine myself to the strict truth? So much for that."In the first place it should be understood that the movements of troops which had been recorded during the last few days were purely of a precautionary character."
Did you know about the destroyers?
I did not know about the destroyers. The hon. Gentleman put to me a question the next day or the day after, and I said I did not know anything about them, and I did not. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, though it is not an important point, I will explain it. The order authorised by the Cabinet was the movement of the Battle Squadron. I said nothing whatever about the torpedo flotilla. My right hon. Friend quite rightly, in the exercise of his own discretion, thought it right also to send these eight destroyers to accompany them or to join them when they reached Lamlash. I was not aware of that until some days later, and when I said in the House that I knew nothing about the destroyers I was telling the exact truth. Now as to the other charge. This is really, I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree, a charge that he ought never to have made. It has not a shadow of plausibility about it. What I said was this:—
That is a statement which is true in the letter and in the spirit. The statement was made on Sunday, 22nd March. The Government never did contemplate anything of the kind. At the moment I said it, as was pointed out by the writer in the "Times," we still did not know what had taken place at the Curragh. The writer in the "Times" said:—"The third misapprehension is to some extent the result of the second. It concerns the recent action of officers of the Army at the Curragh and elsewhere. There is a widespread impression abroad that the Government contemplate instituting a general inquisition into the intentions of officers in the event of their being asked to take up arms against Ulster. No such action is intended, if only for the reason that the employment of troops against Ulster is a contingency which the Government hope may never arise."
In the first place my statement related to, and related only to, what was in contemplation as to what might happen or have been done, and in the next place it is perfectly true as regards the past just as much as regards the future. The Government never did contemplate, the Government never authorised, the Government never would have allowed to be put any such questions to any officers at any time. So much for these two charges which have been brought against me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Oh, they will not be withdrawn. I do not care whether they are withdrawn or not. The other discrepancies, or alleged discrepancies, which the right hon. Gentleman put, relate to minor matters, and I pass, if I may, for a moment or two to the plot itself—the actual, or rather the imaginary, plot. It is one of the absurdest stories that have ever been recorded in the annals of mankind. Let the House observe, in the first instance, the probabilities. We had just made—I had just made on behalf of the Government an offer which went far beyond anything we had ever contemplated before. It was regarded by our Friends then, and is regarded by many of our Friends now, as stretching almost to the breaking point the powers of concession. I had just deliberately made on behalf of the Government, two days before this so-called plot was hatched, an offer for the optional exclusion of the Ulster counties for a period of six years. Of course, it is quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Chamberlain), who, I think, showed his usual large-mindedness in his speech last night, to say:—"On the subject of the officers immediately concerned—namely General Rough and his subordinates—Mr. Asquith declined for the present to make any statement. … So far the Government had heard only one side of the question and were awaiting the arrival of Sir Arthur Paget, who was expected in London last night."
That is what he said."But you made the offer knowing it would be rejected. It was not a sincere offer."
indicated assent.
He may think so. I tell him the contrary. It was a sincere offer. It was made in the hope that it would be accepted. It was made in the belief, at any rate, that it might be accepted. Whether you believe me about that or not—in these sceptical days perhaps you do not—it was an offer, at any rate, which had been put forward on the full responsibility of the Government on the floor of this House for acceptance or rejection by our political opponents, and of course, it was all-important that that offer should be discussed, and its ultimate acceptance or rejection determined, as far as possible, in a cool, calm, unirritated atmosphere.
And then the First Lord of the Admiralty made his Bradford speech.
My right hon. Friend does not need any defence from me. I think the Bradford speech has been very much misrepresented. I am asking a House of sensible men, supposing some of us, at any rate, to be neither fools nor knaves—a large draft, perhaps, on their imagination—I am asking the House to consider whether, having deliberately put an offer of that kind on the Table of the House of Commons, the first thing—because this is the theory—that this Cabinet of wiseacres proceeded to do was to engineer a plot for the provocation of Ulster, which would lead, which was intended to lead, and which was certainly calculated to lead, the people of that province to open violence and resistance, in order, forsooth, I suppose, that our offer might have a better chance of acceptance. Was there ever such a wild invention? What we did was this: We had information. I think it began as far back as the month of December and it had been accumulating. We had information that there were dotted about in Ulster in those places, the names of which are now so familiar, stores of Government arms and ammunition very imperfectly protected, and which were at the mercy of any raiding party, and we came to the conclusion that that was a state of things we could not safely allow to continue. Accordingly, instructions were sent to General Paget, which appear in this White Paper in the letter of 14th March. General Paget did not agree with us. He was afraid that the sending of even a small force, which would be necessary for the adequate protection of these depots, would have, or might have, a provocative effect, and might lead possibly to disorder, and to disorder of even a serious kind in Ulster. He preferred the plan which he submitted to us as an alternative for the removal of the ammunition and stores, and withdrawing them to some safe place. It was because of that difference of opinion that General Paget was summoned to London, and also that he might enter into consultation with the Government upon the many large and difficult questions which arose, or which might arise, in view of the military situation in Ireland, both in Ulster and elsewhere. We appointed a small Committee of the Cabinet, consisting partly of the heads of the Naval and Military Departments, partly of lawyers, and partly of persons experienced in Irish administration, to confer with General Paget, both in regard to this particular measure and in regard to the general situation ins Ulster—not only with General Paget, but with Sir John French, General Ewart, General Macready and the officials at the War Office. The result was that the original opinion of the Cabinet prevailed. The depots were ordered to be protected, and the only variation from the original plan was that there was added to the places which needed protection Dundalk, where there were three batteries of Artillery which were entirely unprotected by Infantry. The only other further measure which was resolved upon, and which General Paget was instructed to carry out, was the removal of a battalion from the Victoria Barracks in Belfast to Holywood, because the military authorities were of opinion that in the event of disturbances the position of those barracks was one which was not very desirable for the soldiers to occupy.
That was the whole thing. General Paget took with him to Ireland, so far as the movement of troops was concerned, those instructions and those instructions only. I am not, of course, referring now to the conversation he had, I think, on the night of his departure with my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for War, when the question was raised as to whether officers domiciled in Ulster should not be exampted from service. As I have said in the course of these conferences and consultations—at only one of which I was present; that makes no difference, because I do not sever myself in any way from my colleagues—we undoubtedly discussed with General Paget the general military situation. What fools we should have been if we had not done so. He was of opinion that these small precautionary operations might not improbably lead to disturbance, an opinion we did not share, because we were advised by our Civil advisers in Ireland that that was not likely to be the case, and we were right as it turned out. They were carried out with the greatest case and without any disturbance of any sort or kind. But General Paget did entertain this apprehension, and nobody who is familiar, as we were, with the condition of Ireland at that time, with the existence of this large army well drilled, well organised, not altogether badly armed, in the shape of the Ulster Volunteers, and the growth side by side with it of another army, which I believe is growing day by day and week by week, I mean the army of the Nationalist Volunteers—having these facts in view, and having regard to all the possible contingencies which the future held in store, I say we should have been wanting in our duty to the King and country if we had not most carefully gone over the ground and conferred with these gallant officers as to what steps in certain contingencies it might or might not be advisable to take. That is the full extent of the plot. "Oh," says the right hon. Gentleman, assuming the rôle of an amateur detective, "why this mystery? Why were instructions given to General Paget orally and not in writing?" He produced, owing to some collaboration, I suppose, of some military Gentlemen behind him, the Field Regulations. What has this got to do with the Field Regulations? The Secretary of State and the Army Council consult with a General. How do they come under the Field Regulations? There is a still more suspicious circumstance which has been attributed—but I am afraid that he has not the credit of it—to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. Two naval officers, not one, but actually two, were allowed to land—one I think at Dublin—in plain clothes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ordered!"] They were actually ordered to land in plain clothes. What is the inference to be drawn from that? I do not know. Nor does the right hon. Gentleman, except that it is part and parcel of that kind of melodramatic mystery with which sinister conspirators always surround their movements. Then, again—I will do the right hon. Gentleman the justice to say that the point was made by the right hon. Gentleman who sits beside him—what were the places to which these precautionary movements of troops were to be directed? Omagh, Armagh, Enniskillen, and Carrickfergus—strategic points! That is exactly what they are not. I remember very well the only time I have ever discussed the matter at one of these conferences, someone taking the point. He said, "If this is a strategic movement, this is ridiculous." Why? Because you were dispersing small bodies of troops at distances in no way connected with one another, where they would be exposed to attack, and could not concentrate in support of one another. From a strategic point of view it was most ridiculous. If we had had motives of strategy behind our movements, the last thing we would have done would have been to take these precautionary movements. That is the whole story of the plot. This is seriously put forward as an indictment against His Majesty's Government by an Opposition, one of whose leaders, the principal, declared in this House not long ago, in the hearing of not a few of us, that in his opinion, in certain contingencies, it would not only be the right, but it would be the duty of officers to disobey their orders.I do not know if it is worth correcting, but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what I said. What I said was that it was right for officers to do their duty, and at the time I said it I knew that they had been given the option of dismissal or of doing something which they thought against their consciences, and I said that they did their duty in preferring dismissal.
These are the words of the right hon. Gentleman spoken on the 23rd March:—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]"The House knows that we on this side have from the first held the view that to coerce Ulster is an operation which no Government tinder existing conditions has a right to ask the Army to undertake"—
"And in our view, of course, it is not necessary to say that any officer who refuses is only fulfilling his duty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, l914, cols. 77 and 78.]
What I said was that any officer who refused was doing his duty, but in that very Debate, I think, at all events I knew, that it had been made clear that the option of dismissal had been given.
There is the record. I cannot go beyond that. Another leading Member of the Opposition—I do not think I see him at the moment on that bench—has also, told us—and my right hon. Friend quoted him last night—that if strategic positions had been sought to be occupied by His Majesty's troops, their occupation would have been forcibly resisted by the Ulster Volunteers. So much for their leaders! And may I not say am I calumniating them when I say that during the last few days the bulk of them at any rate, I hope not all of them, have been regarding with complacency, if not with admiration, a piratical adventure—I do not want to rate it too high—which at any rate involved the holding up and temporary imprisonment of His Majesty's officers and servants who were trying to do their duty? An Opposition of such antecedents, recent antecedents, has never presented a flimsier case against a responsible Government. In the circumstances it is not only unfounded, but I think reflects a certain amount of shame on those who present it. At any rate, I shall ask the House of Commons to dismiss it with the contempt which it deserves.
This Debate will be remembered not so much for the exposure of this myth of a plot which never existed, and which therefore never miscarried, as for the speeches which we have heard this afternoon from the right bon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, which may prove to be landmarks in the history of this controversy. It was impossible for any of us, even those who like myself have been for nearly thirty years strenuously opposed to the right hon. Gentleman—I am speaking now of the Member for the City of London—to listen to the concluding passages of his speech without lively emotion. I have certainly never heard in this House a more remarkable or in some ways a more touching and appealing avowal. But what it amounts to is this. The right hon. Gentleman—not, I hope, Hearing the end of his political career, having I think for more than the life time of a generation been engaged in the party arena, and having during the whole of that time been perhaps the most strenuous and consistent, and I will add, the most formidable antagonist to Home Rule—is constrained to admit that forces which none of us can control have been or threaten to be strong enough not to alter his convictions in any way, but to make him recognise that Home Rule in some shape or other has become inevitable.dissented.
If I am reading too much into the right hon. Gentleman's speech I am sorry. At any rate, if it did not go as far as that it struck this note. The right hon. Gentleman no longer looks forward with the hopefulness, the optimism, and the confidence which had characterised his attitude in the past to further resistance. I do not want to put it too far, but that in itself was a very significant fact. Then we had an equally remarkable speech from the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. Let me say at once—and here I come in contact with some of the concluding observations of the Leader of the Opposition—that I do not think that the road to settlement in this matter, which I am as anxious to pursue now as I ever have been at any stage of the controversy, will be successfully pursued by what I may call Parliamentary bargaining across the floor of the House of Commons. The conditions of the case are too delicate. The difficulties which have to be kept in view are too complicated. And it must always be observed, and I am sure it will be recognised by everybody and by the friends of settlement most of all, that for the purposes of settlement you must bring everybody in. It is no good, as we all admit, trying to settle this question behind the back of the men of Ulster for whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks. It is equally no good trying to settle it behind the back of the men of the rest of Ireland. Any settlement come to must be a settlement which will be, I will not say hearty, it may be grudging and reluctant; but it must be accepted with sincerity by all the parties concerned.
8.0 P.M. I understood the general strain of the right hon. Gentleman's observations on this point to be this: He still held the view that Ulster, or, at any rate, certain parts of Ulster, ought to be excluded until the Imperial Parliament brings them in. As regards the rest of Ireland, much as he objects to it—for he, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City, has not in any way withdrawn his objection to a Home Rule Parliament being set up—he went on to say, as I understood him, he will correct me if I am wrong, that he hoped, and I was very glad to hear him say so—he did not say believed, but he hoped—that that experiment, grave as were his apprehensions as to its success, might succeed, and, if it did succeed, it would have, and must necessarily have an attractive power over Ulster in the excluded area. With regard to the other aspect of the matter, that which is usually called federation—a convenient term, though I have often pointed out a very inadequate one to describe the problem, but so long as we mean the same thing by the term it does not matter very much—as regards federation, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University repeated the declaration he made at Manchester—which I welcomed at the time and acquiesced in, for I followed him immediately in that city—that he was not opposed to it, and if, and when, and as to what is called federation came to be applied to the United Kingdom, he would not regard it as impossible, far from impossible, that Ireland as a whole should be treated in that system as an integral unit. Of course, that would satisfy the test which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in his Manchester speech, and which he repeated here to-night, that the real objection of the people of Ulster to be represented was that against their will they were being, what he calls, transferred from the authority of this Parliament, while a similar process was not being applied to other parts of the United Kingdom. I think I am right in saying that. I take note of those statements. I think they are very important. It is quite obvious that there is a good deal to be supplied before we can approach anything in the nature of a settlement. The right hon. Gentleman, purposely no doubt, perhaps discreetly, was indefinite in point of time, which is a very important matter; and he was indefinite also in regard to his own efforts, actual or prospective, to bring about such a system of federation, with the result that Ireland might be in it and under it treated as one united body. There are obviously a number of other questions which might be put. I shall, therefore, and I think I am right in doing so, say no more upon the details of the right hon. Gentleman's speech than this—that
Division No. 86.]
| AYES.
| [8.5 p.m.
|
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham |
| Amery, L. C. M. S. | Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Boyton, James | Courthope, George Loyd |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) |
| Archer-Shee, Major M. | Bridgeman, William Clive | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Bull, Sir William James | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) |
| Astor, Waldorf | Burdett-Coutts, W. | Craik, Sir Henry |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Burgoyne, Alan Hughes | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian. |
| Baker, Sir Randoll L. (Dorset, N.) | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Croft, H. P. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Butcher, John George | Currie, George W. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London) | Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Dalrymple, Viscount |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) |
| Banner, Sir John S. Harmood- | Campion, W. R. | Denison-Pender, J. C. |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Denniss, E. R. B. |
| Barlow, Montagu (Salford, South) | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott |
| Barnston, Harry | Cassel, Felix | Dixon, C. H. |
| Barrie, H. T. | Castlereagh, Viscount | Du Cros, Arthur Philip |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Cator, John | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Cautley, Henry Strother | Duncannon, Viscount |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Cave, George | Du Pre, W. Baring |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Faber, George Denison (Clapham) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Cecil, Lord R. (Herts., Hitchin) | Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.) |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Falle, Bertram Godfray |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r., E.) | Fell, Arthur |
| Bigland, Alfred | Chambers, James | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey |
| Bird, Alfred | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert |
| Blair, Reginald | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
| Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue | Clyde, J. Avon | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. |
I fully recognise its spirit. I think it was a speech which was intended to help and not to hinder a settlement. That spirit we entirely reciprocate. I cannot and will not say more than I have often said before: The Government have made an offer in this matter which they believe to be reasonable and fair, and which is still open. I have never closed the door, and I never will close the door until I am compelled by absolute force of circumstances to do so, to any means of arriving at a settlement in this matter, provided that it satisfies the condition that it meets with the assent, the honest and sincere assent, of those who are mainly interested, Irishmen both upon one side and upon the other, and of the two great political parties in the State. No other terms can possibly be satisfactory in this matter, and I assure the House that I pray to Heaven that we may be able to arrive at such a settlement.
Question put, "That, in view of the serious nature of the naval and military movements recently contemplated by the Government against Ulster, of the incompleteness and inaccuracy in material points of the statements made by Ministers, and of the continued failure of the Government to deal frankly with the situation, this House is of opinion that there should be a full and impartial inquiry into all the circumstances."
The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 344.
| Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen) |
| Fleming, Valentine | Larmor, Sir J. | Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Forster, Henry William | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Foster, Philip Staveley | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Lewisham, Viscount | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Gibbs, George Abraham | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Sandys, G. J. |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Sassoon, Sir Philip |
| Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Goldman, C. S. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. | Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Long, Rt. Hon. Walter | Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pool, Walton) |
| Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Stanler, Beville |
| Grant, J. A. | Mackinder, Halford J. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Greene, Walter Raymond | Macmaster, Donald | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Gretton, John | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.) | Malcolm, Ian | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Stewart, Gershom |
| Haddock, George Bahr | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Swift, Rigby |
| Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Moore, William | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) | Mount, William Arthur | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Neville, Reginald J. N. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Harris, Henry Percy | Newdegate, F. A. | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Newman, John R. P. | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Helmsley, Viscount | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Walker, Colonel William Hall |
| Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.) | Nield, Herbert | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) | Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Watson, Hon. W. |
| Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Weigall, Captain A. G. |
| Hills, John Waller | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Hoare, S. J. G. | Parkes, Ebenezer | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Peto, Basil Edward | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) | Pole-Carew, Sir R. | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.) |
| Horner, Andrew Long | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading) |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S.W.) |
| Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | Winterton, Earl |
| Hunt, Rowland | Quilter, Sir William Eley C. | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Ratcliff, R. F. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Worthington Evans, L. |
| Jackson, Sir John | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart. |
| Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.) | Rees, Sir J. D. | Wright, Henry Fitzherbert |
| Jessel, Captain H. M. | Remnant, James Farquharson | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Yerburgh, Robert A. |
| Kerry, Earl of | Rolleston, Sir John | Younger, Sir George |
| Keswick, Henry | Ronaldshay, Earl of | |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Rothschild, Lionel de | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Royds, Edmund | Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease. |
NOES.
| ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Barton, William | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Beale, Sir William Phipson | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) |
| Adamson, William | Beck, Arthur Cecil | Chancellor, Henry George |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets. St. George) | Chapple, Dr. William Allen |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Bentham, George Jackson | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bethell, Sir J. H. | Clancy, John Joseph |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Black, Arthur W. | Clough, William |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Boland, John Pius | Clynes, John R. |
| Alden, Percy | Booth, Frederick Handel | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) | Bowerman, Charles W. | Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. |
| Armitage, Robert | Brace, William | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Arnold, Sydney | Brady, Patrick Joseph | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Brocklehurst, William B. | Cotton, William Francis |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Brunner, John F. L. | Cowan, W. H. |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Bryce, J. Annan | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O. | Crooks, William |
| Barnes, George N. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Crumley, Patrick |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs) | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Cullinan, John |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Byles, Sir William Pollard | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) | O'Shee, James John |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Jowett, Frederick William | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| De Forest, Baron | Joyce, Michael | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Delany, William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Kelly, Edward | Parry, Thomas H. |
| Devlin, Joseph | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. | Kenyon, Barnet | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H. | Kilbride, Denis | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Dillon, John | King, Joseph | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry | Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton) |
| Doris, William | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Lardner, James C. R. | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Law, Hugh, A. (Donegal, West) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Pratt, J. W. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Leach, Charles | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Levy, Sir Maurice | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Logan, John William | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Falconer, James | Lundon, Thomas | Radford, George Heynes |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lyell, Charles Henry | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Fanwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Field, William | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | McGhee, Richard | Reddy, Michael |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Maclean, Donald | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| France, Gerald Ashburner | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E |
| Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson | Macpherson, James Ian | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Richards, Thomas |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Gill, A. H. | M'Curdy, C. A. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Ginnell, Laurence | M'Kean, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) |
| Glanville, Harold James | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Goldstone, Frank | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Robertson John M. (Tyneside) |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Manfield, Harry | Robinson, Sidney |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Martin, Joseph | Rowlands, James |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Hackett, John | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton) | Middlebrook, William | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Hancock, John George | Millar, James Duncan | Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Molloy, Michael | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Sheehy, David |
| Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Mooney, John J. | Shortt, Edward |
| Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Morgan, George Hay | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Morrell, Philip | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morison, Hector | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Hayward, Evan | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Muldcon, John | Snowden, Philip |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Murphy, Martin J. | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert |
| Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen) | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Henry, Sir Charles | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West |
| Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Needham, Christopher T. | Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Hewart, Gordon | Neilson, Francis | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Hinds, John | Nolan, Joseph | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Norman, Sir Henry | Tennant, Harold John |
| Hodge, John | Norton, Captain Cecil William | Thomas, James Henry |
| Hogge, James Myles | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Holmes, Daniel Turner | Nuttall, Harry | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Doherty, Philip | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | O'Donnell, Thomas | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| John, Edward Thomas | O'Dowd, John | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Johnson, William | Ogden, Fred | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Wardle, George J. |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Waring, Walter |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Malley, William | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Wason, Ht. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wiles, Thomas | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wilkie, Alexander | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Watt, Henry Anderson | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Webb, H. | Williams, John (Glamorgan) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | Yeo, Alfred William |
| White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) | Young, William (Perthshire, East) |
| White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Williamson, Sir Archibald | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Whitehouse, John Howard | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | |
| Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
Ownership Of Land
I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, a large extension of the public ownership of land is urgently called for, and that the powers of land acquisition which are at present possessed by the State and by local authorities are inadequate and ought to be increased; that such authorities should have a general power to acquire (either by agreement or by compulsion) and to hold any land which they may consider necessary; and power to use such land for afforestation, reclamation, allotments and small holdings, housing, town-planning, open spaces, public improvements, or such other purposes as they may from time to time be authorsied to carry out; that such powers should extend to the acquisition of land for prospective, and not merely for present, needs; and that, in ascertaining the purchase price of such land, the basis taken should be the valuation made for the purpose of taxation."
I do so with a view to proving to the House, if I can, that private ownership of land cannot adequately fulfil the needs of the present stage of the civilisation of this country, but that it requires at least to be supplemented by a large measure of public ownership of land. I think it is tolerably evident, even if we suppose that under private ownership all the land is put to the best uses, that that means the best uses in the interests of the owners themselves, which are by no means necessarily the best uses in the interests of the community. Public ownership, one may hope, would give us the best use of the land in the interests of the community. This public ownership of land is very far indeed from a new idea—quite the reverse. It is and always has been, at any rate since the Norman Conquest, the theory of the law of this country. I could quote Blackstone and other authorities to prove that there is in this realm no owner of land except the King, the Crown as representing the community. The so-called owners of land are merely tenants under the Crown, even though they be tenants of an estate of inheritance. Nor is it only a matter of theory, for formerly, at any rate, it was a very practical fact, this public ownership of land by the country as represented by the Crown. The tenants, in fact, paid all the expenses of the nation, including all military, expenses, either in rent or in services, and as tenants of the land they paid that rent and those services to the Crown as representing the real owners of the land. If we think of it, I think we should agree that this is a most natural arrangement—I mean that the land should be recognised as the property not of individuals, but of the whole community, whatever arrangements may be made for the best cultivation and best use of the land, for, as a matter of fact, the land as distinct from the improvements upon the land is the gift of nature. The origin of private property is very properly supposed to be the fact that so-and-so created it or, rather, added to it the utilities it possesses; but that is not so with regard to the land. No man did make, and nobody can make, the land. It is the gift of nature to the whole of those inhabiting the country, and the law of equal liberty is violated if one man or a few men monopolise that land to the exclusion of the rest of the community. Therefore, I say it is the most natural, the only natural, arrangement that the land should be regarded as the public property of the whole community. The tenants who held it under the community and paid rent and rendered services to the community have gradually shuffled off practically the whole of those rents and servants, and the tenants have managed to convert themselves into, as they are now commonly called, the owners of the land. The vast majority of our people have become thereby landless men, or, at any rate, they have less, and very much less, land than their share. For the most part they are absolutely landless, absolutely disinherited of their share in the common gift of nature to the community. This is no trifle and no mere theory; on the contrary, I believe those who have studied most carefully the social problems of our day consider that the monopolising of the land, with the evil conditions which arise from it, is the gravest of the causes of the evils in this country, both directly and indirectly. As to its direct effect on the well-being and poverty of the people, what is the share from which the landless people are excluded? What is it they are deprived of? There are some 77,000,000 acres of land in the United Kingdom, and there are about 9,000,000 families, so that there is a little over 8 acres of land for each family. That is the share of the land which naturally belongs to every family in this United Kingdom. I know, of course, that some of it is waste land, but there is, on the other hand, land of enormous value in our great cities which naturally forms part of the inheritance. Therefore, you may say that 8 acres is the inheritance, the natural share of each family in the common inheritance which is the gift of nature. If you try to put it into money value, it is, of course, extremely difficult to ascertain, because there are no exact figures. But for the United Kingdom, taking the unimproved value of the land—taking the city values due to the presence of population and manufactures, and the value of the agricultural land—I went into the figures pretty carefully some years ago, and came to the conclusion that somewhere between £2,500,000,000 and £3,600,000,000 is the capital value of the land of the country, the pure land value as distinguished from the value of the improvements upon it. That represents an estate of about £300 or £400 in value per family. Therefore we may fairly say that by this gradual monopolising of land in private hands, the disinherited or landless families of the country have each been deprived of an estate worth from £300 to £400 or a matter of from £11 to £15 a year. This is the wrong directly done to the landless families of the country, and I venture to say that restitution, and some considerable measure of restitution, is due to them. This, I think, is to a large extent the justification of the expenditure by the State and the community upon social reform at the present time. But I will not delay over the theory of the matter. After all, as practical men what we have to ask ourselves is not so much in regard to the theory, but whether the present land system works well. The evils which arise from it are very practical and very easily traced. The evil effects may be traced most easily in two parts—in the towns and in the country. If you take the country you will find that the great majority of the people are divorced from the land without which neither they nor anyone else can live. They are therefore dependent upon those who have land—the owners and the farmers. From this arise very naturally and immediately the low wages which are at present the disgrace of our rural districts, and which react upon and keep down wages in the towns. If a man had the alternative of working for himself on the land instead of working for the farmer, it is quite clear that he would not be inclined to take such low wages. If you look at new countries where the land is readily accessible, you will see that wages are uniformly much higher than they are here. I will not say that there are no other causes contributing to that, but I do say that the accessibility of the land is one of the most important. In England, before the inclosures, the labouring classes had access to the land in a minor degree, and their position, according to the rough standards of that time, was much superior to the position of the mere agricultural labourer of to-day. In England, where at the present time there are alternatives to that of working for the farmers, for instance, work in the mines, or on allotments or small holdings, you will find the tendency is for wages to be very much higher. We may prove the effect on wages most easily by the fact that farmers for the most part are furiously opposed to anything that tends to allow the labouring class to get access to the land. The reason is that they think it will make the men too independent and able to demand too much wages. What would be the position in our agricultural districts if every family had its fail share of land, its estate of 8 acres, and had had that for a good many generations. Besides low wages, I need not waste many words in showing that bad housing is directly attributable to the landless condition of our people. Moreover, when we turn from the country to the towns, we find even worse evils equally easily traceable to the land system. We find people driven from the country because, although there is plenty of land only half cultivated, under the present system they cannot get access to it; wages in the towns are beaten down, and the housing accommodation is overcrowded. People who come in have been accustomed to a very low standard, they have low wages, and they cannot pay for good houses; the consequence is that houses are overcrowded. There is worse than that. The fact that people come into the towns and industries are developed causes the value of land in the towns to go up, and that very fact causes the number of houses upon each acre of land to be increased very much beyond the healthy figure. If you have land at £240 an acre, you can afford to put only ten houses to the acre, and a man pays 6d. a week for his garden. That is what it works out at. If the land is worth £500 an acre you must put more houses upon it, because a man cannot afford to pay 1s. for his garden. If the land goes up to £1,000 an acre it means 2s. a week for the garden, if there are only ten houses to the acre. Therefore, the very coming of the people, the very industry of the people, and the enterprise of the manufacturers puts up the price of the land to such a point that houses are crowded together to save expense, and people suffer from the unhealthiness which is produced from a large number of houses being crowded upon the acre of land. In addition, there results an immense abstraction of wealth from the people who create it. The ground rents in our cities do not represent any services rendered by those who receive them, in so far as they are real ground rents and not payments for improvements effected by the owners. In London, I believe, it was calculated by Lord Haldane some years ago that £16,000,000 per annum was taken for ground rents, and that that sum was increasing—I am speaking from memory—by £300,000 per annum. Recently the value of the ground rents within the county council area has not risen in proportion, perhaps not at all, but just outside that area, where the people are more and more going to live, the increase in value is still going on at an enormous rate. Therefore we can. say, in regard to London as a whole, that year by year a larger sum is being abstracted from the people simply for the privilege of carrying on their work in that particular position. For the United Kingdom it is estimated that from £100,000,000 to £136,000,000 per annum is taken for the rent of land alone, representing from £11 to £15 per family. If all this land were public property, all these ground values would go, as they should according to natural justice, into the pockets of the community. I will not give the House many instances, but I could show that in India and in Germany a great part of the public revenues are derived from land. I would, however, point out that there are in England and Wales ninety towns deriving substantial revenues from land and houses belonging to themselves. Doncaster, which was mentioned in this House the other day, gets so much revenue from its land that it has very low rates. Liverpool derives £100,000 a year from an estate which it purchased some centuries ago. Nottingham, I believe, derives £30,000 a year from its land; Bristol, £24,000; Leicester, £10,000; Swansea, £9,000; and so on. There are two small towns in Cornwall, Bodmin and Penrhyn, which pay the whole of their expenses out of the value of their lands, and the same is true of a little village, Cheddleton, in Staffordshire. There are also the Crown estates bringing in a very considerable sum to the nation. If all the land had been public, we should be getting into the public pocket each year this £100,000,000 or £136,000,000, which now passes into private pockets. But that is by no means all. We have to get that which is more important—that is, control of the land. We have not been able to control the land in the interests of the whole community. As an example of the advantages of such public control I may quote the Small Holdings Act. Since it came into operation in this country, we know what difficulty there has been in getting it to work in most of the counties of England. The county councils, even when they had good will in the matter, have had to go hunting about the county getting a little bit of land here and a little bit of land there, and the expense and trouble has been intolerable. I know, because I myself have been on one of the county council committees. In the case of the Crown estates there was no difficulty, for within two and a half years about 3,000 acres out of a total of 63,000 were obtained for the purpose of small holdings and without any dispossession of existing tenants, simply by cutting up the farms when they happened to fall in. In the same way, if the town land was the property of the town, we should have open spaces and houses properly laid out with gardens. I know from experience of Letchworth that, although these things may perhaps seem extravagant, although to embellish a place with open spaces might seem to throw away a valuable piece of land, it is not really so. If you have an area in the hands of the community, or a trustee for a community, you get the value back—even the mere money value back—in the value of other land in other parts of the town. I therefore ask the House to say that there is good ground why we should retrace our steps, at any rate to some considerable extent, from private ownership to public ownership of land. I do not ask the House to say pedantically that we are to go in for universal public ownership in this country. That will probably be a long time hence. But I do ask the House to say that we must, to a considerable extent, supplement our private ownership of land by a very much larger measure than we at present have of public ownership. How is this to be done? I do not propose for one minute that this should be done by confiscation, either directly by the taking of the land or indirectly by the process of taxation. Taxing reform and rating reform are highly important, and I have nothing to say against them so long as they are carried out—I do not like to use the word that I was going to use—but if they are carried out I will put it in this way—with due regard to the honourable interests of property of all sorts. The idea of taxing out, it seems to me, is entirely unjust as between one kind of property and another. I have said that in nature land is the property of the whole community. That is perfectly true. But we have to remember that for generations that has been gradually ceasing to be a fact in this country, and the community has allowed private interests of a most varied and ramified character in land to grow up, so that all sorts of people and all sorts of institutions have an interest in the land. Much personal property has been derived from real property. Land has been exchanged for money and money for land. Men who have earned their money in industries, good, bad, or indifferent, have bought land, and the people who had the land had taken the money and transferred it into industry. If you put the whole burden of rectifying what I have called the disinheritance of the whole people, upon land you will, in my opinion, cause a very great amount of injustice to people who happen at the present moment to be the holders of the land. As far as it is necessary for property to make sacrifices in putting right this wrong treatment. I think that those sacrifices should be honourably contributed to by all classes of property. In other words, I propose that we should proceed by the fair purchase of land, and that the money for the fair purchase should be provided partly by taxation and partly in the ordinary way by borrowing the money. I should like to see the Crown making great efforts to purchase land, but I am not going into that side of the question at any length to-night. There are far more matters than I can possibly deal with in my time. The Crown, nevertheless, has a great scope before it for buying land for afforestation and reclamation, and I think it will probably rest with the Crown to buy land in the future for new centres of industry and residence, for what are called garden cities, where, say, a new port is to be opened, a new naval base made, where a railway junction is to be created, or where a new coalfield is to be opened. If the Crown does not do it, I know of no other authority, or individual, or combination of individuals, that can do it. I turn more especially to local authorities. What is the position of local authorities, of town and county councils at the present time with regard to the acquisition of land? They are absolutely prohibited from acquiring or holding any land, under the Statute of Mortmain. They cannot even buy land by voluntary purchase, and even if it is given to them they must sell it again. If land is given by will to a corporation it must be sold within one year. That is the general law on the matter, a law which was, of course, directed against the Church; but it still applies to corporations as to land, though subject to some exceptions. The exceptions are that corporations may be specially authorised to hold land for special purposes. In some ancient Charters some corporations have certain powers given to them for acquiring and holding land. They might have a private Act of Parliament authorising them to acquire them to hold certain land. There are also certain general Acts giving Corporations powers to hold land, but these powers are given in a very niggardly and restrictive way, and are limited to lands for parks, free libraries, allotments, etc. Perhaps the most extensive powers that have been given to corporations to acquire land are under the Small Holdings Act. I believe about 150,000 acres have been acquired and purchased under those Small Holdings Acts. We want to reverse that general principle of our law—the principle that corporations must not acquire or hold land. We want to give them the general power to purchase and to acquire land, either to get it by gift or to buy it by agreement, or, if necessary, to get it by compulsion—at a fair price. I am not going over all the ground which has been rather bitterly contested in regard to the excessive prices paid for land. I think there is no doubt that there have been very excessive prices habitually paid for land when it has been wanted by public bodies; that the cost of arbitration under the Land Clauses Act, expert witnesses, arbitrators and all the rest of it, with the 10 per cent. given for compulsory purchase—nobody exactly knows why—amounts to a most serious and unfair tax upon the local authorities that wish to purchase land. The procedure under the Small Holdings Act of a single valuer is better, and under the Town Planning Act there is a very important power for towns to purchase land. What we really want is some better principle for arriving at a fair price, and I suggest to the House that the way to get at a fair price is to base the price upon the value of land as ascertained for the purposes of taxation. Surely land has not two values. Here is a piece of land, and when the tax collector comes round it is worth so much, but the next day when the agent of the municipality wants to buy it, is it to have a different value? If the value under the present valuation system is not fair it should be made fair, but I believe it is on the whole fair. We want the value as taken for the purposes of taxation made the basis of the price of the land, which is to be purchased by the public authority. I say the basis, for it is quite clear it can only be the basis. You may have considerable changes in the value since the valuation was made. You may be taking away half a man's land, or there may be other forms of special damage. These things must be taken into account by somebody, and I suggest it should be taken into account by a judicial commissioner belonging to the Land Department which we need so badly: a person with judicial office, who will take as a basis the valuation and see if any allowances are to be made outside that valuation. I think it is quite clear from what I have said what kind of use I want public authorities to make of this land when they have purchased it, and I especially suggest that our towns should go to the outskirts of their areas and purchase land which is about to become town land, and about to be built upon. We have gone on for many years pretending we do not know whether our towns are going to grow or not, and letting everything go on in a blind way. If we think for one minute we will see that towns have grown enormously in the last two generations, and that everything points to their continuing to grow. We should allow our municipalities power to go to the outskirts of their areas, or even a little outside that, and purchase land which can be got now at or near agricultural value, and which when they have got it they can develop by putting down roads, and sewers, and waterworks, and electricity, and trams, and thereby do what is done in German towns where they get enormous profit out of the development of the land that they have purchased on the outskirts of their towns. I am not going into other questions such as the rural question. My ideas on that will appear from what I have said of the evils we have suffered. I ask the House to accept this Resolution. I believe what I have suggested follows to a considerable extent on the same lines as the Government's proposals—those proposals put before us so eloquently in several speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in one great speech, at any rate, by the Prime Minister in the last twelve months. I am not asking the House, to endorse any theoretic matter I put forward at the beginning, or the idea that all land in this country or in any other country must necessarily be public property. But I am asking the House to accept my Resolution and to give local authorities much wider powers to acquire land upon fair terms for the benefit of their communities.The Mover of the Resolution now before the House has dealt effectively and adequately with a subject to which he has given a life service, and I rise to second this Motion, because I, too, have for a long time taken a deep and continued interest in the study of the question of Land Reform. I may be permitted to remind the House that some two years ago, I had the honour of presenting to the House a Bill for the acquisition of land by local government authorities, and that that Bill embodied the same idea as is now within the confines of this Resolution. I only mention that tonight in order to tell the House what followed from the introduction of that Bill. I received about two hundred resolutions from the councils of county boroughs and urban authorities warmly commending the proposals of that Bill, and I can assure hon. Members here to-night that that was not a mere party endorsement. Indeed, so far as local government areas are concerned this question has almost ceased to be an acute party question, and many of the municipalities that supported my proposal were of a distinctly Conservative colour. The present powers of those authorities are miserably inadequate; not only that, but when they are ready to acquire land the transaction is surrounded by all the galling restriction that a Government Department can enforce. They are not allowed to hold land. They are not allowed to anticipate the most obvious necessities of the near future. It is only when they are actually driven to erect all necessary improvements that they can come into the market and buy, and they are obliged to specify the use of the land that they are about to acquire. They are forbidden to look ahead, and who is so well able as the governing authority of a town to anticipate what the near future may have in its hands.
The councils and boroughs may have before their very eyes the near coming of the most obvious necessity for which they need to purchase land. They may see rising within their confines, or just outside, a new population, due to one cause or another, and they may know that that increasing population may bring in its train certain needs. They know that schools will be required, that recreation grounds ought to be established, and all those things that ought to be done to make corporate life decent and respectable. Knowing these things, why should they not be allowed to anticipate their requirements? It would be economical to allow them to do so, and would hurt nobody. If they were allowed to come in and buy their land in time no doubt there would be plenty of land to be had at prices that would be reasonable, but we compel them to wait until the very pinch of necessity is upon them, and how often it happens in the development of a town that before the municipality can come in and buy, the most suitable and central plots are gone for ever, and the prices at which they must purchase are considerably enhanced. The consequence of that is, that they are driven to purchasing in the dearest market, and, consequently, they buy as little land as possible. That is not the way in which great businesses are conducted, and the government of a great town surely is a great business enterprise, and it is one in the service of which we ought to try and enlist the best work and the greatest enthusiasm of our most capable and leading citizens. And yet when they are elected to these local bodies, we shackle them with all sorts of difficulties, instead of giving them freedom. We deny to those who run our municipal business two of the most essential powers that all successful business undertakings must possess, namely, the power of organising and the power of foresight. There are many capable and successful business men who are Members of this House. If there are any present to-night, I ask them whether they are prepared to say that, whatever success their businesses may have attained, could have been attained had they been denied the power of organisation and foresight? I put a question on the Paper a short time ago to inquire if I could get information as to how much land the great municipal boroughs of this country held in their keeping. The answer I got was very brief, and it was, "There is no information on the point,"—that is to say, the whole thing is a matter of great indifference. 9.0 P.M. It is not so in Germany. There you can get all the figures, and the German Governments, both local and central, are proud of the figures they are able to put forward. If you take the thirteen greatest German towns with an aggregate population of 4,600,000, you will find that they own no less than 300,000 acres—that is to say, that the thirteen most important towns in Germany hold land to the extent of one acre for every fifteen of their population. It is a very remarkable thing to notice that of this land no less than 70 per cent. of it lies just outside the adminstrative areas of the municipalities. In Germany the Government departments, instead of hindering and impeding municipalities in the acquirement of land, are always urging and pressing upon them the necessity of buying up land as fast as it comes into the market. Take the town of Cologne. That town possesses land worth no less than £3,000,000. The Mover of this Resolution referred to the need and necessity of buying, in respect of growing towns at any rate, the outlaying belt of land around the city, and I believe that it is the most important thing a town could do with confidence. As my hon. Friend has said, in all probability a great profit would accrue to the municipality from the purchase of this kind of land in years to come. I think the profit would be very considerable indeed. In speaking to this Motion, I am not thinking so much of more profit as of more civilisation. I am not thinking so much of lower rates as of higher lives. If our councils could buy cheap land, if they were allowed to buy land while it is reasonable in price, I think they should try to keep a good deal of that land at a reasonable cheapness for the better living of the poorer people in the towns. We are becoming more and more a town-dwelling people. It may be that tendencies are arising, or about to arise, that will to some extent divert the people from the towns to the country, and I hope that will be the case. At the present time, however, the bulk of our population dwell within the confines of the towns, and I believe that the question of spreading out the growing population of our towns over a wider area is one which perhaps transcends all other political questions of to-day, and the regulation and the location of the dwelling-places of the people and their industry is one which is worthy of receiving the immediate attention of the highest statesmanship. It will be a very slow and a very costly thing to reform and set right the grievous mistakes of the past. We see them in every town of this country, and they are lamentable indeed. I hope at no distant date we shall take some steps to remedy these mistakes, and secure that they will not be repeated in the future. I would like to suggest that if it were enacted that municipalities could acquire land, that part of the profit on any land accruing from such a transaction should be earmarked for the demolition of the worst slums within the area of the town. We are very fond of saying that we are governed by certain laws which we call economic laws, which certainly do affect men's lives, and it is very strange how often these laws seem as if they had been invented to spite the poor. It seems a most outrageous thing that a necessity so inevitable as that of occupying a space of earth should cost the lightest to the richest and be the heaviest to the poor. It is not really a law, but it is a rule invented by perversity and the indifference of man and Governments. I believe this rule could be broken. I believe that by a better system of dealing with land, by placing more confidence in those who govern our towns, this rule could be changed. Success for the improvement of our towns depends, to my mind, on the ownership in part, at any rate, by the community of the land on which the citizens of the community reside. They can only get possession of this land while it is cheap. If they can do that and get plenty of it, and keep on buying more and more as opportunity occurs, I think then, and then only, will there be a hope for better things for the dwellers in our cities and our towns.I find myself in sympathy with a large part of this Motion, and certainly I feel myself also in sympathy with the very reasonable speech in which the Mover has proposed this Resolution. First of all, I would ask why cannot our corporations now possess land. The reason is a curious and an absurd one. It is because there exist upon our Statute Book old laws of mortmain, which were enacted for laudable purposes which have long ceased to exist. The mortmain laws were enacted for this reason: It was not good for the community that the land should get into the hands of corporate bodies. The land is never sold; it is taken out of the market, and it does not form a part of the land which is there for commercial purposes. It is held up by the dead hands of the corporation, and there it rests. For that reason, and that reason alone, our corporations now cannot hold land. I agree with a great deal of this Motion, but I do not think that you can regard the problem in the town and in the country as being the same. I notice that the Mover almost entirely, and that the Seconder entirely, dealt with the town problem. Still, the Motion does refer to the rural problem, and to the need for the acquisition of land by the State for purposes of allotments and small holdings and afforestation. Therefore, we must consider it in the terms in which it is on the Paper.
A great deal of mischief is done by confusing the rural and the urban problem. I submit that they are entirely different, and, speaking for myself, as far as the country is concerned, I want to see occupying ownerships—ownership by the man who farms the land. I think that is right, for the reason that in the country you have permanent conditions. If you look at agriculture, you see that things are more or less stable. You see that the farm unit has not changed for centuries and will not change in the future, and so, as far as the country is concerned, I do not think that public ownership is right. You had far better press for ownership by the occupier. I do not think that the present system of small holdings is good, because you thereby take away from the small holder all those imaginative and spiritual appeals which are involved in ownership. Although you may say that he gets security, he does not get ownership, and it is ownership he wants. When you come to the town, you find a totally different state of conditions prevail. In the town you have changing conditions, and you want the municipality to have control of its destiny; you want them to control the land in their area. Therefore, whereas in the country you have more or less a stable condition of things, in the town you have change. Anybody can see it for himself. If he casts his mind back, he will see that in the last thirty or forty years London has changed completely. The conditions that apply to the country do not, therefore, apply to the town. I quite agree with the Mover that the town ought to control its own destiny, and for that purpose it must have, if not the ownership of land, the control of more than the land on which the town stands now, for most towns are extending, and it ought to control the future as well as the present. The exact system that ought to apply is a matter for debate. I do not believe that the system of individual ownership which obtains in the country is really the best for the town. In the first place, the leasehold system in our towns is not a good one. No one really defends it. It is not really fair to the tenant or to the merchant. It puts too great a power in the hands of the landlord. It is really a very bad system, and is one that sprung up against the interest of the community. But I do not think that you meet your object by saying that all leaseholders are to be turned into freeholders. I do not think that leasehold enfranchisement is an answer, for the simple reason that when you come to consider the corporation of the town you have to give them certain overriding advantages. The corporation is more important than the individual, and a series of smallholders in a town would make improvements even more hard than they are now. All hon. Gentlemen in this House who have been concerned in their local affairs and in town improvements know very well that one landlord is much better to deal with than a series of small landowners. Therefore, I do not think that a series of small owners in the town is to be desired. I want to give the town the right to acquire land for the purposes of improvement, housing, and open spaces, and to acquire that land at a fair price, and yet meet the fair claim of the owners of the land and of all the people who live in the area, and who make business there, and may eventually be bought out. I am not sure that the best way is to allow the corporation to buy the land. More mistakes are made in buying land than in buying anything else, except a horse. People sometimes look at the large fortunes which are made out of land, but I assure the House that as much money is lost in buying land as is gained. It is extremely speculative. It requires the highest skill. It requires more than skill. It requires the gift of prophecy. If corporations are going in largely for land speculation, a great many of them, with the best intentions in the world, will lock the ratepayers' money up in unremunerative investments, for, though you can make a good case on paper for buying land, and though you can point to cases where a corporation has failed to buy it and has then at the end bought it at an increased price, you must not forget the other side of the account, the years the land lies vacant, the interest that runs up, and the mistakes that even the best judgment must make. I do not think that our corporations, highly as I rate their ability and integrity, should go in for the business of land speculation, and I do commend my scheme to the House because under my scheme they get all the advantages of purchase without the risk. Supposing you take any town, and allow that town to say, "We are a growing town. We have grown to a certain extent in the last few years, and we expect that in the next fifty years we shall extend to a certain area, and, besides that, we want garden suburbs and parks and open spaces and playgrounds." Suppose you allow the corporation of that town to have a preemption on all land in that defined area, on all the land that would be required for the growth of that town and for more than its growth—for its amenities—for a period of fifty years. Suppose you allowed for a periodical revision of the estimate, and for asking for an extension of the period. Then we come to the question of price. That is a very important matter. It is the ruling factor in all town improvements, and public corporations and bodies are handicapped because of the excessive price that has to be paid for land. It is a curious circumstance, but it never was the intention of the law. It is due, however, to the rooted mistrust of public authorities in the English heart, and when a corporation, a gas company, or a railway company wants to buy land, everybody concerned—the counsel, the expert witnesses, and the jury—all favour the private individual. Even in an arbitration under the Land Clauses Act the witnesses called on both sides assess the value on a different basis to that which they would adopt if they were buying the land for themselves or for their clients. You must, therefore, find some more fair way of ascertaining the price. It should also be a more speedy and cheaper way. I see the Motion suggests that the purchase price should be the price fixed for taxation.Not that it should be the price, but that the price should be based on that basis.
I quite agree the hon. Member would allow for a fair increase, and, if I may say so, he has put his case for purchase and for compensation very fairly indeed. I have always thought that if the State would allow each man to put a value on his own land, and to put what price he pleased, on the condition that he is taxed as well as bought out on that price, he would not dare put a small value merely in order to pay low taxes, because he would run the risk of being bought out. But, unfortunately, the Government in their Budget did not do that. They did not allow a man to assess the value of his own land. They put on it a value which is very hard to understand, and which is somewhat remote from the plain market value of such land. You must have something different from the present system, and I suggest that, under the scheme I have tried to outline, the line should be fixed at the simple price or the fair value of the land as between buyer and seller, and that then the corporation should have the right of buying out the land and allowing for a reasonable increase in value during the time, but not allowing for an inflated price to be placed upon if. Yon must also provide for the fact that the person occupying the land might have treated the business, and secured a certain good will. It is open to argument whether you ought not to compensate such a person. I do with some confidence ask the House to consider some suggestion of that sort. I do not want to see the ratepayers' money locked up in enormous land schemes. I do not believe that in that case the ratepayer would come out on top. The land that he would buy could be bought by other people, and those other people on the whole are better able to decide the value of the land than he is. I do not believe that in a long course of years, allowing for the loss of interest and the mistakes that are bound to be made, corporations would do better than by buying the land, as they now do, from hand to mouth. Under my scheme, a town would be master in its own house. It would say, "We expect to extend on to this land in fifty years." They could buy it out by a cheap and simple process. They could make parks and open spaces, and they would not have to employ any capital expenditure until they wanted to do the work. I believe that thereby they would gain great advantages in both ways.
I wish to state the position of the Labour party towards both the Resolution and the Amendment. I presume it is contemplated that the Amendment shall in due course be submitted, and, therefore, I hope that any reference I make to it will not be regarded as out of order. Those on whose behalf I am entitled to speak to-night approach the question from the standpoint of the State giving its land up to the best possible purposes, and in the event of socially created values appropriating them for social purposes. But in our opinion these two purposes will never be achieved except on the lines of the principle embodied in the Resolution. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House in his customary interesting and serious fashion, has outlined a proposal providing that municipalities should be invested with the power of preemption for a fixed period. I candidly confess that there is something of attraction, even in that proposal, although it falls short of what those for whom I am speaking would advocate. On the other hand, I can conceive some considerable disadvantage attaching to it. For instance, a corporation may mark out its surrounding area. Presumably, they have no right of proprietorship in or any power of developing the area thus preempted. The fact that the corporations had that power of pre-emption would, in my opinion, have the effect of destroying all private initiative in that area, for certainly no private individual or body would go to the trouble of raising capital, erecting buildings, and establishing a business with the uncertainty as to whether the corporation, at the expiration of the given period, would exercise the power of pre-emption conferred upon it. For my part, I feel that that hardly meets the case which seems to be very widely admitted here to-night. Municipalities, when they require to extend, are entirely and admittedly, on the admission of the hon. Gentleman himself, at the mercy of the private landowner. It seems to me that the private owner has a very poor conscience when he is dealing with that impersonal abstraction called a public authority. Some of us have entertained that opinion for many years, but we are glad to have it recorded from the benches opposite that it is really a matter of fact. We want to protect the public authority in a case of that sort.
I most heartily associate myself with the sentiment expressed by the Mover of the Resolution, and say that I am not an advocate of confiscation. I desire as fair treatment for the landlords as for any other class of the community. We may differ as to what is fair treatment, but we agree that our purpose is identical and that we are equally animated with a sense of public right and justice. A municipality has a right to look ahead. A municipality should be a business concern. It should have regard to the probable development of the district, and it ought not to be restricted in the sense of being unable to make provision for public needs until such time as the public necessity becomes an absolute urgency. Every one of us is familiar with cases of the most reprehensible exaction where a municipality has desired land for the purposes of housing. I am able to recall one instance where a burial board was faced with a necessity for more land, which was required in order to fulfil the sacred purpose of burying its dead. The whole of that district was owned by one gentleman. Perforce the municipality and the burial board were compelled to negotiate with that gentleman, who is a Noble Lord and a very estimable person. There was no consideration there of a fair value, but the highest possible price that could be extorted out of a pressing public need was charged. Such a circumstance as that is quite indefensible. When the burial board bought the original cemetery site they knew full well that it was not adequate for all time. They believed that they would have to renew a request for more land in a few years' time, but the owner of the land refused at that time to sell them more land. He foresaw that they would have to come again, and he was then able to perceive that owing to their sheer necessity they would be compelled to pay him whatever price he cared to place upon that land. I believe the increment in that case in the course of thirty years was over £1,100 an acre. In the first place, £700 an acre was paid—already a very high price in my view—and in the subsequent transaction over £1,800 an acre had to be paid by this burial board for the purpose of fulfilling its duty. If municipalities were relieved of the great disability presently imposed upon them by mortmain, or the "dead hand," as we more commonly call it, they would have been relieved of such an exaction as that. I desire that municipalities generally should not only be possessed of this power, but should be encouraged to exercise it. Everybody who has visited Continental cities will be aware that the extraordinary developments which have taken place in them during the last generation or so are very largely attributable to the fact that there municipalities are not restricted in the same fashion as those are in this country. Neither under the existing order, or under the suggested form of pre-emption, as outlined by the hon. Member, do we seem to safeguard municipalities in this matter from exaction, nor do we allow them proper and appropriate development. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hills) has suggested that in connection with the principle of public ownership there was a real differentiation as between the rural and the urban problem. I have admitted in this House on many occasions that in some points there is a distinction between the two, but I am going to advance a few reasons showing that from our point of view you are not justified in saying that while purchase is good for urban areas, it is not applicable to agricultural or rural areas. I am not very much enamoured of immediately supplying landlords with extraordinarily inflated values which prevail in urban areas. On behalf of those with whom I am associated, I want to say that we extremely regret that the Amendment should have been put down in the form of a direct challenge to the principle of public ownership. It is well-known by those hon. Gentlemen who have made themselves responsible for the Amendment that there are many of my hon. Friends who would go a very long way with them, and it is extremely unfortunate that they should forego a certain amount of support. They could have formulated their proposals without throwing down this challenge to the central principle of this Resolution. In respect to urban values I think their proposals have a peculiar form of application. The taxation of urban values is at least a temporary expedient. We are not in favour of large sums of public money being devoted to the purpose of buying out landlords in urban areas at the extraordinary prices which presently prevail. The hon. Gentleman has introduced there what is not a novel principle, that you should allow the landlord to place his own value on the land, and that we should have the power to tax him or buy him out on that value. That has received very widespread advocacy, and I believe it is one of the proposals of the Land Nationalisation Society. I would point out that the, hon. Gentleman may find that act harshly towards the landlords, because the State and the municipality, being invested with the power of rating and taxation respectively, can place such rates and taxes as they desire upon those values. The landlord having declared his value, if he has put it too high, neither the State nor the municipality will purchase, but they will continue to tax him. On the other hand, they will only buy if he has placed a low or fair value on the land. The hon. Gentleman states that he is all for occupying ownership in respect of the rural problem. We know that that is the particular panacea of the party with which he is associated in regard to the rural problem. We on these benches are strongly opposed to that. I believe the time is ripe for the State to make very large purchases of agricultural land. The demand for small holdings and the revival of agriculture seem to make this period particularly appropriate for a very large State venture of this character. I believe it is only by State ownership that you will ever be able to appropriate the social values which are created, not by individuals, but by the presence and industry of a population. I believe that our agricultural land is going to receive a very great increment in value in succeeding years. The growth of the population in all parts of the world, the present admitted restrictions of food supplies, the fact that the virgin qualities of the soil in our Colonies are already being exhausted, which means that great expenditure has to be devoted to the raising of crops, the use of more labour, and to expenditure on more manures and that sort of thing, are bound to increase the cost of producing the food supplies which have hitherto so plentifully flowed to these shores. I believe that is an inevitable world movement, and I am certain that we are reading the signs aright when we say that there is a very hopeful future for the agricultural industry of our country. At any rate, that is an opinion of my own, and I believe it is very widely shared by other thinkers in the community. That seems to me from a business point of view to afford a very strong reason why the State should not disregard the rural part of this problem, but should regard that as one of the most practicable and immediate means of realising the purpose of transferring land from private to public ownership. Of course, we are told that this will be a very expensive undertaking, and that we have no right to use public funds for this purpose. In my opinion, public money could not be devoted to a better purpose than bringing back the land of the country to the ownership of the country. We have spent light-heartedly, or at any rate freely, money on expensive expeditions in other parts of the world. I am not going to argue as to whether they were avoidable or justifiable, or what not, but if we had been able to avoid that form of wasteful expenditure and so have devoted £300,000,000 to the purpose of bringing our land back into the possession of the people, our country and our Empire would be much greater and better for our population than is the case at the present time. Thus, then, we favour the Resolution as it stands, and I hope that my hon. Friends who are in charge of the Amendment will accept my observations in the spirit in which I have intended to convey them, that whilst we find ourselves in a large measure in agreement with them in its application to the urban problem, and we are prepared to go with them to a very great extent, we very deeply regret that they should have issued this direct challenge to us and that we find ourselves compelled to vote against them, and in full sympathy and support of the Resolution as it is submitted to us. All those who have spoken have laid stress upon the direct relationship of land ownership to great social problems. Private ownership often means bad housing, and it is sometimes responsible for overcrowding.
It is nearly always responsible for it.
I accept that. I always prefer to err on the side of moderate language, and I want to avoid a reputation for using immoderate or extravagant argument. I have said these things, and they are facts, and they are demonstrated in our everyday affairs. A great demand exists, too, in our rural parts for land. Small holders are constantly preferring those demands, and they cannot be adequately supplied, largely because of this consideration of public ownership. At any rate I have known this, that land which has appeared to be almost without value has enormously risen as soon as any agitation ensued for the purpose of small holdings under recent legislation. We believe that the social values accruing to land ought to be devoted to public purposes. There are only two ways of raising the sums requisite for national purposes—either by taxation or by business enterprises—and we feel that there is so great an outcry about the amount of direct and indirect taxation that the State might very well cast about for another means of bringing in money for the great purposes that we have to consider. The hon. Member (Mr. Gordon Harvey) made a point that we are constantly emphasising—the injustice of our present conditions. The rich man lives on cheap land and the poor man lives on expensive land. That is an anomaly in itself which is indefensible, and, after all, I feel sure that everyone will desire that there should be equal treatment as between all classes, and that when we have circumstances of this character in our midst at any rate some consideration ought to be given to this problem. My colleagues and myself intend to vote for the Resolution. We hope we shall not be placed in a position of having to vote against the Amendment, because we are very largely interested in the known purposes of those who are promoting it. We support the Resolution because it is comprehensive in character, and if it were carried out would be of incalculable benefit, not to a class, but to the community as a whole. We support the Resolution, and we believe that the land of every country ought to be the property of the people of that country.
I beg to move to leave out the words, "a large extension of the public ownership of land is urgently called for, and that the powers of land acquisition which are at present possessed by the State and by local authorities are inadequate and ought to be increased, that such authorities should have a general power to acquire (either by agreement or by compulsion) and to hold any land which they may consider necessary; and power to use such land for afforestation, reclamation, allotments and small holdings, housing, town-planning, open spaces, public improvements, or such other purposes as they may from time to time be authorised to carry out; that such powers should extend to the acquisition of land for prospective, and not merely for present, needs; and that, in ascertaining the purchase price of such land, the basis taken should be the valuation made for the purpose of taxation," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the policy of land purchase is mistaken; that what is wanted is the use rather than the ownership of the land; that secure tenure on fair terms is better than proprietorship; and that the first step to reform is to rate and tax those who hold the land according to the value of the land which they hold, whether they use it or not, so as to increase the available supply of land and reduce land prices and rents to their natural level, while at the same time unrating improvements, so as to give free course to production."
I have listened with very great interest to the speeches which have been made, and I am sure everyone who appreciates the importance of the land question will be glad at its increased recognition on all sides of the House. I listened with particular attention to my hon. Friend (Mr. Aneurin Williams). To the first part of his speech I listened with great satisfaction, but when he came to the second part 1 failed to see where was the connecting link. I failed to see the logical connection between the first principles which he laid down and the extensive scheme of purchase he put forward as his solution of the difficulty. I very much appreciated the words which have fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. G. Roberts). At the same time there is this fundamental difference. The main object of the Resolution is to facilitate and finance a general scheme of land purchase, and my hon. Friend spoke of desiring an extensive system of land purchase or something of that sort. The reason why I put down the Amendment is because some of us disapprove of that, and do not consider it the right way to solve the problem. Consequently we come up against a difference of principle, or at least a difference of practice, in matters of the very first importance. With many things that my hon. Friend (Mr. Aneurin Williams) said I entirely agree. He spoke of the way in which under the Feudal system there had been no land ownership as, technically, there is now, but those who had the land were tenants of the Crown, fulfilling certain obligations. He spoke of the way in which they had gradually shuffled off those obligations and put obligations on to their tenants, and thus practically come into a position equivalent to that of landowners. Of course, there was no technical ownership of land. He laid down the fundamental principle with which those who sympathise with my views entirely agree when he spoke of the land being the gift of nature. We all recognise that the land, in so far as it is there naturally, is the gift of nature, and we go further, because we agree with what he said, that from the point of view of justice and equity, according to the law of equal freedom, the land is the property of the whole community. Our fundamental principle is that the rights of the people to the land ought to be based on that. We maintain that all the community have certain fundamental rights to all the land of the country. We do not say that they used to have it, and have lost it. We maintain that these are fundamental and natural rights extending to all the community from generation to generation. Assuming that the community have that power, what is the best way of asserting it? Our proposition is that the best and simplest way is to reform our present system of rating and taxation, because it is really by the payments made in respect of landed property that the rights of the community to the land are recognised. Therefore, what we say is that all those who hold land, instead of being rated and taxed on the present basis as regards the land, should be rated and taxed according to the market value of the land they hold, whether they use it or not. That is a fundamental principle, and that is the financial method of maintaining the right of the people to the land. Not only so, but it would have a great many effects in other ways. I am not here arguing the point as to the single tax. What I am arguing is that the rating and taxation of land on the basis of its market value is a practical scheme, and, being a practical scheme, we want this new standard for rating and taxation. When we look at what the effects, direct and indirect, will be, we find that our position is very much fortified. After all, we have been hearing a great deal about the excessive prices of land, and often the excessive rents which have to be paid for land. That is admitted on both sides of the House. I am sure it is recognised, broadly speaking, in regard to land as in respect of other things, that the amount which can be got for it depends on the amount available in the market. Our position is that a large amount of land is kept back from use, or the best use, so that the existing supply is narrowed and prices and rents are sent up far above their natural level. That is the first thing we have to deal with. Any attempt on the part of municipalities to embark on wide schemes of land purchase at the present inflated prices will be a mistake, and will tell in after years. If you adopt the principle—I include the unrating of buildings that those who hold the land should contribute to the needs of the community in proportion to its value, whether it is used or not, then you will break down the monopoly, land will be available, and land prices and rents will fall to what they ought to be. We will have solved the problem in that way without having to embark on the ownership of land at all. If the rights of the people are properly secured in that way, I do not know that there is any objection to the Statutes of Mortmain going to-morrow, for the conditions which led to them have long passed away. We have no objection to that, but we object to commit ourselves to extensive schemes of land purchase. A good deal has been said about the depression in towns. The conditions as to low wages and bad houses are the same in both town and country, and here I would make an observation as to what fell from the hon. and learned Member when he spoke of the fundamental difference between rural and urban land. I recognise no such difference. You cannot draw a line and say that a town begins here and ends there. It is a fundamental principle that you must treat the land question as a whole. I would like to give an instance of the difficulties we find in towns from the city of Glasgow—the second city in the Kingdom—one of the Divisions of which I have the honour to represent. In that city we have a population of over a million, and the overcrowding is worse by far than in any of the cities of England. The corporation recently required some unused vacant land for public purposes. The land was being treated for rating purposes as having an annual value of £5. When they tried to acquire it they found that the price asked was £2,340, or something like that. What is our simple solution for the difficulty? Not a scheme of land purchase. What we want to see is that the land is properly taxed. Take that land at its owner's valuation. Rate the owner, say, upon 5 per cent. of the capital value. What would happen? In this case he would be rated at nearly £100, and, if that were done, this and other land which is being held up against us would be—What would be the yield on a million of Marconis, which make no dividend at all?
I notice that when one tries to give an illustration of how land is dealt with an attempt is made to switch off the discussion on to the question of Marconis. I absolutely decline to discuss that question. My hon. Friend spoke of the outlying belt around a town. Hon. Members will recognise the gravity of the situation to which I have referred. That outlying belt is one of our difficulties. The hon. Member spoke of the flow to the towns. That flow still continues to some extent, and the best way in which we can meet it is to extend the town so as to meet the needs of the people. In the case of Glasgow there are thousands of acres in the outlying strip. I am not exaggerating, for I have seen the figures. The last municipal election largely turned on the land question. The people want to know why they should not have this land available. It is rated, roughly speaking, at an annual value of 30s., but when you try to get it, whether you are the municipality or a builder, to meet the needs of the community you find that what we call in Scotland its feuing price—that is, the annual Feu Duty—is not 30s., but something like £30 a year. That is the problem which we are up against. It is because Glasgow understands the nature of the problem and sees that what we want to do to settle it is to rate the land on its market value that it has taken the matter up. If that were done a great deal of the land would be brought into the market to-morrow and those conditions which are holding the towns in an iron grip and keeping the people herded together would be broken down, and the land would be open to the people without any State-aided purchase or any purchase whatever.
Will the hon. Member explain why the people who own the land are not people just as much as any other people?
They are, and the other people have certain rights to the earth as well as they. On what basis should those who have the land be rated? On its true market value. I maintain that there should be, broadly speaking, one value, whether the community is to purchase from the landlord or the landlord is to pay rates to the community. That is our simple proposition. One law for the rich and poor alike. One law for all and an equal value. That is the way to deal with the land problem in our towns and in our country districts as well. Hon. Members who know country districts know that the problem is quite as pressing there as in the towns. One of the things which prevent people from settling down and drive them from the country into the towns, is the enormous difficulties which young married people have in obtaining housing accommodation. I know from my own experience numerous cases in which people have gone to live in country districts where they can get land year after year for merely agricultural purposes and at almost nominal sums, but if they want to get it for building they have to pay a very high price. That I can show in Scotland in abundant cases, and it is shown in England by the latest Report of the Local Government Board and the prices that have often been paid. There, again, we say that those who own the land should be rated and taxed on the basis of its market value, whether they use it or not. If that were done the land would be available. I know that there are difficulties of building conditions, and I know that building may be costly, but just to minimise the cost of building we want to relieve houses from rating as far as we possibly can.
10.0 P.M. We have already taken Inhabited House Duty off the poorer class of houses. Why have a house tax at all or a house rate at all? I do not say that we can abolish it altogether. I know that the complete carrying out of the idea is difficult at the moment. My point is that we ought to go in that direction and that we should try gradually, as far as we can, to centre rating and taxation on the market value of the land, and then frank houses and improvements of every kind in order that people may be able to get what land is required and that our industries may have a fair chance in the competition of the world. I may quote some observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer not very long ago, because they have an important bearing on another question. I have heard the point raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and raised with some force, that the real difficulty of housing in country districts was not merely the difficulty of land or housing, but the lowness of the wages. We want to do what we can to raise the minimum wage. In the passage which I wish to quote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of taking the working classes in the towns right out to the country to live in districts where land is cheap, where they can have not merely comfortable houses, but where they can get large gardens, which will help to solve the problem of unemployment when trade is bad, because—and these are the words to which I would direct the attention of the House—That takes us back to the very fundamentals of the labour problem. No man need starve while he has sufficient productive land at his disposal. I would supplement that by saying that nature's minimum wage is what people can get from the land to which they have access, and what keeps the minimum wage down is that people are denied the fundamental rights to the land and the opportunity of earning a living from the natural resources of land, and are driven into towns to manufacturing employments. The way to end that is to open up the natural resources of the country. The one way of doing that is to deal with the problem along the lines which I have indicated. I have said that we would favour certain things—for instance, the abolition of the obsolete laws of mortmain or various other things—but we certainly decline to commit ourselves to a policy of land purchase, and of speculative land purchase. I would put it to hon. Members that if those reforms can come about we would find that though the productive capacity of the land would be increased, the fact that there was a much greater available supply would send prices down, so that in many cases the land speculation would be a losing matter. In fact, what the people want is not so much the ownership as the use of the land. What municipalities want is the right to give people a chance to get the use of the land on fair terms. There is no need for purchase for that. You can do it in the way I have indicated. So far as peasant proprietorship is concerned, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, I would like, if I may, to associate myself with his criticisms of the speculative character of land purchase. I do not think that any attempt was made to anticipate that either by the Mover or the Seconder of the Resolution. I differ from him entirely in his suggestion as to the advantage of occupying ownership. It is far better for the small man who wants to work a small piece of ground to get it with a secure tenure on fair terms. He can do very much better by paying rent than by capital purchase. Even when you assist him in the capital purchase, when he comes to transfer to somebody else the whole work has to be gone through again. On that point I would like to read some words that were written recently by Lord Carrington, who has a great personal knowledge of small holdings:—"no man need starve if he has got a good garden."
With those words I entirely agree. In fact, what we want is not a policy of land purchase, but the recognition of the fundamental rights of the people, a true valuation of the land on the basis of its market value, and the adoption of a proper standard of rating and taxation."To the farmer, whether large or small, the principal consideration is not what is the value of the land he tills, but what is the value of the produce which he can get out of it. This being so, it goes without saying that the whole of a fanner's capital should be free to be utilised for productive purposes and for the development and extension of his business. … Under a system of tenancy, a man has the whole of his capital available for his business, while under a system of ownership he is handicapped by having a portion of it either locked up in the land or in the pocket of the usurer or moneylender, who sooner or later may swallow up the whole."
I beg to second the Amendment.
While I think we are justified in putting our view before the House, I recognise to the full what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) on behalf of those with whom he is associated. I can quite understand that in regard to the different schools of thought on this question they are put in a somewhat difficult position when they have to choose. I am in perfect agreement with my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment in paying a tribute to the earnestness of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams) in moving this Resolution, yet while I fully appreciate all that he has said as to the evils associated with land monopoly, I think that we are entitled to take this opportunity of challenging the proposal made constantly in the country that land nationalisation is a real remedy for land monopoly.The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I argued on land nationalisation to-night. That is not the subject before the House.
I think that I shall be able to show that I am quite in order. What I am endeavouring to point out is that we are told again and again in the country that while our proposal would do very little to advance in a small way the solution of this problem, land nationalisation is a real remedy. I think it will be admitted that we have a right to respond to that challenge when we have the opportunity. This Resolution which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham calls for public ownership of land as a solution of this question, and it has been supported by speeches in which we are told that the community ought to possess the land, and that these social values should belong to the community, and be acquired by the community by purchase. We are entitled to ask why it is that our Friends have not the courage of their convictions when the opportunity comes to submit their proposal to the House of Commons, and why it is that they run away from it. What is it that we are told about the social values which should belong to the community? The valuable land is in the centre of the towns; it is the land which is most likely to increase in value in the future, and it is the land which is to remain in the hands of private individuals. But in regard to the least valuable land, the land in the outskirts, the land furthest away from the community, they are to indulge in gambling by buying land in the hope that it may increase in value, and that it may in this way gain as a social value. According to the Mover of the Resolution, they ought to buy land suitable for afforestation, the moors and mountains; yet when it comes to land in the centre of the towns it is to remain in the hands of private holders. I think we are entitled to something more like definiteness, and as to the proposal in regard to the towns, surely I have represented it fairly. The proposal with regard to the towns is that the plots outside the towns ought to be purchased, but the community is not to be encouraged to buy land in the centre of the towns.
I did not say anything about the land in the centre of the towns. I suggested that they should have power to buy such land as they chose, and that probably they would choose to buy land on the outer edges of the town, because it is increasing enormously in value, and the population is going there.
I have no desire to misrepresent my hon. Friend, but if the reason why the land is to be bought is that it is increasing in value, surely in a growing and progressive town the land in the centre of it will increase more rapidly in value. I think I am entitled to compare the proposal of the hon. Member for North-West Durham with that contained in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend and supported by those who agree with him. The Member for Durham told us that the present value of the land of this country is between £2,500,000,000 and £3,600,000,000. I assume that this is the value which is likely to be ascertained by the valuation now going on. I do not understand him to suggest that it is a monopoly value, but that it is the value likely to be ascertained by the valuation now in progress. If I strike the mean at £3,000,000,000, which incidentally is the figure I have always put to myself as the capital value of the land at the present time, then the estimate of the hon. Member is that every landless family in this country is at present deprived of a value of £300 or £400. He pointed out that this was a great grievance, and said that restitution was due to the people. I agree, but under his system that restitution they will never get if you go into the market at the present time and pay the landowners of the country in hard cash £3,000,000,000 on the basis of this Resolution. I venture to say that the democracy of this country, when that value is presented to them, will hardly agree to buy back the right to live on the land of their birth at such a cost. I think a proposal of that kind is hardly likely to be adopted. We have the proposal to buy up the cheap land, the moors and the mountains, and on the outskirts of towns, and in my view when you make that proposal you hide from the people the magnitude of the financial transaction. From what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich said, I understand that, so far as the Labour party is concerned, they do not agree with buying up land in towns on a large scale at present. Our case is that, alike in towns and country, you ought to reach the real price of the land by imposing taxation on an adequate scale before you carry this proposal further. Obviously, surely all schools of land reformers will agree that it is undesirable that we should engage in schemes of land purchase of this magnitude, and that we ought really to endeavour to secure for the community by means of taxation and by means of rating some of that social value which we all agree belongs to the community before any scheme of that kind is attempted! We are told that under municipal ownership, under national ownership, you will secure control which you cannot secure under the proposals which we make. I have never been able quite to realise whether our Friends have thought out what control means. Do they suggest that the municipality or nation is to hold the land in its hands, and to only give yearly tenancies or monthly tenancies, so that at any time they can reconsider them?
Weekly.
The hon. Member says weekly, under that scheme you would probably be able to have control in the sense that you could clear an area and you could then do with it as you liked. But I think everybody will agree that under a scheme of that kind security is absolutely impossible. If you are going to give leases, what kind of leases are you to give? We had the criticism to-night that the present system is unfair, because the leases are too short. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] That is cheered. Leases of ninety-nine years are said to be too short, but if the community is to give leases, as I imagine no doubt they would be bound to lease out the land, giving the people power to retransfer the leases, how are they in a better position to control the use of land in that area than the community at the present time, with power to take possession of any land which it considers necessary at a valuation?
I do not think there is any proposition before the House to purchase. I never heard of such a thing before, and I am at loss to understand it.
The hon. Gentleman is in possession.
I am sorry I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's observation.
He wants to know are you; going to buy Scotland?
As to the land of Scotland, and of Wales, and of England, of the United Kingdom, much the best method which we can adopt to secure the use of the land to the people is to shift our rates off our buildings and our improvements, and put them on the unimproved value of the land. The result of that would be that instead of a man being able to hold up land, as they do hold it up by demanding exorbitant prices for it, because there is now no burden upon it while it is being held up, they would then, in order to recoup themselves, be compelled to allow the land to be used by those who are willing to buy at a fair price. In that way you would get to the user what he wants—the opportunity to use the soil—and you would get for the community the social value to which the community is entitled. I beg to second.
Although the question before the House is strictly the Amendment which you have put from the Chair, I understand that the Debate may still range over both the proposition originally moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. A. Williams) and the Amendment just proposed. I shall devote myself primarily to the Motion which was first placed upon the Paper, the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams). His proposition, as I understand, relates primarily to the public ownership of land for public purposes. He is not asking the House to-night to assent to any general measure of land nationalisation. He has in view the purchase of land for the erection of schools, of houses for the working classes built by the municipality, of baths and libraries, or for burial grounds, parks and open spaces, or for other specific public purposes of that kind. With regard to the powers of municipalities for the purchase of land for municipal purposes, the attitude of Parliament has of recent years changed very greatly. Many of the laws which now relate to this matter date back a long way, some of them almost to days before the great Reform Bill of 1832. Before that date, and for a generation or so after, this House was largely filled by members of the landowning classes, or by representatives nominated by the landowners, who controlled certain boroughs or counties, while the other House has always been mainly composed of landowners. Unquestionably, until comparatively recent times, Parliament looked at all these questions with a landlord's eye, and that fact is impressed upon our earlier legislation. Gradually, Parliament has allowed larger and larger powers to public authorities for the acquisition of land, and for the compulsory acquisition of land.
If you examine the Statutes which now regulate this matter, you will find that the provisions they contain vary greatly in character according to the period when the Acts were passed. I have lately had them examined, and extracts made of the different methods by which Parliament allows local authorities to buy land compulsorily. I find that there are no fewer than twelve different procedures authorised by Statute for the compulsory acquisition of land. Some, those which have been passed in recent years under the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, or the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907. are comparatively simple. They forbid the addition of 10 per cent. to the properly ascertained value of the land, in consideration of the fact that it is compulsorily purchased. The procedure is simple. There need be no recourse to Parliament. But when you come to the earlier Statutes you find that the procedure is complicated to a degree. It would appear as though Parliament, since it could not refuse to grant municipalities powers to acquire land, set out to make those powers as limited as possible, and to hamper and restrict them by every complication that the draughtsman could devise. It was regarded almost as a monstrous intrusion on the land system of this country that any municipality should dare to purchase in any considerable quantities, or even in small quantities, land for public purposes. Even so absurd are the laws that remain on the Statute Book that it is still necessary to invoke the power of Parliament itself—of this great legislative assembly of two Houses dealing with vast Imperial and National questions—in most cases to authorise some education authority here or there to buy two acres or even half an acre of land for a school. It is ludicrous that we should still retain the procedure of the Provisional Order, as though it were some stupendous undertaking for the ratepayers to buy a site of land in order to satisfy the public needs of the locality. The result of all this is that our municipalities are still hampered at every turn in their efforts at improvement. Do they need land for street widening, for parks, for open spaces; do they desire to purchase land for the housing of the working classes, or land for schools, they are subjected to these ancient and foolish restrictions which still survive from earlier legislative times? The result of it is that our towns are what they are. Local bodies acquiesce in the present conditions of their towns, thinking that they may be regarded as natural, and very often out of mere custom—through not thinking about the matter at all. We accept the existing urban conditions simply because we do not think about them. I do not say that of Members of this House; I am speaking of the community in general. The attitude of public men in this country is that our towns are what they are, and that is all that is to be said about them. If in a calm hour and with a philosophic eye we view the urban conditions of this country we are compelled to come to the conclusion that they are profoundly unsatisfactory. Our cities contain vast areas of mean, squalid, treeless, grimy and ugly streets, which are totally unfitted to be the abode of generation after generation of a highly civilised nation. When, here and there, in some locality we find some eager municipal reformer who is impressed by these facts, and works to reform his town, and to try and make it better, he finds himself faced by these restrictions upon the powers of his local authority to acquire land, and in every improvement that he and his friends may urge, his town council is hampered and thwarted, partly by the difficulty of obtaining land at all, and partly by the exorbitant price that has to be paid for it, even if it is obtained. As I pointed out to the House on another Bill, the Housing Bill, many of the old corporations of England under their Charters had almost unlimited and unrestricted powers to buy what land they considered necessary, and for what purpose they considered it desirable, and many of these corporations are still in the possession of land which brings them in large revenues. Some of them, like Doncaster, have been freed from the necessity of levying any borough rate at all for a period of years on account of the revenues from the land. Then we have the Crown lands which bring to the revenues controlled by this House about half a million net profit every year. There is no doubt that the extraordinary development and beautification of modern German industrial towns is due in no small degree to the full powers possessed by municipalities for the acquisition of land. Those of us who have had the opportunity of travelling in Germany in recent years must have had a feeling of little less than national shame when we compared our great cities—I will not mention them because it would be invidious to do so—almost any of our great industrial towns with such cities as Cologne, Dusseldorf, and Frankfort, or any of the other rapidly developing modern German towns. What is the reason? The reason is that in Germany the law takes every step in its power to encourage the municipalities to buy land on which their cities are situated and on which they are growing. Frankfort, for instance, owns nearly 50 per cent. of the site of her city. Cologne, Munich, Innsbruck, and other towns own 30 and 40 per cent. The municipalities of Greater Berlin have in the last ten years from 1901 to 1911, as I mentioned to the House previously—acquired land to the extent of 20,000 acres at a cost of £17,500,000, purchased by the communes of Greater Berlin; and if you take the question of afforestation you find that Germany has 35,000,000 acres of forest land of which the State owns 11,000,000 acres and the communes 5,500,000 acres. On the other hand, as I say, we have gone to the other extreme, and have endeavoured in every way to deter our municipalities from the purchase of land, as if they were engaged on some predatory incursion into the proper domain of the landowners. My own view is we should no longer be content to give specific powers to our corporations for the purchase or acquisition of land, but we ought to give them general powers to acquire land subject to any necessary restrictions that may be thought expedient, as that they should be subjected to the control of a central Government Department when they desired to borrow money for the purchase of land.Would you allow them to buy land in advance for speculative purposes?
Certainly, I would allow them to buy land in advance. Hon. Members opposite speak of a speculative land policy. Well, in the first place, municipalities, I think, will have a very shrewd idea as to what is the probable course of the development of their localities, and they are by no means rash bodies. The danger is rather that they will, through fear of possible risk, abstain from buying when in the public interests they ought to buy, than that of engaging in rash adventure and borrowing large sums for the purpose. Besides, corporations very frequently know—it is their intention—under the powers of other Acts, themselves to develop certain quarters of their city or neighbourhood. Corporations have power to improve transit and should, in my view, have greatly extended powers to improve transit within and in the neighbourhood of their own areas. They may improve them by laying tramways and they may provide parks, schools and so forth, knowing that a certain area within their neighbourhood, or close at hand, may in the near future rapidly develop. It is surely absurd to say a corporation may buy some land, and may start their scheme, with the effect that the land round about will at once rise in value, and that when they have by their own act raised the value of the land surrounding the plot that they have bought, then, and only then, and after they have enhanced the price by their own action, will they be able to secure more land. I think our corporations ought not to be treated as children incapable of managing their own affairs, acting as they do under the eye of the ratepayers and the public, always subjected to keen criticism in their local Press and in local politics. I think these authorities should be given very large powers indeed for the purchase of land in order to secure the better development of our municipalities. Why should we assume that a town will only grow healthily and well and upon good lines if the matter is left to the individual landowners who happen to own the soil and who are animated primarily by the desire for their own profit, and often also I am glad to say by public spirit, but sometimes by mere caprice. Why should it be supposed that the development of our towns will be on the best lines when left to the unrestricted control of the landowner, and must develop on bad or on worse lines if left to the municipality?
The hon. Member who has moved this Amendment has, I regret to say, put it down, not as an addition to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham, but as an alternative; and not merely as an alternative, but as one which excludes the first alternative. The hon. Member first proposes by his Amendment to negative the hon. Member for North-West Durham's proposal, and then he submits his own proposal for the rating of land values. The substantive Motion does not propose any general measure of land nationalisation, and therefore the attack made upon it is somewhat beside the mark. The purpose which it has specifically and primarily in view could not, in my opinion, be obtained through the method suggested in my hon. Friend's Amendment—at any rate it could not in practice be obtained rapidly. Looking at the matter as President of the Local Government Board, and charged with the interests of the local authorities of England and Wales, I have to consider how they are to be assisted to get the land which they need year after year for the several public purposes I have mentioned. My hon. Friend suggests that it should be obtained, not by purchase, but by leasing. He suggests, rather than ownership, that there should be "secure tenure on fair terms," and that to me means some form of leasing. If my hon. Friend is against purchase, and says they must not purchase, and if the local authorities must have land for their needs, they must necessarily obtain it by leases.I would like to point out that my proposal has reference to a matter not dealt with in the Resolution itself.
The hon. Member proposes to leave out all the words after "House," and if his Amendment became the substantive Motion, it would not allow municipalities to purchase land which is necessary for public improvements in their localities. That would be the effect of his Amendment, which declares that purchase is the wrong policy and that rating is the right policy. My hon. Friend's proposals, whatever their virtue, will not effect the purpose which many of us have in view—that is, to free the hands of the municipalities in order to obtain more land for housing and so on. I agree, however, with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that we should take every step in our power to release buildings and improvements from rating. Local taxes on buildings and improvements are bad taxes, and they are taxes upon the production of dwellings for the people. Even if we were to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment and his principles to the full, even if we were to put a rate on land values and relieve buildings entirely from rating, still you would not deal with the problem which the Mover of the Resolution has brought before the House, namely, how to enable local authorities to obtain the land which they need for the various public purposes they have in view. It might facilitate it—indeed, you may say that it would cheapen land and enable them to get it at a, better price. All that is quite true, but it is not a substitute for the land purchase proposals and for conferring on these authorities powers to purchase the land as it is needed.
I now come, lastly, to the question of price. All the hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Resolution have emphasised the fact that they make no proposal for the confiscation of land, that indeed their Resolution must not be read as in any sense taking that direction, but, on the contrary, that they are wholly opposed to any confiscatory policy. I need hardly say that in that all of us here would naturally concur. Whatever may be the theory as to the origin of private property in land, the fact remains that from time immemorial private property in land has been recognised. A large part of the soil of England does change hands for value received every generation, and it would be a monstrous thing to deprive people of that for which they have paid under the sanction of long existing law and custom. If, on the ground that in theory and in origin, land was communal property, it were proposed to confiscate the land from the present owners, then I would ask to whom should it be transferred? I am not sure that the present inhabitants of England have any right to its possession, and I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps be entitled to put in a claim on behalf of the Welsh as representing, perhaps, as far as we know, the original races that inhabited these islands, or we should even have to go to the Basques of the Pyrenees, or any other long-headed race related to those whose remains are found in the prehistoric burrows of this country. To such absurdities are we led if we accept the doctrine that we had to go back to the origin and give the land to people to whom, in theory, it belonged. Of course, we are all of us against confiscation by the community as against the landowner. That is no reason why we should tolerate in any form confiscation by the landowner against the community, or, indeed, that the necessities of the community should be made use of in order to extract from the public a higher price than the land which is needed is really worth. At the present time, as everyone knows, when land is needed and it is obtained compulsorily for any public purpose, a most excessive price is usually paid. There is no greater good fortune that could befall a landowner than for him to have his land taken away from him against his will. If a man can say, "The municipality wants my land," then he knows that he is to secure an unexpected windfall. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. J. W. Hills) said very truly that there is always a bias against the corporation. There is always a bias against the public authority when the price of the land is being fixed. I remember very well when I was at the Post Office, that whenever a question arose of obtaining a site for a new post office in any town the land had to be obtained with the utmost secrecy. If the arrangements for secrecy were successful and if the name of the purchaser was successfully concealed, then we got the land at its normal price, but, if it once became known that the Post Office was in the market and was about to purchase the land, then we might be sure that we should have to pay at least 10, perhaps 15, and possibly 20 per cent. more than it was worth for the particular piece of land which was specially suited for the Post Office. In our view there ought not to be two values on the land. There ought not to be a low value for the purposes of taxation, and a high value for the purposes of sale to any public body. We do not wish to tax any landowner on a value which is above the real value, but neither do we wish to pay for the land on a value above the real value. We should use the true value for both purposes. Then, again, there is the question of cost. Most excessive costs are incurred—legal costs, costs for expert witnesses at the arbitration, and so on. Even if there is no arbitration, the local authority again and again has to submit to being charged far more than the full value in order to escape the costs of the arbitration, and I am informed there are many cases in which the local authority has to pay not only the ordinary value of the land itself, not only special compensation for severance if it is part of a larger property, not only compensation for injurious affection of any property belonging to the same owner, but in addition he has to pay a sum almost equal to the costs of both parties in an arbitration, in order to avoid arbitration and to get the land by agreement. It is urgently necessary, in our view, that we should simplify this procedure and cheapen it—that we should enable land to be bought for public purposes on the basis of the land valuation now being made under public authority, and that this land valuation should be for this purpose, and all such purposes, brought up to date, that due compensation should be given if the remaining property of the owner is injured by severance, and that any cost which the owner is specially put to by the fact that his land is compulsorily taken—any reasonable costs should be refunded to him. There is no reason why the owner should be out of pocket by compulsory purchase; but he should be paid no more; and in the event of a difference of opinion the matter should be determined by one of the Judicial Land Commissioners who are to be appointed under the land proposals of the Government. When those proposals come to be laid before Parliament certainly they will contain measures simplifying, consolidating, extending, and cheapening the power of public authorities to acquire land for necessary public purposes.If I understand the policy of the Government correctly as expounded by the right hon. Gentleman, they are in favour not only of the original Motion moved by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams), but also of what I may call the Single-Tax Amendment.
Not at all.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman that they are prepared "by taxing those who own land to reduce the rent and prices of land," and having done that, they propose to confer on local authorities "general powers to acquire land by agreement or compulsion." That is a perfectly definite policy, and it is a policy which we do not hear of this evening for the first time. The part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which interested some of us on this side of the House was his last reference to the costs which local authorities are put to in acquiring land. The right hon. Gentleman gave expression to a very common fallacy—the fallacy which the hon. Member for the Leigh Division is very fond of expounding to the House, and that is the right of local authorities to buy land at the valuation on which it is rated. I would remind the House that at the present moment the local authority strikes the rate on land on its annual value, and that that annual value necessarily differs from the market value because the market value of the land includes the latent or prospective value. It always has been the custom to rate land on annual produce.
I do not think anybody suggested buying the land on the basis of the estimate for annual value, but on its value for purposes of taxation, which is on its capital value.
I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the total value, which is one of the four values set up by the Finance Act, 1909, but I was referring to the injustice from which hon. Members opposite say that local authorities suffer because, when they buy a site for public purposes, they are called upon to pay a higher price than the capitalised value on which rates have been paid. So long as you have the present system of rating in this country, which has been established by long practice and sanctioned by general convenience, a system of rating on annual value, so long will you get that discrepancy. The existence of that discrepancy does not argue that there is any injustice involved to local authorities in the matter. And the position would be fully met if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to restore to the local authorities the increment duty which is in theory at least nothing more nor less than a deferred rate. We have to approach this question from two points of view. The right hon. Gentleman, when he drew that very tempting analogy of the German towns, approached the question from the point of view of the large reduction of rates which would accrue to municipalities if they became large landowners. I admit at once that that is a very attractive proposal. I admit, also, that in a great many German towns there has been a considerable lightening of the local burdens owing to the extent to which they are landowners. But I would remind the House that there is a very great difference in the constitution of the governing bodies which govern a German town and the governing bodies which govern an English town. Secondly, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that we do not select our municipal representatives because they are skilled dealers in land. In spite of the ridicule which the right hon. Gentleman poured upon our contention, I submit there is no form of speculation which is more hazardous than the purchase and sale of land, as a great many Members on both sides of the House will know from personal and, perhaps, somewhat bitter experience. In a great many of the larger municipalities we have been carried away by a similar argument, not in regard to land, but in regard to certain municipal trading undertakings. There is more than one municipality in England at the present moment which is regretting that it ever embarked upon an enterprise to reduce its rates by means of municipal trading. Quite apart from that, I doubt very much whether it would be to the advantage of the local authorities concerned, or the ratepayers, or whether it would be their wish that municipalities should become great landowners. I will take the case of London. We have known in London municipalities and the county council make grave errors in the development of their estates.
And Glasgow.
I am not going into some of the transactions in land which have been embarked upon with unfavourable results by the London County Council, but I am going to take one point on which I think the House will be agreed. When the London County Council originally took to dealing with the housing question they invested a very large amount of money in what was then considered not only the most scientific but the only solution of the question. People who had thought the matter out with great care came and said, "The more your site value increases the higher must be the building that you put up," with the result that we spent a very large sum of money in building those huge block dwellings which everyone on both sides regrets to-day.
There is another aspect of this question. If you encourage the municipalities to buy a larger portion of the land within their area you are encouraging them to pile up a very large debt, and unless soon after the purchase of the land has been accomplished there is an immediate and material increase, not only in the capital value of the land, but in the return which the municipality is deriving from the land, you will be increasing the burden upon the ratepayers, and not relieving it. The other point of view from which we approach this Motion is a very much exaggerated point of view of the difficulty which municipalities have in acquiring land for public purposes. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the process is very much too expensive, and most Members on this side of the House would cordially cooperate with him if he could see his way to reforming the methods under which land is acquired compulsorily. But when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that a general power to acquire land should be given to municipalities, a general power subject not to the sanction of Parliament—we are to be relieved of that expense—but to the sanction of a Government Department, I become rather suspicious, because I think that a great many of us would sooner come to an impartial committee of this House to obtain that sanction, although it might be rather more expensive, than see the local authorities put under the despotic arbitrary heel of the bureaucracy of a Government Department. That is a salient fact which the right hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind. There is great room for cheapening the process and cost of acquiring land, both in limitation of the number of expert witnesses, providing a proper scale for the taxation of costs and regulation of fees and setting up a judicial tribunal to deal with the matter, instead of the present system of having professional men sitting as arbitrators. But be that as it may, I do not admit that at present there is any grievance suffered by local authorities in this connection which cannot be easily remedied. When we consider that there is little difficulty in obtaining compulsory powers, that when those compulsory powers are obtained the price is, as a rule, fixed by arbitration, in a great many cases in which attention is called to the injustice suffered by local authorities, such injustice is grossly exaggerated for the purposes of current controversy.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
The State, in the shape of the Duchy of Lancaster, is a large owner in every district, and I am bound to say that, generally speaking, I prefer to deal with a private landlord rather than with the State. I remember very well the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes having two chapels in Soho. One he leased from a Tory landlord, a member of the Church of England, and when he approached him he got most excellent treatment and every consideration. He had another chapel which was rented from the Crown, near Oxford Street, and the lease fell in. They simply would not listen to him. They would hear nothing of his philanthropic work and would not receive any particulars about nursing sisters, but simply gave a blank refusal and a curt dismissal whenever an interview was sought.
It being Eleven of the clock the Debate stood adjourned.
Charity Bills
Coombe Street (Exeter) Independent Chapel Charity Bill
Foleshill Road (Coventry) Concrecational Chapel Charity Bill
HORSFORTH (WEST RIDING) BAPTIST CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
MARDEN (KENT) CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
OLD SLEAFORD (LINCOLNSHIRE) CHAPEL CHARITY BILL.
Considered in Committee (Sir Frederick Banbury in the chair).
Bills reported without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Tuesday next, 5th May.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjourned at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.