asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the danger to the public health caused by the condition of some Territorial camping grounds; and whether he has any statement to make thereon?

The War Office have been in constant communication with the Local Government Board as to the precautions necessary in connection with the aggregation of troops, prisoners and refugees in camps and other places, and on 31st August the Board's Medical Officer sent a circular letter to the medical officers of health of all sanitary districts, inviting them, if there were troops in their districts, to co-operate with the military medical authorities in all sanitary matters connected with the troops. The War Office sent copies of this circular to the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief of all military districts, asking them to do all in their power to maintain thorough sanitary supervision. Inspectors of the Local Government Board are now visiting various districts in which troops are congregated, conferring with the military and civil medical authorities, and reporting to the Board on the arrangements made. There appears to be no evidence at present that the condition of any Territorial camping ground is such as to endanger the public health. If my hon. and gallant Friend has such information, perhaps he would communicate it to the War Office. Inspections could thus be made, and we should be glad to make inquiry, and I am assured we shall have the assistance of the Local Government Board in any inquiry we institute.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now grant permission to Territorial associations to call up a proportion of Class II. and Class II. of the different units of the National Reserve volunteering for the work in cases where the local police, in conjunction with the different military commands concerned, find it desirable to provide guards for main railway and road bridges situated on the principal routes to cross-Channel ports, as well as for water works, electric light works, gas works, and other public undertakings of the kind, the safety of which is a matter of material interest both to the military authorities and to the public; if he is aware that in Dover such National Reserve units are already doing duty of this nature; and if, as the employment of such National Reserve men in certain other military centres of activity would free Territorial Force men for full training and throw less strain upon the police forces which are already quite fully occupied, he will issue information on the subject to Territorial associations and to the chief superintendents of police?

Instructions, in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, have been issued by the War Office to General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, and Territorial Force associations. A considerable and daily increasing number of National Reservists is so employed, where considered necessary, thereby relieving the more mobile troops for training and other duties.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a Territorial officer volunteering for general foreign service, an adequate pension, sufficient to compensate the dependants of a professional man, will be granted to his dependants in case of his death?

If a Territorial officer is killed on active service or dies of wounds, pension is granted under the same conditions and at the same rates as for a Regular officer of the same rank.

asked whether any German firms or individuals trading in this country hold contracts for the supply of arms and ammunition, boots, or wearing apparel for the troops?

I cannot say that among the many thousands of contractors at work there may not be some with German affinities, and at the present time it would not be possible to make a searching investigation.

In the case of a firm with a head office in Hamburg and a branch in London, would there be any objection, under the Trading Bill, to contracts or business with such a firm?

It would depend upon the particular circumstances. I cannot answer a general question.

The thing is of frequent occurrence.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the delay in notifying relatives of wounded officers and men of the nature of their wounds after they have been told they are wounded; and whether all possible efforts are being made to accelerate the news and so relieve the anxiety of relatives?

The difficulty of supplying information is due in large measure to the frequent shifting of the base, but inquiry will be made and every effort used to accelerate the news.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that soldiers who are widowers will often have to pay someone to look after their children in their absence, he will consider the question of granting separation allowances to such children on a generous scale?

The principle of giving larger allowances to motherless children has always been observed in Army Regulations, and will be observed in any alterations that may be made.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of men now at Aldershot enlisted in the Motor Transport Army Service Corps, which service carries pay at 6s. per day and for a period of one year or termination of the War, but that owing to the fact that the proper forms were not available the men enlisted used other forms and were sworn in on those forms which bind them for three years or the termination of the War at 1s. 2d. per day; and if he will see that no advantage is taken of these men and of the absence of proper forms, and that these men be enlisted and sworn under the proper forms?

The matter is under consideration, and if it is shown that a mistake in the form of enlistment has occurred it will be remedied.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain non-commissioned officers of the Army Service Corps being called up on mobilisation at Harwich and Landguard were only retained three weeks and then dismissed; and will he say what the Department intends to do for these men who left their civil employment and now find that they cannot get back to their former positions?

I am having inquiry made

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any Irish manufacturers have tendered for the supply of khaki cloth required by the War Office and if any such tenders have been accepted?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in some cases the wives of recruits are being informed that separation allowance only becomes payable when the recruit actually leaves for service abroad, and are being refused payment of separation allowance on this ground although their husbands have gone to training camps after giving up remunerative civil employment; whether the information is correct; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure that in all cases separation allowance is paid as from the date of enlistment?

The information to which the hon. Member draws attention is quite untrue, and he will be doing a public service by contradicting it. The fullest information regarding the issue of separation allowance is being circulated to all local authorities and committees, and further means to the same end are being taken. Every practical step is also being taken to ensure immediate and regular payment.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can assure the House that no ammunition known as dum-dum bullets has been, or will be, used by the British troops now in action?

No ammunition has been issued for use on the Continent which does not comply with the conditions laid down by The Hague Convention.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that some private persons who are prepared to take wounded soldiers who are sufficiently convalescent out of hospital and care for them until well have been informed that the men have no clothes to go in; and, having regard to the importance of having full accommodation for wounded men in hospital, will he so arrange that authorities be given power to supply the men with necessary clothes under these circumstances?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, authority has been already issued to officers in charge of hospitals to purchase locally whatever clothes may be required for convalescent soldiers leaving hospital in the event of no public stock being available to meet their requirements. Further, voluntary aid organisations, who have inquired as to what it is best to send to military hospitals in the Way of clothing, have been informed that the most suitable articles are such as would supplement a soldier's regulation clothing when he is sent as a convalescent to private houses.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give him an instance in Devonshire in which a Member of this House was prepared to take ten convalescent soldiers, and they, although anxious to come, could not do so because they could not get clothing?

I shall be glad to make inquiries.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will endeavour to arrange with the cable companies for a substantial reduction in their charges during the enforced use of plain language for business cable messages?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to a question asked by the hon. Member for North Islington on the subject of cable rates.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman has he inquired into my allegation that the expenses of the company have trebled, and that that is a serious charge upon them?

It is a serious charge that had better be put in writing.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange to allow at the present time the use of those code cable addresses which were registered prior to the War, even though code messages are not at present allowable?

I understand that this matter is under the consideration of the military authorities, who are responsible for the cable censorship.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of German residents in Manchester, arrested for not registering their nationality, were conveyed to the railway station on their way to their place of detention handcuffed and in chains; and whether he will address a circular to local officials as to the avoidance of unnecessary severity in such circumstances?

I find on inquiry that the prisoners referred to were German Reservists who were held as prisoners of war. As there were a large number of prisoners, the superintendent of police in charge thought it necessary to handcuff them for safe custody. I learn that the prisoners were brought in vans up to the platform where the railway carriage was waiting for them, and every step possible was taken to ensure privacy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a foreign subject on becoming a naturalised Englishman is not required to renounce his allegiance to his former country; and, if not, whether such renunciation is not required in other countries in the like circumstances, and should not be exacted in England?

So far as English law is concerned a foreigner is not required, on becoming naturalised in the United Kingdom, to renounce his original nationality. On the other hand, an Englishman who becomes naturalised in a foreign country loses his British nationality, and the law of many other countries is similar. It is left to each country to decide whether it will, or will not, still recognise as a subject a person who has become naturalised abroad, and any attempt to interfere with this rule would require legislation and would raise very difficult questions of international law.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the law in Great Britain at the present time is subject to serious objections and that its alteration should be considered?

The law in this country is in many respects the same as in a great many other countries. I am not sure that the view of the hon. Gentleman would receive universal acceptance.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman mentioned objections in the law of this country, to the serious difficulty and prejudice of Great Britain?

I am not sure I appreciate the particular point in which the hon. Gentleman thinks British law differs from the law of a great many other countries.

It differs from the United States.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government will introduce legislation to make it impossible for German subjects to become naturalised as British subjects unless they renounce at the same time their German nationality?

Under the German law, a German subject to become naturalised as a British subject must renounce his German nationality except in certain very limited number of circumstances. The general rule is, that a German naturalised here must renounce, by German law, his German nationality.

Would the Government introduce legislation to destroy these small number of exceptional circumstances?

I should have to consider that point.

asked the Attorney-General whether Articles 1 and 2 of Convention VI. of the Final Act of the Second Peace Conference at The Hague are imperative; and whether Articles 3 and 4 of the same Convention are binding upon Great Britain in their entirety and on Germany only subject to the reserves with which she accepted such articles?

Articles 1 and 2 of Convention VI. were agreed to both by this country and by Germany, and will of course be observed by us if Germany observes them; Article 3 and the second paragraph of Article 4 were not assented to by Germany, and therefore do not in any way bind this country as regards Germany in the present War.

Is is not a fact that they were accepted by Germany subject to certain reservations?

The reservations were to certain articles of the Treaty, namely—Article 3 and the second paragraph of Article 4.

asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking or propose to take with regard to life insurance on soldiers and sailors?

I have been in communication with the chairman of the Life Offices Association this morning and have laid certain proposals before him. These proposals will be considered at a meeting of the association to be held on Thursday. Until the result of that meeting is known it is not possible to make a further statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet state the proposals of the Government with regard to increasing the separation allowances and the widows' and orphans' pensions?

As I stated yesterday, I hope to make a statement on this subject before the end of the Session, but I am not yet in a position to do so.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the director of the British Museum is away from London on military duty; and if he will confer with the trustees as to the advisability of appointing a deputy-director during the absence of the director on military duty so that, in case of emergency, someone may be in authority to order additional steps to be taken to safeguard the national treasures?

I understand that the director of the British Museum is returning from military duty, as the trustees consider it of importance that he should not be absent from his post during the present time.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any knowledge of action by the German Government in revoking the naturalisation papers of recently naturalised Englishmen in Germany, in cases where their occupations or business connections appear to justify it as a means of bringing more effective methods into operation for preventing the transmission of valuable information to the enemy; and whether he will bear in mind the possibility of taking similar steps in this country against persons in respect of whom a like suspicion arises?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have no information as to the reported action of the German Government in this matter. To enable any similar course to be taken in this country legislation would be needed, and as at present advised I do not think it necessary to ask for further powers for this purpose. Foreigners naturalised in the United Kingdom are subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and the Defence of the Realm Act and Regulations, and being British subjects would also be guilty of high treason if they assisted or attempted to assist the enemy.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that it would offend the public conscience and create an apparent lack of internal solidarity if a contested General Election were to take place next year, and if the usual party campaign with a view thereto were to commence in the course of the next few months, he will consider the desirability, by Amendment of the Parliament Act, of extending the duration of the present Parliament until 1917, or, alternatively, of constituting a Coalition Government for the purposes of the next Parliament, so that next year's General Election may not be fought by any party upon the ordinary issues of domestic controversy?

I fear I cannot undertake to deal with a matter so complex by question and answer in the House.

Does the Prime Minister contemplate without anxiety this country being convulsed by acute electoral controversy during the continuance of the War?

I trust that will not take place.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give the composition and the regiments, British and Indian, of the force which is being sent from India to take part in the War?

It has already been stated that this will be done as soon as military considerations permit. I can make no statement at present.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has observed the accounts, purporting to come from wounded soldiers in hospital, of gross violations of the laws of civilised warfare committed by German officers and men in the field; and whether, in view to obtaining an unimpeachable record of this matter, the Government will as soon as possible appoint a Commission to take sworn evidence both in this country and on the Continent with regard to the alleged German atrocities?

This matter is under the consideration of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, who will take such steps as seem to them best adapted to ascertain the truth of these accounts.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any assurance that an inquiry of some sort will be held immediately with this object in view?

Yes, certainly, but perhaps not in the form which the hon. Member suggests.

asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the Treasury to ensure that, as far as possible, extra work throughout the Civil Service shall be dealt with by the employment of extra clerks recruited on a strictly temporary basis; whether the present powers of the Treasury are sufficient to secure that Departmental heads shall act in accordance with this policy; if not, whether such powers will be acquired; and whether any extra work that is of a highly skilled character and on which temporary clerks cannot be employed is being paid for at the usual overtime rates?

The extra pressure on certain Departments due to the War has been met to a considerable extent by the loan to them of officers from other Departments not so affected, and arrangements are in force under which, when this means of providing the necessary assistance is exhausted, the Departments can, subject to Treasury sanction, obtain unemployed clerks from the outside for temporary service through the agency of the Civil Service Commissioners. I do not think that any further powers or measures are required for this purpose. The ordinary overtime regulations remain in force.

May I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that it is the intention to employ additional clerks rather than work them excessive overtime?

When additional clerks are required they will be obtained in the usual way.

May I ask whether the employment of retired Civil servants would not be open to certain advantages (1) that the clerks would not be overworked; (2) that they would require no payment; and (3) the fact that at the end of the War they could be discharged?

It does not seem to me that it would be a useful suggestion to employ retired Civil servants to do work which can be usefully done by clerks out of work.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large number of unclaimed remittances on account of separation allowances are lying in the Post Offices throughout the country; whether any steps have been taken for establishing a system of payment through local authorities, and whether he has considered the possibility of applying to the payment of these allowances the system of payment through the Post Office which is in force for the payment of Old Age Pensions?

I have no information that any large number of remittances is lying unclaimed, but wrong addresses or removals may account for a few. As I stated yesterday, early in October a system of direct weekly payment will be instituted.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider some relaxation of the tests for eyesight of recruits so that the wearing of glasses may not wholly debar men from joining His Majesty's Army?

This has been considered, but the Army Council have not seen their way so far to grant any relaxation. I do not wish this decision to be considered final.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether Owners of hop gardens are no longer allowed to engage Belgian refugees as hop pickers, and whether in cases where the owner of the hop garden cannot obtain English pickers he may be allowed to engage Belgians so that the remainder of his crop may be picked before it is spoilt?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, the second part does not, therefore, arise.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is not the case that under Article 24 of the Scotch Code, attendances of scholars at physical exercises, swimming lessons, or other forms of outdoor lessons, may, with the sanction of the Department, be counted as school attendances; whether application was made under that Article by the Glasgow School Board to count the services given by boys as orderlies at the request of the officer commanding recruits, and the Bed Cross Society, and under due supervision—

"Order, order!"

The hon. Member brought that question to me yesterday, and I understood that he was going to put it down on the Paper. It is a lengthy question, and one involving so much detail that I think it should be put upon the Paper.

There are very obvious reasons why this should be put as an immediate question and why an immediate answer is required, and I thought when I came to you that you gave me permission to put the question to-day.

If the hon. Member had only handed it in at the Table, it would have appeared on the Paper.

On the second day?

I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question now. There is no true comparison between the physical exercises or swimming lessons under a competent instructor referred to in Article 24 and the work proposed to be done, which largely consists of running errands; and I may add to the answer I gave yesterday that, while it is in the power of the school board at its own discretion whenever it thinks it desirable not to insist upon attendance, I do not think that it is desirable to encourage the employment of children at school when it is possible to find plenty of older lads who have left school, as well as other unemployed persons, who would be very glad of the work, even though the employment of the latter may cost a little more. As to the second part of the question, it is not the case that the Glasgow School Board referred to Article 24, which, as I have pointed out, is not applicable.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether, in the opinion of the Scottish Education Department, the lessons of self-reliance, helpfulness, and— [Interruption.]

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state why the Scottish section of the Insurance Commission Report for 1913–14 is not to be published as a Parliamentary Paper and not to appear on the Pink Paper; and what steps will Scottish Members who desire copies have to take?

The complete Report of the Insurance Commissioners was published as a Parliamentary Paper, and was fully delivered to Members. As the Scottish section will be issued separately as a Stationery Office publication, for convenience and economy only, it will not appear on the Pink Paper. If Scottish Members desiring copies will apply at the Vote Office copies will be sent to them immediately on publication.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it has been brought to his notice that the holders of and merchants dealing in American cotton in Liverpool have combined to fix the price of the stock in that port at an artificial value, and that they are acting together to prevent new importations; whether he is aware that the price fixed by the combination is 50 per cent. above the price quoted in the United States, and that business cannot be resumed with the Far East nor the mills started until a national level of prices is attained; and whether, failing the resumption of importations by the ordinary merchants, he can do anything, in conjunction with British and American banks, to assist in bringing to this country a supply of the raw material essential to the Lancashire cotton trade?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Government are giving their most careful attention to the whole cotton position, which they recognise to be a matter of the gravest importance. The representations of my hon. Friend are being investigated, and meantime I would prefer not to make any definite statement.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease near Grimsby were traceable to hay or straw used for packing merchandise imported from the Continent; if so, from what country; and, if not, what is the supposed origin of these outbreaks?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the last part, the Board are not at present in a position to express any opinion as to the origin of infection.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if any Member of the House of Commons has been appointed on the Committee on Chemical Products, of which the Lord Chancellor is chairman; and whether proceedings and minutes of evidence will be published for the information of Members of this House?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Will my hon. Friend give the information as to the proceedings of the Committee to those Members who are particularly interested in the subject, or is the whole thing to be kept in darkness?

I will consider the question.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if the conditions have been decided upon which the new building Grants are to be made, and if they have been circulated to the relief committees in the country?

Advances under the Housing Act (No. 2) Act of this Session are to be made to local authorities and authorised societies. I have issued a Circular to all the local authorities explaining the position. The Circular is included in the White Paper on Prevention and Relief of Distress, copies of which have been sent to the local representative committees.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether under the provisions of recent rural housing legislation his Department have passed schemes for the erection of cottages in the Highworth district of Wiltshire to provide for the needs of the locality, and especially for the housing of certain labourers presently to be evicted for participation in a recent strike for higher wages?

On the 31st March last the Local Government Board sanctioned loans amounting to £785 for the purchase of land and the erection of four cottages by the Highworth Rural District Council at Liddington. I understand that the council have also been considering the question of erecting houses for persons of the working class in the parishes of High-worth and Wroughton. I wrote yesterday to make further inquiry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the latter part of the question states the fact correctly, and would the President of the Local Government Board bear in mind that Michaelmas Day is approaching which is a time when agricultural labourers change from one employment to another, and consequently there is no possibility in the present circumstances of any labourers being destitute of cottage accommodation?

I have no information as to the facts stated.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in one White Paper the Postponement of Payments Act, 1914, and the various Proclamations so far issued dealing with it?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Postmaster-General whether there were applications from postmasters and others for the post-mastership of Warrington; if so, were the applicants all incompetent, and was this the reason that it was found necessary to give the office to an ex-National Telephone employé with less than two years' service; and can he say whether this ex-National Telephone employé had passed the same examinations as the Post Office men who also applied for the situation?

There were a number of applications for the postmastership of Warrington from officers fully competent to undertake the work; and from these I selected the officer whose appointment, in my judgment, would best further the interests of the service. The officer selected, having been transferred from the National Telephone Company, had not had the opportunity of passing a Civil Service examination; he served nearly thirty years with the company, and I may remind the hon. Member of the undertaking of the Government that service with the company would be regarded as of the same value as service on corresponding duties in the Post Office for the purpose of seniority.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a prisoner in Wakefield gaol committed suicide on Thursday last to avoid a flogging ordered by the governor for violent conduct; and whether the Home Office is unable to devise some less degrading method of dealing with passionate and refractory prisoners?

The flogging was ordered not by the governor but by the Visiting Committee, under Section 5 of the Prison Act, 1898, for two very violent assaults upon warders. The method of dealing with passionate and refractory prisoners is not free from difficulty, but as now advised I see no reason for reconsidering the law.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in consequence of three out of the four registrars of the Land Registry Office being absent on holiday together, a gentleman outside that office has been appointed to perform their duties at a high rate of remuneration; whether he will explain why at the present juncture such an expenditure should be incurred; and whether there is not a single officer in the Department capable of undertaking, and willing to undertake, the duties of the absent gentlemen, if it be really necessary that they should be away together?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer this question. This question must be put under some misapprehension. No one has been appointed to perform the duties of any of the registrars referred to. The Chief Registrar and two of his assistants are absent on the regular holiday to which they are fully entitled. One of the assistant registrars is in attendance during the vacation, and performs all necessary duties.

I rise to a point of Order with reference to the first Order on the Paper. I submit that it is not in order to anticipate, for the purpose of frustrating, a non-existent Act, and that the attempt is not helped by misdescribing as an Act an instrument which is only a Bill at the present time. The supposed Act not being in existence, we are necessarily thrown back upon the Bill. I submit that it is not in order to introduce a Bill to amend or suspend a Bill. It is out of order because a Bill, so long as it remains a Bill, is alterable, suspendable, and destructible by operating directly upon itself, and therefore is not, and cannot be, so dealt with by the instrumentality of another Bill. So long as it is only a Bill, it is an unfixed and undetermined thing, subject to self-alteration, self-suspension, and self-destruction; and therefore cannot be a subject for another Bill to operate upon until it has become fixed by ceasing to be a Bill and becoming an Act. Therefore the present Motion on the Paper is out of order. This reasoning is flawless and of itself conclusive, but it is also fortified by the fact that no Speaker of the House of Commons has ever allowed a Bill to be reintroduced proposing to amend or suspend a Bill. Whoever attempted such a thing would be told that he could accomplish his purpose only by dealing directly with the Bill he desired to alter. On these grounds, I, with great respect, ask you to rule that the Motion on the Paper is out of order.

I am afraid I am not able to accept the hon. Member's contention. If he looks at his Order Paper he will find that Order No. 10 (Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill) is a Bill which has already been read a first time by the House, proposing the very thing which he conteads is out of order. Further, it is not an infrequent thing to have Consolidation Bills in the same Session to repeal a Bill almost immediately after it has become an Act. A Consolidation Bill can follow another Bill dealing with the same subject and receive the Royal Assent only a moment or two after the preceding Act which it repeals.

Before I explain briefly to the House what are the provisions of the Bill which I ask leave to introduce, I must take note of the fact that the action of the Government in introducing this Bill is represented, and I have no doubt honestly believed in many quarters, to be a violation of assurances given by me on their behalf, if not of the letter, at any rate of the spirit of those assurances, and, what is perhaps equally, if not more, serious, an attempt on the part of the Government of the day—at a time of supreme national emergency—to take advantage of the spirit of patriotism which has been so universally and so splendidly manifested for the base purpose of party advantage. I am going to speak, I hope, in language and in temper which will not arouse or, at any rate, embitter controversy, but I could not possibly pass by allegations of that kind, and I shall endeavour as temperately as I can to show to the House and to the country that they are devoid of foundation. At the end of the month of July, before the War had broken out, and when the negotiations which preceded it had reached a critical stage, the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Bill had been put down as the First Order of the day. When the Order was called on the 30th July I used language that perhaps I need not apologise for now quoting to the House. I said:—

"I do not Propose to make the Motion which stands in my name..… The issues of peace and war are hanging in the balance..… In these circumstances it is of vital importance in the interests of the whole world that this country, which has no interests of its own directly at stake, should present a united front, and be able to speak and act with the authority of an undivided nation. If we were to proceed to-day with the first Order on the Paper, we should inevitably, unless the Debate was conducted in an artificial tone, be involved in acute controversy in regard to domestic differences."

I leave out again some words which are immaterial—

"I need not say more than that such a use of our time at such a moment"—

It was a time when negotiations were still pending, and when the authority of this country which was being steadily exerted in the attainment of peace might be seriously hampered and jeopardised—

"I need not say that such a use of our time at such a moment might have injurious, and lastingly injurious, effects on the international situation. I have had the advantage of consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, who, I know, shares to the full the view which I have expressed. We therefore propose to put off for the present the consideration of the Second Reading of the Amending Bill—of course without prejudice to it." future—in the hope that by a postponement of the discussion the patriotism of all parties will contribute what lies in our power, if not to avert, at least to circumscribe, the calamities which threaten the world. In the meantime, the business which we shall take will be confined to necessary matters and will not be of a controversial character."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1914, col. 1594, Vol. LXV.]

The Leader of the Opposition concurred in what I said, and the House generally and, indeed, universally consented to postpone the consideration of the Amending Bill. That language was used, as I have said, at a time when negotiations were pending, when, as far as Europe as a whole was concerned, and, still more, as far as this country was concerned, we still had hope, and good hope, that war might be avoided. Those hopes, unfortunately, as everyone knows, were not realised, and the House devoted itself, without distinction of party, to the consideration and passing of Bills which were necessary for the protection of the best interests of this country in the contest on which, with good conscience, and with the general, I may say universal, concurrence of all sections of opinion in the country, we had been compelled to embark.

On the 10th August, when these Bills had been passed, I moved the Adjournment, and again I may, perhaps, be allowed to quote my words. I said:—

"When ten days ago the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland (Amendment) Amending Bill was postponed, both the Leader of the Opposition and myself pointed out that postponement must be without prejudice to the domestic and political position of any party. To what was then said and assented to I adhere both in the letter and in the spirit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th August, 1914, col. 2276, Vol. LXV.]

I do not think I need quote what I said further. Finally, when that short sitting had come to an end, on the 31st August, I again moved the Adjournment of the House, until the 9th September, and, in doing so, I used the language:—

"I renew what I said three weeks ago, that it is our desire that no party in any quarter of the House should gain advantage or should suffer prejudice from the suspension for the moment of our domestic controversies. But, Sir, perhaps it is right that I should recall to House what was the Parliamentary situation at the time when, with general consent, those controversies were suspended. On the one hand, it was the avowed intention of the Government to put on the Statute Book before the close of the Session two Bills which had complied, or were about to comply, with the conditions and requirements of the Parliament Act. That intention, it is hardly necessary to say, remains unchanged. On the other hand, the House was on the eve of embarking at the instance of the Government, for reasons on which I need not now dwell, because they are fresh in everybody's memory, on the consideration of an Irish Amending Bill, and I hope it is not necessary for me to say again here that we should regard it as most unfair to resort to what has been described as a 'snap Prorogation,' as it no such Bill had ever been introduced. When we resume, after this very short interval, it is still our hope that it may be found possible.… by means of negotiations and agreement, to arrive at something in the nature of a settlement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st August. 1914, cols. 436–7.]

The right hon. Gentleman opposite, following me, used these words:—

"I am quite sure that it is his (the right hon. Gentleman's) desire, and it is certainly our desire, that as a result of the War nothing should be done in regard to any controversial matter to place any of the parties in the controversy in a worse position than they were in before the War broke out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st August, 1914, col. 437.]

I think these views, if not literally, at least substantially in accordance as they were, represented the general, I might almost say the universal opinion of the House. I need hardly assure the House that my colleagues and myself have not, in intention at any rate, in the least departed from the position which we then assumed. It is obvious to everybody that no party in this House, no party in this great controversy, can be put at the conclusion of the War, with all the unforeseen and unforeseeable events which may intervene, in precisely the same position as it was when the War began. I see that words of mine are quoted—words used, I think, in the spring, long before there was any War in prospect or even dreamt of—to the effect that until the Amending Bill should have been disposed of it was not our intention that the Irish Government Bill should be put on the Statute Book. That was our intention, and it would certainly have been carried out. Everybody now admits that the Amending Bill, from circumstances which could not have been and certainly were not foreseen, cannot in this Session be satisfactorily or adequately or even reasonably discussed. The question, therefore, with which the Government were confronted, and with regard to which it is their duty to give the best advice they can to the House of Commons, is this: How, in the altered circumstances, the spirit and the substance, as distinguished from the mere letter of our intentions, could be best fulfilled? To answer that question it is necessary, which I will do very briefly, the situation so far as these domestic controversies were concerned which existed at the outbreak of the War. In the first place, the two Bills—the Bill that deals with the Government of Ireland and that which deals with the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Welsh Church—had passed, during three Sessions extending over two years, all their stages in this House. They had gone beyond the control of the House of Commons. They were about to comply and must have complied, at the time the Session came to its normal close, with all the conditions prescribed by the Parliament Act and would have passed on to the Statute Book. Therefore, unless the outbreak of war was to be used or taken advantage of to prejudice those two Bills, they must, before this Session came to an end, become part of the law of the land.

The next point is this: Taking still the state of things at the time of the outbreak of war—this, of course, does not apply to the Welsh Bill, but only to the Irish Bill-as regards the Irish Bill the Government, without admitting—it was made clear over and over again—that in our judgment it was in any way unjust or inadequate in the safeguards which it provided against possible injustice, in order to secure, if possible, at the outset of the new system of Irish Government, an atmosphere of peace and good will and, at any rate, to prevent the possibility of anything in the nature of civil commotion, we had introduced—a most unusual procedure—not in this House, but in another place, an Amending Bill—a Bill which, as the House is aware, although it has never discussed it, proceeded upon the principle of granting a provisional exclusion from the operation of the new system of Irish Government of areas which expressed their willingness and their desire to be so ex-eluded. That Bill—again I am speaking of matters which are common knowledge—in the House of Lords—I will not say whether for better or worse, or whether for good or evil; I do not want to embark on any such controversy—that Bill, in its whole scope and character, was completely, transformed, and it came here in its new shape. We put it down for Second Reading, although in the new form which it had then assumed I suppose there were not more than, at the outside, two or three Clauses which we could have asked the House to accept. We put it down for Second Reading, in the hope and with the object of working out upon the floor of this House some possible scheme of provisional arrangement which might, at any rate for the time being, meet with general assent.

4.0 P.M.

I am sure, again, that no hon. Member in any quarter of the House who is listening to me will deny that at the time when the Bill was actually put down for Second Reading, and when, owing to the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition and myself, in the circumstances I have already described, it was postponed, its prospect of passing into law was, to say the least, extremely remote. We had had, I think only the week before, on the invitation of His Majesty the King, a Conference of representative men of all parties concerned at Buckingham Palace, and although all those who were parties to it know that that Conference was conducted in the spirit of a real desire for accommodation, it revealed differences not trivial, but differences of substance which were, for the time being at any rate, unbridgeable and irreconcilable. I do not think anybody will dispute that that is an accurate statement of the case at the time of the outbreak of war so far as the Amending Bill was concerned. Then there is the third fact, which is both material and important, to be considered, if the narrative of this transaction is to be honest and complete. That fact is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Edward Carson) had organised again—I do not say whether for good or for evil; I am dealing simply with the facts—in the Province of Ulster, and particularly in certain areas in that province, a large and disciplined body who were pledged, supposing no satisfactory agreement could be arrived at by means of an Amending Bill or in other ways, forcibly to resist the application of any system of what is called Home Rule in the areas to which they belonged, and indeed, if the contingency should arise, they were, so we understood, to organise for themselves and on their own account, although, of course, they would say as trustees for the interests of the United Kingdom, a provisional government. Whether that was right or wrong, and we all have our own opinions, I do not want to go into it. I am dealing with the actual facts of the situation. Those are the facts. I have tried to point out to the House what were the three outstanding features in the situation with which, when the War broke out, the Government had to deal. In the legal and constitutional circumstances, when the Session came to an end, two Bills—I may leave out for the moment the Welsh Bill; the Irish Bill will take its place, under the provisions of the Parliament Act, as it stands on the Statute Book—secondly, the Amending Bill, whose prospects of passing into law were certainly not of the best; and thirdly, the existence and the activity of the organisation in Ireland of which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) had taken the responsibility of initiation. What then? I want particularly, in view of the strong and very unjust things which have been and are being said, to put it to everybody in every quarter of the House, What was the course that a responsible Government ought to have taken and ought to take, or to recommend the House to take, if it wished, so far as possible, not to give, in consequence of the War, either prejudice or advantage to any party?

One thing I think is obvious—because it forms what I may call the underlying foundation both of the proposals which we are submitting to the House here and of those which we understand were submitted to and discussed by another House last night—namely that, in the opinion of the responsible men on both sides, in the absence of agreement—if agreement could have been obtained, of course that was the most excellent way—but in the absence of agreement for at any rate a provisional settlement—the only way of dealing with the situation was by some form of moratorium. So far we are agreed, because the responsible leaders of the party opposite put forward a moratorium of their own, and we are going to submit to the House to-day the form of moratorium which seems to us the best and most reasonable. The proposal which I understand to be put forward by those who are responsible for the leadership and conduct of the party opposite—I am not dealing for the moment with the Welsh Bill, but entirely with the Irish Bill—is to hang up that Bill at the stage in which it at present finds itself—I do not say whether or not their actual proposal carries out their intention, but I believe this to be their intention—to hang up that Bill in the stage which it has at present reached until the termination of the War. Applying the testing principle to which I think both parties assented when the suspension of our domestic controversies took place—that no one should be in a better or in a worse position in consequence of the outbreak of the War—would that be a fair and an equitable proceeding. It would mean, translated into plain English—from this point of view I am entitled to bring in the Welsh Bill—that practically the whole of the controversial legislation of the present Parliament to which Session after Session we have devoted time and labour, effort and zeal, and which as we believe—we may be wrong, but at any rate we are for the time being a majority—represents the wishes and considered judgment of the electorate of the country—it would mean that the whole of that would be put at the mercy of a chapter of accidents.

No one knows, no human foresight can tell or even at this moment approximately conjecture at what date or under what conditions the War will come to an end. We all hope that it will be soon, but it may be indefinitely postponed and delayed. Is it, I ask, a practicable, is it a reasonable, is it an equitable proposition, when two great measures—you may like them or dislike them—of legislative change had reached a stage at which before the present Session came to an end they must, through the operation of the Parliament Act, be placed upon the Statue Book, that they should be put off without any security of any kind? I do not want to go into detail. I need not point out the kind of danger to which they must inevitably be exposed. One and one very obvious one is that, under our constitutional arrangements as they are at present fixed, a General Election cannot be postponed beyond the autumn or early winter of next year. It is, to say the least, extremely improbable—I will not say that, because I do not want to assume the rôle of a prophet; but, at any rate, it is by no means certain that when the General Election takes place the issues which are raised by these two great Bills will be the issues predominantly in the mind of the majority of the electorate. Anyone with any imagination can forecast a dozen or a score or even a hundred contingencies which by that time may have come about. I know it has been suggested that that particular difficulty might be got rid of by extending the lifetime of the present Parliament for another year. No one can tell when that vague, indeterminate, and perhaps disputable date, the conclusion of the War, will really be reached.

In the meantime, and this was a point which the Government had especially to consider, looking at the matter, I can honestly say, for the moment at any rate, not as a partisan, but in the interests of the Empire, what would have been and what must be the effect of such an indefinite postponement not only upon the people of Ireland in Ireland itself, but upon the Irish race in our Dominions and in the great kindred country, the United States. They would have been told they must exchange for that which was certain and assured all the anxieties of indefinite prolongation over a time of doubt, suspicion and of, indeed, unendurable suspense. To those of us who believe the great patriotic uprising, of which we have had so many evidences in Ireland during the past few weeks, and which, as we believe, will bring, and perhaps for the first time for a hundred years, not merely those gallant Irish regiments who have always been in the forefront of the British Army, but Irish opinion, Irish sentiment, Irish loyalty, flowing with a strong and a continuous and ever-increasing stream into the great reservoir of Imperial resources and Imperial unity, that would have been in itself, to my mind, an unspeakable calamity. We considered the possibility of that alternative and rejected it, for reasons which, I think, are apparent to the House. Admitting, as I do, to the full, that the new state of things created by the War not only warrants but demands a period of suspension, we came to the conclusion that it was our duty to ask the House to sanction a plan under which, as would have taken place without any legislation, these Bills should pass on to the Statute Book, but at the same time no effective steps should be taken to bring them into practical operation before, as a minimum, a term of twelve months, and if at the expiration of that term the War still continues, before a date to be fixed by Order in Council, not later than the duration of the War.

So much for that factor. Now I come to the other factor to which I have referred. It is quite true, as I have said, that this Bill was going on, to the Statute Book under the operation of the Parliament Act. There was also pending in Parliament an Amending Bill, and that Amending Bill, as everyone now admits, cannot be proceeded with in this Session under existing conditions. There was, further, the fact to which I have already alluded, of the organisation planned and to a large extent promoted by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) in Ulster. I do not think any policy would be fair or would comply with the conditions which both sides of the House accepted when we came to our truce in the matter of domestic controversies—

Truce!

Which would not have taken full account of both of these circumstances. As an integral part of the proposals we are now laying before the House, the Government will introduce in the next Session of Parliament, during the suspensory period and before the Irish Government Bill can possibly come into operation, an Amending Bill.

Would that be an agreed Bill?

I do not know.

Another pledge of honour, I suppose!

It is a matter of Parliamentary drafting. I present it as in integral part of the policy I am recommending and now bringing forward, and I have the best hope—and I hope and trust that it is a hope which is shared and not scouted by others who hold different opinions—as to the settlement of this measure. Such an Amending Bill, introduced under the new conditions created by the War, may have a better chance than the Bill which has been before us during the present Session of being moulded into something like general consent and a satisfactory and permanent settlement. At any rate, in view of the altered circumstances which have taken place, the assurance which I give will, in these circumstances, be in spirit and substance, as I have said, completely fulfilled. Things have taken place which no one anticipated, but I give the assurance that in spirit and substance the Home Rule Bill will not and cannot come into operation until Parliament has had the fullest opportunity by an Amending Bill of altering, modifying, or qualifying its provisions in such a way as to secure, at any rate, the general consent both of Ireland and of the United Kingdom. I go a step further. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) has during the past few weeks, as I understand, although my knowledge is only derived from the ordinary sources of information, taken steps to encourage and to stimulate a number of the men who form part of his organisation to respond to the call of the King to enlist with the Colours, and to take part in the common defence of the Empire.

Has the other side done so?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to say anything controversial. I believe we have all read—I certainly read with pride—of the patriotic and public spirit which has been shown by those Ulster Volunteers, and no doubt they will be found not only among the most loyal, but the most efficient defenders of the honour of the Empire. It might be said—going back once more to the principle that in this matter it is not fair that any party should be advantaged or prejudiced by the outbreak of the War—that those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents—again I say nothing in the way of criticism or even comment upon their organisation—had been put at a disadvantage by the loyal and patriotic action which they have undertaken. I say, speaking again on behalf of the Government, that in our view, under the conditions which now exist—we must all recognise the atmosphere which this great patriotic spirit of union has created in the country—the employment of force, any kind of force, for what you call the coercion of Ulster, is an absolutely unthinkable thing So far as I am concerned, and so far as my colleagues are concerned—I speak for them, for I know their unanimous feeling—that is a thing which we would never countenance or consent to. I have necessarily gone out-side the actual limits of the Bill, because I want to speak in as absolutely an uncontroversial spirit as circumstances will allow as to the real policy which the Government propose.

Let me interpose one word at this stage in regard to the Welsh Bill. The various considerations to which I have been adverting do not apply, or hardly any of them apply, to that Bill. There is no question there of an Amending Bill, or any questions arising in connection with it or out of it. But we do feel in regard to the Welsh Bill also that the outbreak of the War has created a state of things which would make it unjust and inequitable to proceed with the immediate operation of the measure. I refer particularly to the fact that the Disendowment, or partial Disendowment, of the Welsh Church would necessarily impose upon its supporters and friends during the early years of the existence of the Disestablished body pecuniary sacrifices for the purpose of getting together and making good a voluntary commutation fund. The burden under which we all of us lie in consequence of the War to restrict our expenditure, and to devote as much as we can to public purposes, together with the certainty that new taxation must be imposed which will still further curtail the resources of the ordinary citizen, makes it appear to us just and equitable that the operation of the Disendowment provisions of that Bill should be postponed. But when you come to examine the matter, you cannot disentangle the provisions in regard to Disendowment from those in regard to Disestablishment. We, there- fore, propose that, subject to such comparatively formal matters as the institution of enquiries which prejudice nobody, with that exception in the case of the Welsh Bill as in the case of the Irish Bill, no steps should be taken to put it into actual operation until twelve months from the date of passing, or, if the War then continues, during the same term as is prescribed in the Irish Bill. These are the proposals which seem to the Government, in the exceptional and, indeed, unique conditions of the day, to meet the requirements both of reason and of justice. I am not much troubled myself by those accusations—I know they are ill-founded—of breach of promise and breach of faith. If that is a matter of any importance, so far as my personal honour is concerned, I am quite content to leave it in the keeping of my countrymen. But it is a matter which goes far beyond the reputation and the character of an individual. In the plan which we are proposing to the House I beg them to believe, and I think the country outside will believe, that we are honestly desirous, in a time of grave and unprecedented national emergency, of acting fairly, reasonably, and equitably with all the great interests concerned.

The right hon. Gentleman began what I think, if not a historical speech, is a speech on a historical occasion, by giving his version of what our feelings are in regard to the action he is now taking. He described them with perfect accuracy, and I shall say only this, that those feelings have been strengthened by the speech to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman promised, and he has kept the promise so far as language is concerned, to be moderate and temperate. I shall endeavour to imitate him, and it ought to be easier for me, for we all know that it is far easier for those who have suffered than for those who have inflicted a wrong to forgive. We are engaged once again in discussing questions which for something like three years have been the subject of bitterest controversy between political parties. I think it a great misfortune that this discussion has again become inevitable. Before the War broke out the right hon. Gentleman used words some of which he has himself quoted, but which I shall read again to the House:—

"We should inevitably, unless the Debate was conducted in an artificial tone, be involved in acute controversy in regard to domestic differences. Such a use of our time at such a moment might have injurious, and lastingly injurious, effects on the international situation."

I agreed with him when he used those words. I differ from him now in thinking that because they were true only when negotiations were taking place they have ceased to be true when the lives of men are at stake, and when we are as a nation engaged in a struggle perhaps the greatest in which this country has ever been involved. I can say perfectly truthfully that since this crisis arose I have put out of my mind altogether all considerations of party interest. I do not claim any merit for doing that, for if I had acted otherwise I should not have represented the spirit of the party to which I belong. I claim no merit. I believe also that in a democratic country the party system is inevitable, and I have been a party man. But I sometimes, as we all do, get tired of the bitterness of party strife, and I can say this, that at no time since I have been engaged in politics have I felt so much satisfaction in political life as during the last few weeks when parties had ceased to exist in this House. I hope that that might long continue. I hoped that during this cessation of party bitterness something might be done for the lasting good of the country which would not be possible at any other time. I hoped, for instance—a hope which I have long cherished, which perhaps most Members of the House may think Utopian, but I do not—that as a result of the War, in which men from all parts of the Empire are engaged for a common object and sharing common danger, it might be possible to evolve a federal system for the whole Empire, in settling which the Irish difficulty would sink to its proper proportions, and would be easily solved. Having such views I am sure that my hon. Friends behind me, at least, will understand, and perhaps some hon. Gentlemen opposite may understand, how strong was the feeling, not so much of anger or of resentment as of sorrow when I learned that the Government, as I think—I do not expect hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me—took advantage of our patriotism to betray us.

The Government propose to put the two Bills, the Welsh Bill and the Irish Bill, on the Statute Book as they stand. Admittedly these two Bills, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, are not in the same position. The Welsh Bill has passed through all its stages in this House, and I do not suggest that there is any breach of faith on the part of the Government in putting it on the Statute Book now. But the time limit, which the right hon. Gentleman gives, must I think be admitted by everyone to be entirely inadequate. Everyone knows that when the War is over, and for a long time afterwards, the channels of private benevolence will be dried up, and it will be extremely difficult, even if we admit that the Bill ought to pass, to obtain in that time from private sources anything equal to the funds of which this Bill will deprive the Church in Wales. I may point out, also, that with the assent of the Government a Committee has been appointed in another place on which they have representatives, and I should have thought that it was only proper to wait for the Report of the Committee in which they took part before taking a final decision in regard to this Bill. But my objection to their action in regard to the Welsh Bill is on higher grounds. If it could fairly have been postponed, without any loss of position to those who are in favour of it, except the loss of time—and that is inevitable if it is to bear fruit—then I say, when you realise that this Bill appears to at least half the people of this country as unfair and unjust, and if you realise also that to a large section of the people of this country, whether they are right or wrong, it seems sacrilegious, it is surely wrong, if it could be avoided, to shock the consciences of those people at such a time as this by unnecessarily forcing it upon the Statute Book now.

The Irish Bill is in an entirely different position. In a Debate the other day, a regrettable Debate as I thought, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir Henry Dalziel), said that the difficulty was that we could not understand each other's points of view. I wish that hon. Gentleman opposite would strive to understand our point of view on this question. The view of the party opposite is that the Home Rule Bill is already settled, that it is through the House, and that it is quite independent of the Amend- ing Bill. That is the view of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and also of some hon. Members on the other side of the House. But that never was the view of the Government. They have over and over again said that the two hung together. And more than that, a Member of the Government said in this House that the Amending Bill was in substitution for the Suggestion stage of the Home Rule Bill, and was therefore an essential part of the Home Rule Bill itself. In taking up this Bill, and dealing with it as they propose to do, the Government are taking a course which I think in the circumstances utterly unfair. But they are doing something more. They are deliberately breaking pledges as solemn as were ever given to any Parliament by any Government. I am not going to make that assertion without proof. I ask the House to go back to the circumstances in which the Amending Bill was postponed. On the morning of that day I happened to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). We knew that peace or war must be trembling in the balance. It occurred to me that it was just possible that one of the influences which might decide in which direction the scale would fall was the belief in Germany that we were so divided—I do not think that it is very relevant to consider whose fault that is—that we could not present a united front in any war. Feeling that, we asked the Prime Minister to see us. We suggested to him that it was all-important that an acrimonious Debate should not take place, and he agreed, and it was postponed. In agreeing to it he made two definite statements. One was that in the meantime, until we again resumed the discussion of the Amending Bill, no controversial legislation should be taken. And, more than that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University felt that it was necessary for him to make some statement to his friends in Ulster, and the Ulster Unionists drew up this resolution, which I shall read to the House:—

"That in view of the grave situation in European politics, we approve of the policy of Sir Edward Carson, that, on behalf of the Irish Unionist party, he should agree to the adjournment of the Debate on the Amending Bill until such date as the Government and the Leaders of the Opposition may in the interests of the United Kingdom and the Empire determine."

The House will see that that resolution refers not merely to the Opposition but to the Government. Before it was published, therefore, I took it, at the request of my right hon. Friend, to the Prime Minister, and received his assent to its publication. That was a definite promise of a truce, and that truce has been broken by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman also said—or I think it was I who said it, but he agreed to it—that by the Adjournment no party to the controversy would be placed in a worse position. Does any hon. Member opposite say that we are not placed in a worse position when we have no opportunity of discussing the Amending Bill? Both of these pledges have been broken. But there is another. The Prime Minister told this House, in language as plain and unambiguous as our language permits, that he would not present the Home Rule Bill to His Majesty for Royal Assent until the Amending Bill had been finally disposed of in the House of Commons.

indicated dissent.

He gave that pledge. He does not deny it. What does he say? Circumstances have changed; circumstances have so altered that it is inconvenient to fulfil the pledge, and therefore he is justified in breaking the pledge; and now the right hon. Gentleman has told us, with great solemnity, that before this Bill comes into operation next Session he will introduce another Amending Bill. Is that pledge stronger than the one he gave us before? Let me read the words:—

"Our object is that if, as we hope and believe, that Amending Bill—"

I am leaving out some unnecessary words—

"can be brought into shape so as to pass this House, the two Bills shall become law practically at the same time."

He now gives another pledge, not any stronger in words, not a bit stronger, and he asks, or the House asks, what our feelings about that pledge are, I will refer him to the words which he himself used in another connection the other day:—

"Yes, and what are we to get in return for the betrayal of our friends and the dishonour of our obligations? What are we to get in return?"

[Interruption]—

"A promise, nothing more, as to what Germany would do in certain eventualities—"

[Interruption.] We listened very patiently to the Prime Minister, and I think we have a right to appeal for a patient hearing.

He did not talk stuff like this!

Do not be a cad?

I hope hon. Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right honourable!"] Hon. Members know well enough that if hon. Members begin an interjection the whole House is apt to take it up. I ask, hon. Members to restrain themselves. The circumstances in which we are met are such as place a special obligation on Members in all parts of the House.

I will finish the reading of the quotation:—

"A promise, nothing more, a promise as to what Gel-many would do in certain eventualities, a promise be it observed—I am sorry to have to say it, but it must be put on record—given by a Power which was, at that very moment, announcing its intention to violate its own treaty."

Let me say, if hon. Members think it any pleasure to me to say this, they are mistaken. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you say it? It is not a duty!"] It is true, and that is why I say it. In these circumstances, the Government, in dealing with this Bill, had, as I believe, only two courses which were honourably open to them. One was to arrange a settlement, if possible, which could command general assent, and, if that failed, the only other possible course was to postpone the controversy. As regards the agreement, the Government, I think, tried to secure it, and we were anxious to secure it. We went great lengths in that direction. I, at all events, went greater lengths than I am sure some of our supporters would have approved of. So recently as the beginning of last week the Government gave us, the Opposition, two alternative suggestions. One was the course which the Government are now taking. This we refused to consider. They put before us another suggestion. The Prime Minister carefully guarded himself and us from considering it as an offer and put it only as a suggestion for our consideration. We considered it, and we accepted it, and the fact that the Government thought it worth consideration at all shows that it could not have been an utterly unreasonable suggestion.

I am rather sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has entered into this. As he has, may I be allowed to answer? It is perfectly true that I communicated to him two alternative suggestions, not as proceeding from the Government. I said that there was a suggestion which commended itself to the Government, the one embodied in this Bill. For that I asked the assent of the Leaders of the Opposition. I put it forward, not as a suggestion made by the Government, but as one which I expressly stated—the right hon. Gentleman has got my words there—

rose in his place and handed a document across the Table to the Prime Minister.

It is in my own handwriting, dated the 7th September, exactly a week ago:—

"The first of the two alternatives—the one contained in this Bill and in the policy which I have outlined to-day—is recommended by the Government. They doubt whether the second can be made acceptable to the bulk of their supporters, but, in the existing circumstances, they invite the frankest criticism, and, if it is possible, counter suggestions from the Leaders of the Opposition."

This is a matter involving the privileges of this House, and I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the Government, having read a portion of the document, the House is not entitled to the whole of it?

I have never heard that suggested as applying to letters from the Leader of the House to the Leader of the Opposition. In the case of an official document, that is so.

The House will have seen that I have put precisely the same guard—

I am not complaining at all, but I thought it better to have the exact words.

All I said was, and I repeat it, that the Government did not give it to us as an offer. They put it as a suggestion, and the fact that we have considered it as a suggestion seems to me a proof that, in our accepting it, we could not have been extremely unreasonable. I do not blame the Government for not agreeing to a settlement—not at all. I quite believe that the right hon. Gentleman found that impossible; but I do say that, having failed to obtain an agreement, their only proper course was to have a real moratorium and postpone, until the crisis was over, the whole controversy. That could have been don", as I contend, and as I think I shall show to any fair-minded man in the House, without any loss of position, either on the part of the Government or of the Nationalist party. We were prepared, and the Prime Minister knew it, to agree to a Bill which would have extended to next Session all the powers and privileges under the Parliament Act which they enjoy now. If, therefore, the War were over in time to deal with it next Session, the Government and the Nationalist party would not then have been in a worse position. They would have been in a better position than they were before the War broke out. Let the House remember what the position then was. It was certain that if they proceeded with a Bill which applied to Ulster, Ulster would rise against the operation or the putting on the Statute Book of such a Bill. They may be right or wrong; we will not argue that, but they would have done it, and the result would have been that there would have been nothing automatic about the process, and that nobody could foresee what the result of that action would have been.

5.0 P.M.

In the second place, let me remind the House that the Government, as a result of the breaking out of war, are in a far stronger position in the country than they were then, and next Session, having the same majority, having the same powers under the Parliament Act, on account of their greater strength they would have been more able than they were then to carry their proposals into operation. It is we who would have suffered. But there is something more. I quite admit that if there were the risk of n, General Election that would put hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in an unfair position—in a worse position, at all events. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not unfair!"] We hardly think it unfair, for this reason, that, unless the country approves of the policy, we do not think it should be carried out. But I leave that aside altogether. They would have been, so far as Parliament is concerned, in a worse position. We were prepared to meet that fairly. I told the right hon. Gentleman that in that case, if he desired it, we would agree to a Bill postponing the Election until the matter was settled, so that the result would have been that the Government and the Nationalist party would have been in no worse position, but would have been in a better position than they were before by that arrangement. It is true that there would have been delay, but how can you have a truce without delay? The words the Prime Minister used at the time the Amending Bill was postponed did not mean that there was to be no delay in carrying party measures into effect: they meant that they were to be placed in a fair position after the War was over in regard to the Parliamentary situation. They meant that and nothing else. If there is any Member of the House on the opposite side who can look at this thing fairly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]— it is difficult for us all where party issues are involved—if they can look at it fairly they will see that that arrangement would not have left either the Government or the Nationalists in a worse Parliamentary position than they were before war broke out. Why do the Government not adopt that proposal?

If the Prime Minister had had the courage of his convictions and had come to this House and said, "In a crisis like this we cannot have controversy; we shall postpone it," the whole nation would have been behind him, and it is in itself so fair that even the Gentlemen below the Gangway could not reasonably have objected to it, because if they had done so it would have meant only that they refused to be parties to the truce, and by so doing they would have lost the sympathy of the whole of the people of this country. Why have the Government not done that? There is only one explanation: They counted upon the public spirit and patriotism of the Unionist party here and of the people of Ulster. They said to themselves, "Whatever we may do, they are bound in a crisis like this to help their country. Whatever injustice we inflict upon them, we can count upon them." It is not a pretty calculation—[HON. MEM-BEES: "It was never made!" and other HON. MEMBERS: "It is true!"]—but I would like to say, with the whole authority of our party, that it is a correct calculation—they can count on us.

There are two parties to this great injustice, as I think it: One is the Government and the other is represented by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I have not at all the same feeling of indignation against the hon Gentleman below the Gangway—not at all. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) is not the head of a Government. He is not responsible for the welfare of this country. He is only doing what he has done always, putting pressure on the Government to get his own way, that is all. But I do say this with all sincerity, and I believe it is true, that the hon. Member for Waterford has never in his life, from his own point of view, made so great a mistake as the one he is making now. If he had allowed the Government to act decently in this great crisis he would have done more to help his cause than he will do by a hundred victories such as he is going to gain in the House of Commons to-day. The speech which he made the other day in this House undermined, I believe, the strength of the unionism of a great number of Unionist Members of this House. I was moved by it myself because I accepted it literally. I did not understand then that it was only a promise of conditional loyalty. I have no doubt the hon. Member this afternoon will make a speech promising great things, now that he has got his way. We shall see. I hope he will be successful, for however badly we have been treated by the Government, and however unfairly, for I think it is unfair, by the Nationalists, heaven knows I should be glad to see an end put, on any terms, to the secular quarrel between the Nationalists and the people of this country. I hope, therefore, he will not be unsuccessful; but I am glad of one thing, I am glad that all the Nationalists have not made a promise only of conditional loyalty. I read with great pleasure the speech of the hon. Member for Cork the other day. [A Laugh.] I do not think it is anything to laugh at. I hope it will not do him harm with any of his supporters in Ireland, my reference to him. If it does, I am sure he will forgive me, but I think it does him honour that he did urge his countrymen to go out and help in this War without making any conditions beforehand.

The hon. Member for Waterford has made a great mistake. Ulster never can be coerced; she can only be won. If I may, I would like to read words in this connection which were used in this House a few months ago by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson). The First Lord of the Admiralty said:—

"The right hon. Gentleman will take risks in strife, why will he not run some risks for peace? I am going to run some little risk on my own account. Why cannot he say, 'Give me the Amendments to this Home Rule Bill which I ask, and I, in turn, will use all my influence to make Ireland an integral unit in a federal system'?"

My right hon. Friend replied:—

"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 can say my most earnest prayer, would be that the Government of Ireland for the south and west would prove such a success notwithstanding our anticipation that it might be for the interests of Ulster to move towards that Government."

It is the only way possible in which you will ever get peace in Ireland, and in my belief by what you are doing to-day, by making the people of Ulster believe, as they do, that you are using them treacherously, you are throwing an obstacle in the way of a good understanding between the different sections in Ireland which it will take years and perhaps generations to overcome. That is my belief. I am only going to say one more word about Ulster. It was my desire, and it was the desire of our party, as I found yesterday, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) should speak in this Debate. He does not wish to do so. He says, and it is true, that neither now nor at any time has there been any difference of opinion between him and myself, and that in stating my case I shall also state his. It is not necessary either to repeat what he said yesterday, and nothing could be stronger, namely, that if Ulster were treated forty times worse than they are being treated, he would still go to them and say, "at such a time it is your duty to go forth and help your country." Now the Prime Minister says, "that we are to coerce Ulster is unthinkable!" Lord Crewe said something of the same kind yesterday, but immediately withdrew it. I have heard the same pledge before. The Chief Secretary said it in this House and the Prime Minister endorsed it, and in a few months they were engaged in engineering a plot. But I am sure that the Government will keep that pledge, because they know it will never be in their power to break it, and because they know that no power on earth will ever compel the people of Ulster to submit to a Nationalist Parliament against their will. I am going to say this only further in regard to Ulster: They have, as I say, gone forth and given of their best to serve their country, although an injury is at that very moment being inflicted upon them which only a few weeks ago they would have given their lives rather than submit to. They are doing that. They do not trust the Government—why should they?—but they trust their fellow countrymen, and at the meeting of our party yesterday my right hon. Friend was authorised to say to the people of Ulster, and I intend myself to address a recruiting meeting in Belfast, and I shall give the same message, and it is this, that we undertake, we, the Unionist party, without conditions—I made conditions before, but after this betrayal I make none now—without conditions we shall support them to the utmost in any steps they think it necessary to take to maintain their rights.

I have only this more to say: The Government have treated us, I think, abominably, but we are in the middle of a great struggle—[An HON. MEMBER: "For small nationalities!"] I said the other day at the Guildhall that until that struggle was over, so far as we were concerned, in everything connected with it there would be no party, there would only be a nation. What the Government have done will make no difference whatever in our action in connection with everything regarding the War. We think there ought to have been a moratorium. The Government were willing to have it in everything except party politics. We think there ought to be a truce. The Government will not have it. But we shall have it in spite of them, for it takes two to make a quarrel. Till the War is over we shall, by every means in our power, help this Government because they are the Government, and because in no other way can we serve our country. I give that pledge, and I give it with the full approval of all the members of our party. Now, Sir, in regard to this Debate, I have made a protest as well as I could, and in doing that we have done with it. When I have finished we shall take no further part in the discussion. The words used by the Prime Minister, which I quoted, still apply. You cannot debate this subject without inflicting injury. We shall not do it. I think there is nobody in the House who would consider that it was possible to allow this to be done without some protest in the House. When I have finished we shall leave the House, and we shall not return to it till this subject is ended. We throw upon the Government the whole responsibility. We leave them to do whatever they like. But when the War is over they will find, or I am mistaken, that they have gained a Pyrrhic victory—that they have not in reality gained more than a scrap of paper by the way in which they have treated us to-day. We leave the House, not as a protest, still less as a demonstration. We leave it because in my belief to have forced us to debate this subject at all under present circumstances is indecent, and we shall take no part in that indecency.