House of Commons
Tuesday, October 23, 1917
Ministry of Food
Copy presented of Flour and Bread (Prices) Order, 1917 (General Licence), Currants and Sultanas (Requisition) Order, 1917, and Potato Bags (Returns) Order, 1917, made by the Food Controller under the Defence of the Realm Regulations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Destructive Insects and Pests Acts
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P, 477 to 485, inclusive, declaring the areas described in the respective Schedules thereto to be infected with American Gooseberry Mildew and infected areas for the purposes of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915 [by Act); to lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
War
Turin, Alessandria, and Genoa
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information that the Italian Government has declared the whole of the provinces of Turin, Alessandria, and Genoa in the war zone and subject to military discipline; and what reasons are given for this action?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reasons are a matter of purely internal concern to the Italian Government.
Morphine (Exportation to Far East)
asked whether any understanding has been come to with the Japanese Government on the lines of the International Opium Convention of 1912, whereby the export of morphine manufactured in Great Britain will be restricted as regards its distribution in the Far East to use for medicinal purposes only?
Licences to export morphia or cocaine from this country to Japan are not granted unless they are accompanied by certificates obtained from the Japanese Home Office or from the Japanese authorities of the Kwantung leased territory to the effect that the morphia and cocaine is for actual consumption in Japan or in Dairen and its vicinity and is for medical purposes only. A notice to this effect was published in the Board of Trade Journal on 11th October after communication with the Japanese Government. We under stand that the Japanese Government have issued the necessary instructions for the prevention of smuggling of these drugs and for the exercise of due control in all cases.
United States and Enemy Powers
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a state of war exists between the United States and the dual monarchy, between the United States and Turkey, and between the United States and Bulgaria; whether diplomatic relations still exist between the United States and Bulgaria; and, if the United States are not at war with any or all of these enemy Powers, whether any understanding exists between the Allies and the United States as to the terms to be imposed on these enemy Powers?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, that to the second in the affirmative, and that to the third part in the negative.
Does not the Bulgarian Minister at Washington offer a channel by which communication can be opened to the enemy?
That is a matter on which the hon. Member is as well able to judge as I am.
Food Supplies
Tea
asked how much tea, grown in the British Empire or elsewhere, has been allowed to be imported by the Scandinavian countries, Holland, and Switzerland, respectively, in each year since the War began, compared with their importations in the year prior to the War?
The figures are so long that with my hon. Friend's permission I am having them printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With respect to Scandinavia and Holland they show broadly a very large increase over pre-war figures for 1915 and the first part of 1916, and a progressive diminution since that date to an amount considerably below the pre-war standard. A certain proportion was re-exported from Denmark and Sweden to Russia.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether it is contemplated to utilise certain ships now available in the East to bring over cargoes of dates; and, if so, having regard to the tea famine which exists in the United Kingdom, will he consider whether this cargo space might be made available to carry tea from Calcutta or Colombo?
It is not contemplated to make shipments of dates from the East at the expense of tea cargoes, nor have, in fact, any arrangements been made for the shipment of dates. It is quite possible, however, that favourable opportunities may occur for date shipments which will not interfere with the arrangements made to increase our stocks of tea.
Potatoes
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the number of potatoes which will not keep owing to the wet season, he will take action to prevent waste, due to inability of farmers to sell at the fixed price of £6 a ton?
I have been asked to reply. With a view to ensuring that bad-keeping potatoes should be consumed before good-keeping potatoes, the Potatoes Order restricted the sale of certain varieties except under licence. Such licences are being granted in every case where the Food Controller is satisfied that there are good reasons for allowing the potatoes to go into consumption at an early date. By this and other means, such as preservation and utilisation for bread making, the Food Controller is taking active steps to prevent any waste of potatoes.
Will the President of the Board of Agriculture make representations to the Food Controller to remove the guarantee of £6 a ton to the producer, and——
The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
Will the Government give a guaranteed price if they are not sold?
I am afraid that I cannot answer that. The hon. Member is quite aware of what the Prime Minister said in this House. After the Prime Minister's statement the Board of Agriculture fixed a date from which the guaranteed price would obtain Beyond that I cannot go. I am only replying on behalf of the Food Controller.
When will a representative of the Food Department be here, so that the matter can be discussed on the floor of the House?
I cannot say when my hon. Friend will be present, but I trust that he will be back next week.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food with reference to orders making it unlawful to sell certain kinds of potatoes under £6 a ton, whether any guarantee or undertaking was given that the State would purchase at that price in the event of the producer not being able to obtain it in the ordinary way; and whether he can state where the words conditions and limitations of any such promise are to be found?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Particulars of the guarantee are contained in the Press announcements issued by Lord Devonport on the 9th and 19th January last, and in Mr. Prothero's announcement of the 2nd May. I am sending a copy of these to the hon. Member
Oats (Richmond Park)
asked the First Commissioner of Works what has been the result of the agricultural experiment in Richmond Park; what has been the yield per acre of the oats sown; what the crop cost to produce; and what it has realised?
The oats in Richmond Park have been stacked, but as they have not yet been threshed it is not possible to state the yield, which will not, of course, be as heavy as had been hoped owing to the exceptionally bad weather at harvest time. The cost of cultivation has been £630, to which must eventually be added a proportion of the cost of fencing, which amounted to £343. I may add that, as soon as I am in a position to do so, I shall circulate with the Votes the full financial results of the cultivation at Richmond and Bushey Parks.
Was a profit expected by the Board of Agriculture, and did it not compare very unfavourably with the crops raised by the ordinary farmers?
I have seen crops raised by ordinary farmers quite as bad as that at Richmond.
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that this food does not cost a great deal more money than is necessary?
When you are short of food it is not a question of cost; it is a question of food.
Is this not unsuitable land for growing crops?
I took the advice of one of the greatest agricultural authorities in this country, and certainly this land is not unsuitable for growing oats, but, in view of the fact that we had a dry spring and a very wet harvest, the oat crop through the whole country was extremely bad.
Sugar
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what arrangements can be made for a supply of sugar for the holidays for parents who have children at boarding schools or institutions; and whether they should register their children on their own sugar card?
Instructions have been issued that householders may include in their applications for sugar registration cards children belonging to their households who are at boarding school. The allowance granted in respect of such children should, of course, only be drawn when the children are at home.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information as to the harvest of the sugar-beet industry in France; whether there are ample supplies of sugar in France; and, if so, whether arrangements will be made for a supply of sugar from France in return for the coal sent from this country?
The sugar crop in France has only just commenced, and will not be completed until December or later, and it is not possible to estimate with accuracy at this stage what the production will prove to be. France requires to import considerable quantities of sugar supplementary to her own production, in order to provide for her requirements, notwithstanding that the existing ration in that country is ¼ lb. per head per week. It is, therefore, impossible to make the arrangement suggested in the question.
Is it not true that the stock of sugar in this country is almost as great as at this time a year or two ago?
The right hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.
Hams, Bacon, and Lard
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution carried by the Nottingham Wholesale Grocery and Provision Dealers' Association that they are unable to buy either hams, bacon, or lard, that their warehouses are empty, and that they respectfully urge the Food Controller to release stocks of the above for the consumption of the civil population; and what steps does he intend to take in the matter?
My attention has been called to the resolution referred to in the question; but I am unable to add anything to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on this subject.
Protection of Crops
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by many farmers in obtaining cartridges for the protection of their crops and by others for the killing of game and rabbits for food purposes; and whether he will approach the Ministry of Munitions with a view to the release of a sufficient but limited amount of lead for the manufacture of cartridges to meet these demands?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Food Controller will consider whether a satisfactory scheme can be devised for meeting this want; but it must be remembered that any release of lead for the manufacture of cartridges involves a direct inroad on the supply available for munition purposes.
Milk
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the decision of the United Dairies, Limited, to sanction the increase of the capital of the company to £4,000,000; whether he is aware that this step has been taken in order to amalgamate all the interests in the London dairy trade and to establish monopolistic control over the milk industry; and whether, in view of this combine, he is taking action to safeguard public interests in regard to the supplies of milk?
The hon. Member may rest assured that before recommending the Treasury to sanction any such proposed increase of capital the Food Controller will take all possible steps to safeguard public interests in regard to the supplies and prices of milk.
Does that mean that the people interested will be considered poor people?
I do not know exactly who may be the people interested, but I take it that the Food Controller, before allowing this increased capital, will consult the proper tribunal in regard to the question of prices in the case of the poorer people.
It is the poor people who are the purchasers, and they have no means in their hands to resist any corner.
Mesopotamia
Agricultural Work
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any agricultural work has been undertaken by the military authorities in Mesopotamia; and, if so, whether he can state the amount of agricultural produce which has already been raised?
I have telegraphed for definite information on the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
Medical and Surgical Treatment
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, as regards the troops at all the stations on the Shatt-el-Arab, the Tigris, and Euphrates, he is in a position to assure the House that sufficient provision has been made for medical and surgical treatment, including medicines and appliances, and for the supply of fresh vegetables; and if he can say whether, and what, provision has been made of fruits?
The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief is responsible that sufficient provision is made for the medical and surgical treatment, including medicines and appliances, for the troops at all stations in any particular theatre of war, and I have no reason to suppose that provision in Mesopotamia is not merely sufficient, but ample in every respect. All demands for medical stores are promptly met, and in addition to the medical stores depots in Mesopotamia a special depot has been established at Bombay to facilitate supply. The supply of fresh vegetables is good and amounts to 67 per cent. of the total vegetable ration. Fruit and dates are also available locally and issued to the troops.
British Military Mission (Serbian Army, Salonika)
asked whether, in view of the fact that British military missions have been attached to the French, Russian, Belgian, Portuguese, and American Armies, it is proposed to attach a British Military Mission to the Serbian Army at Salonika; and whether steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the Serbian Higher Command with reference to all military operations on that front?
A British Mission is attached to the Serbian Army at Salonika. The Serbian Army, like the French forces at Salonika, is under the supreme command of the French Commander-in-Chief. The views of the Serbian Higher Command are, therefore, addressed to the latter, but the British authorities are kept informed.
Questions
38th Welsh Division (Staff Appointments)
asked how many Welshmen hold Staff appointments or command battalions in the 38th Welsh Division?
Officers are appointed to commands and to the Staff in accordance with the best interests of the Service as a whole, but judging by the names it appears that at least four Staff officers and two out of the three brigade commanders are Welshmen.
Irish Soldiers (Transference to Line Regiments)
asked the Under-Secretary for War if he will see that agreements made with Irish soldiers are respected by the Government; if he is aware that in answer to recruiting posters a number of Irish tradesmen were induced to join the Mechanical Transport and Engineers, and are now being transferred to Line regiments, with reduction in pay; and if he will see that this practice is stopped?
I have nothing to add to the long answer which I gave on 25th July on this subject. I asked then for specific instances, but my hon. Friend has not yet brought any to my notice.
Is the hon. Gentleman not Aware that I sent several cases?
The cases to which my hon. Friend has called attention have been cases of transfer from the Army Service Corps to the fighting lines.
Military Decorations
asked whether suggestions for making a visible distinction between medals and decorations awarded for gallantry in action and those awarded for distinguished service have been considered; and whether he can make any announcement on the subject?
This matter is under consideration, but I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
asked whether the Army Council, in framing regulations for the issue of the recently announced war service chevrons, will endeavour to make them genuine badges for active service by excluding service at bases or on the lines of communication or allowing such service to count half-time only?
Such a distinction has been the subject of careful consideration but has been found to be impracticable.
asked when the medal for the original Expeditionary Force will be issued; and when the ribbon will be allowed to be worn?
Action in connection with the issue of the decoration in question is being expedited as much as possible. An Army Order on the subject will be published shortly.
Cleethorpes Camp (Irregularities)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the services and past records of the two officers who were relieved of their commands in July last in consequence of irregularities for which they were held responsible in the treatment of James Brightmore at Cleethorpes camp and the publicity which has been given by the action of the War Office to its condemnation of all such irregularities, steps will now be taken to reinstate these officers?
As the example which was made in this and similar cases has been sufficient to demonstrate that the Secretary of State in no circumstances will tolerate a soldier being dealt with except in strict accordance with the law, he has decided that the re-employment and reinstatement of the officers concerned in the case of Private Brightmore and Private Gray shall be considered as opportunity offers.
As some of these officers are poor men and have not been able to support their families on their half-pay will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to get them re-employment?
I have stated that when the opportunity does arise their cases will be considered.
Home Hospital Men (Service Abroad)
asked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that men who voluntarily joined the Home Hospital Reserve in the early stage of the War have been ordered to accept service abroad and told that if they refuse to do this they will be discharged from the Army forthwith and called to the Colours again at the end of thirty days and drafted into Infantry regiments; and, seeing that this is a breach of the terms under which they enlisted, he will cancel the instruction ordering these men abroad?
My hon. Friend's representation of the matter is hardly correct. Men of the Home Hospitals Reserve who are under forty-one years of age are now discharged, unless they are willing to accept liability for service overseas. It is pointed out to them that by such discharge they become liable under the Military Service Acts.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of these men, if they had remained in civil occupations, would have been exempt from service in the Army? Is a fair game being played with them in discharging them from the R.A.M.C.?
General Officers (Employment)
asked how many general officers commanding divisions at home have been displaced to make room for tired generals sent back from France; and how many of these displaced major-generals have now been given re-employment?
The answer to the first part of the question is three. So far, none of those displaced have been given re-employment.
Is there any chance of any of these officers being given re-employment?
Everything is being done to give them re-employment, and when opportunity does arise their case will be most carefully considered.
Thank you!
Dental Service
asked the Undersecretary for War if the dental service of the Army is in charge of a special director-general or of any recognised head of the dental service; what number of dentists are attached to each division; and, if less than one to each division, will he have arrangements made to complete to that strength?
The Director-General, Army Medical Service, is the recognised chief of the dental officers employed with the Army. There are no dentists in the war establishment of divisions, such officers being allotted to duties in the field at the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, and it is not proposed to interfere with the discretion of these officers in this matter.
Will not the hon. Member take into consideration the desirability of appointing a recognised head to the dental service in the Army and of placing the allocation of the various dental officers under his direction.
I am informed on the best available authority that the present mode is as successful as any.
Royal Engineers, Cairo (Leave)
asked the Undersecretary for War whether he was aware of the fact that many of the private soldiers and non-commissioned officers on the Headquarters Staff of the Royal Engineers at Cairo have not been granted leave for some two and a half years; having regard to the fact that most, if not nearly all, of these soldiers are of Territorial regiments, and whose parents at home are desirous of their sons coming back home for a short leave, at least once within a period of two years, if there are any military reasons why such leave should not be granted to troops who have experienced three summers in Egypt; and, if there are no special military reasons why these men should not be granted such leave, will arrangements be made so that men who have served two years or more in Egypt shall be granted leave in accordance with military exigencies?
The granting of leave to the troops in Egypt depends in a peculiar degree on transport facilities. At the moment I am afraid the difficulties are very great, and I cannot at present hold out any hope of amelioration in this direction.
Farriers
asked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the request of the National Farriers' Association against the training of unskilled men in the Army in farriers' schools whilst there are a number of qualified farriers occupying other posts in the Army; and whether he will consider the advisability of drafting such men from their units in order to undertake this work?
Yes, attention has been called to the matter in question. The policy of the Army Council is to employ all farriers at their trade or on allied trades in the Army.
Is it not a fact that there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining farriers for the Army, and that every available man who has any qualifications is being obtained?
I believe that is so.
"Nation" (Foreign Circulation)
asked whether the bann on the foreign circulation of the. "Nation" newspaper is still in force; and, if it is, what are the grounds for maintaining it?
The prohibition is no longer in force.
Army Ordnance Department, Carrickfergus (Pay)
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the employés under the Army Ordnance Department at Carrickfergus have not received an increase in wages or bonus in proportion to the increases granted to other workers in that neighbourhood during the War; whether he is aware that these men receive for their responsible work 2s. a week less than the local street-sweepers; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
The wages of War Department employés at Carrickfergus are governed by the Fair Wages Resolution. I am informed that the weekly earnings of the unskilled labourers are somewhat higher than those of similar employés of the urban district council for the same number of hours per week.
Army Pay Clerks (Billeting Allowances)
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Army pay clerks and other ranks of the Army who are billeted on private houses at various camps are allowed the rate of 17s. 6d. per week billeting money; whether for this amount they have to obtain lodging and three meals a day; whether he is aware that at the present prices of food and household necessities it is quite impossible for the men to obtain billets at this price, and the men have to pay supplemental charges from their own pay; and will he consider at once the urgency of at once increasing the billeting allowance of men who are billeted outside camps?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 19th April to the hon. Member for Bradford West, to which I can add nothing.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the matter, as the reply in question was given more than six months ago.
I have looked into it recently, and I am afraid that I cannot see my way to do what the hon. Gentleman desires.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite impossible for these men to obtain billets at 17s. 6d. a week, which is what they are now paid by the Army?
There are the messing allowances which the men receive which must be considered.
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the public meeting at Bowhill, Scotland, protesting against the way in which the business of the local war pensions committee in the district is being carried out; whether the majority of its members have resigned; and whether he proposes to make any inquiry?
The hon. Member is apparently referring to the District Committee of Auchterderran, a sub-committee of the Local Committee for Fifeshire. A report was received on the 18th instant stating that owing to dissension in the Committee the majority of the members resigned, and new ones had to be appointed in their places. The Fife Local Committee inform me that the claims coining before the Auchterderran District Committee have been satisfactorily dealt with and that the interests of sailors and soldiers have received every consideration. I am, however, making further inquiries in the matter.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ten out of fifteen members of the Committee have resigned because they are so dissatisfied, and how can a minority of five say that things were all right?
The information came not from the Sub-Committee but from the Fifeshire Local Committee; but, as I have told my hon. Friend, we are making further inquiries.
asked why, when the ring paper is in possession of a soldier's wife entitled to separation allowance and the draft book has failed to arrive at the post office, the wife by the Regulations cannot receive any payment for seven days from the Pension Committee, although ample provision is made for the recovery of that money?
Local committees have to exercise care in the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, as it may well happen that the non-arrival of the book is due to the suspension of separation allowance and the advance is asked for with a knowledge of this. Where a local committee is fully satisfied that the case is not one of this nature, they would be justified in giving the advance within the seven days referred to in the Instruction, which shall be modified so as to make it clear that it does not bar this.
Do I understand that the Regulation which says that payment cannot be given will now be modified, so that payment may be given?
Yes. It was always intended that it should be given in the circumstances mentioned, but it is not quite clear, and it will now be made quite clear.
Can the hon. Gentleman say what they will accept as evidence that it is not a suspended separation allowance?
I must ask for notice of that question.
Freights (New Zealand)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller what is the reason of the increase of freight to the Dominion of New Zealand to £10 per ton measurement; what price the Government pay the shipping companies for the use of the steamers; and if they are chartered by the Government at Blue-Book rates?
The increase in freight referred to has been caused by the increases in war risk insurance and running expenses. The shipping companies receive hire for their vessels at Blue Book rates, which have not been increased. Blue Book rates do not include war risk insurance, cost of coal, increase of wages above prewar rates, etc., and the large increases under these headings are charges upon the Government.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the rate before the War was 40s. a ton, that the rate before the Government took over the ships was £6 a ton., and that it has now increased to £10 a ton, and is not part of the increase accounted for by profit made by the Government?
No; the increase is accounted for entirely in the way I have referred to, and there is no margin of profit taken into account.
Would it not have been described as profiteering on the part of the shipowners, and, if so, why is it not profiteering on the part of the Government?
No. The rates which are being charged merely cover the cost.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of these high freights the export to the Dominions is largely stopped, and ships to the Dominions are in great part empty?
These freights are arrived at on a cost basis.
What is the difference in the war risk rate?
The war risk rate is now £9 10s. per cent.
Agricultural Land (Sales)
asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any figures as to the area of agricultural land sold since 1st January, 1916; and whether, in view of the growing insecurity felt by farmers owing to the extensive sales of agricultural land now going on, he can give the farmers some assurance that they will be protected against dispossession by the new owners?
No figures are available showing the area of agricultural land sold since the date mentioned. The Board of Agriculture, I fear, possess no powers that would enable me to give any such assurance as my hon. Friend suggests, though he may depend upon it that the Department and the Agricultural Executive Committees will, if the facts are brought to their notice, endeavour to urge new owners not to disturb good farmers, when it is clear that the production of food would be affected by a change in tenancy.
Motor Ploughs (Devonshire)
asked the number of motor ploughs sent to Devonshire, the number of acres ploughed, and the cost per acre; and whether the reports of work done by them are satisfactory?
The number of tractors working in Devonshire on October 12th was fifty-one. Of these, thirty-five have been supplied since the beginning of September. The number of acres reported as having been ploughed and cultivated by the Departments' tractors up to 12th October was 2,400. The average cost per acre in September was £2 8s. 9d. This figure, which covers all charges, including loss on tractors standing idle and cost of repairs, compares unfavourably with the corresponding figures in other counties. The excessive cost in Devonshire is mainly due to the rough and hilly nature of the land, which is largely unsuitable for tractor ploughing. Speaking generally, the work of the tractors in Devonshire has not been satisfactory, but, as the result of a special investigation just concluded, changes have been made which it is anticipated will ensure better and more economical results in the immediate future.
Is my hon. Friend satisfied with these motors?
It depends upon the nature of the land.
May I ask whether in future the motors used in Devonshire will be left more in the control of the War Agricultural Committees in the county than in the Central Office?
I think the War Agricultural Committees have complete powers.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been numerous complaints in Devonshire about the use of these motor tractors, and until now they have had no redress?
What are the various tractors in use in Devonshire which are not satisfactory?
I think the Whiting-Bull is one of the tractors.
Transporting Indians to Canada
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information of Indians being transported to Canada for the purposes of agriculture; and under what conditions and with what rights are the immigrants entering Canada?
I have no information on the subject.
Westminster Hall (Roof Repair)
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state the progress made with the roof of Westminster Hall; whether he has used spraying for the eradication of insects attacking the timbers; and whether the work of restoration is to be continued or temporarily suspended?
Two trusses and two bays have been completely finished, two further trusses and two additional bays are nearly completed, and a further four trusses and three bays are about to be commenced. Spraying has been adopted in dealing with the eradication of the Xestobium tessellatum; and the work of restoration will be proceeded with slowly during the War.
Munitions
Places of Worship (Munition Areas)
asked the Minister of Munitions whether any sites have been granted for places of worship in munition areas other than Gretna; and, if so, whether he will give full particulars of all such grants?
No grant of land has in any case been made for the erection of places of worship, except in the case of Gretna. Permission has, however, been given in two cases (the King's Norton Settlement at Abbey Wood and the Barras Heath Settlement at Coventry) for Church of England bodies to erect temporary buildings on Government land within the limits of the Settlements. Church of England bodies have paid for these buildings, and will have first call on them, but other denominations will be at liberty to use them. No grants of money have been made in these cases.
Eviction of Workers
asked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware of the number of evictions of munition workers in Birmingham and district; and whether he will consider the advisability of specifying the district as a special area for the purposes of the new Defence of the Realm Regulations relating to the ejectment of munition workers?
Representations have been received on the subject of evictions of munition workers in the Birmingham district, and an inquiry on the spot into, the question is now in progress. The advisability of specifying the district as a special area for the purpose of Regulation 2A. of the Defence of the Realm Regulations will receive full consideration, when the inquiry has been completed.
Questions
Postal Service (Whitley Report)
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have taken any steps to apply in the postal service the system of joint committees of representatives of the employers and employed recommended in the Whitley Report; and whether any future action in, this direction is proposed?
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is considering whether the appointment of any advisory committees in the Post Office will be of advantage to the public service.
Death of Thomas Ashe
asked the Prime Minister whether the evidence of Colonel Sir Thomas Myles and Colonel Sir Arthur Chance at the inquest on the late Thomas Ashe has been considered by the Government; if he is aware that these medical experts stated that forcible feeding was dangerous to life even in the most skilled hands; and if, having regard to their qualifications to speak on behalf of the medical profession, the Government will remove for all time the practice of forcible feeding?
I have been asked to reply. The evidence given by these two distinguished surgeons is before the Government and will receive due consideration.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after Thomas Ashe was murdered, the Government then stopped forcible feeding?
I have already called the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he is not entitled to use that expression, and I would like to see his question on the Paper.
asked the Prime Minister whether the knowledge of the War Cabinet that distinguished foreigners had arranged to proceed to Dublin to view the public funeral of the late Mr. Thomas Ashe on Sunday, 7th instant, in Dublin had any connection with the meeting of the Irish Privy Council summoned on the previous evening for the purpose of fundamentally altering the treatment of prisoners under the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether he is aware that in the absence of that alteration there was imminent danger of the Irish people clashing with the military in the streets of Dublin on the day of the public funeral in question?
My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I know nothing of the distinguished foreigners mentioned in the question. I have no particular qualification for answering the hypothetical inquiry in the second part of it.
Master of the Rolls
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the recommendation made on page 45 of the First Report of the Public Records Commission that, when the office of the Master of Rolls next falls vacant and a new appointment is made, the Master of the Rolls be relieved of his titular connection with the Public Record Office and that he be replaced by a permanent Commission of nine persons to be called Commissioners of Public Records, who should be appointed by the Crown and should be unpaid; and whether in appointing a successor to Lord Cozens-Hardy he is prepared to carry out the recommendation of the Public Records Commission?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but the change would involve legislation to amend the Public Records Act, 1838, which I am unable to promise at the present time.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider not filling this appointment during the War?
I have no reason to believe that it is not necessary to fill it during the War.
What is the reason why unemployed judges in the King's Bench Division should not be transferred to the Court of Appeal to do its work?
I know nothing of any unemployed judges.
Spirits in Bond
asked the Prime Minister why a large amount of wines and spirits are not released from bond; and whether he will state the reason for their retention in bond?
I have been asked to reply. I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Chippenham on this subject.
Co-Operative Deputation
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed at a cooperative conference held in London protesting against his refusal to receive a deputation representing between three and four million co-operators who desired to lay certain grievances before him; whether he will state why he declined for over two months to receive this deputation; and what action he now proposes to take?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the statement that the Prime Minister refused to receive the deputation is untrue. When the first request to receive a deputation was made, the Prime Minister thought it advisable that they should in the first instance meet the Food Controller, but they were informed at the same time that, should they desire to meet the Prime Minister subsequently, he would be very happy to arrange for them to do so. Subsequently the Prime Minister was so hard pressed with work of great urgency that he was not able to receive the deputation at the time desired by them. It has, however, since been arranged that he should meet the deputation some time next week. May I add from my own knowledge that it is impossible that any Prime Minister could ever have received a larger, or indeed so large, a number of deputations from Labour organisations of all kinds as have been received by my right bon. Friend.
Newspaper Articles
asked the Prime Minister whether any additional Grant is made to the Junior Lord of the Treasury, the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire, in order to meet the expenses of the journalistic articles officially issued from his Department?
The answer is in the negative.
May I ask whether those articles, officially issued by a Government Department, formed part of the expenses of that Department, and, if so, whether articles that represent the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith) as a broken man, who can never by any chance come back into power again, represent the view of what is considered to be a non-party Government?
I really know nothing whatever about the subject.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the writing of such articles by a Government official helps to get on with the War?
I have already said I know nothing about it.
Has the right hon. Gentleman not taken the trouble to inquire as to the writings for the Treasury relating to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife?
No, I have not.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to do so?
I will consider it.
asked the Prime Minister whether the official communiqués issued by the Junior Lord of the Treasury (the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire) to the Scottish Press are passed by the Censor?
I have no information on this subject.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it tends to encourage the enemy to have it published that both the ex-Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgowshire are unwell?
asked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether the notes sent each week to certain Scottish newspapers and issued from the office of the Junior Lords of the Treasury are sent at public expense; and, if so, under which class and head they appear in the Estimates?
The answer is in the negative.
As the communications are sent post free, is not there some expense falling on the public?
I should like to have notice of that question.
Has not the hon. Gentleman inquired whether or not they were franked?
I am afraid I have not. The hon. Member can give notice.
Were these articles either written by, supervised, or corrected by the Patronage Secretary himself?
That does not arise out of this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
Who is the real "Bolo" that writes these articles?
Lord Northcliffe's Mission
asked the Prime Minister whether Lord Northcliffe's mission in the United States has now been concluded; and whether Lord Northcliffe is still acting as agent or representative of the Government in any capacity?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative.
Does Lord Northcliffe's mission take in all over Canada as well as the United States?
The extent of Lord Northcliffe's mission was fully defined in an answer I gave some time ago. I have nothing to add to that reply.
Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in many centres, notably Birmingham and district, the protection afforded to tenants by the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1917, is being nullified by certain practices adopted by house owners to secure ejectment orders against tenants who refuse to pay more than the legal rent; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing an amending Bill to strengthen the present law?
I am not aware of the circumstances to which the right hon. Member refers, but if he will furnish me with particulars of any specific cases, I shall have inquiries made.
Government of Ireland
Labour Party Resolution
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to or if he has received a Resolution passed by the Parliamentary Labour party protesting against the policy now being pursued by the authorities in Ireland; if the protest also includes a request for the reconsideration of the decision to remove to England some of the political prisoners now in Irish prisons; if he will state whether the protest is founded on a mistaken assumption of fact; and if he will state the Government's reply to the Resolution?
My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the Resolution of the Parliamentary Labour party and to the request as regards the Irish prisoners. As to the latter, I can add nothing to the answer I gave the hon. Member last Thursday. The subject of the policy of the Irish Executive will, I expect, be considered in Debate to-day.
Am I to understand that the Labour party have passed their Resolution on a mistaken assumption of the facts?
The hon. Member must draw his own inferences to the answers I have given.
That was exactly the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave last week, so that it must be the same in this case.
Questions
National Expenditure (Taxation)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the national expenditure for the current year is largely in excess of his estimate, it is intended to introduce an interim Budget in order to impose further taxation?
I have carefully considered the subject raised in this question in connection with the probable expenditure of the year and of the Revenue receipts, and have come to the conclusion that it is neither necessary nor desirable to introduce a Supplementary Budget.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would help to further economy if additional taxation were imposed?
No.
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken sufficiently into account that the delay in dealing with this matter will still further increase the great disparity between the amount raised by taxation and the amount raised by loan to defray the cost of the War?
The subject, as my hon. Friend knows, was fully discussed in connection with the last Budget and decided after full consideration of all the circumstances
Internment Case (W. Hohnrodt)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that W. Hohnrodt, a man of sixty-three years of age, has resided forty years in this country, that one of his sons was killed in the South African War and another is fighting now in France; that W. Hohnrodt was arrested for harbouring another son who is a conscientious objector, but was discharged by the magistrate, who said that W. Hohnrodt had acted throughout in an honourable way, and that immediately on his discharge he was arrested again and interned or imprisoned under the Defence of the Realm Act; what is the reason for this treatment of this man; and whether it is intended in future that when the police or Crown auhorities fail to procure a conviction in Court the defendant will be immediately arrested under the Defence of the Realm powers of the Secretary of State?
The decision to intern this man was reached on information in the possession of the Home Office some time before the criminal charge was brought against him. I am informed that the magistrates did not say that he acted throughout in an honourable way. There is no record, so far as I am aware, that one of his sons was killed in the South African War, but he has a son in a Labour Battalion in France. There is no foundation for the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
If the decision to intern this man was taken some time previously why was it only put into operation immediately after he had been discharged by the magistrates?
It was put into operation according to the discretion of the authorities who decided to intern him.
Strangeways Gaol, Manchester (Quaker Prisoners)
asked the Home Secretary whether Mr. John W. Graham, of the Nook, Crosby, Maryport, who describes himself as the Quaker chaplain of Strangeways Gaol, Manchester, is officially appointed by the Government to visit prisoners and in that capacity to make reports on their physical condition to the Prison Commissioners?
Mr. John Graham has been permitted by the Commissioners to visit Quaker prisoners in Manchester Prison for the purposes of spiritual ministration. It is not part of his duty as a visiting minister to report to the Prison Commissioners on the physical condition of the prisoners.
Military Service
Conscientious Objectors
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a sanitary inspector visited the Home Office Camp at Ditton Priors, Bridgnorth, on the 21st June last and condemned the camp as being overcrowded, with the result that a number of conscientious objectors were transferred to Wakefield work centre; whether he is aware that they were subsequently informed that they had been reported for unsatisfactory work and conduct; and, seeing that no charges had been brought against the men, and that to the best of their knowledge their work had given every satisfaction, whether inquiries will be made with a view to righting the mistake?
A sanitary inspector visited the camp referred to in June last and reported that he found the accommodation suitable and satisfactory. He says, "there was nothing either inside or outside the buildings to warrant condemnation, and any assertion to the contrary is incorrect." Prior to the inspector's visit the agent had reported certain men to the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors as being idle; and after careful inquiry by the Committee, in the course of which an opportunity was afforded to the men concerned to make any representations in the matter which they desired to make, the men were removed and punished. The suggestion that a mistake has occurred is without any foundation.
asked the Home Secretary whether the agent at the Home Office Camp, Ditton Priors, is or was the military representative from the district; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of these two offices not being combined in one person?
I am informed that the agent in question is military representative for the Cleobury Mortimer district, which adjoins the district in which the men are employed. The duties of the two appointments cannot come in conflict in any way, and I can see nothing undesirable in his holding both
Did the right hon. Gentleman not promise that those men would not be put under military control, and are they not under the military representative?
It is not at all correct to think that the military representative is a military man.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are a number of conscientious objectors at present in Wormwood Scrubs Prison who have appeared before the Central Tribunal and have been passed for the Home Office scheme; and whether it can be stated for what reason there is delay in allowing these men out of prison to undertake work under the direction of the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors?
The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The delay is due to the difficulty of finding work and accommodation for conscientious objectors; but some of them were sent out last week, and it is hoped that the arrangements for sending all these men out to work may be completed very shortly.
Wormwood Scrubs Prison (Visits)
asked the Home Secretary whether people who had received permits to visit prisoners confined to Wormwood Scrubs have been refused admission; and, if so, for what reason, and is it to be understood that all visitation other than chaplains is cancelled; and can the reasons for such action be stated?
In one case, after a visiting order had been issued, it came to the knowledge of the Prison Commissioners that there were good reasons for believing that the visit was undesirable and the order was cancelled. The ordinary visits of friends are taking place at Wormwood Scrubs as allowed by the rules.
Questions
Timber Purchases
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the pre-war price of timber purchased for Government requirements, the increase in price which has taken place since the outbreak of war, and the cause of such increase?
The immediate pre-war price of unsorted and third quality sawn deals, battens, and boards varied according to size and specification from £10 to £15 per standard landed at docks in this country. The pre- sent price for the same classes of timber is from £40 to £50 per standard when carried in commercial tonnage. The principal causes of the increase are the increased cost of transport and production, together with the general causes, financial and other, which have raised the price level of commodities.
What I desired was to have the prices of home-grown, not imported, timber? I will repeat the question if my hon. Friend cannot give me the information.
Is it the case that this home-grown timber is carried at Blue Book rates, the Government taking the balance?
Mineral Properties (Purchase)
asked the Minister of Reconstruction if he can state the medium through which Germans have endeavoured to purchase mineral properties in England?
The attempt to which my hon. Friend refers was made through neutral agents and was unsuccessful. It would not be in the public interest to give details.
When was that?
Some time ago; about a year ago.
Lord Haldane
asked the Minister of Reconstruction on what Committees or Sub-Committees, besides the Committee on Coal Conservation, Viscount Haldane is sitting?
The only Committee besides that on Coal Conservation on which Lord Haldane is serving, is a small Committee of which he was appointed chairman early in July, to which questions were referred relating to overlapping of work among the Government Departments.
Prison Reform
asked whether the question of prison reform is being considered by any Sub-Committee of the Reconstruction Committee?
The answer is in the negative. The matter does not appear to be a problem specially arising out of the War.
Motor Boats (Mails)
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the pecuniary losses daily incurred in consequence of the cost of petrol and labour by the owners of the motor boats which carry the mails from the mainland to the islands of Sherkin and Cape Clear; and whether he will favourably consider the question of granting a war bonus to recoup them their losses?
In view of the disproportion between the cost of these services and the number of letters conveyed, I should not be justified in incurring increased expense, and if it cannot be otherwise avoided the number of trips must, I fear, be reduced.
Tillage (Ireland)
asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he still considers it advisable to order a 5 per cent. tillage increase in Ireland for 1918, considering the almost certain scarcity of farmyard manure; and whether he will consider if the proper cultivation of ground at present broken up would produce certainly as much, if not more, food for the country than the hasty and imperfect cultivation of any increased acreage?
The Department of Agriculture have given very careful consideration to this matter, and have decided to order a 5 per cent. increase of tillage in Ireland for 1918— i.e. , an increase of 15 per cent. over the tillage for 1916. Most of the old grass land which was broken up in 1917, being rich in organic matter, will grow good crops of grain for at least one or two years, with a limited quantity of artificial manure and without farmyard manure. The Department are not aware of any reason why such land should not be properly cultivated; and in view of the vital importance of increased food production they see no reason to depart from their decision in the matter.
Will the Vice-President of the Department, now having Compulsory powers, see that allotments are increased all over Ireland, in view of the fact that they have been a great success during the past year?
The Department has given every encouragement to the allotment system, and will continue to do so.
Reconstruction (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the future need for conservation of life and elimination of waste, he will take steps to ensure that a central town and village development commission should be established in Ireland, to act through local bodies or special Statutory Committees, with large powers over land, housing, transit, and town development, and having a special fund and borrowing powers to carry on such work effectively?
I am not aware of the necessity for such a commission as the hon. Member suggests. The question of housing in towns and villages is within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. Urban housing is receiving special attention, and village housing is provided for under the Labourers Acts, which enable local authorities to provide cottages for labourers with plots of land attached. The questions of transit and town development will, no doubt, be considered in connection with the problem of reconstruction.
North Sea Raid
Courts of Inquiry
( by Private Notice ) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state to the House the names of the members of the Naval Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the recent loss of two destroyers and nine neutral vessels; what are the terms of reference to such Committee; do they cover the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman himself and his advisers at the Admiralty; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he does not think it advisable that the Admiralty explanation of the matter should be given to the House and the country forthwith without waiting for the result of the inquiry?
A court-martial into the loss of the two destroyers, "Strongbow" and "Mary Rose," and the circumstances attending the attack on the convoy, will be ordered by the Commander-in-Chief, Grand Fleet, immediately the survivors are fit to attend, and he will appoint the members of the Court and will frame the charges. The naval inquiry announced yesterday has been convened, and I am returning from the House to be present at it. It will deal with the general question of convoy, which has continuously engaged the attention of the Board, and is now being reviewed in consequence of the occurrence to which my right hon. Friend's question refers.
Viewing this incident, as I feel sure the House will view it, in the right perspective, it must be realised that occasional isolated raids by fast surface craft are incidents in war which cannot be foreseen or invariably prevented. Such incidents have in the past taken the form of raids on our East Coast. With reference to the concluding sentence of my right hon. Friend's question, I hope that, subject to the public interest, it may be possible to refer to the matter in the course of the general statement I propose to make on the Vote of Credit next week.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of allotting an extra day for the Admiralty discussion if the House so desires? May I suggest to him that the Vote of Credit is really a private Members' day, and ought not to be taken up by Government statements? I would suggest to him that if it should be the general desire of the House that an extra day should be given on the Vote on Account, that the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to consult the Leader of the House and see if it is possible to give us that extra day?
I have no doubt at all that the convenience and wishes of the House will, in this matter, be conformed to, and if there is a real desire for an extra day for a discussion of this subject on the Vote of Credit, I am sure it will be arranged by my right hon. Friend the Leader of House.
Irish Exports (Congestion at Ports
( by Private Notice ) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether the attention of the Controller of Shipping has been called to the great congestion in live stock shipments at the ports of Cork and Waterford owing to the shortage of steamers; whether, owing to this cause, thousands of cattle have been refused shipment to England from these ports and left on the owners' lands for several days, causing great depreciation in value and heavy pecuniary loss to the shippers; and whether steps will be taken at once to put an end to this state of things?
The attention of the Shipping Controller has been directed to the congestion to which my, hon. Friend refers, which is due partly to the great shortage in suitable tonnage and partly to the exceptionally heavy character of Irish exports. The Shipping Controller has been giving special attention to the matter, and I am glad to be able to say that the sailings from Waterford have been recently increased. Special efforts are being made to release vessels now in Government service, in order to relieve the congestion. Some improvement in the situation may therefore be immediately expected.
The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned Cork.
Endeavours have been made to put a ship at the disposal of Mr. Burgess to relieve the congestion.
Questions
Tenters' Strike, Belfast
( by Private Notice ) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what action the Government propose taking in view of the serious state of affairs in Belfast arising out of the dispute between the power loom manufacturers and the tenters; whether he is aware that for six weeks since the inception of the dispute 12,000 Belfast women and girl operatives have been in enforced idleness, suffering total loss of wages, though not directly involved in the dispute; whether thousands of these workers are, notwithstanding private assistance, on the brink of starvation; whether, even if work were resumed to-morrow, thousands will still have to go hungry, and, weeks will pass before the spectre of famine ceases to haunt the doors of these poor workers; whether he is aware that large numbers of these workers have received notices to quit their houses because of non-payment of rent; and whether, in these circumstances, the Government will give immediate instructions that no evictions are to take place, and, generally, take prompt action to deal with the situation, with the view of alleviating the acute distress prevailing, and ending the dispute between the parties concerned?
I am informed that there are about 4,000 women operatives out of employment owing to the tenters' strike, and including dependants the number affected is about 12,000. Distress has undoubtedly been caused by reason of their enforced idleness. These workers were not directly involved in the strike. I believe there have been no cases of starvation, but I am told that charitable organisations have been taxed to their utmost. I understand that no large number of eviction notices has been served. If the hon. Member will refer me to any control which the Executive Government can and ought to exercise I will consider that matter. The dispute between the tenters and the manufacturers is engaging the earnest attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to whom questions on that subject should be addressed.
In view of the powers under the Munitions Act, why is this strike allowed to go on?
The hon. Member will see that I have no control of proceedings under the Munitions Act. This question is addressed to me with regard to very acute distress caused in the city of Belfast by reason of a strike, which up to now the Ministry of Munitions have not been able to bring to a close.
Cannot these evictions be prevented under the Defence of the Realm Act?
I will certainly look into that matter. Any communications the hon. Member may make to me on this subject will, I am sure, receive every sympathetic consideration which is possible consistent with my duty. I have, of course, to enforce the law and not to make it. If the hon. Member will bring to my notice what powers I have in places-where he thinks they ought to apply, there will be no delay in the consideration of the subject.
May I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the responsibility for the condition of affairs described in my question, and admitted by him in his answer, is a matter for the individual member and not for the Government; and whether a considerable proportion of the work done by this factory is munition work—linen for aeroplanes? May I press on the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a matter to be dealt with in this manner, but it is a most serious and vital thing for women and girls who are not responsible for this strike any more than he is or I am? I must press the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to deal with this matter, or perhaps very serious consequences will accrue.
As I told the hon. Member, the power of dealing with this strike does not rest with me. I am not aware of the particulars of this dispute. I know that this dispute has been pending, but no matter has been brought to my notice within the authority of the Departments over which I have control which has called for action on my part. If such matters are brought to my notice, there will be no delay in taking action.
Is this matter within the cognisance of the Cabinet, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman, bring it before their attention, and ask what Minister is responsible?
Is it not a fact that the men agreed to the arbitrator's award but the employers refused? Is it not also a fact that within a short period the Defence of the Realm Act has been put into force in the North of England for the prevention of evictions, and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act have not been enforced in the North of Ireland as in the North of England?
So far as the Defence of the Realm Act is concerned, I am not aware that the powers exist in this case, and no instance has been brought to my notice which raises the question whether such a power exists. I must really ask the hon. Gentleman, with regard to the strike itself and the incidents connected with it, not to address questions to me as though I neglected my duty in this matter, but to address them to a Minister who has powers I do not possess.
But the right hon. Gentleman is Chief Secretary for Ireland. He is the responsible Minister in this House for the conduct of Ireland, and does he now say that he delegates his duty to any subordinate Minister sitting beside him?
There is no question of delegation of my authority. The authority in this matter rests with the Ministry of Munitions. It does not rest with me, if there is authority in the Government. I assume I am correctly told that this is a munitions factory—I do not know. I assume, therefore, there is authority in the Ministry of Munitions. The Ministry of Munitions is not under the control of the Irish Office.
The right hon. Gentleman states that if this is a munitions matter it rests with the munitions authorities. I do not declare, though some of this work is done for munition purposes, that these large works are in any way controlled by the munitions authorities, but I do say that, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission——[HON. MEMBERS "Order !"] I do put it——
If the hon. Member has any further question, I must ask him to put it.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Government authority responsible for Irish administration, whether he is going to allow thousands of innocent people to suffer hunger and want at this season of the year, and then tell the House the matter must be transferred to somebody else? We want to know what is going to be done by the Chief Secretary, who is responsible for the peace and welfare of the country.
Is there no power in the Government to make the bosses carry out the award given by the arbitrator?
I have not seen the award. I do not know under what circumstances it has been made, and I certainly have no authority to enforce it.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister, as he is present, whether this dispute, which affects the production of munitions, particularly aeroplanes, has come before the War Cabinet; whether no action is to be taken in regard to the employers who refuse to carry out the award; and whether, seeing that they are now responsible for the delay in the production of munitions of war, he will deal with them in the same way as the Clyde strikers, whom he deported from their homes?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the award of the arbitrator in the case of those who are directly employed as munition workers for the production of aeroplanes were terms agreed upon between the manufacturers and the workmen in the particular shop, and that those who are now left out are not engaged in munition work?
I do not know the particulars of this dispute. It is not a matter which arises with regard to any province of administration under the control of the Irish Office.
Mr. DEVLIN rose——
I think notice should be given of any further questions.
Is there any government in Ireland?
I would like to ask one final question. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously assert that a strike of this character, so large in its dimensions and affecting the progress of the War, and, what is more, vitally affecting the lives and existence of thousands of innocent women, is a matter not in his jurisdiction, or about which he is supposed to know nothing, and about which he says he knows nothing?
I am not acquainted with the details. Any case of distress in the city of Belfast which is brought to my notice is naturally a matter in which I should be interested.
Does the right hon. Gentleman read the newspapers? I beg to give notice that upon the earliest opportunity that presents itself I will call the attention of the House to this matter, and unless I get larger sympathy and more knowledge there will be very serious consequences.
Education (Ireland)
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any steps have been taken to reduce substantially the averages required for the higher grades in the service which can be attained by Irish national teachers?
In the proposals for the new scheme of grade salaries for Irish national school teachers there is no provision for reducing the averages required for the higher grades of the service.
Congested Districts Board
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have yet acquired the congested estate of Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny, county Mayo; if not, what has been the cause of this failure to purchase the estate; and what further steps they intend taking to acquire it?
The Congested Districts Board have made a final offer for the estate of Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny, including untenanted land, which, however, they failed to acquire under compulsory proceedings. The exclusion of this land greatly reduces the value of the estate for the Board's purposes, and they have, therefore, not continued proceedings for the acquisition of the estate.
Irish Members (Free Travelling Passes)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the railways are now under Government control and that in most constitutionally-governed countries members of the legislature have free passes, he will introduce that facility of travelling to Irish Members?
I am afraid I do not see my way to take the action suggested.
Orders of the Day
Business of the House
I desire to ask what portion of the Representation of the People Bill it is intended to proceed with to-morrow, and what will be the business on Thursday and Friday, if the House sits on the latter day?
Tomorrow we shall proceed with the Representation of the People Bill, finishing all the Schedules except Schedule IV., and that will not be taken this week. After the Schedules, except Schedule IV., tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to go on with Clause 18, and if it be not finished to-morrow we shall proceed with that Clause on Thursday, and make further progress, if possible, with the Petroleum Bill. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put a further question to-morrow about the business for Friday.
Was it not understood that Clause 18 was not to be taken until after all the Schedules, and is that arrangement going to be varied now? Is Schedule IV. to be postponed until after Clause 18 is dealt with?
Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Home Secretary. I understood that it was for the convenience of the House that we should postpone Schedule IV., in order to give hon. Members more time for its consideration, and I understood that there would be no objection to Clause 18 being taken.
Government of Ireland
I beg to move, "That this House deplores the policy which has been pursued and is being pursued by the Irish Executive Government and the Irish military authorities at a time when the highest interests of Ireland and the Empire demand the creation of an atmosphere favourable to a successful result of the deliberations of the Irish Convention."
My motive, and my only motive, in moving this Resolution is to ward off, if I can, and, if not, at any rate to minimise, what I consider to be a very grave and increasing menace to the successful ending of the Irish Convention. The present situation in Ireland is one of extreme gravity, and I feel certain that I am representing the view of very many men of all classes in that country when I say that the successful ending of the Irish Convention is the only hope that stands between our country and a period of chaos, and indeed probably of anarchy, the like of which has not been known in the history of Ireland for centuries. That being so, I would be very glad indeed to have avoided a debate at this moment, a debate in which there is always a risk of things being said calculated to accentuate difficulties and to inflame passion, and I certainly would not have dreamed of moving this Resolution were I not convinced that there is at the present moment the gravest danger of a destruction of the Convention if the policy that is at present being pursued by the Irish authorities be continued.
It is being said widely in Ireland, and it is no doubt believed by many people in that country, that there are people in this country and in Ireland who would gladly see the Convention destroyed, so that in the consequent anarchy and turmoil, and perhaps bloodshed, the last hope of self-government in this generation would perish. I do not know if it be true that there are any men guilty of such a criminal and reckless design. But let me say at once I entirely acquit the Ulster Unionist party of any such diabolical wickedness. They know, and none better than they, the terrible alternatives with which their country is faced at this moment, and if they are truly represented, as I believe they are by their delegates who are sitting on the Convention, then I am convinced that they are sincerely anxious, as I am, for a settlement of this question. Let me recall in a few words to the recollection of this House what this Convention is. It is undoubtedly the most representative body of Irishmen who have met in Ireland for a century. It represents practically all classes of the people. It has amongst its members the archbishops and bishops of the Catholic Church and the archbishops and bishops of the Protestant Church, the moderator of the General Assembly of Presbyterians, the chairmen of all the county councils in Ireland, representing, as the House will understand, the great agricultural interest, which is the greatest industry in Ireland. It has also representatives of the urban authorities of the country, the mayors of all our great cities, the chairmen of chambers of commerce——
What has this got to do with the Motion? [HON. MEMBEBS: "Order!" "Keep quiet!"]
4.0 P.M.
Representatives of the landed interests and the property classes, the peers of Ireland, and representatives Labour. I may say in passing that from no section of the Convention has more valuable work been given than from the representatives of Labour. This body has sat twenty-two sessions, and it has discussed every phase and difficulty of the Irish question. For the first time in our history men of different views have met to discuss face to face the difficulties and the obstacles upon one side and upon the other of a settlement of the Irish question. Every opinion has been discussed with the utmost frankness and without a trace of bitterness or of rancour, and I must say that I never felt so proud of my country men as when listening, for the most part silently, to those debates. I often felt regret that that assembly just as it sat could not be constituted the first Parliament of a self-governed Ireland. We have been sitting in secrecy. That secrecy, I suppose, was necessary; otherwise, there would not, and there probably could not, have been that complete frankness of expression which has taken place, but I say deliberately that if every word which has been uttered at that Convention could be published to-morrow it would redound to the credit of Ireland and would prove how Irishmen who had been bitter and lifelong antagonists could fully discuss their differences with one another with dignity and good temper and with a single desire to unite in a scheme for the better government of their country. As far as I know and believe, there are no wreckers inside that Convention, whatever may be the case outside, and I take the liberty of saying that no section of that assembly has shown by their speeches and by their action a more sincere desire for a reason able settlement than the delegates from Ulster. Many of our difficulties on both sides have, I believe, already been mitigated and some of them, perhaps, removed. We certainly have come to understand one another and to appreciate one another's point of view and one another's difficulties as we never did before, and after full discussion of all these matters we have now reached this critical stage when a small number of our body has been appointed to draft a scheme of settlement in which the effort will be made to meet all the difficulties and all the dangers which have disclosed themselves in the discussion and to arrive, if possible, at a unanimous agreement for the future government of Ireland.
Would it not be a little short of a crime, a crime to Ireland and a crime equally to the Empire, if at this moment any policy were to be pursued outside the Convention to impair and wreck its future? I heard some men say that even if the Convention ultimately failed great good for the future of Ireland must come from the mere fact of its having assembled and discussed these matters amicably. I am sorry, but I take an exactly opposite view. If this assembly breaks up in helplessness and despair, and especially if that happens by reason of any policy pursued outside its walls, far better for Ireland and far better for the Empire that it had never met. The assembling of this Convention was one of two alternative policies which were before the Government regarding Ireland. One was a policy of rigorous repression—in fact, the policy of government by the sword. The other policy, which embodied the summoning of the Convention, was a policy of endeavouring to find a way by the immediate concession of self-government to Ireland to appease and to tranquillise that country. These two policies were absolutely divergent and antagonistic. The adoption of one naturally and necessarily and completely meant the exclusion of the other. There was no possibility, every sensible man will admit, of a combination or a partial combination of these two policies, and the Government, after serious deliberations and after a delay of which it is no good for me now to complain, but which at any rate indicated serious discussion and deliberation, the Government adopted the alternative which I think most men and parties would admit to-day was the only sane alternative, and they assented to the view pressed upon them that having adopted the one alternative policy they should drop the other. In pursuance of that policy they amnestied the Sinn Fein prisoners and thereby — this was admittedly their motive—they sought to create a better atmosphere in Ireland. In doing so they took risks—of course, they took risks—but they took no risk comparable to the absolute certainty of disaster if the opposite course had been adopted. The Convention assembled. Everyone knew that the country could not be tranquillised in a day and that provocative and violent and perhaps illegal things would be done for some time up and down through the country, but in order to give the Convention a chance, and in order to give the policy of the Government a chance, it was essential that those in authority in Ireland should act with the utmost caution, with the utmost tact, with the utmost forbearance, and with the utmost leniency, and that they should carefully abstain from provocative action calculated to lead to defiance or violence of any sort or kind.
I am sorry to say that course has not been followed by those in authority in Ireland. Many of the acts done by those in authority in Ireland while the Convention was sitting would lead one to suppose that their one desire was to provoke and to justify the Sinn Feiners and by every means in their power to make more difficult the task of the Convention. They have gone out of their way over and over again to challenge the Sinn Feiners, and then they have allowed themselves to be defied by the Sinn Feiners. They have irritated the public by tactless, unnecessary, and perfectly silly measures of repression, until finally they have succeeded in inflaming passions in Ireland to probably a worse pitch than at any time since the rising in 1916. They have been arresting men up and down through the country, mostly unknown and insignificant men, and trying them on trivial charges before military tribunals, mostly for silly speeches made here and there at public meetings in the country, thereby turning these men into martyrs. They have issued a series of solemn proclamations under the Defence of the Realm Acts forbidding all sorts and kinds of harmless things. They issued a proclamation against any sort of military exercise, semi-military exercise or revolution. They carry that so far as actually to prohibit Swedish gymnastics and exercises. They issued a proclamation forbidding people to carry hurling sticks on their shoulders, sticks something similar to your hockey sticks in this country. "They have made that an offence, and they have actually sent men to prison for doing it.
An extraordinary instance of the futility and the absurdity of their action was seen the other day when they ordered a large body of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, a force as many hon. Members in this House know of enormous, almost gigantic men of Herculean proportions—splendid men—to march into a field in the immediate neighbourhood of Dublin and arrest twenty-seven young boy scouts, who, with their sticks in their hands, were carrying out some semi-military boyish evolutions, and they marched these boys through the city of Dublin. Before they got to the police station there were thousands of men, women, and children following and cheering them, and when they got the boys to the police station they released them. They have done nothing but provoke and irritate, and. the result has been that they have been defied everywhere. Everybody carries hurleys on their shoulders now in Ireland. I am told that you see processions of girls carrying hurleys backwards and forwards before the police station in defiance. Semi-military exercises are carried on in defiance of the authorities. Under this treatment Sinn Fein rejoices, Sinn Fein progresses and grows strong. Take what they did with reference to the seizure of arms. I express no opinion now as to whether or not it would be a blessed thing if the arms of everybody in Ireland were in safe custody. But what did the Government do? There are three sets of Volunteers in Ireland. One set is the Ulster Volunteer Force, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) is or was the head, and which everyone knows on the highest authority is armed to the teeth; another is the body of Sinn Fein Volunteers; and the third is a body known as the National Volunteers, who have been in sympathy with my colleagues and myself. The Government has not attempted to get the arms from the Ulster Volunteers; it has not attempted in any way whatever to get the arms from the Sinn Fein Volunteers; but it has raided every hall, aye, and every private house up and down through the country where National Volunteer arms were to be found and has seized them. Is there any sense or meaning in proceedings such as that?
The worst case of all, a case which has resulted in a horrible tragedy in the City of Dublin, has been the treatment of the Sinn Fein prisoners by the authorities. Immediately after the rebellion a number of Sinn Fein prisoners were sentenced to long periods for what certainly were very grave offences. Many of them were sentenced to death and their sentences were commuted to penal servitude for life or for long periods. They were sent over here, and we made a claim that they should be treated here as political prisoners; that is to say, that they should not be associated with ordinary criminals, and that they should be allowed association under certain conditions, allowed letters, books, and interviews, and so forth. After considerable discussion, and after some difficulty, we succeeded in getting those privileges for them here in England. They were segregated and put into Lewes Prison, and they got these privileges which we had claimed for them as political prisoners. Will the House follow this for a moment? Then they were amnestied, and subsequently a number of the very same men were arrested for comparatively trivial offences in Ireland, for foolish speeches and things of that kind, and were convicted and sent to prison in Ireland. When the claim was made for them that they should be treated in Ireland as political prisoners the same as they had been, or at any rate as well as they had been in Lewes Prison in England, the same treatment was denied to the same men. Then this horrible tragedy took place, and this young man lost his life, and at once the Government granted, too late, these privileges. As if to cap the climax of inconsistency and silliness, what happened then? Some men for similar offences were arrested in Cork. They were convicted and sent to the Cork prison. They claimed the same rights as political prisoners as had been given after the tragedy to the prisoners in Dublin. They were refused. They promptly went on hunger strike, and within forty-eight hours they were released unconditionally.
What is the House and the country to think of that kind of government of a country? It has the effect of irritating at a time when it ought to be the highest policy of the Government to calm and tranquillise public opinion. It has the effect of irritating every section of the population, and undoubtedly has the effect of increasing the difficulties in the Convention, not only of myself and my friends, but I might say I think equally of the representatives of those who were the Unionists in Ireland in the past. In this Motion I speak of the Irish Executive and of the Irish military authorities, but I honestly do not know who governs Ireland to-day. I do not believe that the Chief Secretary has allowed himself to be made responsible consciously for the absurdities and irritating things that I have described. I know that his anxiety about the result of the Convention is as deep, I believe, as my own. I know that he sees, with that clear vision of his, that peaceful deliberation and wise and conciliatory decisions inside the Convention hall are incompatible with provoked, inflamed and irreconcilable passions raging all round its walls outside. He must have the power of controlling these things, and I have moved this Motion for the purpose of asking him to exercise that power. I ask him to exercise that power in the interests of Ireland and equally in the interests of the Empire. I ask it for the sake of Ireland. There is no man who knows better than the present Chief Secretary what future of chaos and worse we have staring us in. the face if this Convention breaks down. Only yesterday Cardinal Logue, a man who weighs his words, declared that in his opinion the successful ending of the Convention was the only thing which, stood between Ireland and chaos. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his power also in the interests of the Empire. The Prime Minister on the 22nd April said:
I beg to second the Motion.
When the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) gave notice last week of this Motion, I said that no man would welcome the Debate which the hon. and learned Member and his friends desired more eagerly than I did, and I added——
There has been no Debate. You are getting up to reply without hearing it.
I added that if errors in the administration of Ireland were pointed out, no man desired more than I did that they should be corrected, but if, on the whole, the administration of Ireland in the present difficult circumstances of Ireland was proceeding upon right principles, that the administration of Ireland and the policy pursued there should be endorsed and confirmed by the decision of this House. I do not complain at all of the Motion, as I have said. I do not complain of the terms of the criticism, except that I think that if the hon. Member knew the facts with regard to the classes of cases which he has represented by instances so inadequate as to be entirely misleading, I ask myself whether there is any act directed by the administration—I do not say any casual error of an officer of the Government here and there, or of a Department here and there—but any act of policy directed by the administration which any man who had any responsibility with regard to the maintenance of order in Ireland that the hon. and learned Member himself would not have been bound to take. When definite complaint is made, it can be dealt with, but the Irish executive has the right to make this complaint that from every interested quarter, from many dishonest quarters, from quarters where the chief qualification of criticism was ignorance, the air has been filled with the clamour of denunciation, first of all on the part of gentlemen in their studies or in their editorial rooms who wanted the policy of Cromwell applied to Ireland, and next on the part of those who are fomenting disorder in Ireland with the determined resolve, if it may be, to break down civil government in Ireland, and on their part and by agencies which they control, to represent the administration of Ireland in one breath as tyrannical beyond measure, and in the next breath as contemptible to a degree never heard of before in any administration.
I am glad to come to the matters with which the hon. and learned Member deals. I agree with him that this is a time in Ireland of crisis—grave crisis and of peril—but I say, too, that this is a time of unprecedented and unequalled opportunity and that the real question of the time, the question which emerges in this Debate as the governing consideration here, is whether His Majesty's Government is in truth safeguarding the Convention by such means as are available, by inadequate means, means difficult of application, or whether there is in truth some sinister design to break down the Convention, whether there is some "hidden hand," as it is said, of which I am the silly and unconscious instrument, for the destruction of the Convention. The crisis is, I believe, the crisis in the affairs of Ireland which will decide whether Ireland is to set off again through another dreary cycle such as has marked her unhappy history for seven and a half centuries, or whether she is to take advantage of the opportunity which is offered, whether she shall be permitted to take advantage of the opportunity which is offered and to reap the fruits of the Convention of which the hon. and learned Gentleman entertains such high expectations.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, amid his grave censures of the Government of Ireland, said that he believed I was sincerely interested in the welfare and the success of the Convention. I was interested in it, as a fact, before the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was aware of the conditions of its inception. I laboured upon its constitution. I had the honour —it was a task to which I shall always look back with delight that it was entrusted to my hands—of launching the Convention upon its deliberations It was safely launched. I made the acquaintance of most, if not all, of its members. I know how comprehensive their views are. I saw enough of them in the few hours while I was permitted to be in the chair to realise their possibilities, to see how little were the causes which need ultimately divide them, and how capable they were of co-operation. The Convention has been a working demonstration of the fact that Irishmen in Ireland, given a fair chance, can administer their own affairs and concentrate upon great questions. It is a thankless office to be publicly accused, having set my hand to this task and devoted all the efforts a man could devote to it, of being covertly the man who is the instrument of its destruction. I cannot think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any man who knows what my attitude towards that Convention has been day by day and week by week, could entertain that idea. I only say God forgive the man who, with knowledge of the efforts I have made in this matter, can suppose that this was one piece of elaborate imposture, and that I was not merely betraying Ireland, but betraying what I believe to be the greatest interest of the Empire.
The right hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of having said anything of the kind.
Everyone knows it has been said. How could these machinations be going on, unless I were a born idiot, without my knowledge? [An HON. MEMBER: "Major Price!"] Really that kind of cry illustrates the fatuity which pursues the discussion of these Irish affairs. It is like a deadly fate upon the country, which never seems to get a chance, or when a chance offers itself has that chance frustrated by evil designs from some one or other interested quarter occupied by men who fish in troubled waters, as many men do in Irish affairs. I do not believe there is a conscious enemy of the Irish Convention among the men engaged in the Executive over whom I have immediate control, and it would be my business, if I believed there were such an enemy, to recommend him to His Majesty's Government for removal, because it would be an act of betrayal of the trust reposed in the Irish Administration by this House.
Let me come to closer quarters. The hon. and learned Gentleman dwelt upon the necessity of seeking to preserve the atmosphere of good will which the Government sought to create. It is conceded that the Government did seek to create an atmosphere of good will for the commencement of the Convention. With regard to that atmosphere, I want to recall some broad facts, not casual mistakes, if they be mistakes, not unhappy incidents, but some broad facts which demonstrate what the attitude of the Irish Administration under the late Government and under this Government has been to Ireland—the attitude of the British Administration—and let me take the most eloquent fact of all, and that is the position in which Ireland stands at the present time with regard to this conflict, which is filling the world with misery and from which Ireland is practically immune. I go across to Ireland. I go from this town, which echoes notes of sadness, notes of effort, notes of resolution, of all the strenuous energy and all the profound suffering of this conflict, and I might have passed into another world when I reach Dublin—prosperity in the great industry of the country such as it has never known in modern times, or, I believe, in any time; its public services maintained; its supplies cared for with the best energy of those whose task it is to care for them. Hon. Members think I dally with these matters. I gather that from the sort of criticism there was by question this afternoon. If one man had the powers of twenty it might be possible to apply complete administrative authority to all these questions, but every Member on those benches knows that there has not been a question which has arisen about the danger of famine in one district because local supplies were exhausted, about the impossibility of shipment of food because of the state of the seas, about this or that shortage, which has not received the most urgent attention either of myself or of someone under my control. What is the other outstanding fact? Two hundred thousand of the young men of Ireland are being enrolled by avowed enemies of the Empire and of the Allies for the purpose of creating a new rebellion in Ireland. This House, this Parliament, with unprecedented magnanimity, took the view that while we hung up that measure of enfranchisement towards self government which had been promised to Ireland, it was right not to enforce from this Chamber a decree of Conscription in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I can only say that the House has acted upon that view.
The Government!
Parliament has acted upon that view. But the fact is that these 200,000 young men, the flower of the youth of Ireland, who have come to manhood in these last three terrible years, are young men who are being made the instruments, or are sought to be made the instruments, for a recurrence of the rebellion of 1916. And yet it is said, "You have a tyrannical Government. You have a provocative Government; you have a Government which does not desire to deal fairly with the Sister Island." Except for the party of revolt in Ireland, Ireland has advantages at this time which, so far as I can judge, are not shared by any other community in Europe—peace at home, except for Sinn Fein, prosperity at home, plenty at home, its industries restricted, it is true, so far as the great liquor industries are concerned, but constant efforts made to meet that difficulty. (Laughter.) It raises a laugh, but I spend all the time I can in Dublin, and it is not a laughing matter for people who are thrown out of work by restrictions, no matter how necessary they are, from whatever cause. That is the state of things.
May I remind the House of other facts which illustrate the disposition of the Government towards Ireland? There was a rebellion in Dublin, unforgettable, an act universally condemned as equally criminal and foolish. Money to repair the material damage was voted from the Imperial Exchequer, and at this present time rebuilding goes on with special facilities given by the Minister of Munitions and other Departments of the State.
To the "Freeman's Journal" office.
There were in prison, twelve months ago, two bodies of men, 130 or thereabouts, suspects who had not been able to clear themselves before judges and had remained interned in this country, and something like 150 men convicted of direct participation in the rebellion. At Christmas last it was said to us from those benches, "Send a Christmas message of conciliation to Ireland." One hundred and thirty, or thereabouts, were released. In June of this year it was said, "You are trying to open a new era with this Convention." The 150 were unconditionally amnestied. This was done by the Government which is made the subject of a solemn vote of censure because of its provocative disposition towards Ireland and its determination to prevent the chances of reconciliation. These charges are not well founded.
Let me come to the period with which this Motion deals—that is the period which begins at the Convention and which continues down to this time—and let me tell the House what took place with regard to the minority of the prisoners released from internment and the minority of the prisoners released from penal servitude or imprisonment. Since the released convicted prisoners came out of prison they have set about taking up the old schemes of rebellion where they had left it off. There had sprung into being in the intervening period since the rebellion two organisations, an organisation of Sinn Fein, an organisation whose policy was announced, and its policy was to sever the tie between Great Britain and Ireland, to secure the secession of Ireland, to establish by covert means agencies which should prevent the peaceful administration of Ireland, and to found then a provisional and ultimately a permanent rebel administration. And such is the tyrannical character, such is the provocative interference of this Administration that the people who have been engineering that scheme are holding what they are pleased to call a Sinn Fein Convention, in which they intend, as I understand, to resolve upon and promulgate the necessary methods for these revolutionary changes. The Government cannot be indifferent to that. When these prisoners were released that scheme was in existence, and another scheme was in existence. Certain prisoners at Lewes had been the chief leaders in what was called the Irish Volunteers, which was one of the two armed forces of the rebellion. They had been leaders in various parts of the country. They devoted their time at Lewes to preparing a new scheme for the reorganisation of the Irish Volunteers. There happened to be captured in one of the arrests which the Government has been driven to make the complete evidence on the person of one of these ringleaders of the scheme of operations-with regard to armed revolt. I will read a passage from it to the House. They were to reorganise the Irish Volunteers, and put them in a position to complete by force of arms the work began by the men of Easter week. The document goes on in this way: days, and so forth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carson's Volunteers did the same!" and "Ulster!"] On an unhappy day——
Has the author of that document been put into the Cabinet?
I think the hon. Member knows.
Is it in order for an hon. Member on this bench to call another hon. Member behind him a damned liar?
Order, order!
There were two parties— two movements in Ireland. The first was the movement for secession to be carried out by force. The Government had invited the spokesmen of what is called Sinn Fein to come into the Irish Convention and advocate there to their countrymen the doctrines they hold, and see if they could persuade ninety or a hundred sane Irishmen or a majority of them that those doctrines would lead to anything other than the ruin and desolation of their country. They very wisely declined that invitation. They took to the platform and the hillside, and from the time of their release down to the present time they have gone on preaching these principles of secession. At first, for some weeks, they preached them with great vehemence, and a situation which seemed to be one of very considerable peril was created. Tumult arose in the country, during three weeks or so after the release of these prisoners, and while they were forming a Coalition between the argumentative section and the section of physical force, this revolutionary propaganda was furiously pursued. Secession was discussed in all moods and tenses. Secession at once, by armed force—recession by the destruction of the British Empire. Secession by the verdict of the Peace Conference, whatever it may be. But when these had been juggled with for a time a great many of the more sober politicians in Ireland claimed loudly to fee told what the political side of this propaganda really meant, and, on the whole, although the risk of letting these people loose in a country moved to profound emotions on the question of nationality and independence and kindred questions—although that risk was great it was justified. Was there undue timidity —was there a provocative spirit shown in allowing these men, for weeks together, and in great numbers, to make this hurricane fire of rebel oratory throughout the countryside in Ireland?
There was another side of this problem. The men who were and had been advocating for years academic ideas with regard to secession, and those who added to it readiness to go into the field on an unascertained day made common cause with the authors of this confidential circular which I have quoted to the House, and from that time till now this movement has proceeded in duplex fashion for the beguilement of the sober man in the North and the young men in the West. It has been said on the one hand that this is a plan of trying to get for Ireland the most you can. "Set your claim high, because the more you claim the more you will get from your hereditary enemy."
Then on the other side, week by week, and for a period running now into months, there has been steadily organising in every parish and in every village in Ireland, and to a considerable extent in the large towns, a new organisation of the Irish Volunteers—the organisation referred to in the circular I have read, an organisation of rebel forces. These men have been told, "We have got a very considerable store of arms and shall have more before the fateful day comes." More from where? They cannot be bought in Ireland. They are not supplied by the Administration. They cannot even be stolen in sufficient quantities for this purpose. But over and over again I have evidence of reiteration on the countryside of the words, "We have arms; we shall have more." I think I can give the House two or three instances of that kind of thing—of the threat that secession would be enforced with the use of arms if necessary. I do not dwell upon that, but I think I ought to give the House one or two instances of the kind of thing that has been spoken. Here is a passage from a speech by the leader of this movement, who is the elected Member for East Clare in this House—not an insignificant person. Here is the speech: hand which was held out and brought about the abortive rebellion of 1916 was the helping hand of Germany. Last February, when it became necessary to deport out of Ireland a certain number of people who had been engaged and are now engaged, some of them, in this movement, it was done because that helping hand was being held out again, and His Majesty's Government knew it. The organisation of this volunteer force for the declared purpose and under the practice of duplicity to which I have referred was a matter which the Government could not ignore. These young men were brought into the open. They were bidden to drill. Every kind of appeal was made, including that of the necessity of avoiding Conscription. And these appeals rounded them up in great numbers. There was hardly a village where one of these companies of volunteers was not formed. The hon. Member referred to the prosecution of some of the men engaged in this movement. Let me tell the House that every man sent to be tried for his offences against the Defence of the Realm Regulations declared he was a soldier of the Irish Revolutionary Army.
5.0 P.M.
You cannot, if you have any responsibility for the order of a country, ignore action of that kind. There was among the Defence of the Realm Regulations a regulation directed to adjusting such matters as prohibited drilling. The question arose whether this drilling, the object of which was known and declared, could be permitted to go on, and after various attempts at preventing it without resort to prosecution the prosecution a were entered upon to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I cannot think that the House will agree with the hon. and learned Member that to prosecute people concerned in such a movement, and taking the overt action which they took, was either needless or provocative after I have disclosed that that action was taken for that reason. The hon. and learned Member complained of these prosecutions, and he complained of incidents to which he referred. He said, for example, that Swedish gymnastics and exercises had been prohibited. I do not know of any such incident. Certainly His Majesty's Government has not directed any prohibition of Swedish gymnastics or exercises.
The military authorities did it in the case of the National Volunteers.
If it had been brought to my notice it would have been my business to communicate with the military authorities to try to understand the meaning of it, and if there was no sense in it to bring it to the notice of the whole of His Majesty's Government in order that it might be dealt with. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to an incident in regard to the drilling of some Boy Scouts. At this time, when drilling is being directed by the leaders of the rebel movement and is sought to be used for preventing orderly government in the country, there was in the City of Dublin, on a Sunday arranged beforehand, a double event, the drilling of several hundreds of grown men and also the drilling of a party of Boy Scouts, who were under the direction, as I understand, of grown people. In order to ascertain the names and addresses, as I am told, some of these lads and the oldsters among them were taken to the police station. That is the provocative and needless action which is referred to in particular with regard to the City of Dublin. I hope I need not tell the House that if it were a question of interfering with the boys or with anybody who is not actually engaged under the direction of rebel leaders in the organisation of an army for the purpose of rebellion there would be nobody acting with the authority of the Government who would interfere with those matters, and so far as I know no effective interference of that kind has occurred. If such interference is brought to my notice I shall take care to check it, and I hope to be able to take care that it does not recur. There was complaint, also, with regard to seizure of arms. There were in Ireland, as it was said, three, perhaps more, volunteer armed forces. There were the Irish Volunteers, who were the body with which the Citizen army organised themselves to take part in the rebellion. There were the National Volunteers, and the Ulster Volunteers. There is really no mystery about this matter of the seizure of arms. There were scattered up and down throughout Ireland some thousands of arms, and a considerable quantity of ammunition belonging to the headquarters organisation of the National Volunteers. That organisation was under the control of Colonel Maurice Moore, who, in the course of this year, set up negotiations with the Irish Volunteers, with the leader of the rebel force, for a transfer of the establishment under his control, with the arms under his control, to that body. That raised a very serious question for the consideration of the competent military authority. Colonel Moore was called into communication by the General Commanding-in-Chief. The danger of this proceeding was pointed out to him, and he was asked—and I say this upon the authority of a member who I see sitting there, the ton. Member for Wicklow (Mr. Donovan), who was concerned in the control of the National Volunteers. The hon. Member has stated in public that Major-General Frye asked Colonel Moore for a guarantee that the arms he had taken in Parnell Square—these were arms which had been the subject of conflict between two organisations; they had been seized, and transfer of possession of them had been forcibly made—and the arms possessed by the National Volunteers throughout the country would not pass into undesirable hands, as he had reason to fear the Sinn Fein party might get possession of them. Colonel Moore said he could give no guarantee that the arms in the possession of the National Volunteers might not pass over to the Irish Volunteers.
May I ask what control Colonel Moore had over the rifles of the National Volunteers except the forty rifles seized in Parnell Square? Might I ask what control Colonel Moore had over the rifles in the Belfast Nationalist Club, and scattered throughout Ireland?
The great difficulty about these rifles was that nobody seemed to have effective control of them.
Might I point out that as the President of the Volunteers in Belfast I had control over the rifles there, and I have them still, notwithstanding the military raid of the premises?
I am very glad that the hon. Member had control of them, and if there had been anywhere any body of loyal subjects, I do not care how advanced their views about Irish constitutional affairs, who could have given any sort of guarantee that these weapons would not pass over to the hands of the leaders of Sinn Fein, no one would have dreamt of seizing them.
Might I ask the right Gentleman——
If the right hon. Gentleman's speech is subjected to these interruptions it is impossible for him to conduct the Debate.
It was plain to everyone who knew the facts that in regard to large quantities of these rifles, which numbered thousands, there was no effective control against their transfer without the consent of those who held them to people whose activities had to be guarded against. There was another peril. Colonel Moore was assembling a convention—he had already held one and was assembling another—to make it lawful for him to transfer these rifles, and there was no effective means, so it appeared, of preventing that action. In that state of the case the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland—himself an Irishman, by no means a politician, a man whose views about these contested questions have certainly never been thrust upon me—reported in these terms:
"I consider it is necessary for the purpose of securing the public safety to take possession of these arms so far as it is possible to do so, more especially those arms which are at present collected into armouries."
Assume that the Government had said, "Do nothing of the kind."
Mr. DEVLIN rose——
Order, order!
The hon. Member is not treating the right hon. Gentleman fairly. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) made his speech without a single interruption, and the hon. Member has no right to interrupt.
I was not interrupting. I was correcting the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
Assuming that these rifles had been peaceably transferred to people whose designs I have demonstrated, would the House have thought that His Majesty's Government had done its duty; and armed with the knowledge of these facts, if they had been transferred after a conflict, would the position have been any better? I do not want to shirk any questions that might be properly put to me, but let me deal with one or two questions. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) I understood referred to the date, that immediately preceding a great anniversary in Ireland, the 15th of August. So far as I know, the date has nothing what- ever to do with the matter. The question was the question of urgency, and I must do the General Commanding-in-Chief and those who are concerned in this matter the justice of reading the statement which the Member for Wicklow, who I think was the secretary of the National Volunteers on this subject, made. He said:
"It is clear that Colonel Moore's conduct as to the seizure, his public declaration that he aimed at fusion with the Irish Volunteers, and his statement that he could not control National Volunteer arms, urged General Mahon to take this step."
Of course, the step was taken for those reasons, and let me add one other thing. There were a large number of small armouries of this kind, and after the seizure had taken place the men who had the control of various small armouries of the sort voluntarily delivered them up to the military authorities because of the apprehensions which they shared as to the danger to which those arms were exposed. The House may not remember, but everybody who was responsible in Ireland knew perfectly well that there had been repeated seizures of isolated arms in various parts of the country, and that in Cork there had been at a school, where military instruction was legitimately given, a parcel of twenty-five rifles. It is said, "Why did you not seize the arms of the Ulster Volunteers?" There was not the least risk, owing to the manner in which those armouries were guarded, as I was told, of seizure by anybody as to whom there was danger that they would be used against the public safety. That had to be considered.
Mr. NUGENT rose—
Order, order!
The hon. Member interjects a question about Letterkenny. Let me tell him that I do not believe the Most Reverend Bishop of Raphoe, one of the most public-spirited men in Ireland, or his administration, felt any resentment at the fact of the taking of these arms, though I think there was complaint as to the manner in which it was done.
Let me say that the right hon. Gentleman's information is incorrect.
You could not send round a bellman to tell the people you were going to seize these arms. How many would you have got? How many would have been seized before you came near the place where they were? It was a pro- ceeding that had to be sudden and un expected. It inevitably gave rise to vexation, but it prevented additions to the public dangers, which are sufficiently pressing, without disregarding——
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why he made no demand of me or any other officials of the National Volunteers to deliver up their rifles before he seized them?
I gather from the statement that the hon. Member supplied for publication that a demand was made upon the hon. Member, as well as upon Colonel Moore whether they individually or collectively would guarantee the safety of these arms, and that neither of them were able to give such guarantee. I understand the hon. Member has said so himself. These are wretched and vexatious incidents. The Government did not seek the occasion, but no Government which valued public security could allow thousands of arms to be at large, to be pounced upon by men, one of whose objects was to win hundreds and thousands of the young men of Ireland whom they are misleading into the belief that they can overthrow the British Empire. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) referred to the prohibition of the carrying of the hurley club in processions. There is no specific prohibition on the carrying of the hurley. Everybody who goes about in Ireland sees the hurley carried with the greatest freedom on Sundays and week-days for the purpose of the game. The hurley club—the "caman"—unfortunately, in the summer of this year, came into prominence as a most formidable weapon at a time of great tension in the City of Dublin, when it had been found necessary to prohibit a meeting. A young man, who has never been brought to justice, rushed out from a by-thoroughfare carrying a hurley club, and with one blow he laid dead upon the ground a police inspector who was concerned in the police duties which were being performed. That brutal murder rang through Ireland. There were cheers at meetings, at which the Member for East Clare was present, for the hurley that killed Inspector Mills. There were entertainments given in which the act was rehearsed amid the plaudits of persons who attended there, and there was a distribution of these dangerous clubs— and they were new clubs—among the young men who were seeking to drill and march as an organised force. In the face of that, seeing that you do not allow a man to arm himself with a rifle and to march, are you to allow him to march with another lethal weapon whose use has been demonstrated, and to say, "Somebody will laugh at us? It will be said to be a silly interference if we prevent platoons of young men arming themselves with the hurley and marching about the country under conditions under which the police will only interfere at the peril of their lives." That is the story of the prohibition of marching with weapons other than military weapons, including the hurley.
Then the hon. Member says, with regard to the arrests: "First of all, you in England gave these prisoners special treatment. In Ireland you refuse them, and then you give way." Let me remind the hon. Member that there are in prison about forty of the ringleaders in this movement which the public peace requires that the Government should repress. They have been assembled at Mountjoy Prison in Dublin. The prison was the centre of constant attention on the part of their associates outside. They banded themselves together. They had banded themselves together at Lewes. There is a passage in the report of the English Prison Commissioners for this year:
Give the decision as to what he died from.
I am bound to tell the House, in answer to the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, the outline of the facts in this case.
He was murdered.
I am sorry that it should be thought necessary to intersperse my speech—it is a difficult speech to make— with interruptions of this kind, which can serve no rational purpose. These prisoners, as I was saying, protested and appealed. In this country, as I knew from old experience at the Bar, it has been laid down to be the law that if prisoners will not take their food in prison to administer it surgically. The question was debated. I was in support of the contrary proposition before the Chief Justice of England, but it was laid down with the utmost seriousness that there was that duty upon the prison authorities, and forcible feeding took place. The hon. Member reproaches me for a change of policy. The question had not been decided. It was a question of great difficulty. The sentence could not be legitimately interfered with by the administration. The prison rules were represented to me to direct and govern the treatment in the prison. In the midst of the consideration of that matter Thomas Ashe died. I was engaged at that time and I remained engaged in an endeavour to find some means within the law of introducing a change which would make it possible to retain these prisoners in prison, first of all without the peril that they would die in prison from prison treatment, and then, secondly, without needlessly provoking and increasing the storm of indignation that arises in Ireland when there is a suspicion that a weak individual is oppressed by a tyrannical administration. I only regret it was not possible to be done a week earlier, but in the end a system was introduced which did admit of the classification of these prisoners. I will not go into that. Everything that humanity dictated and everything that reasonable and possible concessions could do was done to meet these two objects which I had in view, and I confess that the taunt of having refrained from action in one week and having taken action in another week passes by me very lightly. In the fluctuating circumstances of a most difficult situation such as there is in Ireland you must adapt your conduct, so far as you can do it within the law, to the necessities which arise from day to day, and I think you must not be afraid to change the course which has been taken if it can be lawfully changed and if it proves not to be a course which you can pursue without detriment to the public interest.
I have been reproached from another quarter. It is said, "You stood by with an army in Ireland and with a thousand police in Dublin metropolis—you stood by and saw Sinn Feiners marching after the remains of their dead comrade, and thousands of people in Dublin demonstrating their sympathy. How could you do that? "How could I do anything else? How could any human person do anything else after a tragedy had happened, a tragedy to Ireland, a tragedy to the settlement which we desire to make, when there were men, whether they were rebels or not, desiring to pay the last rite of respect to the dead man, whose account has been closed by death? How could any man with humane sentiments or common sense interfere by arms and force to prevent the funeral ceremony? I make no apology for the course I took. It is said that the "Freeman's Journal" published a furious diatribe, or, I would say, a furious remonstrance. I desire to speak with entire respect of the author of that letter, though he visited upon the Irish administration censure which I know to be most unjust. He caused to be published in the "Freeman's Journal" a diatribe of that kind, and the Press Censor had forbidden its publication. It did not seem to me to be the business of the Irish administration to embitter and needlessly embitter that situation by directing the seizure of the premises and plant of the "Freeman's Journal." I had to ask myself two questions: first, were they within the mischief of the Defence of the Realm Acts and Regulations which prevent publications with a seditious intent? I do not believe that there were one-tenth of the people of Ireland who would have taken the view that they were. At any rate, I was not satisfied. If this had been a publication intended with a seditious object it would have been the business of the Executive to present the facts to the Government and the military authorities. I took the responsibility of directing that they should not be presented, and I had this satisfaction. The "Freeman's Journal" might have been right or wrong, but if they had been wrong nothing could have commended them more to the enthusiastic admiration of the great masses of the people of Ireland than that there should have been a sort of belated and posthumous prosecution for having published that vehement episode in the interests, as great bodies of Irishmen believe, of humanity. I took that course, and I make no apology for that.
I now come to the practical part of this matter, which needs the careful attention of the House at the present time. The present position is that we have this conspiracy of illegality going on. It fluctuates, but there are a few men engaged in it who persevere with an avowed determination to make the government of Ireland impossible upon any system, to bring out the population in such numbers and in such circumstances that there can be no police control and to create a terrorism in the countryside. All this has been done without any regard to the public interest in Ireland, without any regard to the interests of peace and order. It is being done with the command of pecuniary resources which was characteristic of the rebel organisation before the rising, and is characteristic of the rebel organisation to-day. If they had the whole resources of the Irish administration they would not be more prodigal of expenses than they are now, and they could not be more prodigal, even if their objects were legitimate, than they are now in pursuing these mischievous and wicked objects. There has been recently a campaign of speeches which puts a point upon the allegation that His Majesty's Government takes a provocative course with regard to the Convention. Let me say this with regard to the Convention. It contains, I believe, representatives of every form of opinion in Ireland, except the criminal form of opinion which aims at secession by force out of the British Empire, men of the most extreme views. There are large numbers of members of the Convention who have often represented to me—many of them have come to me with a degree of confidence of which I would be proud and said it. "Run every risk you reasonably can rather than do anything which sets up controversy; we are getting on so well in the Convention." But then, on the other hand, I know that in various parts of Ireland there are many whose minds are concerned as to the present and the future of this rebel organisation, and there is the greatest alarm that at this stage of the Convention, when some system, I hope, for Ireland may be devised to the satisfaction of all her loyal sons, that the government of Ireland may be actually made a task of impossibility.
That is the risk. On the one hand there are those who desire that there shall be passivity in the face of action of the most illegal and dangerous kind. On the other hand there are great masses of the people of Ireland who represent, soberly enough and most seriously, that unless means are taken for the maintenance of freedom from crime and freedom from disturbance, the Convention must be defeated by that means, and the subject matter to which it is applied must be put in peril if not destroyed. The declared object of these persons is to defeat the Convention. The trouble which has arisen in Ireland during recent weeks has arisen because the Convention is doing well. If the Convention could be made a laughing stock those extremists who exist on both sides would be willing that it should run its harmless way, but the design of the leaders of the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland requiries the failure of the Convention and the manœuvres at the present time are directed particularly to creating a state of things in which the Convention would appear to be hopeless. The Government has to deal with that situation. I would read to the House quite concisely some very short passages from the recent series of speeches, which were delivered in the county Clare by the Member for East Clare. He said: Irish constabulary, a body of Irishmen in Ireland to whom reference has been made, and these men are held up to opprobrium and recommended for boycott and put in peril. There was an occasion not very long ago on which the same speaker recommended that they should tell the police to remove, and if they did not shift they would shift them with the hurley.
At one of the same series of meetings he referred to the police. He said things about the shot-gun and the pike, and spoke of the police in connection with the Bodyke evictions, some event of old and bitter memory in that part of the country, and the Easter week rising, and the dirty work of these men in swearing away the lives of their own countrymen, all for a little pay. I am sorry to say that on that occasion a reverend gentleman concurred with the Member for East Clare in holding up to boycott and opprobrium the few constables of the Irish Constabulary who, in the course of their duty, were present at that meeting to see that there was not any violent infringement of public order. I wonder whether it is considered that to deal with incitements of the kind so perilous in remote parts of Ireland, with a movement of the kind not limited to this one speaker, but pressed upon the young men in the remote districts of the country steadily whenever they assemble and come under the influence which he exercises upon them. I wonder whether it is thought that to deal under the Defence of the Realm Regulations with acts of criminal misconduct of the kind is a provocation of unoffending politicians in Ireland which could by any possibility affect the readiness of any loyal Irishman to try to provide a better government for his country. I sincerely hope that there is not a man who thinks that conduct of the kind will be a provocation, because His Majesty's Government will, to the best of their power, prevent and stop criminal acts of the kind. No attack and no criticism ought, I think, to prevent any Government which has charge of a civilised country from saying to any man, be he an everyday citizen or a prominent political leader, "If you condescend to incitements to violence and to language of criminal misconduct, such as this language, it is the business of the Government to see that you shall not persevere in that course."
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why De Valera is at large?
I thought I had done so. While, as we hope, a new Constitution for Ireland is in the making, and while great masses of Irishmen are inspired with the same hope, then no matter what the extreme character of the political controversy, if we can keep it within bounds and reconcile it with safety, there shall be no arrest which can properly be avoided. Nothing would have been more helpful to this propaganda of rebellion than that we should have embarked on wholesale arrest of everybody who was concerned. There have been no arrests except in the case of people who incited to violence or took part in deliberate or determined infringement of regulations intended for the public safety. There will be no arrests, so far as I am concerned, except within those narrow limits. There will be no needless arrests. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Boy Scouts!"] I do not think that the hon. Member was here when I was dealing with the matter of the Boy Scouts.
I was here.
I think the hon. Member for Attercliffe was not. So far as I am concerned the success of the Convention would be my success. Its failure would be the failure of all the hopes with which I consented, very much against my will, to take a part in Irish affairs. I do not believe that any man who knows the facts of the case will suspect me of doing anything to hinder the success of the Convention. I know the minds, I am satisfied, of my colleagues in His Majesty's Government, including my right hon. Friend who was here earlier in the evening, the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), and I say with consideration and deliberately that I am convinced that there is no man in His Majesty's Government at the present time, certainly there is no man in a position of authority, as to whom I do not believe that he desires as I do the success of the Convention, and that we should have that freedom from every kind of political controversy that seems to us to be necessary in order, if it is possible, that we may close the last sad chapters of Irish history. Latitude for the commission of crime, or for the incitement to the commission of crime, no civilised Government can permit, and this Government will not permit any such latitude. What I have said from this Table has been with an absolute conviction that the action which has been taken has been action which it was necessary to take, and I hope that mem- bers of the Convention will continue the labours in which they have engaged, so that it may be possible to close the sad chapters of the Irish history of the past, and achieve a success which will redound to the permanent well-being of Ireland and the permanent well-being of the British Empire.
I desire to associate myself in the fullest sense with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, when he opened the Debate, that the governing consideration which ought to operate in our minds and judgments at this moment is the prospect of the Convention, happily assembled, and which, by all accounts, now for two months has conducted its proceedings with a degree of good feeling and practical sense, and a spirit of accommodation, that few people perhaps could have anticipated. The prospect of that Convention achieving its results should not be damaged by anything that may take place either in the government of Ireland or in debates in Parliament. That I believe to be the supreme interest of Ireland, of England, and of the Empire at the present moment. That is a matter which must constantly influence the judgment of the Irish Executive. A new factor—unhappily—distinguishes the situation now from that which has prevailed in days gone by, when, for generations past, we have periodically in this House examined and reviewed the action of the Irish Executive—that is, the springing into existence of the growing, and in some respects menacing, developments of the Sinn Fein movement. There has always been in Ireland a good deal of what I may call rhetorical and contingent belligerency, and it is desirable that people who take long views, and have studied Irish history, and who perhaps from that are able to form at any rate something in the nature of a forecast of Irish developments in the future, should discount a great deal of the habitual and traditional exuberance with which this academic warfare is carried on, and therefore I am not so much moved as some people may be even by the circular which my right hon. Friend read just now. I have read many similar circulars proceeding from similar quarters in Ireland, but, after every allowance has been made, there is no doubt we are face to face here with a most serious and most dangerous peril. The Irish Executive having, upon the one hand, the duty of doing everything in its power to ensure the success of the Convention, and, on the other hand, the paramount responsibility of not permitting a recurrence of such events as those which unhappily took place in Easter of last year, is, even as compared with its own past, in a position of exceptional, difficulty.
It would be a most ungenerous and unwise thing for us in this House not to recognise those difficulties, and, so far as we can, imaginatively place ourselves in the position of those responsible for the government of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is naturally exposed to a cross-fire of criticism. On the one hand there are those who single out acts of the Executive which seemed to them to err on the side of repression, or at any rate of inconsistency, and, on the other hand, there are those who have already made inarticulate incursions into the Debate, and who think that the Irish Executive is criminally weak for not taking more effective and more direct action in the suppression of the Sinn Fein movement. It is very difficult for anybody, however wise he may be, to steer an even keel in such stormy cross currents. No one, I am certain, would suspect the Chief Secretary of any intention, by provocacation or any Executive action, to interfere with the prospects of the success of the Convention. There is no man in the whole United Kingdom who is more vitally interested than he in its success. It may be, though I do not feel it necessary to pronounce any judgment in the matter, that, in a situation of almost unparalleled difficulty, administrative mistakes and inconsistencies may have taken place. Undoubtedly, it is the province of this House, and of the Members from Ireland of all parties, to bring such matters before the attention of Parliament, and to require from the Executive a full account of their stewardship and their responsibility. But my purpose in rising is simply to say that I hope that such criticism, legitimate and natural as it is, will be, as far as possible, confined within the narrow bounds and expressed in temperate language, because it is impossible to exaggerate, at this moment the importance not only to Ireland and Great Britain, but to the Empire, the conduct of the War, and the ultimate conclusion of peace, and the terms upon which the civilised world, after peace, is to hold itself together—I say it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of doing nothing at this critical moment to prejudice the prospect for a real reconciliation, and settlement in Ireland. I believe, from all that I hear of this Convention—and in which I should have been glad myself had there been some representatives of the more extreme opinion more largely participated——
They were invited.
I know they were invited, and it is their own fault that they did not take part in it. I regret they have not. I think their presence would have been an advantage. But taking the Convention as it is, the claim for it by the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford that it is the most representative body assembled in Ireland for a century past, is, in my judgment, a perfectly well founded claim. It has—as we hear, I believe, from authentic information—successfully attacked—and by successful I mean in a spirit of real comprehension and conciliation—successfully attacked and overcome some of the most formidable difficulties that have presented themselves during the last thirty or forty years, and which British statesmanship up to this moment has not been able to surmount. If it can pursue, undisturbed by extraneous influence and by administrative difficulties, that course of deliberation in the same spirit, with the same ability, and with the same honest and universal desire to arrive at a real settlement, I do not myself think it is taking an over sanguine view about the prospects, and the reasonable possibility, that, in a very few months, the Government of the day may be able to present to this House for the first time in the history of the troubled relations of these two islands, a scheme of Irish government which is acquiesced in by the large majority of the representatives of the Irish people, and which will commend itself, as I am certain it will to the good sense and judgment of the nation. If that is the case, and I do not believe I am stating it in exaggerated language, then I will venture to implore all sections, and particularly those who are specially responsible for the representation of Ireland, that both here and in Ireland, and upon the floor of this House, and in the conduct of the Executive Government, and in the direction of public opinion and the making of public speeches by persons in authority during these critical months, nothing should be done that can possibly impair a settlement that would redound to the honour and safety of the whole Empire.
6.0 P.M.
I must compliment the party on the benches behind me on the enthusiasm, such as it is, which they have suddenly developed on this question. They will, no doubt, receive the measure of gratitude they deserve from the men against whom they raised +he cry of "German gold," and whom they told, up to the eve of the rising, that, as compared with the great Irish party, the War Office paid no more attention to the Sinn Feiners than to the hopping of so many fleas. That was the elegant phrase of the hon. Member for East Mayo. Apparently the contemptible little insects have made a considerable advance towards the respect of the hon. Member for Mayo and his Friends. As the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down used to say, we are getting on. The cry is now that all this trouble arises, the cry of the "Freeman" is, from the old Dublin Castle gang. No, Sir; my hon. and learned Friend behind me hit the nail on the head when he said that the trouble was not with the old Castle gang, but with a certain old gang of Members of Parliament in this House and with the new gang of Castle officials whom they have established in power as their own nominees. As to all this talk about the fight in Ireland being a fight between raw revolution and the only possible constitutional party, it is nothing of the kind, and this House will grossly deceive itself, as it has done many a time before, if it believes it. We heard talk to-night about anarchy and bloodshed —I think a "sea of blood" was the expression—and we heard the hon. Member for Mayo the other night trying to make our flesh creep by describing the horrible condition of Ireland. I venture to say that both these Gentlemen are libelling one of the most peaceable countries in the world. What they really mean is that Ireland is in a horrible condition for themselves and all their associates, and so it is, unquestionably. I was sorry that the Chief Secretary rose before he had really anything to answer except a string of vague generalities about the Convention. I should be disposed to commiserate the Chief Secretary sincerely if I were not compelled to commiserate our own Irish people a little more. The Chief Secretary is a kindly gentleman and no doubt has acted quite conscientiously. All you English gentle- men who come over to rule us always act conscientiously. I only wish that you proved your conscientiousness by joining in a general strike against accepting the office of Chief Secretary at all. You would be saving yourselves and ourselves a great deal of misery. It would be the directest and shortest cut to an Irish settlement, and in my view would do something to mitigate the present somewhat unflattering estimate of British democracy.
I venture to say for the one occasion on which we Irishmen have erred by being too hard upon English Ministers we have erred a hundred times over by being too soft with them, and I am certainly not disposed to repeat that error by confining myself to mere golden generalities here to-night. You are fighting to put down militarism, and on behalf of small nations Do you really suppose that anybody in America or in Europe can have any feeling except, to say the least of it, distrust of self-righteousness of that kind if you will only allow them to learn the facts as to what has been happening in the small nation called Ireland. The case of Thomas Ashe is the most dramatic, but is not a bit worse than hundreds, if I should not say thousands. At the very moment when you were assuring America that you were about to present Ireland with her freedom and that you were beginning with a great and generous measure of amnesty you initiated a new campaign of militarism, and before two months were over you filled the gaols, with the materials for another general amnesty. You were not content even with your Courts of removables under the old Coercion Acts, but you have the country swarming with courts-martial—Dublin, Cork, Belfast, Galway swarming with, them. Men are court-martialled in batches not for rebellion, not for any real genuine preparation for rebellion, but for the most trumpery causes — speeches, wearing volunteer uniform, making collections in the streets, refusing to admit policemen to concerts, for carrying not even firearms, but hurley sticks, on a solemn allegation that those hurley sticks might be made formidable weapons of offence against England's Army of four or five millions of men. And all because a hurley was in that one instance used as the weapon in a murder which has undoubtedly created the reprobation in Ireland of everybody as much as it has excited the reprobation of men in Great Britain. For the one offence and that was the real offence—of celebrating the victory in East Clare, which for the time being, at all events, has delivered Ireland from the danger of partition, two newspapers were suppressed, the "Kilkenny People" and the "Kerry-man." Their machinery was dislocated, the staffs were thrown on the streets, and one man was bayonetted to death and another man was shot in Ballybunion.
The right hon. Gentleman—I do not wish to say anything offensive—with more astuteness than candour, treated the House to extracts which were almost entirely from the speeches of one particular person who has not been prosecuted. I have a whole pocketful of extracts of a very different character, but I will confine myself to quoting a speech which is, I think, a little more relevant, and that is the speech for which Thomas Ashe lost his life. The House will kindly remember that it is not an accurate report of what he said and is only a clumsy version given at the court-martial from memory. Cabinet. Personally, let me add I honour them not a bit less because of what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford used to call their gigantic game of bluff, for, be it bluff or not, it has magnificently succeeded. The sentences that were inflicted by these courts-martial were really savage sentences of a year's imprisonment with hard labour, two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and I think even penal servitude in some cases for a wild sentence or two in a speech, for waving a flag, or for carrying wooden guns, an offence for which, if there was any even-handed justice in the world, certain distinguished ornaments of the Treasury Bench woud be at this moment suffering terms of imprisonment with hard labour and possibly getting forcibly fed.
I confess I find it hard to understand how it came about that the military courts-martial showed such brutality in their sentences. Soldiers are generally merciful and generous judges. But the mentality of courts-martial is, to say the least of it, rather sentimental than judicial, and I can only conclude that the worst part of the sentences of these men was because they refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the courts-martial, and that it was in order to avenge the flag that they were visited with these outrageous sentences. If there was any real danger of an armed rebellion one would not blame the Government in war-time disarming the country of every rifle and shot-gun upon which they could lay their hands. Rather, as we have been reminded, you have disarmed the Nationalist alone. You have not seized a rifle of the Ulster Volunteers, and, forsooth, on the ground that they are carefully guarded by armed and uniformed men—which is the very offence for which you are prosecuting hundreds of Irish Nationalists in Ireland! I do not begrudge the Ulstermen their firearms. But I do complain of inequality and unfairness as between Ulstermen and other Irishmen. When I heard the Chief Secretary attempt to-night to give some excuse, some pretext, for all those hundreds of prosecutions, courts-martial, and prison tortures, I ask the House to remember that the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed absolutely to produce anything in support of what he said. Save a few extracts from speeches, he produced not an atom of real evidence that there was any more danger of another armed rebellion in Ireland at the present moment than there is of the sky falling—unless, of course, you enforce Conscription, against which the people will fight to the last.
Your folly was great enough in throwing these men into prison. To treat them as criminals was little short of madness on the part of the Government unless their object really was to get the people into another outbreak under some extraordinary hallucination that you would thereby be serving the Convention or serving a political party which is past praying for. The genesis of this whole trouble was blurted out by the Chairman of the Prisons Board, Mr. Max Green, when he told the Lord Mayor of Dublin that these men were handed over to him as criminals, and that he had no alternative except to treat them as such; that he had no alternative except to obey the most inhuman orders of his paymasters. That is exactly the answer you would get from the captain of a German submarine when charged with barbarities—that he had no alternative except to obey orders! But it is not, we claim, the subordinates who are the chief criminals. We claim that it is not Mr. Max Green, but the Irish Executive; that it is the whole of the Government who are the chief criminals; and all the water in the sea will never wash them clean of their responsibility in Ireland. You first promulgate your system of brutal prison treatment. Then you try to do your worst to pack the jury. Then when the administration find that things are going against them under the lash of my hon. and learned Friend beside me (Mr. T. Healy) the Crown Counsel and his witnesses flock out of court. Two days afterwards the Crown Counsel and his witnesses are obliged ignominiously to sneak back again. Even then they pleaded the motto of the old French regimé of privileges by the Treasury, and deliberately refused to disclose the evidence of the orders given to the Prison Board, or what orders had been transmitted by that Board to the gaol authorities. I have the details here as they were elicited with signal ability by my hon. and learned Friend beside me, but I refrain from sickening the House with the barbarities. All I will say is that they were barbarities so revolting that if ever the facts get out they will horrify all civilised men as they have horrified Irishmen.
You ought to have been warned against these abominations, because you tried them before with most disastrous consequences. When the present Foreign Minister was Chief Secretary of Ireland a quarter of a century ago he tried precisely the same system as Mr. Max Green received orders to try in order to attempt to degrade his political prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had the wisdom, after some bitter experiences, to surrender at discretion. Again, at the beginning of the submarine war the same system was attempted of separating the German submarine prisoners into one category and treating them as criminals. The moment, however, the Foreign Secretary arrived at the Admiralty he again promptly dropped the system of prison degradation against the Germans as he had done it in the case of the Irish. I regret that, under the present circumstances, the Chief Secretary did not call into consultation the Foreign Minister, for, of course, the Government had dropped this system like hot coals against the Mountjoy prisoners. They unfortunately did it after the mischief was done, and after it was no longer possible to call back to life Thomas Ashe. I venture to say there can be no answer to this question: if it was right to treat these men as honourable political prisoners, after Thomas Ashe was dead, how was it it was not discovered before? All I can say is that the universal opinion of Ireland, and unquestionably it is my own, is that when you did drop it, you dropped it, not from any motives of chivalry or humanity, but because the resistance of those men had taught you that you could not degrade them—you could only kill them! You can never conquer men of high character who are ready to live down their lives for their ideals. You know, or ought to know, that these men are ready for the cause to lose their lives in hundreds and thousands.
We were told by the Chief Secretary that he had been denounced from some Unionist quarters for what I regard as the most honourable act of his administration, namely, that he allowed the men who followed Thomas Ashe's funeral, which was, I am told, the greatest manifestation of Irish feeling since Parnell, to wear their uniform and to carry their rifles; and thus the Government swallowed their own proclamations and regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act. They marched, many thousands, in uniform, in military array, defying the regulations, and fired three volleys over the grave. The Chief Secretary most wisely no longer called upon his soldiers to rush in and shoot them down as they were shot down on previous occasions. I am glad to say that we have not even heard of there being a court-martial by this valiant Government which a few weeks previously was throwing men into gaol, for years of hard labour, for drilling or marching, or for crying, "Up with De Valera!" and "Down with T. P. O'Connor." But the inconsistency of the Government was shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford. There were, I think, four or five prisoners in Cork gaol, and you not only refused to abrogate these brutal terms of imprisonment in their case, but the new gang of Dublin Castle officials actually threatened a magistrate, Alderman Kelliher, with deprival of the Commission of the Peace for venturing even to protest. The answer naturally was that the man began to hunger strike. Two days afterwards the Government went down upon their knees, and they released these men. Some Tipperary gentlemen, including Professor McNeill, a man of learning and position, were prosecuted, are being prosecuted, and are court-martialled at the present time, for wearing these Volunteer uniforms, the very same day that they were worn in thousands in Dublin. How can you wonder if it is not gratitude, but contempt, that you have earned in Ireland by conduct of that kind? The general belief in Ireland is that you would never grant an amnesty at all, but, owing to certain underground prison intrigues, which have as yet been only half unearthed, you get it into your wise heads that you would secure the Sinn Fein leaders, who would allow themselves to be bribed with seats in Parliament. The thing did not come off. It was because the Sinn Fein leaders, rightly or wrongly, refused to be squared, that you immediately proceeded to fill again the gaols you had just emptied. There is a great deal to be said for keeping these men in prison, but once you have let them out I hold there is nothing to be said for victimising them because they refuse to play your game. The result is that the almost universal feeling in Ireland is that your conduct in dropping the old treatment of these men was simply a new form of manoeuvres, like the great amnesty, like packing the Convention of ninety men with seventy partisans of one particular condemned political faction which has irretrievably lost the confidence of the Irish.
What else has your whole Irish policy for years been except electioneering policy? And it will turn out to be bad electioneering policy. You laid your money upon the wrong horse. You laid your money upon the party that certainly has no possibility of recovering power to carry out any agreement that may be come to by the Convention. You have neither served yourselves nor served them. Do you suppose there is anybody in Ireland who does not understand thoroughly well that it is not the party of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, but it is Sinn Fein, and it is the elections of East Clare and Kilkenny, if and these alone, that we have to thank if the Government and their Irish dependents have been forced to change their attitude of last year, when they declared that even the paltriest measure of Home Rule was impossible unless we first consented to the partition of Ireland. They have changed all that now, and the country is buzzing with all sorts of rumours, which, in defiance of the regulations under the Defence of the Realm Act, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last has made himself the echo—whispers all over the country of some glorious measure of Dominion Home Rule as the outcome of the Convention. You have justified Sinn Fein against the party of the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, and also justified it as against our selves. You have undoubtedly entitled them to taunt us quite truly that they made a stronger impression upon the mind of John Bull by one week's rebellion in Ireland than we have made during all the twelve years we have been appealing to sense, reason, statesmanship, and conciliation. Two years ago the Irish race all over the world would have welcomed with a whoop of joy an honest offer of Dominion Home Rule, or even of something appreciably less. I still cling to-the hope that it may not be too late, and that they would still welcome with a majority amounting to substantial unanimity such an offer if it were once straightforwardly made, and if it were put to a vote of the whole Irish people by referendum.
I do aot like to abandon the hope or to conclude that our labours for peace between these two countries have been in yain. I cannot believe it, but, as we warned you again and again, the price of Sybiline books is rising. You will have to hurry up and offer us something more substantial than the hints, the rumours, and the blarney with which you have passed the last six months in entertaining the people of America and the people of Ireland. You will have to come from blarney to business if you do not want tens of thousands of thinking Irishmen who are not yet Sinn Feiners to begin asking themselves whether, after all, the difference between Dominion Home Rule and total independence is so very great, and to ask themselves whether, as Sinn Fein has succeeded in forcing the Government and their Irish supporters to tear up the bargain of last year for the partition of our country and to substitute roseate rumours such as we heard to-night from the late Prime Minister as to the outcome of the Convention —to ask themselves, I say, whether Sinn Fein might not succeed in some hour of necessity, either at the Peace Congress, or, as one might hope, before it, in getting Englishmen to go one step further and put an end to the last possible pretext of war between these two countries. I am sorry to say the Chief Secretary, with all his good wishes, is, as he has clearly shown to-night, still, as usual, governing Ireland with a coercion whip in one hand and a bribe in the other. The conduct of the Government—there is no use in disguising it—is being regulated, not by the lofty principles they are preaching among foreign nations, but by the electioneering prospects of one particular party, or what may be the fluctuating necessities of the War.
I am thankful to the House for having listened to me with patience. I do not expect popularity, and I have never courted popularity in this House, because I know that the truth is always repugnant. The result is that the people of England know more at the present moment of what is passing in Mesopotamia than they know of what has been happening in Ireland. The result is you never receive a warning until some new bombshell explodes at your feet. We have for years urged upon this House that to win over the Unionists of Ulster and the rest of our Protestant fellow countrymen is a vital part in the Irish problem. We did so when that was exceedingly unpopular. I think time has justified us. You have yourselves adopted it, but, with the usual perverseness of Englishmen attempting to govern Ireland, you have adopted it in a most stupid and ill-advised form, and when it may quite possibly be too late. We say now, no matter how unpalatable it may be to you to hear it, that the conciliation of the spirit and sentiment of Sinn Fein, as distinguished from the insurrectionary programme of last year, is a still more essential condition of any success. You will only be building yourselves a house of glass unless you manfully approach those men who —there is no denying it—are now the only genuine representatives of the majority of the Irish people, and unless you can induce them to give you their patriotic co-operation in raising up an edifice tending to lasting liberty and peace in Ireland. That co-operation Ministers were made aware that they might have had six months ago, and it is because they threw that chance away, as they have thrown many a chance before, that the Government have now plunged themselves and ourselves into the slough of misery in which we are floundering here this evening.
I do not intend to intervene in this Debate more than a few minutes, but I think the House will perhaps agree that some expression of opinion should be given on behalf of the Unionist party. The view which we take, both of the present situation and the policy of the Government, is totally different from that which has been expressed by the leaders of either section of the Nationalist party. We are entirely at one with the hon. and learned Member in his desire to create ah atmosphere which will be favourable to a successful result of the Convention, but I am afraid the course which he has thought fit to adopt on the present occasion is not likely to contribute to the fruition of that desire. The Resolution which the hon. and learned Gentleman has moved, and the speech by which he has supported it, indicate to my mind that he has failed to appreciate the real danger to any prospect of an Irish settlement. The hon. and learned Member appears to take the view, which has been put forward in the Nationalist press, that there is some evil, sinister influence at work in and behind the Irish Executive which is deliberately plotting to foment disorder and rebellion in order to bring about the break-up of the Irish Convention. I do not think the hon. and learned Member has any ground whatever for that assumption, and I can only regret that the hon. and learned Member has thought it desirable to associate himself with that suggestion. No; the real danger to the Convention lies, as the Chief Secretary has pointed out, in the growth of the Sinn Fein movement—a movement which is beyond any doubt becoming a serious menace to the peace of Ireland, and I am bound to say—and I say it with regret—that the attitude of the Nationalist party towards that organisation is certainly not calculated to inspire confidence in the minds of Irish Unionists. The Nationalist party have from the first, for some inscrutable reason, attempted to belittle the agitation. They have apologised to its leaders. They have tried to propitiate them, but they have never given any encouragement to the Executive to prevent the spread of sedition.
We cannot but regard this resolution as an attempt to discredit the Executive, and to create new difficulties for those who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order and in our opinion, in our deliberate opinion, it will do nothing to assist the Convention, but on the contrary it will tend to seriously prejudice the prospects of a settlement. It is no part of my duty to defend the Irish Government, but I cannot refrain from calling attention to the flimsy nature of the charges which are brought against them by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. So far as I have been able to gather, the specific acts which have aroused the angry denunciations of the Nationalist party are few in number. In the first place a number of persons have been arrested for flagrant breaches of the law, and they are now confined under conditions which constitute a very mild form of punishment. In the next place the authorities seized, or attempted to seize, arms which were in danger of falling into the hands of a disloyal and revolutionary organisation. There you have practically the whole foundation for the charges brought against the Government, that they have been pursuing a policy of provocative coercion.
What are we to understand from this attack upon the policy of the Irish Government? Is it suggested that in the case of a threat of armed rebellion the executive should take no steps to prevent the spread of sedition? Is it suggested that the Government should allow an absolutely free hand to the men whose disloyalty is notorious, and who have openly proclaimed themselves to be on the side of our enemy? That was the course pursued by the Chief Secretary's immediate predecessor, and we all know what disastrous consequences followed. I cannot believe that the Chief Secretary and the Government are so blind to the lessons of the last rebellion that they will listen now to the advice which is tendered to them by the Nationalist party, and continue the policy which led to such dire results. At all events it is my duty to tell the Government that we view with the greatest apprehension the situation which has been created by the spread of the Sinn Fein movement. We thought that the time had come for an authoritative statement to be made as to the present condition of Ireland. It is only due to the British people that they should be informed that there is something of far greater importance than the settlement of the Irish question involved in this issue. In my opinion, the situation is one fraught with the most serious dangers to the United Kingdom and to the great cause for which we are fighting in this War, and we have the right to expect, and, indeed, to demand, from the Government that they shall take all necessary measures to check the spread of sedition and to exact from every Irishman strict obedience to the law.
I simply rose for the purpose of saying that for the party with which I am connected we desire to express our utmost approval of the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford. While making that statement I will join with the late Prime Minister in refraining from saying anything that will be of a nature calculated to disturb the consultations now taking place in Ireland with regard to a settlement. I think that would be a greater disaster than anything that has happened for many years. I could not help thinking, while listening to the speech of the Chief Secretary that I had never heard such a tragic statement of the failure of the British Government to rule Irish affairs as that contained in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered to-night. If I know the Irish people correctly—and I am one of them myself—I would submit that they are not a perverse race who go out to seek trouble and difficulty or who complain unduly. I should rather say that, in spite of what has been said to the contrary, that they are a very patient race, and history proves that. There are no white people in any nation on the face of God's earth that would put up with the Government which Ireland has had for the last hundred years. After all, these things in Ireland must be the effect of a cause somewhere.
The form that the Motion takes is to complain of the administration of affairs in Ireland at the present moment. I do not blame the Chief Secretary. I believe he is desirous of doing the thing that is right. He is simply another illustration of the fact that as soon as an Englishman gets into touch with Irish problems and Irish life he is hopelessly at sea. The English people never can and never will understand the psychology of the Irish people, and that is clearly recognised by people in this country. The overwhelming majority of the people of this country have said for a considerable period of years that it is time the English Government got out of Ireland and allowed the Irish people to govern their own country in their own way. Irishmen have told you that the best solution of the difficulty is to give Ireland the right to govern itself. If one thing justifies that claim more than another it is to be found in the fact that now, even when the Convention is sitting, it is necessary for hon. Members to come here and complain of the administration at the present moment. I think that the indictment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) was absolutely irrefutable. I am not going to enter into the differences between the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for Waterford, for I have too great a reverence for the work they have done to interfere in a matter of that kind. I think, however, the statements which have been made to-night should be taken seriously by the Government. They are statements as to what has taken place in Ireland recently, and they constitute an insult and injustice imposed upon a spirited and proud people that cannot be tolerated.
Let me take the question of the Sinn Feiners. I do not agree with the statement made about them at all, but I do agree to some extent with the late Prime Minister that the Chief Secretary has taken these reports too seriously. I do not want to minimise the dangers that do arise, but let me read a letter on the subject, and I express no opinion about it, but I simply put it forward as a mere statement of fact. It is a letter which was written by Professor MacNeill to the editor of the "Irish Review," and it arose out of the discussion on the international Magna Charta. One of the points was that when peace was declared or settled, when the terms of peace were known, that all nationalities, small and large, should have the right to govern themselves according to their own ideals. Incidentally the letter referred to Castle rule in Ireland. Here is the letter:
7.0 P.M.
Let me beg the House to take this fact into consideration. The question was insistently put to us in Petrograd, in Moscow, and everywhere we went. I said that the people of Great Britain were not averse to justice being rendered to Ireland. The real trouble was that the Government of the day paid too much weight to the objection of a moiety of the Irish people. I said no more and no less than that. Whichever way you care to look at the question, it is having some effect upon Russian help and upon their enthusiasm in this War. I am going to conclude, after endorsing the terms of the Motion, by saying quite seriously to the House of Commons that the Irish question is the sphynx question for Great Britain and for England, because unless we answer it in the only way that we can answer it, and as I believe the Convention will answer it, by giving justice to Ireland, I am very much afraid that the day is far distant when you can expect the people of Ireland to come into the common bond of friendship with you and to be one with you in your desire for Imperial aims.
The excellent speech to which we have just listened enables me more easily to introduce a view on this question that I desire to put before the House. The hon. Member who has just sat down has spoken of the difficulty of Englishmen in understanding Irishmen as the cause of all the trouble. I have tried to express that view by a Motion I have placed upon the Paper, and I think it is one that the House might consider for a very few minutes. If I wished to criticise the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), I should say that it was a little vague and inconclusive, taut I do not want to be brought into any conflict with the hon. and learned Member, whom I have supported and with whom I have worked for many years. He is in circumstances of great difficulty, and if to-day his speech was not as incisive or as clear as we might expect, well, perhaps, we may take the view of my right hon. Friend on this bench who spoke before, and make allowances for him in the situation in which he is placed. The Amendment that I have put down was to add that with a view to securing this result—the successful result of the Convention—we should clear out the British officials from Dublin Castle. Having put that Amendment upon the Paper, I would like to take the opportunity of saying to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Duke), with the greatest emphasis, that I did not intend it to be any personal attack upon him.
You do not suppose that I cling to Dublin Castle?
No. I was going to suggest that I mean nothing personal when I say that these British officials are not qualified for the great task entrusted to them. As I have said to the Chief Secretary, so I would like to say to the Lord Lieutenant, if my voice reaches him, that I am far from making any reflection upon him. I want the question looked at from a broader standpoint. It raises a constitutional issue of the greatest interest. It is the greatest constitutional issue which is before this Empire at the present time. What is it? It is, "How shall we establish good relations between this part of the United Kingdom and Ireland?" How shall we establish good relations between them that will last, I hope, for all time? This country has been successful in one union. It has been successful in the Union with Scotland. The success of the Union with Scotland is as great a triumph of human statesmanship as the failure of the Union with Ireland is exactly the reverse. The Union with Scotland and the success of that great experiment was not a casual matter. The Act of Union with Scotland was not a particularly good Union. The feeling in Scotland at that time was very bitter, and there were many who took a gloomy view of the success of that Act. It has been the most astonishing success. Scotland has made as much progress as England under it, and when you come to look at it the whole circumstances are most remarkable. If you went to Scotland' you would think you were in a foreign country. The institutions which we have built up here do not exist in Scotland. They have got a foreign law and almost a foreign language. Yet you see there the greatest material prosperity. They walk hand in hand with the English, and I hope they will do so through all time. How has that success been secured? It has not been secured, I say, by the wisdom of the Act, nor by the good feeling that existed originally. It has been secured only in one way. There has never been since the Union, and I venture to say there never will be, anyone but a Scotsman sent to govern Scotland. Scotland sees to that. No English Prime Minister would be allowed to make any experiment of that kind. If the experiment could have been made, the present Prime Minister would have sent General Smuts.
What about Sir George Trevelyarn?
Was he not a Scotsman?
No.
Well, that is a slight exception to the general rule, and, except in the case of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I do not think even my hon. and clever Friend could give a single example of an Englishman being plunged into any of those other offices.
What offices?
Scottish offices of importance.
Yes; the Town Clerk of Glasgow, not long ago.
Oh, Glasgow! These are occasional exceptions. What are they put against the offices that Scotsmen hold here? The Prime Minister here is usually a Scotsman, and it is often said that Scotsmen govern this country. Speaking broadly, therefore, Scotland is run by Scotsmen. Why cannot that great experiment which has been so successful there be tried in Ireland? If my hon. Friends below the Gangway, for some reason or other, will not take on the Government, they might give facilities to somebody else who is an Irishman to take it on, and so avoid this dreadful alternative of putting an Englishman into an Irish office. Why did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol (Mr. Birrell) go there? The Government were not altogether to blame. The Nationalist party, for some reason I could never understand, refused to accept the responsibility, and that placed Ireland in a most trying constitutional position. Irishmen were asked to vote, and they did vote, for a whole generation, for a single party, a powerful party, which has been spoken of as too numerous in this House, but when they said, "We have voted for you and put you in power, will you do something?" the Nationalist party replied, "No; we are restrained by the nobility of our principles from taking office." They formed some alliance with some English party and got two or three Englishmen to come in. It reminds me of something I read in an old book about the quarrel between Dermot, King of Leinster and The O'Connor, which resulted in Dermot's alliance with Strong-bow (Earl of Pembroke), FitzStephen and Fitzgerald. Just as it was in 1167 so it was 700 years afterwards. Irishmen quarrel among themselves, and the result is that two or three discreet Englishmen come in and eat all the plums in the country, to their own very great satisfaction. I think we have come to a happy time for bringing these contests which have been so fatal to Ireland to a conclusion.
It is not altogether the fault of the Government. We all understood when the Coalition Government was formed that some adequate post was offered to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford. It is a great pity that he did not take it. I do not think that any country has been kept for thirty years in the position in which Ireland has been kept. It is allowed to vote and when it does no effect is given to its wishes. I do think the Nationalist party might consider their position in regard to this matter, and if they themselves cannot undertake any office, then, in order to avoid Englishmen coming over, they ought to support some of my hon. Friends who represent Ulster. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), or any of these Gentlemen, ought to be allowed to put their principles to the test, for if the majority will not support one of their own men they should support a member of the minority, as is often done in this country. My experience is that all Englishmen are the same. They are constitutionally incapable of understanding Irishmen. We could not have a better illustration of that than the long and able speech of my right hon. Friend to which we have just listened. If I wanted justification for my Amendment the speech of the Chief Secretary would be abundant. They exaggerate trifles and they pass over what is serious. They cannot see that there is anything serious, and Irishmen are always in the difficulty of being governed by men who do not understand. I would like to tell the House a little bit of personal experience which will show that I am not aiming my remarks at the Chief Secretary. I have been in this House now for many years.
I remember that in 1894, when I was supporting the Home Rule Bill, one day the present Lord Morley, who was then Chief Secretary, said to me, "You come from county Cavan, don't you?" I said, "Yes." He said, "You know it well?" I said, "Yes, it is a very nice quiet place," and I spoke very highly of that county. He looked at me for a moment, and I said, "I see you do not agree with me." He said, "No, it is a county honeycombed with secret societies." There was no more peaceful place in the world than county Cavan, and yet Lord Morley thought it was honeycombed with secret societies. In 1914 I was in the tearoom one day when my right hon. Friend the Member for North Bristol (Mr. Birrell), who was then Chief Secretary, came up to me and said, "What is wrong with county Cavan?" "Nothing." said I. Then he said, "But there is a terrible lot of volunteers there." I said. "What is wrong with the volunteers? You do not know anything about volunteers." He said, "Seeing that you have a certain position in the county you ought to know." He gave me certain figures, and I asked him where he got them from, and he said, "From Dublin Castle, and if anything is wrong with them I shall be glad if you will let me know." I let him know that everything was wrong with them, and that although Dublin Castle had taken three months collecting the information, I did not say it was all false, but that there was no ground for any attack on the county at all. I come to 1916. I was in county Cavan during the rebellion, and our hearts were almost broken by what happened in Dublin. Nothing happened during that time in county Cavan. I went to Dublin and saw the dreadful state of affairs there, and then came over to my business here. Will the House believe that within one month after the rebellion had broken out, without there being the slightest vestige of disturbance in Cavan and without consulting me or anybody who knew anything about the county, a military raid took place, and they dragged innocent men from their houses.
And stole their whisky!
Yes, and stole their whisky. I heard also that in one case they stole a safety razor. These people were brought to the county town, and they were all sent home the next morning. County Cavan was all right, except for the attack of the military. That was only last year. When I went to Dublin, knowing Sir John Maxwell, I called on him and mentioned the matter. He gave me the reply a gentleman and an officer would give. He said, "Yes, Mr. Lough, I can understand what took place perfectly, but when the military are called in we cannot keep the thing within the same strict limits we might desire." It was a very sad business that even over the terribe incidents of 1916 pains were taken by the Government to smirch the whole of Ireland with regard to what was a very limited movement as regards numbers. That incident in 1916 affected the opinion of the whole of the country. It was all right and all Nationalist until that time. The Nationalists are not entirely to blame for what has taken place since. There has been the greatest shifting of opinion since that day. I was over there a month ago. For the last forty or fifty years during which I have been in this country I have always made it a rule to pay visits to Cavan. I know everybody all round there. One Sunday morning, coming home from church, I met an intelligent farmer and I said, "I suppose, Mr. Riley, you are a Sinn Feiner?" and he said, "Well, Mr. Lough, I am, but I do not rightly know what it means." I looked rather reproachfully at him, and then he said, "I think it is time you got a move on." That was splendid. There has been a great deal of denunciation of Sinn Fein. Although I cannot speak with as much authority as hon. Members from Cork, I believe that the meaning of "Sinn Fein" is "ourselves"; that is, we can do our own business, we can look after ourselves, we are entitled to the rights of other men. That is all it means. I will commend to the House the excellent remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the party with which I am connected, who spoke of "contingent belligerency." It would be better if the Chief Secretary could only preserve his calmness. I suppose it is hopeless to appeal to him to take a humorous view. I am not at all justifying any outbreak of crime. We have the incident of the carrying of sticks. Some boys from one of the villages were brought down eighty miles to Belfast to be tried by court-martial. I will give the House this little story. It was told to me by a Protestant clergyman, so I suppose it must be true. I asked him if he knew what these fellows were tried for. He said it was for carrying their hurley sticks over their shoulders. As a matter of fact, the Irish carried their "cammans," as they are called, over their shoulders when the English were running about in their pelts. The sentence for this offence was six months' imprisonment with hard labour.
Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he knows that to be true?
I just put it as high as I could. They did just carry these cammans on their shoulders, and they were tried before a military Court. Perhaps the story is put in too poetic a form. Surely the Chief Secretary might use a little discretion in dealing with matters of this sort. I think I had better not disurb the harmony of our proceedings by going on with my Amendment, but if I had done so I should have made certain charges against my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It seems to me that in dealing with small crimes by court-martial —they were very small crimes—and in dragging these poor fellows so far from their homes, he was going too strong. Then he has not stuck to it. After refusing to modify the sentence he has done it. That is a bad thing to do in Ireland. One thing its rulers should learn to do is to proceed slowly and to teach the people to respect authority. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even if it is wrong!"] If Irishmen were in charge it would not be wrong, because they would act wisely. It is only Englishmen and foreigners who make the mistakes in Ireland. Then there is the question of removing Irishmen to English prisons. There is a very strong feeling in the country that if men have to go to gaol they would rather go to their own prisons than to prisons anywhere else, and I do not blame them. Although I do not want to say anything unkind to my right hon. Friend, it would be more prudent for the Englishmen in this House and the English Government to consider the appeal I am "making to them—that is, to try to run Ireland by Irishmen. In these days we live amid such extraordinary incidents that we forget to-day what happened only yesterday. What has the Government done with regard to getting the constitutional question settled? After thirty years of English failure, when every Englishman, from Mr. Gladstone down to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, has tried to do this thing and failed, one would have thought that they would have said, "We will put it into the hands of the Irish." That is the policy of the Government. If the Irish are good enough to join in the Convention and try to pass an agreed Act, would it not be safe to entrust them with the administration of their own country? One of the first things that any Irishman would do, even the North of Ireland Irishmen — the greatest good feeling exists in county Cavan between Nationalists and the North—would be to take the Government out of the police office in which it is now conducted. Dublin Castle is only a police office. If the Chief Secretary could only get away from Dublin Castle and cease talking about crime and leave crime to the police, my belief is that it would be an advantage to all parties. The police officers would carry out their work much more effectively if they were not checked by trembling Chief Secretaries who are always interfering with them. I see that the right hon. Gentleman, according to the papers, is to be summoned before the coroner's inquest on the sad affair of which we have heard to-day.
He is not.
I am very glad to hear that he is not. In his speech this afternoon he had no broad view of the country, nothing about its economics, nothing about politics; it was all about crime all the time The House was greatly struck with the fact that when the Chief Secretary was dealing with the most difficult matters he did not handle them fairly, but adopted a party point of view. When dealing with the distribution of arms in Ireland he was interrupted by a good many Members, who asked, "What about the Ulster arms?" and he was asked, "What about the distinguished Members of the Cabinet who defended the action that had been taken by Ulstermen?" I noticed that the Chief Secretary reversed the order. He mentioned first the Nationalists, then the Sinn Feiners, and then the Ulster people. The historic order is that the Ulster people brought in the German arms. We in Ireland were all horrified about it at the time. English members, including the Leader of the House himself, used curious language in defending the action they had taken. I do not want to pitch it too high, but when this kind of thing has been done, may not Irishmen be excused for saying that Irishmen may be put in prison for looking over the stable door while an Englishman who steals the horse goes free? I can see that the right hon. Gentleman realised the difficulties of the situation, but he himself was causing the very evil he wanted to avoid. What is that evil? The evil is to create a disturbance in Ireland at a time when we all want to arrive at a settlement. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Redmond) charged the Chief Secretary with doing this with his feeble administration, toe strong in some directions and too weak in others. Anyone who had listened to the Debate must feel that my hon. and learned Friend made out his case, and that a stronger case could have been made out. But perhaps it may be wiser to accept the advice that has been given us since and to hope that still some good results may come from this great body which is trying to solve a difficult problem.
In almost all the speeches which have been made this afternoon there has been a good deal of reference to the Irish Convention, and I desire to say with all seriousness that there is just a possibility of making still further progress than we have already been able to make, but I do not want to raise false hopes. On the other hand, I do not want to minimise the state of progress which has been reached, but I think it regrettable that we should have had this Debate at all, because it has raised issues which are making the delicate task of the Convention still more difficult than we had already found them. The Unionists in that Convention cannot have failed to notice that the Sinn Fein movement seemed to develop and gather force throughout three of the four provinces of Ireland. If we should be able to arrive at a settlement a General Election must necessarily follow, and in the present temper of these provinces what class of men would be put in that position of responsibility in Ireland? It is a grave and a serious problem that besets us from day to day, and one as to what at the moment we see no answer that is at all reassuring to those who feel a sense of responsibility in that Convention. I do not desire to enter upon the controversial matters which have been raised. If I decline to enter on the wide field that has been covered it is not because I fail to realise the gravity of the situation, but I have no desire to add to the weight of responsibility which admittedly the Chief Secretary carries at the moment. If I might offer a word of advice to the Chief Secretary it would be that in moments of doubt and difficulty the one thing that Irishmen, even to-day in Ireland, appreciate is a firm and equal administration of the law as he finds lying to his hands. What has caused at least one half of the difficulty of recent weeks is that we have found on one occasion an apparently firm administration and when a second regrettable incident on all fours with it happened a week later the law seemed to refuse to recognise that an offence had been committed. The Chief Secretary dealt very lightly with the recent transgression of the "Freeman's Journal." I was unable, much as I desired to do so, to follow him into the justification which he gave for allowing the law to be flouted on that most important occasion of the printing, in defiance of the Censor, of one of the most seditious letters that have been published in Ireland for many a month. Has it occurred to the Chief Secretary how unfair his action in that matter was to all other newspapers throughout Ireland? For the moment I do not think of the political complexion at all, because other Nationalist papers published in Dublin obeyed the Censor and refused to publish the letter, and to-day it is openly said by the "Freeman" that they flouted the Censor and were the only important daily paper in Ireland which had the courage to do it. The explanation offered this afternoon is not helpful to the papers which desire, in these times of stress and trial, to obey the restrictions which all loyal men willingly bear at present, and he will not only make for respect for the Censor's orders, but he will make his own path a good deal easier, if he decides for the future that he shall see that the law is obeyed regardless of what particular paper is concerned in violent breaches of it such as the one to which I have referred.
At present it is an offence to wear what is regarded as the Republican uniform in Ireland. We opened our newspapers to-day and saw that a band, reported to be composed of a thousand young men, yesterday paraded in full uniform. I shall wait with interest to hear if any consequence is to follow from that avowedly illegal act. These are the matters which are making the task of the Unionists on the Convention more difficult than I believe even we appreciate. No matter how much our attitude in that Convention may be misrepresented, those of us from Ulster, some twenty in number, who were invited to join the Convention agreed to join it with very considerable misgivings, but after the most careful consideration we felt that it was our duty as loyal citizens to accept the invitation which was extended to us. We have spent strenuous weeks in its deliberation. We have had some ten or eleven weeks of very open and frank debate, in which the best of good temper has prevailed, and I think both sides have gained some new knowledge even of the Irish question itself. We have not progressed so far as might be gathered from some of the references which have been made to the subject to-day—I specially refer to what fell from the ex-Prime Minister—but there are elements in the composition of the Convention which I am bound to admit have given me a new conception of the view, so repeatedly expressed from altogether unexpected quarters, that the part which Ulster has played in the recent history of Ireland is a part that all Irishmen are proud to share in. There is a recognition of the special difficulty which besets us. There is, we believe—we shall shortly bring to the test—a desire to meet these difficulties so far as reasonable men can expect them to be met. I only enter that little word of caution. I am sure we shall continue our deliberation for a considerable time and I join most thoroughly the hope expressed from many quarters of the House, and from many influential quarters outside the House, that when the tale of the Convention comes to be recorded it will be found that in that hour when the call of Empire was so close to us even in Ireland, Irishmen of all creeds and sections came together and did their best to arrive at a settlement which might be useful, and if we should fail it would also have to be recorded that we failed because it was found that there were questions of principle so great that it was impossible for us to bridge them in the interest of those for whom we stand in the Convention. But I do not wish to utter a note of discouragement. I only want to say a word of caution. We go calmly on with our task. The proceedings this after noon have not in the slightest degree helped to minimise the difficulties which have beset us, but we shall go on, and I believe that we have with us the very best wishes of the House of Commons.
I am very sorry to say, notwithstanding the denial of the Chief Secretary and notwithstanding what anyone says, that the opinion is spreading in Ireland that the Government, or some section of the Government, or Dublin Castle, is playing into the hands of Sinn Feiners as against the Nationalists. An outrage has been perpetrated on a most respectable gentleman in New Ross. His name is John O'Sullivan. He was the head of the National Volunteers and during the disturbance in Easter week he and his men helped to keep order in the town and Sinn Fein was nowhere. The arms belonging to the volunteers were deposited in the police barracks. Some months ago the police waited on him and told him to remove them. He said that has men had nearly all volunteered for the front, there was no one to look after them and he had no place of safety to put them in. Again later on the police requested him to remove the rifles from the barracks. He made some excuse and tried to persuade the police to keep them as he had no special place where they would be quite safe. He was told a few days after that if he did not take the rifles out of the police barracks they would be thrown into the street. He then removed them and placed them in his own store-house. Soon afterwards a sergeant of police waited on him and told him that if he would apply to the authorities in all probability the rifles would be allowed to be sent back to the barracks. He said he would do nothing of the sort, that he had been compelled to take the rifles out of the barracks and now they would have to remain in his store. This gentleman had been recently appointed a magistrate. A few nights after his place was raided by an army of policemen who surrounded it after midnight and took away the arms by force. Will anybody say that acts such as that are not calculated to make the people believe that the Government is playing into the hands of the Sinn Feiners?
Anyone who has listened to this Debate must have been struck by the earnestness and sincerity of the speech of the hon. Member for North Londonderry (Mr. Barrie). It was a speech which makes one realise how necessary it is to have a firm Government and how serious is the state of affairs which exists in Ireland at the present moment. As an Englishman curiously enough I find myself to-day in accord with the first part of the Motion moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond). The hon. and learned Gentleman says he deplores the policy which has been and is being pursued by the Irish Executive Government and he deplores it on account of what he calls its severity. I deplore it for an exactly opposite reason. I deplore it for its weakness, timidity, and indecision, and for the irresolution which has been displayed by the Irish Executive. It is this indecision and irresolution on the part of the Irish Government that make me inclined to agree with the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) which suggests that certain British officials now connected with the Executive in Ireland should be withdrawn from that country. The weakness, indecision, and irresolution shown by the Government in Ireland of late appears to me to be something appalling. You have made it illegal to carry arms, but you do not enforce that law, and arms are being carried with impunity in Ireland at this moment. You have declared it illegal to wear the revolutionary uniform, yet rebels are wearing it with impunity at this moment. You have made it illegal to deliver seditious speeches, yet such speeches are being made with impunity all over Ireland at this time.
The hon. and learned Member for Waterford asks in the second part of his Motion for the creation of an atmosphere favourable to a successful result of the deliberations of the Irish Convention. I say that no convention can possibly come to a successful result unless it has a firm and stable Government behind it. We all hope that the Convention will have a successful issue, but you must have a really firm and stable Government to enable that object to be attained. One curious thing has struck me in all these Debates on the Irish question and it has not been mentioned in any of the speeches. It is that Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. That fact has not been hinted at by anybody. England, Scotland, and Wales are just as much concerned with the successful government of Ireland as Ireland itself. Another point I wish to draw attention to is that no mention has been made of any proposal for any reform in the present system of government in Ireland. England, Scotland, and Wales have thoroughly realised since the War commenced, and especially since the Irish rebellion, that it is essential that no portion of the United Kingdom can be allowed to break away without imperilling the safety of the whole. Therefore, England, Scotland, and Wales desire to see a strong and stable Government in Ireland, one that is not only capable of maintaining law and order, but one which can also guarantee the safety of the whole United Kingdom.
As to the present government in Ireland, I will ask, Is there any country in the whole civilised world at the present moment that is cursed with a worse system of government than Ireland now posesses? The Hardinge Commission showed clearly how hopeless the present form of government is. Yet in spite of the Report of that Commission we had the same Lord Lieutenant reappointed by the late Prime Minister and the same kind of Chief Secretary continued in office, acting on the same old lines. I would ask, Is this to go on for ever? Just let us think for a moment what the government of Ireland is. We have a Lord Lieutenant as Governor of Ireland, but he is a Governor without any of the powers to govern. In fact, it was stated by the late Prime Minister in this House that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was only of use for social purposes. I ask, Is that system of government to be allowed to continue? Then we come to the real de facto ruler, who is known as the Chief Secretary. Eleven years ago, when the late Chief Secretary was appointed, he himself told us that Ireland had never been so peaceful or prosperous or so contented as she then was. I think those were the very words he used. Ireland, as we all know, was then placed under the rule of an elderly lawyer politician, a man, I suppose, who had never ruled anyone in his life before, unless, perhaps, it was the office boy in his chambers. We know what the result was. It ended in the Irish rebellion, and he had to go. And what a rebellion it was! It was a rebellion organised with the help of money and arms obtained from Germany. The leaders were in alliance with Germany, and they were to give help to Germany to over-run and devastate England, Scotland, and Wales, just as she had done Belgium.
What about Ulster?
The only reward the rebels were to get was that Ulster was to be devastated too, and then, after that had been done the Irish rebels were to be allowed to declare themselves an Irish Republic under German protection.
Why did Ulster invite them over?
Order, order!
That is what Ireland was reduced to under the rule of the late Chief Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman vanished, and in spite of the revelations of the Commission and of the criticisms of the Irish Government the very same system was continued, and another elderly lawyer politician was appointed in his place.
I suppose you would not take the job if it were offered to you?
I had to govern a country once, larger and even wilder than Ireland, and the result was that, when I left, all the people subscribed to erect a clock tower as a memorial of my rule. If you had me in Ireland for four years you would be just after doing the same thing.
But——
Order, order; this is not a conversazione.
8.0 P.M.
I want to know, is this system of government in Ireland to go on for ever? Are we to have a Chief Secretary subservient to the Governor, or is the Governor to be subservient to the Chief Secretary? This question of a firm Government for Ireland is one of the most important issues we have before us to-day. The Chief Secretary has told us, in moving terms, of the state of Ireland, and only a few days ago the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said that from day to day they did not know what might occur— they could not say what a single day might bring forth. Is not the meaning of that that rebellion may break out in Ireland at any moment? I say this state of things cannot possibly go on. We do want the Irish Convention to be a success. But the first thing needful—Convention or no Convention—is that Ireland should have a Lord Lieutenant of its own who is a real governor with the full powers of a governor, both civil and military. By all means let him be an Irishman, if you choose. No country in the world produces such fine administrators as Ireland, and I do suggest that if you had as Lord Lieutenant a man of knowledge and experience in administration and gave him full powers it would be of the greatest possible advantage to Ireland. I would with all deference point out to my Nationalist Friends below the Gangway that recently a question was put to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin) as to whether he would not do for Ireland what Sit Stanley Maude had been authorised to state the Government were resolved to do for the people of Bagdad. This was a direct invitation to the Government to set up in Ireland a Government similar to that which is now being established in Mesopotamia. This was supported by the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. Swift MacNeill), who pointed out that Sir Stanley Maude was an Irishman and was probably thinking of the Irish situation. I must say the only thing I can suggest to the Prime Minister is that he should appoint Sir Stanley Maude straight away as Governor-General of Ireland, and I am perfectly 3ure that a man with that felicity of language, that faculty for fighting, and that power of organisation, would bring about order, peace and prosperity in Ireland just as he has done in Mesopotamia. Give him proper powers and full support, and the same opportunities as in Mesopotamia, and I think you would find Ireland just as contented as he is now making Mesopotamia. We have heard a great deal lately about the death of Thomas Ashe. I think I ought to say that I do not know the exact details of the case, but perhaps the Chief Secretary will tell me if I am wrong. As far as I recollect, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland absolutely prohibited the publication in England of all details of the Irish rebellion. We did not know what was going on, but from what I have heard I believe it is the case that Thomas Ashe was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murder of certain policemen. If I am right, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am wrong, this Thomas Ashe and his friends ambuscaded the road on which these policemen were driving along in a car. They hid themselves in the side of the road and shot the policemen dead in a cowardly and brutal way. I take those as the true facts of the case, as the right hon. Gentleman does not correct me.
The hon. and gallant Member must not assume from my silence that he has given what I regard as a correct account of the transaction of Ashe to which he referred. I should not like to give from memory details which probably would be inaccurate, and I must not be taken at all as confirming the hon. and gallant Member's account.
May I ask whether Ashe did not shoot down the police from an ambuscade at the side of the road?
I really do not think it is fair to anybody concerned in this that I should try to give from memory an account which might be unjust. A considerable number of police were killed and wounded, and Ashe was one of the men of the party between whom and the police the encounter took place. Those are the outlines of the facts, but I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Member the details of that encounter. It was an armed encounter in the course of the rebellion. Whether there was an ambuscade I do not know, nor anything more than I have just said.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I understood that Thomas Ashe had been guilty of a cold-blooded attack and the murder of police, and that he shot the men from an ambuscade.
No.
I am most reluctant to take part in such an exchange of observations, with regard to a man who by the fact of his death must be the subject of particular care in a statement. My understanding of the matter is that what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member does not truly represent the facts. I cannot doubt that if it had been a cold-blooded murder by a man waiting behind a hedge the man guilty of that would either have been shot or hanged.
In those circumstances I will not say anything more.
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to describe as a cowardly murderer a man like Ashe, who was attacked by a big force of police?
I think the word "murder" has been rather recklessly used. A colleague of the hon. Gentleman has twice used it with regard to the governor of a gaol.
I have not used it.
I said a colleague of the hon. Gentleman had used it, and I have twice had to call him to order for using it in regard to the governor of a gaol.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraw the description of coward and murderer?
The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) has just been informed that he has used expressions which the circumstances do not warrant, and I am sure in these circumstances he will take the proper course which any other hon. and gallant Member would take.
I have already stated that I will not say anything more on this subject.
That is not a withdrawal.
My information has not been confirmed by the Chief Secretary, and I beg to withdraw what I said.
In speaking on this Motion the Chief Secretary said that what troubled him most was that the Government of Ireland should be on right principles, and I think anyone in Ireland who has any memory for his speech after his re-election will give him credit for wanting them to be right. I am sure he has tried to put that into effect in the policy he is following in Ireland, and I think the quarrel we have with him is not with his principles, but with the application of them in the difficult circumstances in which he has been fated to govern the destinies of Ireland. Might I remind him for a moment of the change of feeling and atmosphere which has taken place in Ireland in the last few years? May I recall the visit of the Prime Minister and of the late Attorney-General on matters which, according to his speech to-night, were not popular, and are not popular, in Ireland? What has happened since to change that atmosphere, and make it impossible for any British Cabinet Minister to get a hearing in Ireland to-day on any subject of the kind? Then the people were buoyed up with confidence, hope, and trust. Once again they had placed their reliance on British statesmanship and. looked to British Governments and Ministers to keep their word. When they found that that was not done they were sadly disappointed, and that confidence and trust has grown to bitter exasperation because they feel that since Easter of last year the Government have been marking time and trying one political juggle after another in order to gain time. Irish memories are not short for wrongs, nor for generous and kindly actions, but they need not be long to recollect the events of the Curragh during the Home Rule campaign when General Gough took a course of action which no soldier or statesman could defend who understood what the duty of a soldier was. What Jo we find? Rebellion breaks out and is followed by a campaign of a purely political character. The rebellion lasted a very short time, and we have the position, which I have seen time and again, of persons being tried for political speeches before courts-martial.
You have two or three men brought up for singing seditious songs, one of them the "South Down Militia," a camp song of South Africa and of the British Army. Who brought politics into the Army but those responsible for having these political offences tried before courts-martial? The storm over that was too great, the Government could not defend it, and we then fixed up the old machinery of the Crimes Act, and we had persons arrested by the police being tried by court-martial; or if they could not be tried by a military Court, they were shifted on to the crimes Court. That is what is breeding distrust. People ask why is this done, because in some cases if these people had been tried before the Crimes Act Court, they would have been treated as political prisoners. That would have been very inconvenient to our military rulers. So they are sent on for court-martial and dealt with as if they had been charged with some crime of moral turpitude and not with a political offence. People are asking under what thimble are you going to find the pea? Are you going to be treated as a political offender or are you to go before a court-martial and be tried by gentlemen who have no right to touch any political question? I think that policy was so uncertain and wavering that if it stood alone it was bound to excite distrust in the mind of any person in a peace-loving country, to say nothing of one that had just emerged from the throes of a rebellion. I am not going to say anything about the prisoners except that the remedy of the Chief Secretary was too late again. Apart altogether from the punishment of these offences, I say that some of the prosecutions were ridiculous and magnified in the most absurd way, and conducted with a vehemence and heat entirely impossible by a Government desiring to preserve the peace of the country and not to inflict punishments for vindictive reasons.
I want to refer to the action of the Government in reference to the Rebellion (Losses) Committee. There have been several cases brought to my notice time and again, and the only reply is that they cannot be reopened. One case I have in mind is that of Joseph Hayes, who was shot through the lungs in the rebellion by the military, and sent a cheque for £5 though still an invalid and unfit for work. Another is the case of a gentleman in the art business who had a large stock in premises in Abbey Street. Expert information could have been obtained as to the value of this stock and to the fact that these prints represented several thousand pounds; but the attitude taken up was, "We are not going to consider the claim, and we decline to give reasons." What is the inference from that? Either that the persons responsible believe that the claim was dishonest and that the pictures did not exist or that their value was grossly inflated. Nevertheless, no opportunity was ever given for the claim to be proved. Those are the sort of things that are stirring up feeling, and that is why the people cannot trust the present system of government, or, as I would rather call it, the wrong application of the high principles that I know the Chief Secretary has it in his heart to apply to Ireland if he had the opportunity. Another case which came to my notice the other day was that where two policemen came to remove a flag from a telegraph pole in one of the most law-abiding parts of my native county. There were walking along the road two police, accompanied by a child, and a remark was made to the child about being late for school. Whereupon the policeman said to the man who spoke, "Remember, sir, that martial law is still in force, and that we could put you with your back to the wall." The Chief Secretary may say, and properly say, that that is an ex parte statement without any evidence to support it. There was the sworn testimony of the other policeman, who stated that he heard his colleague say that. Does that conduce to peace? Does that conduce to that trust and confidence which the people ought to have, not in the military authority of the Crown, but in the peace officers of the Crown? Those two policemen still go about discharging their duty as police officers. They tell innocent people in a law-abiding district that martial law is still in force. I know that if these facts had been brought before the Chief Secretary he would not justify such things. He would investigate them in the most cautious way, and if satisfied that those words were used he would take proper action. But these facts never reach him. That is what is wrong with the Castle. These things never get to the Chief Secretary; they are stopped by minor heads, and he only hears about them when there is a row made about them, or his attention is drawn to them in some other way. I think the real secret of the Chief Secretary's difficulty is the overlapping between the civil side of Dublin Castle and military law in Ireland. As things stand at the present time we do not know who is in control. You do not know who is exercising discretion.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why there is so much distrust of the military in Ireland to-day. If you go through the names of the Irish command and look who are the Intelligence Officers and other officers, you will find that they are gentlemen who were very intimately associated in an active way with the Ulster Volunteer movement. I do not make any charge against them individually, but I am stating a fact which anyone with eyes to see can see if they look at the list of officers in the Irish Command. Does this sort of thing induce confidence and trust? What is wanted in Ireland to-day is government that plain people understand. If you had plain people put in control you would get honest government from them. Take the Defence of the Realm Regulations dealing with food, flax, corn, and take other things that come through the military and the Castle. They are controlled by committees composed of persons who have never been associated with the national sentiment or the life of Ireland in any way. The Chief Secretary says that somebody believes there is a hidden hand at work. I would like to ask what hidden hand is it that pulls the wires that appoint these committees. How can these gentlemen find time to do their ordinary official work for which they are paid and also find time to do this extra work. If the Chief Secretary had applied his principles properly in Ireland he would have gone down to the man in the street, the business men, the men in the fields, and put them on his committees and let them see that he wanted them to co-operate with him in the government of Ireland in every-day things outside the region of conflict and controversy. He did not do that. He has chosen other men to run his committees. He has buttressed himself round with committees largely composed of officials. That is where he has failed in applying his great principles. He has not applied statesmanship. He came full of it and anxious to carry out these principles, arid I give him credit for the best intention in the world, but for some reason or other he has not done it.
Dublin Castle.
I repeat, that the greatest difficulty is the overlapping between the civil and the military control. We get, for example, the proclaiming of the meeting in Enniskillen. One meeting more or less will not make much difference now amidst the plethora of words under which Ireland is submerged day by day. That meeting was proclaimed by the General Officer Commanding the Forces in Ireland. What does he know about politics? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Yate) laughs, but I am sure he agrees with me that there should be no politics in the Army. Well, Sir Brian Mahon declared that the meeting should be proclaimed. A letter of remonstrance was addressed to him by the Archdeacon of the Diocese of Clogher—a letter which is a masterpiece of propriety and honest talk, so much so, that it drew from the gallant General his concurrence with a great deal in the letter. He said, "I did not get your letter in time. It was too late. If you had seen the reports and the complaints I have got you would not quarrel with my decision in proclaiming this meeting." Sir Brian Mahon ought not to deal with this matter in that way if an officer must deal with such a subject. Both sides ought to be heard and an inquiry should be made from both sides, and statements should not filter through to him through the medium of ex-members of the Ulster Volunteer force. Other meetings were held there: meetings by the Ulster Volunteer movement were held there in that county, which is largely Nationalist, and in that town, which is largely Nationalist, without any ebullition of feelings or conflict—that is, since the Home Rule campaign began.
Not since the War.
I think so. I am not certain, but is it any wonder that feeling in Ireland is disturbed? There is want of trust and want of confidence, and the people have grounds for that want of trust and confidence. I do not say that this will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's logical and legal mind, but I want him to see these things from the standpoint of the man at the street corner and the men in the field, who readily came to his assistance and added not merely 10 per cent. to their tillage, but did it twice over, if not three times. When they are treated properly they will readily respond, but when they feel that they are wronged, and when they are dealt with in a spirit of distrust, you get angry resentment and embittered spirit, which you cannot smother or kill in an hour or a day. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the Convention and his hopes. Suppose the Convention breaks down. It may do so. I was one of those who did not look upon the Convention proposals with much favour, and I still reserve my judgment as to the Convention when the result comes to be known. Suppose the Convention breaks down, will your Imperial needs for the peace of Ireland be any less than they are to-day? I tell the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that their needs will be no less, and that their difficulties will be greater. Why? The moderate men in Ireland, the men in business, the men in the professions and the leaders of thought who have been in sympathy with the national demand and national policy, and who have stood by the Parliamentary campaign through all this struggle, have said, "Give the Government its chance. Let us see what it will do. Let us see what the Convention will do." If the Convention goes, what is there left to them? Either to get out of politics and to abandon any influence or control they have in Ireland or go over to the extreme party. What will there be left for you in Ireland then? You must try to bring back to the Irish people the feeling that there is honesty of desire and intention on your part to deal fairly with them. You must win their hearts and their heads, treat them fairly, convince them of your honesty, and govern them in a way they understand. Let your great professions of good be put not only on the Statute Book but into effect, and let the many speeches made in this House be translated into terms of practice. There are many I of us who, much as we love our country, deeply disappointed and embittered as we are by many of the things that have happened in the squalid and sordid struggle of politics in this House, sometimes think that Ireland's interests are only gained whenever they happen to be subservient to some English need. For God's sake do not put the blame upon the Sinn Feiner, but try to convince Ireland that you sincerely want to do something for Ireland, to give her that which is her unalienable right—the right to live in happiness and prosperity.
I believe that the situation in Ireland at the present day is one of the gravest in the whole range of its history in the last hundred years. No one can see what is going to arise, for, as often happens in the affairs of men, there is a tide which sweeps on the leaders them selves; they are unable to see the goal towards which they are being carried. Amidst all this uncertainty there is a sense of some impending great event, which I hope may not be a great tragedy.
I will deal very briefly with one of the cardinal points embodied in the Motion, and that is with respect to the situation which has arisen out of the death of Thomas Ashe. That was the event which sent a shock throughout the whole of Ireland. No matter what reasons may be given, or no matter what disculpation may be made, there is that in it which strikes the sentiment of the country before it has time to reason, and which causes reaction of the fiercest revolt. I say that that tragedy could have been averted if the Government from the first day had treated these Irish prisoners as political prisoners. And whatever reason may be given in this House for the action of this country in that respect, an action in which it differs from every civilised country in Europe, it is believed in Ireland, and I myself believe it that what is at the bottom of that treatment of Irish political prisoners as felons is the desire to pander to a sentiment of revenge.
I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I am one of those who respect him for his good intentions towards Ireland while, at the same time, I regret that he should be there in any official capacity at all. But in his speech he drew a picture of British justice which must be shocking to British sentiment itself. He said that he had been accused, on the one hand, of a Cromwellian policy in Ireland and, on the other hand, of an undue leniency which made the law ridiculous. It is quite possible in Ireland that both those methods may coincide or may follow one upon the other. On the one hand, he treats Ireland tyrannically. That is the beginning of the Cromwellian treatment. On the other hand, when Irishmen resent this, and show their resentment even by a display of armed force, he recedes from that position and resorts to that treatment which he himself describes as ridiculous. Thus in his treatment of Ireland he represents a sort of unhappy union of Cromwell and Ally Sloper.
Only a few weeks ago in Ennis, which is the chief town of the county Clare, during my own stay there, I know that men were arrested for marching with small bodies of twenty or a hundred Sinn Feiners and saying nothing more subversive than "Fall in!" or "Eyes right!" Those men were dragged away from their homes, and were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. That is the Ciomwellian method. But in that very town of Ennis, within a few days, the present Member for East Clare came down breathing defiance and leading a body of 20,000 men in uniform with banners flying and trumpets blowing, and the right hon. Gentleman ran away. That was the Ally Sloper method. And that sort of treatment of Ireland brings the law of England into contempt, and that contempt is justified. I am not making use of this argument to inspire severity against such acts as those of De Valera marching 20,000 men into a political demonstration, but I use it as an argument that in common honesty the Chief Secretary should release those other prisoners who have been thrown into prison for six months for trivial offences. Across the floor of the House I ask him to do it now.
During the whole of his speech he made a plea which has been re-echoed from various sides for good government in Ireland—that is to say, good government on the English model. That Irishmen should cease their aspirations for liberty, their aspirations to be free men in their own country, if they are well fed, if their income rises, if their material prospects are improved—that they should be content to wear dog collars if by wearing them they become fat. In that there is a radical misconception of the whole situation. Those young Sinn Feiners are now marching, drilling, defying England, uttering perhaps reckless sayings, marching, perhaps to misfortune, but at any rate let us remember this, that we ourselves, members of a constitutional movement, every member of the Irish party in this House, has gone down to the country holding up to their admiration the great heroes of Ireland for a hundred years— Wolfe-Tone, Robert Emmett, O'Connell, Thomas Francis Meagher, Charles Stewart Parnell. These young people have heard and listened to these teachings which have sunk into their minds, and now that they have grown to man's estate they feel within their minds the aspiration to realise those teachings. That is at the bottom of the Irish movement.
I refuse to believe that it has been prompted or inspired, or even in any great degree fostered, by German gold. I regret that it should have any affinity whatever with the purposes of Germany. I think that that is one of the weak points and, in fact, a damnatory part of that movement. But at the same time I would have contempt for the young Irishmen of to-day, if they felt less love for their country, less determination to use their energies, powers, thoughts, and even lives for their country, than is felt by the people of Belgium, Serbia, or Poland, which you say it is your mission to liberate.
These feelings have arisen partly from the present War. This War, with its terrible sacrifice of human life, with at the same time the new horizons which it is opening up to human vision; this War which is stirring the thoughts and emotions of men down to the very bottom and making realisable sentiments that have lain deep down in their hearts; this War is producing vital ferments not only in Ireland, but throughout the world, and stimulating the great indomitable aspirations for liberty, the desire for freedom not only for the individual, but for the freedom of the country to which he belongs—that same feeling is stirring not only in Ireland, but in South Africa, in Australia, in Canada, all over the world, where people are beginning to feel that this War is going to mark a new era in human development, and that many of the old shams of the past, the remnants of feudalism, relics of the Middle Ages, must pass away, that human beings must attain a higher life—a life of a greater freedom and greater possibilities than they enjoy at present. Those feelings are not to be checked or set aside by talk about material prosperity or paternal government, or anything which takes from men their birthright and gives them some material advantage instead.
I ask the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, who has called upon the labouring men of England to make their claims boldly, to cast their vision forward to this new state of things which is now arising, and to see that if they are going to hold together this so-called Empire, this miscalled Empire, this condominion of great States, they must cast aside all the relics and shams on which their political life has subsisted, and must prepare the way even now for what, I believe, eventually will be the true solution of this question, and that they must face the prospect of the realisation of a great ring of Republican States—Australia, South Africa, Canada, including also Ireland—completely free each within its borders, and federated together for the purpose only of mutual defence.
I have one or two points which I wish to put before the Chief Secretary. I said in a speech to my Constituents the other night—and I think the Chief Secretary rather referred to what I said—that the Government's was a provocative policy. I never say anything outside the House which I am not prepared to say here, and I take this opportunity to state personally to the Chief Secretary what I have stated elsewhere, and my reasons for it. After the insurrection, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, the people there were entirely opposed to that insurrection, which had cost so much in money and property of the City of Dublin. But the Government policy of shooting the prisoners, their subsequent shilly-shallying management of the whole business, has changed the feelings of those whom I have the honour to represent, with the result that instead of having a vast majority of the St. Patrick's Division in favour of the Government, the majority is now against it. I say here, solemnly, that if the Government desired to create another insurrection and disaffection amongst the Irish people, they could not have done it more effectually than by the policy they have adopted in regard to the management of Irish affairs. We are supposed to have a Government in Ireland. Who are the Government, what does it consist of? The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway smiles. It is really no laughing matter; it is so serious that in time he may be turned out from his own seat. The Chief Secretary, like a certain region, is "full of good intentions," but he is unable to carry them out. Like most Chief Secretaries who have been in Ireland, he is bursting with sympathy; he receives those who approach him courteously, and he is prepared to make promises, the realisation of which is quite a different thing.
We have heard something about the hidden hand, and the right hon. Gentleman apparently believes that there is no hidden hand; but we in Ireland, who have been brought into immediate contact with Dublin Castle, know perfectly well that although the Chief Secretary—and we will give him credit for it—wants to do what is right, yet somehow or other he is not able to do it. Whether it is the underlings in Dublin, or whether it is the War Cabinet, the fact remains that we generally are disappointed whenever we seek to achieve anything that is for the advantage of the material prospects of Ireland. The other day an American officer in the Curragh, on learing that there was going to be a mutiny in the military force stationed in Ireland decided that he would not stay in it, and he joined the Life Guards, remarking that while there was no discipline in the Army the Army could not properly be carried on. There was no discipline in the Army, and now we have all of the chaos that exists in that country. What is the cause of this chaos? It is caused by the Government not having the courage to enforce the law which we are subject to, and which other persons are allowed to break. Let us talk plainly in this matter. It appears to me that the Government want to revert to the old Roman system of the Pretorian Guards, to chose the emperor. But everybody is supposed to be a democrat in this country; the difficulty is to find out who is not a democrat; but apparently so far as Ireland is concerned the military are going to take the place of the constitutional Government. The right hon. Gentlemen must look at this matter seriously if we are to depend on the success of the Convention, and I, as certainly does every one of my colleagues, desire the success of the Convention.
No matter whose fault it is or how it comes about, or what the undercurrent is which is operating, somehow or other it appears to the public, or at least to competent critics in Ireland, that the Government or those who are supposed to be the Government—I do not include the Chief Secretary, for I rather look upon him as a nonentity, having those behind him who will not allow him to do what he wishes— somehow or other, it appears that the Government are not taking a course which would conduce to the success of the Convention, and I honestly believe that if the Convention does not succeed a very serious state of things will arise. Therefore I trust that the Government will not continue the fatuous policy that they have been carrying on for some time past. I trust that the result of this Debate will be the introduction of some other policy more calculated to bring about the result which we all desire. We were supposed to have a humane condition of affairs after the rebellion. In South Africa after the War things settled down, but in Ireland matters are differently managed, and to-day we see what is the condition of things in that country. I cannot understand why the Government introduced the system of forcible feeding, and the fact is that the position in Ireland is most extraordinary. The Government apparently do not know what to do, and I would suggest that the only cure is to allow Irishmen to govern themselves. An hon. Gentleman made the suggestion that we should have a dictator. We do not want any dictator in Ireland; we are a democratic nation; we want our people to be governed by Irishmen, and I hope the result of this Debate will be to clear the air, in order that the realities of the situation may be grasped, and an effort made to calm down all these rumours and reports, and to create an atmosphere that will enable the Convention to come to a successful conclusion.
Upon a point of Order. I want to know as this Debate proceeds, as it will proceed, whether we are going to have any reply to the speeches made from these benches by some responsible Minister? I notice that one of the members of the Cabinet is on the Front Bench. I would like to ask him whether he is now acting for the Government, or whether he or any other member of the Government will be prepared to answer the criticisms made from these benches during the future progress of this Debate?
That is not a point of Order. I have no control over the speakers, but I understood that the Prime Minister is going to speak. I may be wrong in that.
As some very important speeches will be delivered from these benches, I would respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister should be sent for.
It is a perfect farce.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) whether he is now acting for the Prime Minister or is he in a position to state when the Prime Minister will be here? I object altogether to this policy of treating a most important Debate with contempt. There is nobody of any consequence on the Front Bench except the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Samuels). I want to know whether this House is to be treated with contempt by the Government on a matter so vital to Ireland and to all that Ireland stands for in this House and the Empire. I ask, who is to reply to these speeches?
( War Cabinet ): I do not know whether I should be in order in replying to the hon. Gentleman. I can only say I have no authority to speak for the Government or their intentions during the evening. I was with the Prime Minister for some hours this morning in the usual way, and separated about two o'clock. I came again in contact with the Prime Minister with regard to a deputation until half-past six or seven o'clock, since when I have seen nothing of the Prime Minister, and have no knowledge of his intentions beyond this, that this morning it was generally understood that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to follow the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) and that the Prime Minister was to speak later on in the evening.
I certainly think it is a matter for complaint that no one present is acting for the Government to hear the points that are being made and to reply to them later on. There is a rumour that the Prime Minister does not intend to speak or to take any part in this Debate. I think before the Debate proceeds much further it ought to be definitely known that a reply is going to be given by the Government, and that they are not going to treat this Debate with contempt I think it is the duty, not only of those who represent Irish constituencies, but of all Members of this House, to try to understand something of the Irish situation at the present time, and to try to understand the forces that go to the making of the new political conditions that we see gradually being established in Ireland. For my part I am convinced of this, that the Government have got to adopt one of two policies—either a policy of appeasement or an attempted policy of repression; one or the other. What the Government is trying to do at present is to combine those two policies, and that, in my opinion, is bound to fail, because by the one policy you are creating all the forces which will undo your other policy. Therefore I am convinced that a great mistake is being made, and that a large part of the policy of the Government is wrong in Ireland, if the Government really do want to restore peace in Ireland and to see good government established there. I do not know who is responsible. It seems to be difficult to find out who exactly is responsible for a great deal that happens in Ireland at the present time. The responsibility is so divided and sub-divided that in the end nobody becomes responsible for many things that really happen.
We were told to-day by one of the Members, representing, I think, an Ulster Division, that they for their part asked for equal administration, and that they were convinced that equal administration was not being enforced in Ireland. But surely one of the complaints even of the most extreme movement in Ireland is that there never has been equal administration in Ireland, and that things which are treason in one part of Ireland can be done with absolute impunity in other parts of Ireland. I can imagine nothing more destructive of sound government than that. I can imagine nothing that will more speedily recruit the revolutionary movement in Ireland than that, and that is the very thing that is happening and the very thing that is being done. If I were a Sinn Feiner I would bless the British Government every day, because I am convinced that it is the policy of the British Government that is building up day after day the Sinn Fein movement. Many things have happened in Ireland which have gone enormously to building up this new force, the method of dealing with the Easter rising, all that followed from the Easter rising, and many of the individual circumstances even in connection with the treatment of those prisoners. One prisoner was under sentence to be shot, and they actually allowed the woman to whom he was engaged to be taken into the prison so that they might be married, and they were married, and the moment that had happened the man was torn from her arms and taken out and shot by the military. I can imagine with a high-minded and chivalrous people nothing more calculated than that sort of thing to win their sympathy and create this new force. Another of the prisoners we are told was wounded in the leg during the fighting, and was so unable to walk to the place of execution that he was actually strapped upon a piece of wood.
Reclining on a chair.
And carried out and shot. That sort of treatment is bound to create a revolutionary movement in Ireland. In the other case, the man, Mr. Skeffington, who was opposed to the rising, and opposed to the use of physical force, was shot without any kind or sort of trial. We were told afterwards that the man who did this was mad. The strange thing was that nobody in Ireland seemed to have discovered his madness until this took place, which would rather go to show that madness is no bar to occupying office so far as some Irish officers are concerned. Let us take one or two other instances and see what has actually happened. Looking back over the troubled history of Ireland, even since the Easter rising, I, for my part, have no difficulty in ascertaining why the Sinn Fein movement is making such extraordinary headway in that country. You get, for example, wholesale arrests in Ireland, and then you get batches of these men—in one case, I think, numbering twenty-six—deported from Ireland without any trial and sent over to this country. Then, after agitation, there and elsewhere, these men are released, and they go back to Ireland, where they have a tremendous reception, are made heroes and martyrs of, and these men and their cause go marching on! That sort of thing has happened constantly. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes), who represents Labour in the Government, whether Labour inside the Government is satisfied with the present Government policy in Ireland? There are, I believe, eight members of the Labour party who hold positions of one sort or another in the Gvernment, and my right hon. Friend is actually a member of the War Cabinet. Is he satisfied with what is going on? Is he satisfied from the Labour point of view that Ireland is being, treated with justice and consideration?
It is time labour came out of the Government!
9.0 P.M
We read that raid after raid has been made on all sorts of newspapers, and attempts made to suppress opinion. Many papers have been suppressed. There was the "Southern Star," the "Kilkenny People," and the "Kerryman," and one might give a list of about twenty newspapers which have been dealt with in one way or another. I do not know what may have appeared in these newspapers, but I am convinced of this: if you are really going to fight a wrong opinion you can only fight it by putting forward a right opinion. Opinion grows by suppression. See also what the Government's present methods have been in trying to put down the extraordinary elements of this Sinn Fein movement. Meetings have been proclaimed in various parts of Ireland, and many private houses have been searched. I can imagine nothing more likely to irrigate than the search of private houses. Again and again civilians have been tried by martial law, and very heavy sentences have been inflicted. The civilian has no faith in trial by military law. After all these things go on what is the ultimate result? It is this: You are aiming these blows at a movement, the Sinn Fein movement, and the result of your policy is seen in an election like that of East Clare, where, on a poll of 7,000 electors, the Sinn Feiner gets a majority of 3,000! Surely the Government ought to have its eyes open to the result of its own policy, and the result of its own action. In Ireland to-day the best qualification for a candidate for Parliament is that he has either been in prison himself or has had some relative put to death or put in prison by the British Government. We get worse every week. We see in the newspapers all that is going on. People are arrested for illegal drilling, and for carrying hockey sticks, and this matter has been brought out again and again by the Chief Secretary. I thought of this when he was reading those entirely foolish, and, what I think, were mischievous extracts from speeches. The Chief Secretary should remember this, that the extracts he read from the Sinn Fein leaders might have been learned at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman who now sits upon the Front Bench opposite. Again and again these men have justified what they were saying from the fact that this gospel has been preached in Ulster, and preached there without the law taking any effect at all; that these men were above the law. They do not forget that the right hon. Gentleman who represents Dublin University was allowed for years to say that sort of thing. Then what can you expect of men in many cases untrained, but that they should take much the same line and use much the same kind of language? In regard to the enforcement of the laws, there has been a great deal of needless irritation. We have had all sorts of pettifogging, irritating, and pin-pricking prosecutions. I read some time ago how the police wanted to get into the Gaelic sports. There was some trouble about letting them in without paying their money, and men who were taking part in a hurling match in Ireland were actually prosecuted because of this trouble between themselves and the police at the gates of the Gaelic sports. We had the case of the Limerick solicitor, Mr. Moran. He read some document in a court of law. Afterwards, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, it was demanded of him that he should divulge the source of his information. As a solicitor he refused to divulge it. He was prosecuted for that, and actually sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He served either the whole of his sentence, or, I think, 119 days of it. Men have been prosecuted in Ireland for singing songs. I do not know what sort of songs they are. One is a song about Beading Gaol. I do not know why anyone should want to sing a song about Beading Gaol. But the whole processes of the law were actually set in motion because a man had sung a song about Reading Gaol. This sort of thing seems to me to be absolutely absurd, and to show the bankruptcy of English statesmanship so far as Ireland is concerned. Men have been prosecuted for printing a quotation from the writings of John Mitchell upon a ballot ticket. Some girls recently marched to a cemetery on the anniversary day of O'Donovan Rossa in order to lay flowers upon his grave. They were seized by the police on their way back and actually taken to the police-station.
Side by side with this, whilst all these pettifogging prosecutions are going on, there are men in Ireland quite openly defying the laws, and you do not deal with them at all. When these extremes meet you are destroying everything in the way of a more reasonable settlement of the Irish question. The two extremes begin to meet in the extreme of reaction, and the extreme of the Sinn Fein movement. The latest example, of course, of the method of dealing with this matter is the case of Thomas Ashe. There are hon. Members who seem to think that Thomas Ashe was imprisoned because of the murder of some policeman, or something of that kind. I think it is only right to say—and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will bear me out—that the offence for which Thomas Ashe was imprisoned when he died had nothing to do with the murder of a policeman at all, but was due to a speech made in county Longford.
nodded assent.
References were made as if he was there for cold-blooded murder. I think, as I say, it is only right that the real offence for which he was imprisoned when he died should be known; it was for an alleged seditious speech made in Longford county. I am not going into that at all. I do not know whether he made a speech or not, but he is alleged to have said that they ought to have military societies in Ireland, and they ought to train, arm, and equip themselves. Well, that is good Ulster doctrine, when all is said and done. I do not believe it is good doctrine at all, but I believe that if the people of Ireland, England, or elsewhere are really going to liberate themselves it is not with rifles, but it is by the equipment of their minds, the equipment of their political ideals, that they will get forward. But why should that doctrine be seditious in the South of Ireland if it is permitted in the North of Ireland? You come back to that time and again. Then this prisoner says he is a political prisoner; he is not a degenerate criminal, and he stands by that, and then they begin to punish him in all sorts of pettifogging ways. His bedding is taken away, and this man Ashe has to sleep on the floor. His boots are taken away, and then be refuses to have food, and is forcibly fed. That is continued right up to the time when he goes to hospital, where he collapses and dies within a few hours. There, once more, the Government, by its methods, are feeding the revolutionary forces in Ireland, for that man receives a funeral such as no man has received since Parnell died. Great numbers of people passed his dead body and saluted him where he lay. Then the Government, in a panic, abolished the very thing they had been doing all this time, and both by what they did and refused to do they are feeding those very elements and are helping to make them strong.
What is going to be the effect of that sort of thing upon the Convention? For I am at one with other Members who have spoken in this Debate in believing that the Convention is going to be the turning-point, and that either something good is going to come out of that Convention—it is going to give us a policy of peace and appeasement in Ireland—or we are going to see very dreadful history in Ireland during the next few years. I think there is not the least doubt about that, and I believe that much that is happening is really making it more difficult to reach a settlement and making it more difficult to secure any kind of reasonable settlement. I very often listen to the Chief Secretary speak from his place, and I am bound to say that I think, and I believe, that in his heart he wishes well to Ireland, and desires to see good government established there. What forces are behind him that are striking down his arm in the work he wants to do? Surely there must be some evil influences that are able to overcome him in this matter, because I am convinced again and again from what he says that he does want to see settlement and justice done. Is he the master in his own household, and, if he is not master, who is the master of the Irish situation?
There is only one other thing I want to say. The plea in this country is that Britain and her Allies are fighting on behalf of the freedom of the small nations, and that justice shall be done to the small nations—to Belgium, to Alsace-Lorraine, to Poland, to Serbia, and so on. When that argument is used in Ireland, especially in the meetings of the more extreme elements of Ireland, it is received with derision, because they ask what is the good of pretending that we are going to right the wrongs of every small nation in Europe if we make such a mess of things in regard to a small nation at our own doors? That argument is used repeatedly, not only in Ireland, but in America, among the Irish population there, and elsewhere. I hope that something good, something lasting to Ireland, is going to come out of this Convention. But I do say this, that it is impossible for the Government to ride the double policy of attempting conciliation and repression at the same time. I believe they have got to give up the weapon of repression, and even take some risk of doing that for the sake of the larger gain that will come as the result of a better policy. The only remedy for troubles in Ireland is not the remedy of force or the remedy of machine guns. The only remedy for Ireland is that of justice and of self-government.
I rise, in the first place, to enter a strong protest against the absence of the Prime Minister from his place on the Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman so rarely favours the House with his presence that we were all profoundly impressed at seeing him here to-day, because we recognised—I am sure the recognition was universal amongst all parties and all sections of the House—that the Prime Minister realised that he was face to face with a great and a vital issue to this Government and to Ireland. Then, for some mysterious reason, which I hope will be subsequently explained, the Prime Minister flitted out of the House, and, according to the statement made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down, he does not intend to return here. In my judgment, one of the grave causes of the present condition of Ireland is the flippancy which high administrators and members of successive Governments have treated this Irish question. They may be very skilful Imperial statesmen, but all I have to say is that if they conduct the War in which we are now engaged in the same spirit in which they have conducted the affairs of Ireland, that have drawn in their train so many irreparable disasters, I hesitate to believe that this Empire will emerge successfully from the great War in which it is now engaged. The Prime Minister may consider this Debate an unimportant one. He may think that the usual recital of pompous platitudes from the Chief Secretary standing at that bench may meet the desperate situation in Ireland to-day, but, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I want to tell him that no amount of academic preaching about the virtue of law and the importance of order will successfully grapple with a situation which requires the manifestation of the qualities which have been recited by my hon. Friend who has just sat down. I would have imagined, after the experience of the last four months, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have declared that the intervening period between the inauguration of the Convention proceedings until now has been one series of administrative blunders, and that the time had arrived when the other policy should be tried—the policy of giving the Convention a chance.
Let me frankly state my position. When I was invited by my colleagues to become a member of that Convention I did so upon the distinct understanding that there would be a complete amnesty for the political prisoners. We made our demand and we gave what, in my judgment, were irresistible reasons why that demand should be conceded. After the usual vacillation that demand was conceded without grace, and after constant pressure, and I almost say in the spirit of fear, because some of us would not have gone on the Convention if it had not been conceded. They did release the political prisoners unconditionally. In my judgment, the rebellion in Ireland was caused by the policy of pin-pricking which went on eighteen months before the rising took place. I need not go over it all again. It has been referred to repeatedly in the House of Commons. The moment these men got out of prison the policy of pin-pricking commenced again. No doubt they made violent speeches, but everybody in Ireland makes violent speeches. They all became great heroes in Ireland, because everybody is a hero who has been imprisoned by the British Government for protesting against British rule. Those are merely normal things in Ireland moving our whole instinct and nature. They are in our very blood, because the whole story of Irish patriotism has been a story of men glorified because they fought for the great principle of human freedom.
It was that instinct which inspired my colleague and myself, and which would have enabled us, if you had given us the chance, to rally the whole nation behind us when you were engaged in the task in fighting for human freedom. That was why we supported you in the War. That was why we made ourselves the agents of the great and eternal principle of human liberty and why we successfully invited our people to take their stand in association with you in what we believe was a battle for human freedom. When these men went back from gaol to their own people they received them as the agents of freedom, and then you proceeded again with the old policy of pin-pricking, arresting people here and there, imprisoning them for a few months after conviction before a military tribunal. They were normal heroes before you sent them to prison again, but they came out again abnormal heroes. You created this atmosphere and it spread, and let me tell you frankly that there may be rebels in Ireland but they are not in gaol. The real inspirers of rebellion either sit on these benches or they are the gentlemen who rule Ireland, and Ireland does not know who they are. If you release them after being participators in a rebellion, and after conviction for taking part in a rising, would anybody outside the sphere of modern British statesmanship tell me that you should arrest them again not for participation in a rebellion, but for making speeches. That seems a curiously British mentality which I cannot understand. These prosecutions were so foolish and frivolous that even the right hon. Gentleman had to attempt to explain them away. I say that you are just as much responsible for all the trouble that has arisen in Ireland as the Czar of Russia was responsible for all that took place in Russia. If there had been no Czar there would have been no revolution, and if there had been no Czardom there would hot have been that situation that you are witnessing to-day.
The whole sum and substance and total analysis of your failure is that you are so ignorant of Ireland and so little understand that country, so ignorant as to the methods by which that country should be governed, that your mistakes are so colossal that nothing can defend them but your own self-conceit. What happened? The Convention opened its proceedings. It was a very extraordinary body of men. It was composed of every element in the country, traditionally, historically, politically, and religiously, assembled in the capital of Ireland to engage themselves in that task which, if they prove successful, they will have accomplished what centuries of terrorism have failed to achieve. Day by day an atmosphere was created within the Convention itself. There was no hauling down of the flag upon any side. Men listened in a spirit of conciliation to speeches perhaps less violent, but equally strong as those which have been delivered in the great Debates and conflicts that took place in this House during the Home Rule controversy. Day by day men who were enemies became friends; people who had hitherto been in open conflict and would not speak to each other were day after day entering into comradeship and goodwill. There was one doctrine laid down which everybody accepted, and that was that your government was a colossal and gigantic failure in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, everybody. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not the Unionists!"] Yes, the Unionists. I attacked the Government as it exists to-day, and I attacked in the Convention the Chief Secretary who governed the country. The Unionists attacked other Chief Secretaries. They attacked one method of government and we attacked another, but we were all united upon this, that the government as it existed was a colossal failure. Apart from that altogether, a good spirit and good feeling and temper existed.
Then this new policy existed. What is the nature of this policy? I want to point out that this is not a war on Sinn Fein alone, but it is a war on other elements in the country. It is this governmental war against which we protest. What do these gentlemen do? They proceed on the eve of a series of great Ulster meetings which are held every year, but which were suspended during the three years of the War—meetings called to support the constitutional policy and party—to seize the rifles belonging to the constitutional party, and composed of the Nationalist Volunteers. What would be thought by the House or by any Member of the House if, on the even of the last 12th July, the Government had sent out their military forces to seize the rifles belonging to the Ulster Volunteers in the North of Ireland? The right hon. Gentlemen says it is only a coincidence. I am afraid that the Castle officials are so busy drafting documents that they have no time to read the newspapers. Did not Dublin Castle know that these demonstrations were going to take place? Is it not an extraordinary circumstance that these rifles were seized at the places where the demonstrations were to take place on the following day? They seized the National Volunteer rifles on the eve of the holding of constitutional meetings in the province of Ulster in places like Armagh, Donegal, and Belfast, where there are practically no Sinn Feiners at all, meetings that were convened to support the policy of pacification, of conciliation, of goodwill between these nations, and of a mutual settlement of our differences. Those people gathered together at those meetings were outraged and wronged by this insult put upon them. The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-night that these rifles were seized by the military because they were afraid that they might be seized by the Sinn Feiners. Why, in those places there were practically no Sinn Feiners. Take my own constituency. They brought an armed force of 600 soldiers, marshalled them at one o'clock in the morning round the National Club of Belfast, within miles of which no Sinn Feiner might come, and they tore open the drawers, and in one room dragged out the socks and the mufflers which had been knitted by Nationalist women in the club for the soldiers of the 16th Division who had gone from West Belfast to help to fight your battles abroad.
Do you mean to say that I am wrong when I tell you that it is you who create rebels? Five weeks before the Convention was held in Belfast a number of men were arrested in different parts of Ireland and incarcerated in the county prison in Belfast without trial. They were kept in that prison for five weeks, and then, another coincidence, on the morning that the Convention met in Belfast—I could quote so many coincidences that by and by some of us will put forward the proposal that you should add to the ministries by setting up a Ministry of Coincidences in Ireland—they brought these men to trial, and day by day and side by side with the public proceedings of the Convention were the trials of these men and the speeches they made before the courts-martial. What happened. The men were actually released when the Convention was over. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not a lunatic, and I agree with him. But would he, and he has great powers of analysis, describe to me what could justify that but lunacy, or what I prefer to call something worse? That that and the incident of the seizure of the National Volunteer rifles only a few weeks ago were simply coincidences is something which I for my part fail to believe.
The right hon. Gentleman stands at that box and delivers a speech which is intended to make people believe that he is a strong man. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a very good man and a very well-intentioned man. Everyone realises that he took office after making very great and tremendous personal sacrifices in the hope that he could serve a cause which he believed that to serve by solving would be the greatest tribute which he could pay to himself and to his country. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has displayed limitations which I cannot understand and which I cannot explain. In the first place, I do not believe that he is the Governor of Ireland at all. I do not say that for the purpose of making an attack upon him. No man can govern Ireland from England. No man can possibly govern that country who attends here to all the multifarious questions that come before Parliament affecting Ireland. He is always over here, and it is what is commonly called the hidden hand that is at work in Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. Byrne) the other day asked a question, and I think he repeated it to-day, in which he stated that it was decided, after the tragedy in regard to Ashe had taken place, that the prisoners were to be deported to England. Is that true? We are informed that was decided at the War Cabinet. It was subsequently contradicted. This is a Government of desperate ideas if they are allowed to carry them out. When public opinion revolts against them, then they hang back. It was the fear of outraged public opinion which made them recall that decision which I understand was arrived at by the War Cabinet.
What explanation has the right hon. Gentleman to give with regard to the retention of Major Price in Dublin Castle? He has not told us what he is going to do in that case. The late Prime Minister promised me that Major Price would be removed. A subsequent promise was given by his successor. Why does he remain in Ireland? What power or authority or control has he in Dublin Castle that he should be greater than the late Prime Minister and a more powerful member of the Castle Government than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. They may say that Major Price has got nothing to do with the administration of Dublin Castle, but Ireland believes that he has, and you have no right to retain him there. There is something more extraordinary still. He is the chief military intelligence officer, and yet he is not a soldier at all. He is an Irish policeman put into an important military position. I venture to make this point to the military Members of this House. All these things that are done by Major Price are blamed to the military, and he is not a soldier at all but an Irish policeman. I want to know why he is retained there? As a matter of fact, none of us know what is the government of Ireland or who is responsible for the government of Ireland. We have asked members of the Government themselves, and even they could not tell us. That is one of the reasons I protest against the absence of the Prime Minister from this Debate. We want to ask him who governs Ireland. If you assail the military authorities they blame the Civil administration, and if you assail the Civil administration they put it on to the military authorities. The right hon. Gentleman is not the Governor of Ireland; he is only the defender of indefensible causes in this House. He does it with a courage and a chivalry which I admire, but is it successful?
I say, again, that all earnest men in Ireland want to see this Convention a success. It has the germs of success within it, but you are making it practically impossible for those who desire it to succeed to carry on its work, for, concurrently with the deliberations of the Convention, every effort is being made by designing men, whom we cannot get out into the open, to destroy it and prevent it from succeeding. If it does not succeed, the responsibility will be a very great one. It is the last chance this Government or any other Government will get to solve this problem on constitutional lines. As my hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated, if you cannot solve the right of a people to their freedom by constitutional means, other means will be brought into operation and you will be up against them and face to face with them. For thirty years we pleaded in vain for the concession to Ireland of constitutional rights, constitutionally demanded and constitutionally backed up by the people of Great Britain. After we had won it, we were thwarted by unconstitutional means. It seems to me that rebellion is the only thing that counts in the ultimate adjustment of these questions as long as ignorance prevails in governing Ireland. Therefore I say here to-night that we are entitled to have this Debate treated with something more than the spirit which has been shown towards it by those who sit on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister should have been in the House; he should have told us what his views were. According to statements made here to-night he intended to be here, but he has left the House. I trust that his spirit of self-satisfaction with this Debate will be justified, but I fear it very much.
I really think that this Debate ought to be adjourned if we do not get some assurance that the Prime Minister will redeem the promise which we have just heard from a Labour Member of the Cabinet he made to-day that he would take part in it. I must confess that I feel inclined to pity the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the way in which he has been deserted to-night. He had a very difficult task to defend his administration in Ireland—I do not know whether I ought to call it his administration, but rather the administration in Ireland, which has no friends. We might reason ably have expected that the Prime Minister himself, who is the only man who can speak with final authority upon this question, would have come down and stated what really is the intention of the Government. If we are to assume from the fact that the Leader of the House has just entered that he is going to speak on behalf of the Government and close this Debate——
indicated dissent.
Then, is no Minister who has authority to speak on behalf of the War Cabinet going to state what is really the policy of the Government? The necessity for that has become all the more manifest and urgent because, so far as I can judge, and I listened very attentively to the speech of the Chief Secretary, his speech in all the main part of it logically led up to a policy of war, and not only did not point to any cessation of the provocative policy with which the Resolution deals, but I gathered from the picture he drew of the country and the sensational nature of the speech he delivered that he intends to strengthen that policy and take even more active steps in Ireland. Yet I was immensely struck by one sentence in his speech, because he used these words, which I most heartily endorse. Nothing, he said, in his opinion, would be more helpful to the Sinn Fein movement than that you should embark on the wholesale arrest of men who confine themselves to making speeches. That is exactly the policy upon which he is embarking. That is the ground of our complaint. Most of the arrests which have been made in Ireland, very nearly the whole of them, were arrests of men who confined themselves to making speeches. Therefore out of his own mouth we are entitled to condemn his policy as being calculated in the highest degree to strengthen and spread the Sinn Fein movement. There cannot be the slightest doubt that it has enormously strengthened and extended the Sinn Fein movement, and brought recruits to its standards by thousands. I read the other day a speech of one of the orators of Sinn Fein in which he declared that Thomas Ashe, by his death, had done more for Sinn Fein, and brought more recruits to their ranks, than if he had lived for a thousand years.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that latitude for the commission of crimes, or incitement to the commission of crimes, no civilised Government could be expected to give. Who is asking them to do that? Crime in the ordinary sense of the word is non-existent. These men who have been committed to prison have not been guilty of crime in the ordinary sense of the word, but have been guilty of making speeches which, as one hon. Member has pointed out to-night, might almost have been taken textually from speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Trinity College. Therefore out of the mouth of the Chief Secretary himself he stands condemned, inasmuch as apparently he proposes to continue a policy which he himself declares to be a policy that is calculated to strengthen and spread the Sinn Fein movement. There is not the slightest doubt that this is a true description of his policy or of the policy of those who are responsible for the government of Ireland. He went on to complain that the men in Ireland who condemn the Government in Ireland and the Irish Executive in one breath represent the Government as carrying on the government of Ireland with tyranny beyond measure, and in the next breath as being contemptible beyond expression. The two things are not in the least degree incompatible. You can have such a thing as a weak tyranny, and that is exactly what prevails in Ireland to-day. The Government is arresting and imprisoning men on the most trifling pretexts and for very slight causes, and yet when they come up against any very serious demonstration, precisely similar to that for which they imprison comparatively unknown men, they run away and surrender, and they have also surrendered in the case of the treatment of prisoners. They were tyrannical in attempting, after all the bitter history of Ireland and this great controversy which has lasted now for generations of the treatment of political prisoners, to treat these men as common criminals, and they were weak when they yielded to resistance what they would not have yielded to reason. There is no inconsistency in the two propositions. The right hon. Gentleman used a very remarkable expression. He said, when some people in reply to some criticism of what they had allowed in Ireland asked a question as to the number of men who were permitted and encouraged to drill and arm in Ireland in the past, "Did any hon. Member here who attacked them to-night protest against it?" Of course, they did not, because they were the Northern Ulster men, and the whole of this arming and drilling in the South of Ireland has undoubtedly followed from the example of Ulster. It commenced with that, and, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, no protest was made from these loyalists and champions of law and order when in this House. As I have heard myself, men who now represent the War Cabinet encouraged the Ulster men, with threats of rebellion in their mouths, to arm themselves and drill and gather great bodies of military men who were described as being equal to the best soldiers England had ever put into the field, and whom the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) again and again announced he was prepared to use against the Forces of the Crown, and to rebel, if necessary, if the law was passed.
I come now to the question of the seizure of the rifles of the volunteers, because there was just one passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he endeavoured to defend that measure and in which, I think, he signally failed. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the seizure of the rifles of the volunteers on the eve of our meetings in Ulster was deliberately done for the purpose of insulting, belittling, and weakening the constitutional movement in Ireland. Who was responsible for it I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman says it was a coincidence. The officials in Dublin live in Ireland, and were actually in communication with the local organisers about these meetings for weeks before, because there are certain things which are prohibited by the law, and there was correspondence, to my own knowledge, going on with some of these local organisers as to the possibility of carrying what are called weapons of offence—sticks, hurleys, and so on—in processions and attending these meetings. Besides, they knew the meetings were an annual thing in Ulster, and therefore the seizure of these arms and the breaking into the halls of the Nationalist party at Armagh and many other places in the North on the very night before the meetings were held was deliberate, and it is impossible to conceive any other purpose except to exasperate and insult the Nationalist forces, and, if possible, drive them into the ranks of Sinn Fein, and it undoubtedly has had that effect. But what were these arms? They were rifles which were left in the possession of the National Volunteers by Sir John Maxwell after the rebellion.
Without ammunition!
That is not the point. I was not talking about ammunition, but about the rifles. I saw Sir John Maxwell himself on this very point. Even under the strict and ferocious system of martial law which prevailed immediately after the insurrection, he did not take away these rifles. Throughout the whole of his administration he left them in the possession of the National Volunteers, and they have remained in their possession from that day to this. Now that the Convention is sitting, a Convention that must come to a conclusion before Christmas, probably within the next six weeks, the Chief Secretary wants us to believe that there suddenly arises a danger so urgent that he is obliged to do this most provocative act, and that the British Empire is in danger, despite the fact that these arms have been in the places where they were seized and actually for the last fifteen months have never been removed. Therefore I say that was unquestionably a case of provocation. I do not deal with any other cases because they have been made the subject of comment by many who have spoken to-night.
I prefer to go back to the question of the responsibility of the Prime Minister in this matter. The Prime Minister appears, by his attitude to-night, to have come to the conclusion that the Irish question is no longer of any importance and is not worthy of his consideration. I think an enormous responsibility rests upon the Prime Minister personally, as well as upon the War Cabinet, because it will be within the recollection of every Member of the House that the Convention was called into existence by the Government. It was in no sense the proposal of the Irish party as their method of settling the Irish question, and although I and others in Ireland felt bound, once the proposal was made, to give it our very best support and do everything possible to make it a success, we certainly had no responsibility for it. I think Ministers themselves must now realise how deplorable it is that they had not the courage to settle this question on broad, statesmanlike lines before the War broke out. If they had done that they would have secured two things which have now passed into the irrevocable past. In the first place, I feel pretty strongly that Europe would have been spared this War. It is more than likely that the War would never have broken out. In the next place, even if the War had come, you would undoubtedly have secured the cordial and enthusiastic support of the newly emancipated people, and escaped all the complications which now undoubtedly face you. It was within your power to have secured the enthusiastic support of the whole body of the Irish people, including nineteen-twentieths of those who are now Sinn Feiners, and who would have been as enthusiastic in support of the Allies as anyone else. Remember always this, and it is a thing which cannot be repeated too often, that on the day the rebellion broke out in 1916, nineteen out of every twenty of the people at least were with the Allies and against the rebels, and on the day that the rebellion was suppressed that was true, too, up to the executions. It is questionable whether it was worth while to shoot fifteen men and to make arrests which followed to sacrifice the support and enthusiastic support of the whole of the fighting population of Ireland. Surely, one would have supposed that the Government, having resolved finally, after all the complications, difficulties and failures that ensued, to trust this question to what some people have described as "the last chance," namely, to this Convention, and having succeeded in getting together what I thoroughly agree with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in describing as the most remarkable and representative body of Irishmen that had assembled for three hundred years, having found men who were bitterly opposed to each other and not on speaking terms, setting down in a friendly way in this great gathering in Dublin to discuss this question of Home Rule, which in the old controversies used to arouse fierce passion amongst them—surely it was the duty of the Government to secure an outside atmosphere that would be such as not to interfere with the chances of success.
Instead of that this new policy of coercion was embarked upon not by chance, as represented in the speech of the Chief Secretary, not as it were owing to the wild speeches of the Sinn Fein leaders, but as a deliberate policy discussed and arranged in the War Cabinet last July. When the Chief Secretary and Government decided to release the Sinn Fein prisoners, did they for a single moment suppose that the Sinn Fein leaders would go home chastened and subdued? I warned the Chief Secretary at the time when pressing him to release these men not to be under any delusion of that kind. I said I had no hesitation in saying that these men would make violent speeches and take steps to show that they are not in any way repentent, or have not in the slightest degree surrendered their principles, and I added, "Unless you are prepared to turn a blind eye to many things of which under ordinary circumstances the Executive would be bound to take notice, then there would be no virtue in the release." The hon. Member for Cork made two remarkable statements, which I invite him to enlarge upon outside the House afterwards. He said, first, that the Government were informed that the Sinn Fein prisoners were squared and could be trusted to come into the Irish party. I do not know from what channel information such as that reached the Government.
The whole thing has been revealed in full by Mr. Arthur Griffiths who is a principal leader of the Sinn Feiners. He stated that the hon. Member himself had approached him to accept a seat in Parliament in order to join the Government.
No, that is quite a mistake. Mr. Arthur Griffiths said that an ecclesiastic who said that he had met another ecclesiastic had approached him and stated that Mr. Dillon was anxious that he should join the Irish party. I immediately contradicted that statement, and said it was without a shadow of foundation.
We all know what your reputation is.
10.0 P.M.
I again say there is not a shadow of foundation for it. On the contrary, when I had spoken to the Irish Chief Secretary on this question I warned him —I had no communication with the prisoners of any sort or kind—I warned him of the psychology of my countrymen and told him that when they were released from prison he might expect some hot stuff in the shape of speeches. If he had embarked deliberately on the policy of conciliation as he did he was bound to abstain from embarking on a fresh policy of coercion and arrest and prosecute simply for speeches or for wearing uniforms or any of those trifling offences until the Convention was over, and when the Convention was over and a new chapter had been opened the whole Irish question would have to be considered under the new light. Surely he might have had the patience to allow the Convention to do its work without depriving it of a fair chance by embarking on this policy. It seems in the month of July we were told that the Irish question was under the consideration of the Cabinet which was sitting at an unusual period. All the Irish officials were over, the Chief Secretary, the Lord Lieutenant, the Commander of the Forces in Ireland, and I think even the Undersecretary were summoned to London. Subsequently to this a new Order in Council was issued authorising the military authorities in Ireland to create new offences under the Defence of the Realm Act. The Order said that in parts of the United Kingdom in any area in which the operation of Section (1) of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1915, is for the time being suspended, it is competent for the naval and military authorities to issue new and fresh restrictions. This new Order applied to Ireland, as it is only in Ireland you can try civilians by court-martial. In Ireland they have suspended Section (1) of the Amendment Act to enable that to be done. Then you had the issue of restrictions and under this new Proclamation the military authorities were enabled to create a series of offences which were offences not known to the law, such as the carrying in public of weapons of offence or afterwards capable of being used as weapons of offence—a golf club or walking stick are capable of being so used—and the wearing of Sinn Fein uniform, and a variety of other perfectly innocent actions.
The reason why I allude to that is that is proves that this whole campaign of coercion was not forced on the Chief Secretary and the Irish Executive by the action of individual men in Ireland, but was part of a deliberate policy of the Government assembled here in London on the survey of the whole Irish situation. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it has been a most dismal failure. It has created a most terrible atmosphere in Ireland which undoubtedly will greatly embarrass the Convention. In the second place, it has put the Irish Government in the most humiliating position possible, because now, havng undertaken this task, they have enormously strengthened the Sinn Feiners by this policy, and are now being defied in every part of Ireland. What are you going to do? I tell the Chief Secretary that if he proposes to carry out the law impartially he must build new gaols. He cannot imprison all the people who are marching about in these uniforms. It is impossible. He will have to set to work and get permission from the Controller in Ireland to put up a whole quantity of new gaols, and the Government, therefore, are in a wholly impossible position, which is the result of embarking, under some mysterious advice and influence which I cannot understand, on a course which is absolutely impossible to carry out in these circumstances.
A new element has been added to the difficulty within the last few days, and it really was because of this new element that I was so anxious that the Prime Minister should be present at this Debate to-night. We have had very encouraging reports of the proceedings of the Convention. I am not so great an optimist as some people; I am not on the Convention, but I have done everything in my power, and I shall continue to do everything in my power, to help it and promote its success. I have done everything in my power, but I think we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister to-night if the Convention comes to an agreement by such a substantial or overwhelming majority, even if not unanimously, as will carry out the condition he made when the Convention was called into being, are we to understand, what is now undoubtedly the impression in Ireland after the speech of the Home Secretary the other night, that that decision will not be carried out in this Parliament, but will be adjourned to a subsequent Parliament; or are we to understand that if the Convention does some to a conclusion its decision will be immediately embodied in a Bill and carried through this House with the full influence of the Government? It is vital that that point should be cleared up, and I trust the Prime Minister, if he addresses the House to-night, will give us some assurance that the foolish, unwise, and utterly futile policy which has been pursued by the Executive during the last few weeks will be abandoned.
I must apologise to my hon. Friends from Ireland that I have not been able to be here during the whole of the Debate.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am greatly obliged to him for coming.
I had a Labour deputation which had come all the way from Scotland, and I had to see them; otherwise I should have remained in the House during the Debate. I have very little to add to the observations which fell from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. He dealt very fully and exhaustively, and, I am sure my hon. Friends will admit, very temperately, with the Irish position. No one denies that it is a very difficult and a very delicate situation, and that it requires very great judgment and very great tact in the handling of it, but I am sure my hon. Friends will be the first to admit that my right hon. Friend has striven his utmost to avoid anything in the nature of provocation which would endanger the life and usefulness of the Convention. He has gone so far that he has been criticised very severely in quite influential quarters because of his excessive indulgence towards the undoubtedly rebellious element in Ireland. Criticism has been very extensive, and he has been prepared to bear it, but I do not think he could have gone further. My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Dillon) talked about excited and violent speeches, and about the necessity for not taking too much notice of them, especially as they were probably delivered very largely in order to make the atmosphere of the Convention an impossible one. It is not a case of excitable and violent speeches. I have read the speeches of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. de Valera). They are not excited, and so far as language is concerned they are not violent. They are plain, deliberate, and might almost say cold-blooded, incitements to rebellion.
He has not been prosecuted.
They are calm, cold-blooded incitements to rebellion, and he delivered them not merely upon one occasion. He has repeated them at meeting after meeting almost in the same studied terms in county Clare; at Corofin and at several other places he has used exactly the same language, urging the people to train, to master their rifles, to study their mechanism, in order that whenever they are supplied with rifles they should be able to use them efficiently, and also to manufacture pikes for purposes which are pretty clear. They are not obscure in the least, but are quite clearly indicated in his speeches. That is not a case of violent, abusive, and excitable language. It is the case of a man of great ability, of considerable influence, deliberately going down to the district where he has the greatest influence, as indicated by the recent election, to stir people up to rebellion against the authorities. May I point another thing out to my hon. Friend? It is not as if the British Government have not had recent experience of what this may lead to. No one can say that my right hon. Friend's predecessor indulged in any provocation. That is the last charge that anyone would bring against him. He avoided it either in word or in deed, and he did so because he was anxious to create, or rather to preserve, the necessary atmosphere in Ireland for recruiting, and generally for assisting the War. What happened? Drilling went on, arming went on, speeches of this kind were delivered, and they ended in one of the worst tragedies in the history of Ireland.
Who started the drilling and the arming?
I do not want to be drawn aside from my argument. I am doing my best to deal with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, in response to the appeal made to me, and I am confining myself strictly to the observations he made. The Government cannot possibly forget what happened then, only about eighteen months go. How can we, when speeches of the same kind—no, worse speeches, because I doubt very much whether speeches of the de Valera kind were delivered before Easter week—are delivered, when you get exactly the same sort of drilling, and when you have exactly the same sort of information about intrigues to get German rifles into Ireland? It must not be forgotten that German rifles were very nearly brought in at that tune. How can the Government eighteen months after that event treat intrigue, speeches of this kind, drilling, and the manufacture of arms, as if they were merely incidents, and the sort of excitable speeches delivered by people of no consequence, which would end in nothing? I am certain it is the best thing for those people themselves. If they were allowed to go on without any action on the part of the Government, without any clear indication that the Government could on no account allow a repetition of what happened before, you would get not merely a repetition, but you would get something worse, and in order to save these poor people, who honestly believe they are doing their best for their country, from being persuaded by others who know the disaster to which they are leading their countrymen, I think it is essential that the Government should take action—not provocative action, but firm action. There are three things which I think the Government ought to and must make quite clear, in the interests of the Convention, and in the interests of Ireland itself, not in order to initiate a reign of coercion—God forbid that we should have to do that— but in order, first of all, to make it clear that incitements to rebellion cannot be permitted. The language of de Valera is not language which has any other meaning. I think it is worth while quoting from some of his speeches.
Why has he not been prosecuted?
I am not going to answer the hon. Gentleman.
You cannot!
Here is what he said in one speech: What does that mean? Language of that kind used in a country where there was an actual rebellion eighteen months ago could have no other meaning. There are three or four other speeches of the same sort:
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I would go to the limit of taking great risks for the sake of preserving the unity and the utility of the Convention. I believe that it is the best chance Ireland has ever had for the setting up of a Government which would appeal to the vast majority of its own people, a Government forged by a conference of its own eons, and that it would be an enormous advantage to Ireland, and an enormous advantage to the British Empire as well, and all the more so as the Empire does not want any additional troubles on its shoulders just now. There are the three points. The first is the direct incitement to rebellion. The second is organisation for rebellion. It is no use talking about people marching in the streets and drilling as if it were merely a sort of diversion. All that means in Ireland rebellion. It is co use making a pretence about these things. Those who listened to the Member for Clare know exactly what he means. Those who join in these processions and march in military step and form fours, and put hurley sticks on their shoulders as if they were rifles, and have gymnastic exercises, know what it means. It is all drilling-preparing for one purpose. They are to study the mechanism of a rifle, so that when they have got it it will not take them half an hour to know how to fire it. At whom? Not at the enemies of this country, but at the heart of the Empire.
We must clear these things up. It is far better to understand each other thoroughly. Then there would be fewer misunderstandings. Anything, which is part and parcel of an organisation for rebellion must be stopped. There might be incidents such as that of the boys—twenty or thirty boys having been seized by about fifty police. That is an incident I know nothing about. But that is really not the point. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford said that that was typical of what was going on in Ireland, I would agree that it would not be worth doing. But that is not what is going on. What is going on in Ireland is a deliberate attempt to drill, enlist, enrol, organise hundreds of thousands of young men who if they had been in this country would have been compulsorily enlisted—to enrol them as a preparation, as a preliminary, to rebellion. The third point is this: There is a great deal of talk in Ireland among the Sinn Feiners which does not mean Home Rule. It does not mean self-government. It means complete separation. As has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend, it means secession. The words which are used are "sovereign independence." This country could not possibly accept that under any conditions. It is not a question whether it is in the form of a republic, which is the form that appeals to them. After all, we have got three great republics among our Allies. The point is that there is a demand for sovereign independence for Ireland. It has never been claimed by my hon. Friends below the Gangway. They have always sincerely accepted the complete supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and membership of the British Empire. That is not the scheme which these men are organising rebellion in Ireland for; they are organising for separation, for secession, and for Sovereign independence. It is better that we should say at once that under no conditions can this country possibly permit anything of that kind. These are the three points which I think ought to be made absolutely clear.
I now come to the very, very important question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I think my hon. Friend misunderstood what was said by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I do not think that his words convey quite that meaning, and I am perfectly certain that they were not intended to convey that meaning. The undertaking given by the Government, when we set up the Convention, was that if substantial agreement were arrived at—that does not mean the agreement of every member of the Convention—but if substantial agreement were arrived at between those who represent the various sections of Irish opinion as incorporated in that Convention, the Government would use the whole of their power and initiative to carry that through in the form of an Act of Parliament.
In the present Parliament?
Then my hon. Friend said that this means that the Government mean to adjourn it and postpone it to a future Parliament. The life of this Parliament does not depend upon the Government altogether, but assuming that the present Parliament lasts long enough to enable a Bill of that kind to be put through, it is the intention of the Government, it is to the interest of the Government, at the moment an agreement of that kind is arrived at, to put it through Parliament and give it immediate effect. One does not forget that substantial agreement was arrived at once before. One main reason, I think, why that fell through was that there was a fatal delay to put it into operation. There is no doubt at all that if an agreement of that kind were arrived at the sooner it is put into legislative form the better for Ireland.
This is a very important matter. Do I understand the Prime Minister to pledge the Government that immediately, if the Convention comes to an agreement, the Government will put it through Parliament as soon as they possibly can?
Certainly. I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as the Government are concerned, they will use all their power to press the House of Commons to put into legislative form the agreement substantially arrived at by the Convention. This has always been the intention of the Government, and I cannot conceive any Government, if it had this opportunity of settling this problem, which has been such a source of weakness to the Empire for so many hundreds of years, losing a moment in putting it into operation. It would be folly of the worst kind to waste a moment. In Ireland there have been so many opportunities which looked like golden opportunities, but which somehow or other had dissolved into dust, that one should seize it the moment it arrives.
I am very anxious there should be no misunderstanding. We have done our best in Ireland. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Duke) has striven up to the point of creating misconceptions and misunderstandings in the minds of his best friends. He has striven with sympathy, and it is a passionate sympathy, and I do think he might receive a little more recognition of his passionate sympathy with Ireland. I know him well, and Ireland has won his heart, and there is nothing which would be a greater source of pride to him than if he were to bring peace to that distracted country. He has done his best. I will not say there are opportunities—there are occasions when it was almost impossible for him not to have taken action, where he has taken great risks because he was afraid of doing anything which would provoke or incite disunion in Ireland. But after very carefully going into it with him, I have come to the conclusion that when he decides that speeches take the form of action and of direct incitement to action of the kind that brought such a catastrophe to Ireland eighteen months ago, he would not be doing his duty to his Sovereign, to his country, to Ireland, if he permitted it to go on. The same thing applies to all those organisations which are preparations for rebellion. If those go on the history of Ireland proves that sooner or later there will be an outburst there, and the Government will be to blame because they had not made it clear to Ireland that they would not permit anything of the kind. Subject to that I join with the hon. Member for Mayo and with the hon. Member for Waterford in expressing a deep hope, expressing a hope fortified, I think, by the events of the last two or three months, that the representative Irishmen who are met in this Convention, in a Convention which is more representative than any gathering of Irishmen ever held in Ireland, will find a solution which will be a lasting one for evils which have lasted for seven centuries.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister charged us with not showing sufficient consideration for the position of the Chief Secretary. I can say that standing beside the body of Thomas Ashe, at an inquest attended by all his principal sympathisers, I stated, and my words are on record in the public Press, that in my opinion the Chief Secretary and the Government had shown great clemency in the release of the prisoners, and I bespoke, standing beside the body of that murdered man—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—further fair play for those who had the interests of Ireland at heart. It would be easy to say such words in this House. I said them in a moment of peril, in a moment of grief, in a moment of anxiety, and to an audience which did not consist of British Members of Parliament. I never read a Motion which I felt so much reluctance to support. I believe it is a dishonest Motion. I believe it is a Motion supported by a sham speech and created to give the Chief Secretary that opportunity which Ministers get at Question Time— "I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice"—and then the Minister reels off the answer all arranged beforehand. This Motion, in my opinion, prepared by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford, contains no facts to support it. His speech did not contain a single real instance of indictment of the Government. It was replied to on the spot by the Chief Secretary dealing with all matters which he thought might, could, would, or should be spoken to in Debate, before the Debate had in any sense developed. I call that a dishonest Motion, and I say the speech was a sham speech. To what was it addressed? Forsooth, to the safeguarding of this Convention? What serious man in Ireland believes that anything the Government have done has imperilled this Convention? The pretence of the "hidden hand." The pretence of the old gang in Dublin Castle. The pretence of some Orange wizards engaged in some wonderful necromancy poisoning the atmos- phere! Humbug! There has been absolutely nothing of the kind. So far as the right hon. Gentleman attacking the Sinn Feiners prejudicing the Convention, so far as the Orange Members and Conservative Members are concerned, they are delighted with his performance. Who, then, is prejudiced? Is it the tame spaniels of the county councils who answer the whip of the hon and learned Gentleman? Are they being prejudiced by his performance? Nothing of the kind. They will all vote as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford wants them to do. Who, then, in the Convention is prejudiced? Not one man! Accordingly, to put down this Motion, and to co-relate it to the Convention is as great a sham and hypocrisy as was ever practised upon the House of Commons. True it is that we quarrel with the action of the right hon. Gentleman, but we quarrel with him on wholly different grounds. Not that he is prejudicing the Convention. He has done nothing of the kind! But that he has suspended the ordinary liberties of the country, and that he has so prejudiced our position that practically every man of us will disappear in a puff of blue smoke at the General Election. And that is the end of our thirty-seven years of constitutional effort in this House! I do not regret it. On the contrary, I never felt prouder of my country than I do to-day. What do we say? I told the late Prime Minister, "Blow a whistle in the streets of Dublin for volunteers for Ireland, and you will get a thousand men to take their stand in the ranks of danger." That is the spirit which you have provoked. That is the spirit of which we are proud. Here we have been in this House for thirty-seven years, lashed with your scorn, crushed with your contempt, defied at every hands-turn. To-day, at all events, we can say there are men prepared by the thousand to die, for Ireland. You bid us defiance. We return it to you in full measure. We stand again in the light of olden days. Our cause stands in the eternal rays of God's justice. You may with your pretension try to relegate Ireland back to the position she held three, four, and five years ago, when Ireland was a suppliant for your favours. Never will you do it more. We will disappear. Thank God for our disappearance! Our country has at last achieved the stature of greatness—the stature of national respectability. It stands no more crawling or cringing to English Ministers for scraps from your tables—what we have endured here for thirty-seven years has filled the cup. And at last these men have come forward to say, "No more of it! We appeal to the nations of the world." That, at all events, is an honourable position, and for my part I take my stand with my countrymen. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?" and "What is the salary?"
Question put, "That this House deplores the policy which has been pursued and is being pursued by the Irish executive government and the Irish military authorities at a time when the highest interests of Ireland and the Empire demand the creation of an atmosphere favourable to a successful result of the deliberations of the Irish Convention."
The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 211.
Division No. 100.] AYES. [10.44 p.m. Anderson, W. C. Hackett, John O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Bliss, Joseph Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton) O'Grady, James Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Hayden, John Patrick O'Leary, Daniel Brady, Patrick Joseph Hearn, Michael Louis O'Malley, William Burns, Rt. Hon. John Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Byrne, Alfred Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Chancellor, Henry George Jowett, Frederick William O'Shee, James John Clancy, John Joseph Joyce, Michael Outhwaite, R. L. Cosgrave, James Keating, Matthew Parrott, Sir James Edward Crumley, Patrick Kelly, Edward Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Devlin, Joseph Kenyon, Barnet Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Dillon, John King, Joseph Pringle, William M. R. Donovan, John Thomas Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Reddy, Michael Deris, William Lardner, James C. R. Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Redmond, Capt. W. A. (Tyrone, E.) Duffy, William J. Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Esmonde, Capt. John (Tipperary, N.) Lundon, Thomas Sheehy, David Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Lynch, Arthur Alfred Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks) Ffrench, Peter McGhee, Richard Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Field, William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Fitzgibbon, John Mason, David M. (Coventry) White J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) Fitzpatrick, John Lalor Meagher, Michael Whitehouse, John Howard Flavin, Michael Joseph Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Whitty, Patrick Joseph Galbraith, Samuel Molloy, Michael Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) Gilbert, J. D. Muldoon, John Glanville, Harold James Nolan, Joseph TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nugent, J. D. (College Green) Mr. Boland and Mr. Mooney.
NOES. Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Cator, John Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Cautley, H. S. Fleming, Sir John Amery, Capt. L. C. M. S. Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George Fletcher, John Samuel Archdale, Lieut. E. M. Cawley, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick Foster, Philip Staveley Astor, Major Hon. Walford Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Gastrell, Lieut.-Col. Sir W. Houghton Baird, John Lawrence Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Gelder, Sir W. A. Baldwin, Stanley Coats, Sir Stewart A. (Wimbledon) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London) Cochrane, Cecil Algernon Gibbs, Col. George Abraham Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. Collins, Sir W. (Derby) Goldman, C. S. Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Goldsmith, Frank Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N. Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole Grant, J. A. Barnett, Captain R. W. Coote, William Greene, Lieut.-Colonel Walter Raymond Barnston, Capt. Harry Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) Barrie, H. T. Cory, Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) Gretton, John Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton) Courthope, Major George Loyd Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord C. J. Beauchamp, Sir Edward Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Hanson, Charles Augustin Beck, Arthur Cecil Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Beckett, Hon. Gervase Craik, Sir Henry Hardy, Rt. Hon. Lawrence Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Bentham, George Jackson Currie, George W. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Bird, Alfred Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. Harris, Rt. Hon. F. L. (Worcester, E.) Blair, Reginald Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Haslam Lewis Blake, Sir Francis Douglas Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Henry, Sir Charles Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Denison-Pender, Capt. J. C. Henry, Denis S. Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Hewart, Sir Gordon Boyton, James Dennis, E. R. B. Hewins, William Albert Samuel Brace, Rt. Hon. William Dixon, C. H. Higham, John Sharp Bridgeman, William Clive Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward Hill, Sir James (Bradford, C.) Burdett-Coutts, W. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hoare, Sir Samuel John Gurney Butcher, John George Fell, Arthur Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Campion, Lieut.-Col. W. R. Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Carew, C. R. S. Finney, Samuel Hume-Williams, William Ellis Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) Ingleby, Holcombe Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York) Newton, Major Harry Kottingham Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton) Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Smith, Harold (Warrington) Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney) Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Spear, Sir John W. Joynson-Hicks, William Norton-Griffiths, Sir J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Sir A. H. (Asht'n-u-Lyne) Kellaway, Frederick George O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid.) Starkey, John R. Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Staveley-Hill, Lieut.-Col. Henry Kerry, Lieut.-Col., Earl of Parker, Rt. Hon. Sir G. (Gravesend) Stewart, Gershom Keswick, Henry Parker, James (Halifax) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek) Swift, Rigby Knight, Captain E. A. Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike (Darlington) Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Ches., Knutsfd.) Lane-Fox, Major G. R. Pennefather, De Fonblanque Sykes, Col. Sir Mark (Hull, Central) Larmor, Sir J. Perkins, Walter F. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Philipps, Sir Owen (Chester) Thomas-Stanford, Charles Layland-Barratt Sir F. Pollock, Ernest Murray Tyron, Captain George Clement Levy, Sir Maurice Pratt, J. W. Turton, Edmund Russborough Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest George Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince) Lindsay, William Arthur Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Prothero, Rt. Hon. Rowland Edmund Wardle, George J. Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Quilter, Major Sir Cuthbert Watson, Hon. W. (Lanark, S.) Lowe Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon) Weston, J. W. MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.) Whiteley, Herbert J. Mackinder, Halford J. Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham) Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) Macmaster, Donald Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich) Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.) McMicking, Major Gilbert Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading) McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Wilson-Fox, Henry Macpherson, James Ian Robinson, Sidney Winfrey, Sir Richard Marriot, John A. R. Russell, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. Wolmer, Viscount Mason, James F. (Windsor) Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Lancs., Darwen) Wood, John (Stalybridge) Middlebrook, Sir William Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) Worthington Evans, Sir L. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Samuels, Arthur W. Yate, Colonel C. E. Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Young, William (Perthshire, East) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur Younger, Sir George Mount, William Arthur Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest.Lord Edmund Talbot and Captain Guest. Neville, Reginald J. N. Shortt, Edward
Petroleum (Production) [Payments and Expenses]
Considered in Committee.
[SIR EDWIN COENWALL in the Chair.]
Debate resumed on Amendment to Motion [ 18th October ], "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, into the Petroleum Royalties Fund constituted under any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of Petroleum in the United Kingdom, of a sum equal to ninepence for every ton of petroleum gotten on behalf of His Majesty, and of any other Expenses chargeable under such Act."—[ Mr. Pretyman. ]
Which Amendment was, to leave out the words "into the Petroleum Royalties Fund constituted," and insert the words "of Expenses incurred by or on behalf of His Majesty."—[ Mr. Denman. ]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Debate upon this Amendment arose in the course of last night's proceedings, when it seemed to me that a strong case was made out against granting royalties in connection with the getting of petroleum. This Bill for the first time provides for the pro- duction of petroleum in this country. It is, therefore, in the position of a completely new mineral. In these circumstances it is surely obvious that the old and vicious policy of paying royalties which has prevailed in this country in the past in regard to other minerals, and which has been such a constant source of discontent and of political agitation, should not now be created in relation to this new mineral if it is found in any large quantity in this country. The conditions under which this mineral has to be produced are indeed absolutely different from those under which other minerals have been got in this country. In the case of coal, iron, and other minerals they have been exploited by private enterprise, and there may be some reason for setting up a system of royalties in cases where the finding of the mineral is entirely due to private enterprise and private speculation. But here the enterprise is to be carried out by the State. The State is to take all the risk. Under these conditions it is obviously unfair to the State that a system of royalties should be set up. That is not the only argument in support of the Amendment. It may be arranged under this Bill and under the Resolution we are now discussing that royalties should be made payable to certain owners of ground and afterwards, when the petroleum in respect of which the royalty is paid has been won, produced, and put upon the market, it may be discovered that absolutely no profit has been made upon that petroleum. Surely it is not only anomalous—
It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.