Will the Leader of the House say what Orders of the Day will be taken should it be found convenient to stop proceedings on the Government of Ireland Bill before Eleven o'clock?

The Second Order only [Invergordon Harbour (Transfer) Bill.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 3) BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 107.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 107.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

DIVORCE BILLS [Lords]

Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House Copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited, in the case of Cooper's Divorce Bill [ Lords ] and in the case of Fife-Young's Divorce Bill [ Lords ].—[ Mr. Morison. ]

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committe A: Lieutenant-Colonel Jackson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

The first Amendment on the Paper proposes, I gather, to raise a question already dealt with on the preceding Clause.

I should like, if it be in Order, to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson- Hicks) without reference to anything that has happened before. It raises, to my mind, a very important point.

You mean to leave out all the words after the words "Lord Lieutenant "?

Yes. I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (1), to leave out the words "except as respects the exercise of his executive power in relation to Irish services as defined for the purposes of this Act, or". We are now on the Clause which reserves certain executive powers to the Imperial Parliament. There are very important functions given to the Lord Lieutenant in his executive office, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill whether it is proposed that either or both the Irish Parliaments shall have power to change their relations with the Lord Lieutenant or his executive powers over Irish services. Will it be possible for the Irish Parliaments to take from him any of his powers over Irish services? What, in fact, is the scope of this Amendment? This question came up in the Debates on the Bill which has become the Home Rule Act of 1914, and great weight was then attached to the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was to be the connecting link between this country and the Irish Parliaments in relation to these executive powers. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what it is contemplated the Irish Parliaments will be able to do in curtailing the powers of the Lord Lieutenant in this respect?

The point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Carson) is a new one. I was not aware there was any possibility of such a construction being placed on these words. It certainly is not intended that there shall be any power conferred on the two Irish Parliaments to interfere with the duties or jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant, who will be the representative of the Sovereign in Ireland. I do not think these words bear any such construction, but I will promise to look into the matter very carefully from that point of view.

I hope my right hon. Friend will do so. Before we pass a Clause of this kind, we ought to know exactly the cases the Government have in contemplation in which the Irish local Parliaments would have a right to interfere with executive powers. I accept my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will look into the matter.

Before we pass this Sub-section, we might surely have the advice of the Attorney-General for Ireland. He should explain the Bill to hon. Members who are not lawyers, and tell us exactly what this Sub-section means. Candidly—it may be my own stupidity—I am in a complete fog as to what powers this Sub-section gives these local Parliaments over the Lord Lieutenant. This is very important. It is not as if this was a Gas or Water Bill, the negligent dealing with which might not cause much harm. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most important measures ever discussed in this Parliament, and if we leave in it anything vague or indefinite we are opening up a vista of quarrels and differences between this Parliament and the Parliaments we are proposing to set up in Ireland. Therefore, before we pass this Sub-section, we ought to have the advantage of the views of the Attorney-General for Ireland, and, if the reply is not satisfactory, then I hope my right hon. Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain Coote: "In Sub-section (1), leave out paragraph (3), and insert instead thereof,

(3) Pensions and allowances payable to persons who have been members of or in respect of service in the Imperial forces prior to the appointed day, or their widows or dependants, and provision for the training, education, employment, and assistance for the re-instatement in civil life of persons who have ceased to be members of the Imperial forces at any time prior to the appointed day; or.'"

This Amendment appears to be in the wrong form, and I am unable to comprehend what is its object.

Perhaps I had better move simply to leave out the paragraph.

That would mean the transfer of the administration of the Army and Navy to the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland.

That is the object. I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (3).

I wish to say one word about the general spirit in which this Amendment is moved, and I would ask the Committee to believe that it is not due to any lack of sincerity, nor to any desire to do something especially startling. It will save time later on if I may be allowed to say at this point that this Clause 4 is the whole crux of the Bill. Hon. Members who have moved Amendments previously have obviously been moved by a desire to increase the possibility and to create the probability, of Irish unity. They have proceeded to attempt to carry out their wishes by extending the powers of the Council of Ireland. I would suggest, with all deference, that there is another way of promoting the possibility of unity between the Northern and Southern Parliaments, and that is by giving those two Parliaments such amounts of power, and such a variety of powers, that, if they attempt to exercise them independently, they will arrive at an impossible situation, and, therefore, will be compelled, unless they wish to be reduced to an absurdity, to make a reality of that Council of Ireland, by delegating to it such powers as it may most suitably exercise in the general administration of Ireland as a whole. If we do not give these Northern and Southern Parliaments powers which are worth delegating, they will not be inclined to delegate anything at all. The main criticism of this Bill is that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), to the effect that it is the greatest travesty and shadow of the offer of self-government ever made to an independent people. It is with the object of insisting upon that part of the Bill which really does create realities—namely, these two Parliaments, the Northern and the Southern—and with the object of infusing blood into the veins of those realities, that this and subsequent Amendments have been put down.

There is, however, a further object. I think it might be of service if we could get from the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill some account of what I may call the general staff view of the military situation in Ireland to-day, and also some forecast of what the general staff think will be the military situation in Ireland after the passing of this Bill. To an outsider, who is not versed in the methods of the General Staff, and who does not possess the knowledge which the General Staff may be expected to possess, the situation appears sufficiently deplorable, and it seems calculated to become still more so in the future. Whether the right hon. Gentleman considers this Amendment seriously or not, he has to face this fact, that, whether or not he gives the Irish Parliaments control over the armed forces in Ireland, there is at the present time an Irish army in Ireland against this country. That army is not an ordered force, but a guerilla army—an army of murder, outrage and anarchy; and the problem we have to face is how that army is to be got rid of. To my mind there is only one way of getting rid of it, and that is by taking risks. Unless we are willing at this moment to take risks, we shall never even approach a settlement of this Irish question, and the whole of this Bill will fall to the ground through sheer inanition and unreality. The army which exists in Ireland to-day can only be done away with if there is created in Ireland a belief that this Bill will work; and the only way, to my mind, to make the Irish people believe that this Bill will work is to delegate to those two Parliaments sufficient powers to make them really and truly sovereign bodies. It may appear a little crude to start by delegating to them powers over armed forces. It may be asked what position will be taken up if there is an Irish Republic. I would suggest that this Amendment does not affect the question of an Irish Republic one way or the other, because the question whether or no an Irish Republic will be or can be set up is, to my mind, an economic and not a military question.

Therefore I would ask the Committee, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, to consider whether there is not something in the general idea of consolidating and increasing the powers of these two Parliaments, instead of attempting, as it were, to put flesh upon the skeleton of the Irish Council. If there is anything in that idea—and it is, as I believe, the only alternative way of making this Bill a success and of bringing nearer the actual day of Irish union —if there is anything in that idea, I do not say accept this Amendment, but I do say that the Committee would be well advised to accept some Amendment which would increase the powers of these local bodies and make them sovereign bodies, and so make the Irish people feel that they are really being governed by themselves. Let us get Englishmen out of it altogether, and make the question whether or no Irish union comes about a question to be decided and determined by Irishmen themselves. I believe that everyone in this Committee is anxious that in the future Ireland shall become, in a true and real sense, an integral part of the British Empire, that she shall take her place by our side as a defender of the British Empire in exactly the same way as our Dominions overseas have in the past, and will, as I believe, in the future. I believe that we must take risks, and that, in spite of the behaviour of a certain section of the Irish people at the present moment, we can afford to take risks at this time in a sense in which we have never been able to do so before, and in which the British people have never been asked to do so before.

I would add that there is in Ireland to-day a very large number of men who have served in the armed Forces of the Crown during the late War, who have deserved well of this country if ever men have, and who have fought, as I know from personal observation, with the greatest gallantry and devotion to duty. These men are being driven to turn against this country to-day, simply because there does not exist in Ireland a body of Irishmen who are responsible for the good order and the peace of that country. I believe that, unless the Government take steps to treat these men fairly, and see that they get a chance of managing their own affairs and taking part in the government of their own country, there will be a tragic sight in Ireland—the sight of men, who have fought for us in the past, turning against us, and possibly, in the future, even bearing arms against us. This Amendment is an attempt to put forward a new idea of the way in which Irish union may be achieved, namely, the idea that Irish union may be achieved through the agency of Irishmen themselves, and in particular through the agency of the Irish Parliaments which are being set up by this Bill.

My hon. and gallant Friend has made a very interesting speech in which he has covered a great deal of ground. He has invited me amongst other things to tell the Committee what are the views of the General Staff in regard to the present situation in Ireland and also in regard to the future. That by itself is a sufficiently wide request. It would hardly be possible on the discussion of a Bill like this for any Minister who does not represent the military department to be called upon to give the views of the General Staff of the War Office as to the present situation, but there is clear evidence of what their view is in the fact that an additional number of troops have recently been despatched to Ireland and are still being despatched to Ireland, giving proof of the determination of the Government that everything in their power will be done, by the full exercise of the forces they have, to restore order in Ireland. Then my hon. and gallant Friend produced as an argument in support of his Amendment a contention which seemed to me to be one of the most extraordinary I have had the privilege to listen to. He referred to the condition of the ex-service men. Their position is notorious. It is well known to everyone who has made the most cursory examination of the daily newspapers that it is a fact—and I say it with shame as a member of the United Kingdom—that those men, who gave their best services to the country and have suffered in the War, are to-day not honoured but dishonoured and hounded down in their own country. This is a fact which cannot be too widely known and of which everyone who loves his country, in whatever part of it he lives, must be heartily ashamed. But what is my hon. and gallant Friend's remedy? No one has denied, indeed the bulk of the opposition to this Bill proceeds from the conviction, very largely held, that if you have to set up a Parliament in Southern Ireland tomorrow its complexion will be largely that of the majority, which to-day is Sinn Fein. Who are responsible to-day for this treatment of ex-service men? Who are those who are to blame for the way in which ex-service men are treated? They are the majority, who could alter this position of things and secure the position of the ex-service men. Yet my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to transfer to a Parliament which he believes will be so constituted the entire control of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force in the interest of those ex-service men. I do not think that argument can be maintained. Of this I am pretty sure, that if it was put to the ex-service men themselves they would reject it as not in the least likely to add to their security. What is the proposal my hon. and gallant Friend makes? It is that you should give to the two Parliaments in Ireland the control of the military forces of the Crown. In this respect there is no comparison to be made between any of the Dominions of the Crown and Ireland. In the case of the other Dominions they lie thousands of miles from the centre and heart of the Empire. While we should deplore with all our hearts their defection we should not be faced by their defection with a military situation of the gravest possible kind. But in Ireland it is certainly different. Ireland lies along our western frontier. She is most important to us for means of both naval and military defence and for aircraft work, and any attempt to hand over the military forces of the Crown to a local Parliament, whether it be in Ireland, Scotland, or Wales, will be resisted with all the strength we can command.

I second the Amendment with as strong a sense of responsibility as any man can possibly have. No one can broach a subject such as we are broaching to-day, the subject of the condition of Ireland, without the deepest and most tragic sense of responsibility. Even during the Recess the condition has altered for the worse. From day to day, from hour to hour, this situation strikes down towards the abyss of anarchy, and things which might have been appropriate a few weeks ago are no longer appropriate today. Yet I am emboldened to support the Amendment by the very fact that anyone going about the country and meeting his constituents must have found that the first and last thing they asked was: What is going to be done about Ireland? It is felt as a running sore in the whole of the British Empire, and certainly in the whole of the island of Great Britain, and this is an attempt to deal with it in the only way it seems to us it is possible to deal with it, namely, to recognise that you have to give the Irish the utmost possible powers; that there is not one Ireland, but two Irelands; and it is an attempt to bring in Dominion Home Rule for the rival sections of the Irish people. The weakness which the Irish people are to the Empire just now cannot be over-estimated, and if we can deal with it in any way no sacrifice we can make is too great, no risks that we can run are too terrible. We are faced just now with the thing that smashed the Empire of Napoleon, national resistance on national soil; and when you have to deal with such a situation, you must come to terms with it or you must crush it out by armed force. The crushing of it out by armed force is not a thing which at this moment we intend to embark upon.

Why not?

All the old men sit round and say "Why not?" Why did we suffer four years of war if it was not to have peace and liberty to embark on this great experiment? Why did we march day after day towards the guns on the Somme, why did we march up to Cambrai and see the whole sky flushed with the guns at dawn if it was not that we should have peace to come back here and discuss these matters in orderly security? "Why not?" The old men have ten or fifteen years of life before them and then the situation will arise again. We have thirty or forty years to put in in this country and we do not propose to have this situation. It is a little difficult to say, but I am simply taking the lifetime that the younger generation may have to face this problem from. We have heard of this problem from our ancestors and we have seen it running through the whole of our public life, a running ulcer, and we want to amputate it and get it cut out of our public life. It is not sufficient to say that you can stamp it out just now or slur it over and be met with the problem again coming up in ten or fifteen years. This is a problem of the life of nations, which is counted by centuries and not by decades as the life of man is counted. We fought and won the War and smashed the German menace that we might have peace on the Atlantic so that we could discuss these matters dispassionately and embark, if we care, on the gravest and most dangerous experiment which this Empire has ever embarked upon, because I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) when he said if this Bill was persisted in in its present form it seemed to him it meant nothing less than the separation of Ireland from England. We are embarking upon a course which touches the tap roots of British power, and no discussion we can give to the subject on a summer's afternoon like this in Committee, when many Members are away, will be adequate. I deplore that deeply. Here and now we are dealing with the crux of the Bill. Clause 4 deals with the powers of the local Parliaments, which are the vital elements of the Bill. We know that one local Parliament, the North of Ireland Parliament, will work. We are now attempting, even at the eleventh hour, to secure that the second of these Parliaments, the Southern Irish Parliament, shall also work. We propose to take risks. We are asking the Southern Unionists to take a most gigantic risk to their hearths and homes. It is a small risk comparable to that that we are asking the people of the United Kingdom to take to-day. Undoubtedly we are asking the United Kingdom to take a risk. You cannot get away from the fact that entrusting Irish people with howitzers, aeroplanes and submarines is one of the gravest risks that the British Empire has ever been asked to undertake. [ Laughter. ] I do not think that laughter is appropriate on such an occasion. We are discussing nothing less than the permanence of the British Empire, and it cannot be dismissed in the few casual sentences with which the First Lord of the Admiralty has dealt with it. What is the point of bringing the First Lord down to carry through such a Bill if he is not prepared to give some sort of a forecast of the naval and military views which the General Staff holds on such a problem as this?

I did not do that. I have already said on three occasions that this Clause has the unqualified approval of both the Naval and Military advisers of the Government.

We are faced with the ipsi dixit of the First Lord of the Admiralty that this Clause has the unqualified approval of the General Staff. I should have thought that, in a House such as this, where the majority of Members have faced risks of actual war, with dangers fully as great as those which any members of the General Staff have faced, it might have been worth while to summarise the reasons which have led the General Staff to that conclusion. First, last, and all the time it is the naval and military argument that prevents the granting of full powers to these Irish Parliaments, and unless we have those arguments brought here, debated on the Floor of the Committee and threshed out, we cannot be supposed to come to an adequate verdict on the point. This House is composed very largely of soldiers. There is a great influx of the younger generation who are prepared to take risks, who have many years in front of them, and they know that if we are not intending to settle this problem now it will come up again and again, and we shall be faced with the horrible business of bloodshed and massacre and conflict with what are, after all, perfectly sincere idealists in their own line. The problem that beat Napoleon is a problem at least worthy of examination by the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is impossible for us to put too strongly before the Committee our sincerity and honesty in making this attempt, on Clause 4, to give these Parliaments such powers as will be worthy of being exercised by sovereign bodies. We must recognise the fact that we have an army in the North of Ireland and we have an army in the South of Ireland. To give recognition to these bodies is merely recognising a state of affairs which already exists, and to ride off this subject on the case of the ex-service men, as the First Lord has done, is not a sufficient answer to this enormous problem. It is not so much the case of the ex-service men who have been badly treated by Sinn Fein, but the case of the officers who, in perfect good faith, went to war and are now in gaol under arrest and are having their houses searched, because of their perfectly genuine honest belief that the British Parliament does not mean business and is once again playing with the matter.

We have huge problems before us in the next decade, and if they are to be distorted by this continual cry of two nationalities in Ireland, it will be utterly impossible for us to come to any solution whatever. Therefore we ask the Committee to consider this Amendment as a serious matter. It is not brought forward jestingly. We have a right to speak on these things, because we have bought the freedom of this House of Commons with our blood. We have a right to talk because the war that was won was won by the bodies of the younger generation, and the foundations of that victory rest upon the bones that are buried in cemeteries all over the world. When we bring forward an Amendment of this kind we ask you not to laugh, but to discuss it honestly and in all sincerity. Nemesis follows crime. The nemesis that followed the crime of the last century when Ireland was depopulated from eight millions to four millions has come upon us and upon this House, and we are faced with the necessity of finding a solution to a horrible problem. We have a right to say that the nemesis following up the crime of Sinn Fein has come here and now. It has come upon them. It is not we, but they who have partitioned Ireland. It is impossible to bring forward any solution that will coerce Ulster. You cannot force Ulster. We must leave it for the two Parliaments of Ireland to persuade mutually each other. Therefore, this Amendment, which is the first of a series of Amendments which we are bringing forward to deal with this problem, is worthy of all consideration. We have already granted Second Chambers to these two Parliaments, and we say that they should be raised, practically speaking, to Dominion status. That is a principle worthy of the consideration of this Committee and worthy of the most searching investigation which the Government can bring bear upon it.

4.0 P.M.

I can assure the hon. and gallant Members who have moved and seconded this Amendment that I look upon it as a very grave and serious one to be brought forward in this Committee. I do not for a moment doubt either the patriotism or the sincerity of either of these hon. and gallant Gentlemen. It would be a very idle thing to suggest that they are animated by any motives except those which are worthy of men who nave themselves taken a very honourable part in the late War. But the fact that two hon. and gallant Gentlemen of their high character and standing should put forward an Amendment of this kind ought to lead the Committee and the country to pause and consider where we are really going. Let us, as I said the other day, at all events, do it with our eyes open. We had an interesting discussion the other day well worthy of a fuller Committee. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott), who pointed out, as I attempted to point out as well as I could, that you have framed your Bill on entirely erroneous lines. You are setting up Parliaments to whom you are giving the residuum of powers after these reservations in this important section. You ought never to have done that. You ought to have done it by delegation of specific powers. These questions then would never have arisen. That would have been real federation; but, as I pointed out on that occasion, and as I must point out again, because this is a serious matter the moment you set up a kind of co-ordinate Parliaments—you may call them subordinate if you like, but they are co-ordinate—you can never stop until they get the fullest powers for which they ask. To me it is monstrous. You set them up, you call them Parliaments, and you say: "But for that which we have reserved, you have the same powers that we have ourselves." How on earth are you ever to dictate to such Parliaments as to what they shall do and what they shall not do? If they were delegated powers, you could take them to the Courts, and say that no such power was ever delegated. Supposing they do proceed to set up an Army, what are you going to do?

You have got one now.

There is a gang of murderers if you like. I do not call them an army. An army is a disciplined force prepared to take the risk in the open. What is to happen in such a case? I should like the opportunity of an occasion of this kind to be taken to let us know what will be the relation of the Army and the Navy to the new Government. I have tried to work it out in my own mind, and I have had many communications from friends and relatives in Ireland upon this subject. The new Government, after three years, will have their own police under this Bill. Hitherto, as I understand the Constitution, the Army, the Navy, and the other Forces of the Crown could be called in to assist the police in carrying out the laws of the land for the safety of persons and of property. Suppose the police are ordered by their Government to do something of which you disapprove, what is to happen? Suppose the Government say, "We do not want your Army over here to assist the police; we will not have it over here," what is to happen then? The whole of the theory laid down in this Bill, that you can establish a half-way house to separation and command your Parliament at any moment to stand still, "So far and no farther," is, to my mind, an impossible proposition. I am perfectly satisfied from what my right hon. Friend has said that the Government are not going to concede this matter, and I have only risen upon this occasion because there lies behind this Amendment a far deeper and greater question if hon. and gallant Members such as those who have already addressed the House—there may be many more, so far as I know—are going on to lay down the proposition that this Bill is only a step to separation. There is no other meaning in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. If hon. Members of their character and position are already preaching that doctrine—I am not dealing now with men who are always saying things in favour of the enemies of this country, but with highly patriotic men—I do want the House and the country to take more interest in this question, and, above all things, I do want to prevent this Bill simply going through merely to ease the political situation. It is fraught, I believe, with terrible possibilities to this country. Think what the two hon. and gallant Members have said in all sincerity! This country, they said, is taking the greatest risk that it has ever been asked to take. It is no use disguising the matter, no interest is being taken in the Bill. This country is so taken up with other great schemes affecting itself that political parties of various kinds—certainly in this House, though, as far as I know, they may be outside—are not taking an interest in the Bill.

I do in all sincerity appeal to the Government as to whether, under all the circumstances, the Bill may not be even yet changed into a measure delegating specific powers, which from day to day may be enlarged, leaving, as in my opinion you must, the real strength and power here, at all events until you had experience of the exercise of power as you tentatively try it on the other side. Do not at the very heart of the Empire create what may turn out to be the most wounding instrument in the hands of people who have proclaimed themselves your enemies. At all events, I shall have done my duty in pointing out time after time what I foresee is likely to happen under this Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, quoted me as saying that this Bill would lead to separation. I believe it more than ever now. I went to Ulster only last week, not for pleasure, but to try and carry on and see how we can meet the situation. We will do our best, as I told the Government before, in relation to the matter, but I do not find things, I must honestly say, improved there. When we talk to men there about the state of affairs likely to arise in consequence of this conspiracy of outrage, murder, and assassination of our brave police and others in Ireland and about what help we can give in the matter—I do not say it is deep down in their hearts; it may be merely on their tongues—they reply, "What are the Government doing to us? Kicking us out." I got that answer more than once when I was over there last week. We are making no headway in Ireland. I do not believe that we are making any friends in Ireland. God knows that the situation of those who have been loyal to the Constitution in the south and west of Ireland is not only deplorable and lamentable, but it is pitiable and disgraceful under a British Parliament, and I hope even yet that we may find this Bill framed on the lines that I have mentioned. We are heading straight for that separation which I do not for a moment believe any single Member in the Government would countenance, and I do not see how you are to prevent it in the face of such Amendments as this, which really emphasise what I have already during the course of these Debates attempted to press upon the consideration of the Committee.

We must not re-open in this discussion the decision at the last sitting of the Committee. We had then a Debate and a Division on the question whether Clause 4 was to proceed by delegation or by reservation, and the decision of the Committee was then taken. We must therefore confine ourselves to the Amendment before us, which is whether the Army, Navy and Air Force are to be reserved or transferred to the administration of the local Parliaments.

After the most powerful and eloquent speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Duncairn Division of Belfast (Sir E. Carson), which ought to be placarded up and down the length and breadth of the country, it is unnecessary for a humble Member like myself to say anything upon this Amendment, but I should like to say a couple of sentences with regard to something which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Coote). He said that if the Army and Navy were handed over to the new Government the ex-service men would be in a better position. I most profoundly disagree with him. What does that mean? The Southern Parliament which is to be elected will obviously contain a majority of Sinn Feiners who have been bullying and ill-treating the ex-service men up and down the length and breadth of Ireland, and it is quite illogical to suppose that the ex-service men would be better off if those who are oppressing them now had the use of the Army and Navy and Air Force. It was also stated that the Government have done nothing for the ex-service men in Ireland. I often find myself in disagreement with things done by the Government in Ireland, but I gladly bear my testimony that in the past two years the Government have done all that they could under very difficult and hard conditions for the ex-service men in Ireland. They have voted substantial moneys for their benefit and to give them employment, and the Ministry of Pensions have done all that they could to over-ride the War Pensions Committees who have been abusing their powers Therefore, though I profoundly disagree with this Bill, I must say that the Government administratively have done all that they could for the ex-service men.

I should not have risen had it not been for certain remarks that have fallen from the lips of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) who supported the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in part of his speech spoke, as it appeared to me, rather bitterly as to the say of the young men of this country who fought during the War, and in regard to their right to have a say and be heard. I am in deep sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in that sentiment. We do intend to have a say and be heard in this country, but it is because the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested a claim, that I do not think he should have suggested, that he was to any degree representing the considered opinion of the young men of this country that we are already going to add to the intensity of the danger, which I agree with him we are embarking upon in passing this particular Bill, that I take this opportunity, as representing a large body of the people, of saying that we do realise what we are doing when we support the Government in passing this Bill. We believe that it is a great danger, but I disagree respectfully with the right hon. Member for Duncairn. There is no lack of interest in this country in regard to this Bill. People in this country in regard to Ireland are in a state of despair. We have known of all that is happening in Ireland, and possibly we realise that there is something in the nature of a man committing suicide before our eyes. It is Ireland herself committing suicide. We are prepared to take great risks ourselves What can the Government do? They know and we know that there is only an off-chance of something coming from this Bill which is given to Ireland with the best wishes of the English people. We are running a danger, but we stand behind the Government and believe that the Government are right in bringing forward this Bill. Ireland under this Bill is being given great powers. We are trusting her now. Let her work the Bill for ten years or fifteen years. Then let her come and ask for added powers. But I could not allow it to be suggested that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, whom I would like to support, are representing anything but a very small section of the opinion of the young men and of ex-service men in particular of this country.

If the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment had not protested their deep seriousness, we might be inclined to think that their effort was a farcical attempt to throw further ridicule upon this impossible Bill. I was amazed to hear one of the two hon. Gentlemen support this Amendment because he thought that if we would only allow these two Parliaments to persuade each other, all might ultimately go well. If this Amendment means anything, it means that we should give to those two Parliaments the persuasive powers of two well-disciplined armies, because there is no disguising the fact that under this Amend- ment we should give to the Southern Parliament an army, and to the Northern Parliament an army, and instead of the murder and rapine in Ireland going on to-day, we should have civil war on a colossal and well-ordered scale. This is the first time I have ventured to speak on this Bill. But we have had this Amendment supported most eloquently by an English gentleman and a Scottish gentleman, and I venture to say a few words on behalf of a few English people. We who sit in this House are taking little part in this Debate because we realise the farcical nature of it. We have only to look at the Liberal and Labour benches. Here is a Bill and here is an Amendment which, whatever we may say, may settle the fortunes and future of this country. Yet look upon that beggarly array of empty benches with but one gallant representative (Mr. G. Thorne) holding the front bench! The Amendment is one of such immense seriousness that it is an insult to the House of Commons that the whole of the Opposition should show their contempt in this way, and that even the Leader of the Opposition (Sir D. Maclean) should only have been drawn in at this moment by my remarks.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman made some comment upon the paucity of the attendance of these hon. Gentlemen I tried to say a word for them, and I hinted at the Derby; but I was trying to make the best of it for them. They are not interested in this Bill. They care nothing for it, and when I heard these two Gentlemen making these preposterous and dangerous proposals, I looked round to see whether the voice was coming from some Sinn Fein Member behind. I give the hon. Members every credit for sincerity, but if they intended to cast lasting and inevitable ridicule on this Bill and on the proposals put forward by the Government they could not have done better than submit this Amendment. I would like hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to divide against this Amendment. I would like them to put on record that never, so long as there is a British Parliament, will we consent to hand over the loyal men of Ireland and put them under the heel of the men who to-day are making havoc of the country. Never will the British Government give up the Forces of the Crown to the robbers and murderers who are ruling that country. If the Government failed in their duty—as we know they will not fail—and for a moment entertained these proposals, they would not last a week, and we should have a Government of Heaven knows what. I would ask the Government to allow us to go to a Division on this Amendment, so that we may place on record our opposition to such a pernicious proposal.

I intervene for a few minutes to show something of the freedom which is prevailing at the present moment in the South and West of Ireland. I came to London this morning and was talking to a man who occupies a high position and is a great financier. He happened to talk in a tramcar about the state of affairs in Ireland, and on getting out of the tramcar he met a couple of men who told him that he must leave Ireland in a fortnight. He took no notice. A week later two men came to him again and told him that one week had gone by and that he should take care and leave the country in time. When the fortnight had elapsed, two other men came and said, "If you do not leave tomorrow you will suffer." That man and his family had to take everything to England. He went to the Chief of Police in Ireland and asked for protection, and the Chief of Police told him that he had better go, that he could not give him protection. That is in a country under Great Britain. I also met a veterinary surgeon who told me that a friend of his bought a property in the County Limerick to breed horses. He was in a train going to Holyhead and spoke of what he had done. At Holyhead he was warned by two men and told not to proceed. He went on to Kingstown, and when he got there two more men told him, "You have already been warned in Holyhead; do not go down to Limerick." At Limerick Junction he met a third party of men, and they frightened him so much that he went home and gave up the whole place.

My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the demobilised soldiers in Ireland. There are many gallant men, just as many from the South as from the North—I hear not quite so many but a good many—and they all know how to fight, and I am sorry that any friends of my hon. and gallant Friend are obliged to be taken up on suspicion, but if they are it must be that they have shown that they are liable to be taken up, for no man in Ireland is taken up unless the authorities have strong reason. Just consider what would happen in the south of Ireland as regards demobilised soldiers. Only the other day in one of the large towns in the south of Ireland, I notice that there was a resolution by the board of guardians that no demobilised soldier was to have the benefit of the workhouse hospital or the fever hospital. I am glad to say that the demobilised soldiers came in and turned these men out of the guardians' room and gave them a bit of their own back. In the south no demobilised soldier is allowed to join in any game of the Gaelic League. He is not allowed to move hand or foot under the orders of the Sinn Feiners. Those are the men who, under the Amendment, would be put under the control of these people.

Nowhere in the south is a soldier allowed to have land, or to obtain from the Government the benefits of the Act that has been passed. Several times the Estates Commissioners have bought land in the south and they have been given notice by the Sinn Feiners in that district that if they planted men there they would do so at the risk of their lives. An unfortunate man in the west of Ireland only three days ago, because he dared to work for his employer against the orders of the Sinn Feiners, had his brains battered out on the side of the road, and, because they could not quite kill him on the side of the road, they tied him to a tree and stoned him and his blood and brains were on the bark of the tree. Those are the men with whom we are supposed to wish to have to do in the north, and whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to take over control of these men. It is a most impossible position. I do not know whether he wants to try the Kilkenny cats' business, and let everyone fight to a finish, though I believe it would be better to fight to a finish for the people in the south of Ireland than to go on with the tyranny that exists at present. They talk about giving freedom. What we want is freedom. No man in the south of Ireland is free.

This Debate, as I was afraid it might, is going on to the general condition of Ireland and the general proposals of the Bill. It should be confined to the question of the control of the Army, Navy and Air Force by the new Parliaments.

I apoligise. All I can say is that loyal people in Ireland trust the Army and Navy at the present time, and the burning of coastguard stations, and the burning of police barracks is not the way to encourage us to hand over control of the Army in Ireland.

Several hon. Members have said that they were speaking on behalf of ex-service men or for a proportion of them. I am not going to make that claim in this case, but I must say that when I fought the election at Hull, and was returned to this House, I expressed myself very plainly as in favour of the right of full self-determination for Ireland. My opponents made full use of that fact and tried to frighten the voters against supporting me, but I was returned here by those who knew that I stood for full self-determination as the only ultimate remedy. We have heard a great deal about outrages and murders. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) poured great ridicule on the proposal for handing over the Army to the other Parliaments, and pointed out that the Government might be faced with the position that the Southern Parliament would begin to set up its own armed force. Perhaps I ought not to have done so, but I made an interjection and said they had an army already. The right hon. Gentleman then asked, did I mean a force of assassins and murderers? Do let us be quite frank and face the facts. Do hon. Members representing Irish constituencies in this House, honourable gentlemen all of them, really suggest that the whole of the Sinn Fein movement is summed up in the army of miserable, cowardly assassins? Do they think that all there is in the Sinn Fein movement is simply the murder of policemen from behind hedges? In all these movements, unfortunately, there is an extreme left wing, and I am afraid the Government is only playing into its hands in this case. This Amendment. I believe, is an attempt to play up to the moderate element in Ireland and an attempt to trust Irishmen. That is the only way to deal with the Irish people, at any rate with the Celtic portion of Ireland. I once commanded a ship manned entirely by Catholic Irishmen, a ship stationed on the coast of Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] It was before the War, Torpedo Boat No. 55, at Queenstown. I was the only officer on board. I trusted them and they never betrayed that trust, and they were exceptionally good in every way. That is the spirit in which my hon. and gallant Friends opposite have brought forward this Amendment, and it is the only spirit in which it is possible to settle the Irish question. There is an army in existence in Southern Ireland controlled by the Dail Eireann. There is also an army in Northern Ireland controlled by hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Have the Ulster Volunteers disbanded their whole organisation?

Yes, they have.

Then I congratulate them.

That is raising points quite irrelevant. We are not dealing with the administration of Ireland, but with the legal provisions of this Bill.

I wanted to point out that the only time when there has been real peace and order in recent months in the South and West of Ireland, has been when the constituted army which obeys the orders of the political body in the South, is in control. I will give two examples. The first is that when the Lord Mayor of Cork was murdered a tremendous public funeral was given to that unfortunate gentleman, and the whole of Cork turned out to attend. All work in the city stopped. The route was controlled by members of the Irish Volunteers. The police and the military were very wisely withdrawn, I presume on orders from London. There was no disorder of any sort, and the funeral took place with decorum and dignity.

The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland, in answer to a question of mine, stated that the police and military were in full control of Cork during the funeral.

They were not in evidence, if I am correctly informed by the Press. I was not there at the time. They were not in sight anyhow, and very good order was kept by this organised and disciplined Irish force, which has been referred to, perhaps with exaggeration, by the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The other example I would refer to is the case of the Mountjoy prison demonstrations when hunger striking was going on, and when, after the prisoners were released, the troops were withdrawn, very rightly I think, and order was kept in a time of great emotional stress, when thousands were ready for any violent outburst if occasion had arisen. Let us, therefore, realise that there is, at any rate in Southern Ireland, an organised force, illegal according to our lights but, nevertheless, a disciplined force. It is there and we have to recognise it. It is easy enough to talk, as some hon. Members do, of those who disagree with them as men who side with the enemies of their country. I do not mind that accusation at all. The accusation was no doubt made against hon. Members of this House at the time of the troubles with the American colonies, when we were in danger of losing those colonies and when hon. Members advocated a policy of conciliation towards our fellow colonists. The accusation was certainly made against hon. Members who protested in this House against the South African War. I do not mind at all being classed with men of that sort. The accusation leaves me quite cold. Neither do the voters of the country mind, as hon. Members opposite will find at the next election.

I would like to refer to one remark of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman trotted out again the old, hackneyed, thread-bare argument about strategic necessity. It is an argument of which the world is sick to-day, and it ought not to be used in connection with this Irish question. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a hostile Ireland on our Western frontier. What about our Eastern and South-Eastern frontier? Are we to conquer and hold Belgium in order to safeguard the mouth of the Thames? I suppose that argument was used in Queen Mary's time when danger was threatening Calais. Are we to conquer and hold Portugal? From the strategic point of view at sea it would be much easier to convoy merchant vessels in war time, with submarines bases in Ireland, than it would be to guard against hostile submarine bases in Portugal. I wish the hon. Member for West Derby (Rear-Admiral Sir R. Hall) were here. He was Director of Intelligence during the War, and he knows, as I know, that it would have been easier to guard against submarine warfare waged from Ireland than to guard against submarine warfare waged from Spain and Portugal. If you are going to consider the strategical argument you may as well set out to conquer the whole of Europe. Ireland has a small population. As far as I know she has no iron and no coal. Without those two things and a great population she cannot threaten this country in a military sense. What are we afraid of? Are we a lot of old women? Cannot we trust them or trust ourselves and take our courage in our hands and do what a Liberal Government did in the case of South Africa, for that is what we shall have to do in the end? We shall settle this question only by negotiation with representatives of Irish opinion, north and south. Because I believe that this Amendment would be something in the way of a gesture that we mean to trust Ireland, I hope my hon. and gallant Friends will divide the House, and that they will be well supported.

I feel it is impossible to allow the last speech to go unanswered. I cannot, like the hon. and gallant Member, speak from a naval point of view, but I do at least know whether Ireland lies east or west of Greenwich, and I think that any naval man looking at the map would admit that, from a military or a naval point of view, it is impossible to allow military control to pass into the hands of anybody but the Central Government. I think the best authorities admit, and in his saner moments probably the hon. and gallant Member would admit, that if Ireland had been in the hands of the enemy during the War we should possibly have lost the War. I think it is unfair for the hon. and gallant Member to say that we are in the same position with regard to Ireland that we are in in regard to Belgium and Holland. If the Channel were stopped up, we still have the whole world under our control if we control Ireland. Even as great a man as the hon. and gallant Gentleman—I mean Napoleon—admitted that if he controlled Ireland he could control the whole of Europe. Every great naval man and soldier has admitted the same thing. I think the Government would make a most foolish mistake if they allowed either the Army or the Navy to be placed under the control of an Irish Government. Personally, I am sorry, especially as the First Lord is in charge of the Bill, that this Bill is going on, because I feel that with regard to Ireland it means simply our walking round in a circle.

We really cannot get back to a general discussion of the Bill. That was done on the Second Reading. We are now considering an Amendment.

I wanted to point out that with regard to the control of the Army or the Navy we are simply walking round in a circle. We begin with a subordinate Parliament that has not got control of the Army or Navy. Next we reach the insubordinate stage and insist on taking control of the Army and Navy. Then we reach the third stage, when Great Britain, the stronger Power, comes in and insists that we are not to be allowed to have this thing. We had in 1798 a rebellion. The same thing is going to happen to-day. I could not help thinking that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was playing the part of Puck in "Midsummer Night's Dream" and was trying to create more trouble for the Government. Suppose you carried the Amendment and gave the control of the Army and Navy to the two Irish Governments. What we have got to do is to look at this question not from an imaginary point of view, but to consider what is really the present condition of things. Suppose you establish two armies and two navies, what is going to be the result? You are going to creat great trouble for this country. I never approach this question from the Ulster point of view only, and though I am an Ulster man. I have always approached it from the point of view of an Imperialist who believes in the British Empire. I believe if you start to carve up the British Empire and create three armies instead of one and three navies instead of one, you are going to destroy the Empire at its very heart. Therefore I for one object as strongly as I can to this demand. My hon. and gallant Friends said, "Take the risks." There are occasions when you can take risks when the risks are small, but can you afford to risk the British Empire, which in my humble judgment is the greatest instrument for good that has ever been produced in the history of the world. Are you going to risk that? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull says, "Trust the Irish people," and told us that they have got an army at present, an army of what—an army of murderers. Are you going to hand over the destinies of Ireland, to say nothing of the destinies of Great Britain, to an army of murderers? I for one protest against it, and am strongly opposed to this Amendment and shall, if there is a Division, vote against it.

This Debate has been of real interest. It certainly seems to me that there is this defect in the arguments that have been put forward by some of my hon. Friends. They are opposed to the Amendment allowing the Irish Parliaments to have navy, army and air forces of their own, and they argue that the Amendment ought not to be adopted because the Irish Parliaments will be perfectly untrustworthy and, as one hon. Member said, composed of robbers and murderers. This Amendment would undoubtedly substitute national powers for federal powers and would change the character of the settlement. That settlement is conceived on federal lines, and this would substitute a national settlement by giving powers which ordinarily are only given to independent nations. It is not a good argument as between a federal settlement and a national settlement that your Parliament to which these powers are going to be given will be a Parliament of robbers and murderers, since you cannot reasonable argue that a Parliament of robbers and murderers is a Parliament to be trusted with federal powers. If the House were better attended, I should say Members ought to make up their minds on the two points. If you want a federal settlement, then certainly you ought not to have this Amendment, because it is inconsistent with all conceptions of federalism. If you take the view of so many critics, that the Irish Parliaments are to be Parliaments of criminals, then you ought not to pass the Bill at all. It is becoming rather necessary that the House should make up its mind what it does think of this vital question. I cannot help hoping that before very long the Government will put on the Paper that Clause which is going to tell us what will happen if the Parliament refuses to take action. I shall vote against the Amendment, because I do not desire to see the organisation of the Navy, Army, and Air Forces broken up into several local organisations. I do not myself believe, if the Irish Parliaments were perfectly loyal, there would be any very great danger, but there would certainly be very great inconvenience. The danger arises from the general arguments against the whole Bill. I do think we ought to make up our minds whether we are going on the basis that the Parliament as a whole will be untrustworthy or that it will be trustworthy.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (4), after the word "States" ["relations with foreign States"], to insert the words "other than commercial treaties or relations."

I would suggest that we might have a general discussion on the trade powers of these two Parliaments on this the first of two Amendments dealing with the subject.