On a point of Order. I have sent in a private notice asking that, at the end of Questions, I might be permitted to make a personal explanation, and to express regret as to a statement which I made in the course of the Debate yesterday.

I have received no notice from the hon. Member.

If I may be permitted, I wish to make a personal explanation, and it shall be as brief as possible. Last evening, as I think the House and you, Sir, will remember, in the course of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), I made an interruption. The suggestion was in regard to an incident alleged to have occurred when the right hon. Gentleman paid a visit to Dublin, after the so-called Easter Rebellion of 1916, and the right hon. Gentleman said, in reply, that that statement had been publicly contradicted and apologised for. Such a statement, on the personal word of the right hon. Gentleman, no one in the House would question, and it calls, on my part, for an immediate withdrawal and an expression of regret. I am sorry that, in what I may call the "confusion of tongues" at that moment, I did not do the right and proper thing. I desire now to express my regret to the right hon. Gentleman, and unreservedly to withdraw what I said. I hope the fact that wisdom sometime "cometh in the morning" will not be accounted against me by the right hon. Gentleman or this House.

Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I outline what I propose to do with regard to the first two Amendments on the Notice Paper. The first Amendment—after the word "Where," at the beginning of the Clause, to insert the words "subsequent to the passing of the Government of Ireland Bill"—is really a Second Reading point, which was disposed of by the passing of the Second Reading yesterday. The second Amendment, which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Platting Division of Manchester (Mr. Clynes), to leave out the words "it appears to His Majesty in Council" and to insert instead thereof the words "a resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament," I propose to take in the form in which it is set out at a later stage—at the end of the Clause to insert the words

"Provided that all such regulations shall be laid as soon as may be after they are made before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution disapproving any such regulation, such regulation shall be void, but without prejudice either to the power to make a new regulation or to the validity of anything done thereunder."

Then I propose to call on the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) to move his Amendments limiting the Bill to twelve months after the termination of the War. Following that one, there is a series of Amendments which provide that the regulations should not be allowed to constitute any new offence. Then will come the one I have referred to about laying the regulations on the table of the House. Next will follow the Amendment leaving out Sub-section (2), and the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), which appears lower down on the Paper, to leave out the word "committed" ["who have committed crimes in Ireland"], and to insert "been accused of." Then will follow the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to leave out the words, "whether before or." Then the one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim (Major O'Neill) to leave out paragraph ( b ) and to insert instead thereof a new paragraph:

"( b ) Where a court-martial tries a person charged with a crime punishable by death, the Judge Advocate shall be a person certified by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland or the Lord Chief Justice of England to be a person of legal knowledge and experience."

Then will follow the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) on the question of a judge of the High Court. That is as far as I think I can indicate at the present moment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Council" ["where it appears to His Majesty in Council that"] to insert the words "at any time before the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the War."

I think the graceful and sincere apology which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrekin (Mr. Palmer) has just made [cols. 2840–1] will, I am certain, be heartily accepted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith). My hon. Friend the Member for Wrekin said that he hoped that wisdom might come in the morning. I am not quite sure about that.

We want to know which morning?

As far as this morning is concerned, I hope that wisdom will come to the Government, especially in reference to the Amendment which I am now about to move. The Amendment comes in as hon. Members will observe in the first line of the Clause after the word "Council," to insert the words set out on the Paper. The first line will therefore read:

"Where it appears to His Majesty in Council, at any time before the expiration of twelve months after the termination of the war, that,"

owing to the existence of the setting up of the Defence of the Realm Act in Ireland and so on. That then is when this Bill will come into operation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what date that would mean?

That requires a little explanation, which I propose to give afterwards. The present powers of the Executive in Ireland are based upon the Crimes Act of 1887. Wide and sweeping powers are given by that Act. They have power, after proclamation duly made, to conduct secret examinations, change the venue of trials, proclaim associations, and by means of arrests to put a stop to any act which they think is at all likely to endanger the peace of the realm in Ireland. It has gone so far, as we know from questions and answers and by debate in this House, as to arrest small boys for whistling and singing "The Wearing of the Green." They have also the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act and those under the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act, which received the Royal Assent two or three days ago. What was the assumption of the Government at the time of the passing of that Act as to how long the powers then in their hands should continue? It was that the period should be for twelve months after the termination of the present war. Section 2 (4) of the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act says:

"If immediately before the passing of this Act a proclamation suspending the operation of Section 1 of the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914, in respect of any area is in force, then in respect of that area all the Defence of the Realm Regulations then in force shall, subject to the power of His Majesty in Council by order to revoke any Such Regulation, continue in force until the expiration of 12 months after the termination of the present War."

I think I have made it clear that the existing powers are of a wide and sweeping nature, and in the opinion of the Executive a few days ago it was only necessary to maintain them for twelve months after the termination of the present war. What does that in practice really mean? We know that there is no likelihood of the war terminating within the meaning of the statute——

Which war? Do you mean a seven years' war?

I really cannot answer foolish interruptions.

So far from it being a foolish interruption, it means the conscription of human life.

I am dealing with a very complicated matter.

Withdraw the word "foolish."

I withdraw the word "foolish" without the slightest reserve of any sort. What sort of likelihood is there that the state of War within the meaning of the Statute will be terminated before next January? There is not the remotest chance, as we all know. Therefore there is really full power vested in the Executive for eighteen months. My proposal is that the new powers in this Bill shall be limited to that period. Suppose by some extraordinary happening the War was terminated on the 1st of September, then by my Amendment they have got twelve months. What is the proposal of the Government? Subsection (4) of Clause 1 says "any such regulations." That means all the powers which we debated yesterday, including trials in secret, the power to inflict sentence of death in secret, and to carry it out with all the paraphernalia associated with War in the taking of human life. It means also the power to telescope all the local courts and the power to abolish the right of trial by jury and to retain grants in the hands of the Treasury against disobedient local authorities. How long do the Executive ask for these powers? It is not for twelve months or eighteen months, but under Sub-section (4):

I most strongly urge upon the Government, in the interest of the better immediate future of Ireland, not to let them think that the majority of this House is prepared to give to the Executive any powers for which they like to ask, that they are not going to be rushed into panic legislation without calm consideration of any reasonable points which may be put forward. I will sum up what I have said. There are vast powers already in the hands of the Executive. By the Second Reading of this measure last night, this House has decided to give them powers of a nature which have never yet been placed in the hands of the Executive in Ireland, short of the complete administration of what is known as martial law. No reasonable man can, I think, doubt this, that those powers should be limited in time, clearly and distinctly set out in the Statute which clothes the Executive with those powers, and the time that I am suggesting is not my time. It is their own time, the time which a few days ago, in their own Statute, the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Act, Section 2 (4), they deliberately selected. They did not mention Ireland specifically, but everyone knows what they had in their minds when they drafted and passed that section. It was Ireland, and the time they took was 12 months after the termination of the War. That would be at least 18 months' power handed to the Executive for the administration of the powers sought under this Bill. In the name of reason and of steady, sane statesmanship, I respectfully submit to the Committee that that is ample time for the duration of these powers.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this as panic legislation, but I think that is controverted at once by the fact that the Chief Secretary mentioned yesterday that he had this Bill in draft before him in June, and purposely delayed it in order to try conciliation and to find out whether the Courts would function. It is only because the Courts have not functioned that he has introduced this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman again repeated the assertion that we have never yet had such powers in the hands of the Executive in Ireland, but if he will read through the 1803 Act, which established courts-martial, he will find much more drastic powers of court-martial than there are in this Bill, and for several centuries back much more drastic powers have been conferred on the Executive in Ireland. In no other country in the world would such a state of affairs be allowed to exist as do exist in Ireland without the enforcement of martial law to the full.

We know the way in which the Executive in England will cling to power as long as they can. They have had emergency powers given them during the War regulating this, that, and the next thing in the private life of the people, and they hang on to these powers to the very last. It is the nature of the beast, and we want to save Ireland from having these powers kept on unnecessarily after the War because of the love of the bureaucrat, the temporary Jack-in-Office, for these powers. We suffer in this country from that sort of thing. An hon. Gentleman opposite makes extraordinary noises, but if he kept a little more in touch with the people, he would know the irritating effect of these restrictions. I beg to support the Amendment.

The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is a very serious and substantial Amendment. The question of limiting the operation of this Bill in time has been seriously considered by myself and the Government, and I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment, for reasons that I shall endeavour to give. In the first place, this Bill is for the restoration of order in Ireland, and the time for limiting the operation of the Bill would logically be the time when order is restored in Ireland. Until it is restored it is impossible, I submit, to limit the time of the operation of the Bill by calendar months or otherwise. The Bill has no connection with the War, and, therefore, to limit it for 12 months after the expiration of the War would be an artificial limitation.

I hope it will be possible to repeal this Bill before the period suggested by my right hon. Friend. I do not feel that I would be doing my duty to the House in endeavouring to carry out the Bill which received the Second Reading yesterday if I limited its operation to twelve months or any definite period. The War Emergency Act, to which my right hon. Friend referred, does express within itself a limitation, namely, twelve months after the war; but since that Act became law, certain things have occurred in Ireland which have made essential the passing of this Bill, and, principally, the non-attendance of juries at Coroners' Courts and the ordinary Civil Courts. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are great powers—possibly the greatest powers ever given to an Irish Executive—contained in this Bill. My answer is that the occasion in Ireland demands it. Never before in our history was the position in that country so grave.

This is not panic legislation. For months—indeed, ever since I have had the honour to hold the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland—I have sought for some way to avoid drastic legislation of this kind, in the interests of the people of Ireland. I submit it does not, and will not, offend that moderate opinion in Ireland to which I have confidently appealed ever since I accepted my office, to which I still appeal, and on which, I agree with my right hon. Friend, the future peace and well-being of Ireland must wholly depend. I am in full accord with him there. I cannot agree that it would offend moderate opinion. I hope it will strengthen that moderate opinion. There is nothing in the Bill that oppresses, coerces, or interferes seriously with anybody in the usual pursuit of his ordinary vocation or avocation in life. It is a Bill to deal with crime—crime which, I hope, and always have held, is restricted to a very small percentage of the Irish people, and I believe the majority of the Irish people are as anxious as the Government to put it down. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment, although I quite sympathise with my right hon. Friend's views in moving it. I admit it is a matter of great substance, but, until order be restored in Ireland, I submit this Bill must stand, and that it cannot be limited in time without affecting the efficiency of the Irish Executive in administering this measure.

I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, because, in my judgment, in the very grave situation in which we are in Ireland, any measure the Executive Government, as long as it is the Executive Government, asks for the restoration of order ought to be granted by this House. At the same time, I venture to appeal to the Government to consider again this question of unlimited time. I am not quite sure that the Government does realise—I suppose it does—but I am very doubtful whether the House realises, the extent to which this Bill really goes. I heard my right hon. Friend's speech in moving the Second Reading, and the Prime Minister's speech, yesterday, and there was nothing in either of those speeches to indicate the far-reaching nature of this Bill, as I read it. It was put forward as a Bill mainly for the purpose of substituting some different system of trial for trial by jury. I think it goes a great deal further than that. I think it gives to the Executive Government power by regulation to make any change in the law of any kind which they consider to be necessary for the restoration of law and order. That is to say, so far as law and order are concerned, it reduces Ireland to the position of a Crown Colony, unless I have misread the Bill. Take this Sub-section we are now discussing. It gives to the Government power by Order in Council to make any order

"for securing the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland, and as to the powers and duties for that purpose of the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, and of members of His Majesty's forces and other persons acting on His Majesty's behalf, and in particular regulations for the special purposes hereinafter mentioned."

Sub-section (4) gives power to make any regulations for that purpose

"and the Regulations may contain such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act."

I am not saying it is wrong. I think it is the only thing you can do at this moment in order to restore order in Ireland. I am quite in favour of taking whatever steps are necessary for that purpose. But it does mean that you are going to say to the Executive Government that it shall be entitled, by regulation, to make any rule, any order, or take any procedure or do anything else it thinks necessary for the restoration of law and order. That is a tremendous power—a power which is very far beyond anything which has ever been proposed, within my recollection, for Ireland before, and I confess I should like to be assured that Parliament will have an opportunity of reviewing that from time to time. I do not say it would not renew the power, but I think that at some period—whether the period in the Amendment is right or not is another matter — Parliament should have the power of saying whether it is necessary to continue these very drastic regulations. My right hon. Friend suggests that the Government might move for the repeal, but Governments do not usually like to move the repeal of measures of this kind, because it means an expenditure of parliamentary time, and they say, "The provisions do no harm. We need not enforce them. We shall not issue any Orders in Council, so why repeal it?" But I think my right hon. Friend will agree that to leave powers of this kind indefinitely in the hands of the Executive Government would be a very strong order, and I cannot help hoping he will see his way to accept some limitation of time, whether that suggested by this Amendment or some other.

I listened with some amount of surprise to the reply of the Chief Secretary to the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). I am not a very old Member of the House, but before I came here I had sat within the precincts of this Chamber, and listened to speeches on the Irish question, particularly with reference to coercion Bills, and I have heard the same speech delivered by predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman for the last twenty-five years. The thought ran through my mind as he was speaking as to whether he had considered and gone fully into the circumstances. His courage and ability are undoubted, but for years, I think it may be said, Government after Government have been endeavouring to settle the question of Ireland—and it is not settled yet—by coercive measures. One sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech struck me as remarkable. This Bill, he said, will not interfere with the ordinary vocation of any person in Ireland. Surely he has not seriously studied the incidents and circumstances of the last twelve months. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that I myself, and my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin), brought before this House two cases where men following their ordinary avocations, were sentenced to two years' imprisonment, one of them being so brutally treated that he became a confirmed epileptic. The Minister of Pensions will remember the case of O'Sheehan I referred to. He was an ordinary humble ballad singer, who went round Ireland singing ballads at concerts, in order to get a living. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for singing an Irish ballad called "Felons of our Land," which has been sung in this very House, and in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman, the ex-Prime Minister. That was only one case. If this Bill is to be more drastic than the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act, what assurance have we that, under a Bill of this character, the same thing will not happen that happened under that measure? I am a responsible officer of a trade union whose ranks in Ireland to-day are divided on this subject. I see the necessity for coping with crime, no matter by whom it is committed. I denounce it by the Sinn Feiners; I denounce it by the Catholics or Protestants equally. We had a half-assurance from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday that a Bill of this character would deal with men who committed offences against the law impartially, no matter what denomination——

Would the hon. Member be good enough to confine himself to the question of the period of time raised in the Amendment? On the next Amendment we shall deal with questions of new crime. This is limiting the Bill to a particular period.

I was going to qualify my statement by pointing out that between now and the time, dealt with in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment there was nothing to prevent the same thing occurring, and I think I come perhaps within the rules of the House and the order of Debate. I do want to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman that things are occurring now in certain parts of Ireland, not only in Belfast, but in Derry. I happen to represent an organisation which is 50 per cent. opposed, perhaps, to each other on this question of Ireland, and therefore I want to hold the balance as evenly as I possibly can. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that justice will be meted out irrespective of religious or political opinion.

Certainly.

If I were assured of that, I would welcome any measure that would stop the internecine warfare which threatens to break up the trade organisations of the men, who will suffer after this is over, very, very severely. Any time is too long unless we have the assurance that law and order will be maintained by fair and impartial means, which is not possible under a Bill of this character for secret trial and the abolition of trial by jury.

To come back to the Amendment for one moment, I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to listen somewhat to the plea put forward from this side. Those of us who, on this side, have asked the Government to take drastic measures with Ireland, will support them by every means in our power, but this indefinite time does rather test our allegiance to the Government in the matter. My right hon. Friend said the Government would continue this until order was restored in Ireland. The question of what is order ought not to be left to the Government. There are such things as political crimes, which the Government might regard as disorder, but which some of us might not consider actual crime, and I think that in giving these great powers to the Government today—powers which might be abused at any time—we should have the right to review them. This might very well come under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, apart from any question of the War. It would then be enacted for one year, and come back for our review. That would be a safeguard, which we think not only necessary in the interests of Ireland, but in the interests of this country, which will not give the Government this power unless it thinks it will be properly exercised. If the right hon. Gentleman would regard it from that point of view, quite apart from the question of D.O.R.A. and those extreme measures which exist for a year after the War, he could ignore the Amendment, if I may say so, and put it on the ground of a one-year Act.

As there is a new Clause down in my name and that of another hon. Member which is not likely to be reached, perhaps I may say a word in support of the principle contained in this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has said this is a Bill for the restoration of order in Ireland, and it must continue until order is restored. If the Amendment is sound in principle, I do not think that should be regarded as a fatal objection. If, on the expiration of the time limit, order is not restored, and the Government comes back for fresh powers, it will no doubt get them. When we look back at these discussions in the calmer atmosphere of a few weeks' or months' time, I think we shall realise that what was the essence of the decision on this occasion was that we adopted an expedient which was distasteful, nay, more than distasteful—hateful to many of us, on the ground of urgent necessity as a temporary measure, in the belief and in the hope that the object might be obtained in a reasonable time. Time was, in fact, the essence of our acceptance of this Bill, and if time is not the essence then that should be made clear on the face of the Bill. We know we have adopted it as a temporary expedient of an un-British nature which we dislike. We recognise that this Bill may be made an instrument of dangerous adverse propaganda in the Dominions, in the United States, and elsewhere. It will be represented, as it stands at present, as an expression of intention on the part of the British Government to govern Ireland for an indefinite period under the rules of martial law. We know that that is not our intention, and that there is a time limit in our minds. That, however, will not be clear to other bodies of public opinion unless we put it on the face of the Bill. There is a dangerous possibility of the unnecessary provocation of ill-feeling against the intentions of the British Empire, and if a time limit can be put in we should make it clear on the face of the Bill, without in the least tying the hands or diminishing the powers it is intended the Government shall have. The very fact of introducing a time limit would strike this dangerous weapon out of the hands of our enemies. There is another class of opinion to be considered, and that is uninformed opinion in Ireland. If a settlement of the Irish question is to be obtained, it can only be obtained in as close an approximation as possible to a condition of good will, and nothing should be omitted which would tend to promote that good will in Ireland. Might it not be important for the sake of conciliating moderate opinion, to make it clear on the face of the Bill what our intention is, namely, that the Bill should only remain in operation for a limited time?

While I think it really suicidal to put the cart of repression before the horse of constitutional reform, I would ask whether any useful purpose can be served by pressing this Amendment. Under the terms of it, 18 months must elapse before the Bill comes to an end. Is it not obvious if this Bill is going to be effective, it will be effective before that date arrives. If it achieves the object which the Chief Secretary sets out to obtain, then obviously the Bill will become unnecessary, and we have the as surance that it will be repealed. I can not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite that the acceptance of this Amendment will make any real appeal to moderate opinion in Ireland, if there is such a thing——

There is not.

I am a little doubtful about it myself. At any rate, if there is any moderate opinion I do not think it will be affected either for good or for ill by granting this concession. I would ask my right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment if he really thinks it will serve any useful purpose. It is not the time at which the Bill ends which is important; it is the time at which it begins.

1.0 P.M.

Any Amendment which seeks to shorten the period of operation of a Bill of this character will receive support on this side of the House, for the simple reason that all coercive measures that have been tried in Ireland have failed, and have to be followed in many instances by other coercive legislation, which, in its turn, has never proved successful in putting down crime. The only thing which has been successful in doing that in Ireland has been an honest attempt in this House to meet some of the wishes of those who represent Irish opinion. For instance, take the year 1880, when agrarian crime in Ireland was becoming very rampant, and the Land League was moat busy with its propaganda. At that time we had a Coercive Bill passed through this House, and the effect of it was not to put down crime in Ireland, but to stiffen resistance to the law. In the year 1881 2,371 cases——

This is too general a consideration. The hon. Member is making a speech which has reference to the whole of the Bill. He must really keep to the Amendment, and I trust the discussion will be confined to the subject matter of each Amendment as it arises.

I quite understand that, but I wanted to show that these powers are wrong, and that they will have to be followed by other coercive measures. I submit that we cannot hope for suc- cess through the exercise of powers of this nature, and I was proposing to prove historically that that has always been the effect of such legislation. The Coercion Bill of 1881 had to be followed by the Crimes Act of 1882, and instead of putting down crime it had the reverse effect. I am quite convinced of this, that if this Bill is going to be effective in putting down crime, if it cannot put it down in 18 months then it can be freely conceded that the whole policy of the Bill is a, failure. Having that in mind, hon. Members on this side of the House will support the Amendment. They will do so for another reason which, I am afraid, I will not be allowed to go into. To put it in a nutshell, we submit there should be no coercion at all, but that there should be an attempt to meet the legitimate desires of Ireland in relation to constitutional change.

I perfectly realise that the House desires, in the limited time at its disposal, to discuss as many points as possible, and I fully appreciate the fact that if we go to a Division the Government will be able to put into the Lobby forces which will defeat us. I wish to make a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to meet our desire that there should be some limitation in regard to this matter. I gladly acknowledge the moderate and conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken. He tells us he hopes that before a period of 18 months has elapsed he will be able to come to this House and ask it to repeal this measure, which he looks upon as experimental legislation. He has entirely omitted to answer one point which was made by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). Even this Government cannot now control another place, as has been shown in the Debates with regard to India. There is, in the other place, a powerful reactionary influence which will set itself in opposition to the Government if the Government adopt a position to which it is opposed. If the right hon. Gentleman desires—I am sure he does—what he has indicated that he desires, the better course would be to adopt my right hon. Friend's Amendment, or the suggestion of the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), or for himself to suggest some other method of limitation. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is not tied to these words or to this method, but we do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put himself in a position in which he can review this action if he finds that the result of his policy has been to bring about an improvement. Otherwise, there is no certainty that this Act may not remain upon the Statute Book, alienating moderate opinion not only in this country, but in America and throughout the world and causing exasperation in Ireland, even when the need for it may have passed and the Government themselves may desire to do away with it.

There is one other point which ought to be made. In the conflict of views expressed yesterday two points emerged on which there is practically universal agreement amid all our divisions. Everybody in this House deplores the unhappy condition of Ireland at the present time, and everybody desires that orderly life should be restored in Ireland. In every quarter of the House, however—certainly in the speech of the Prime Minister—there was associated with that desire for the restoration of order and peace in Ireland the desire that the people in Ireland should themselves be associated with the maintenance of law and order, and that the great task of carrying on administration in Ireland, including the maintenance of law and order, should be carried out by the Irish people themselves. We may differ as to the method by which this can be done, but the Government themselves take that view. They themselves say that you cannot be content merely to pass this coercion Act and to do nothing else with regard to Ireland. Therefore, they themselves have introduced a Bill which they are proposing to carry through for that purpose, and as I understand the Prime Minister, he adheres to that Bill and is still going to carry it through. We are entitled to consider what is to happen if this Bill passes without any limitation as to time and the Home Rule Bill of the Government is also passed into law. I submit that is a relevant consideration. Does anybody now hope that the Parliament in the south and west of Ireland would immediately be set up and function? That hope must long ago have passed away. We know that the people of Ulster——

The hon. Member's argument is connected with the Amendment by a very flimsy thread.

I am endeavouring to put my point as briefly as possible, and I apologise sincerely if I am not succeeding, but it is really a point of substance to consider what is to happen if the whole policy of the Government be carried through and if this Bill and the Bill for the better government of Ireland are put upon the Statute Book. In that event you will have in the northeast corner of Ireland a Parliament which certainly will not carry this legislation through, and which will not under this Bill give that protection for which the hon. Member for the Falls Division of Belfast (Mr. Devlin) so eloquently asked yesterday for the Catholic workers.

The hon. Member under the cover of this Amendment is reviewing the whole situation, and making a speech which would have been appropriate yesterday on Second Reading.

I am very anxious to be guided by you, but I should like to put it to you whether I am not entitled to address myself to the question as to what is to happen if this Bill without any indication as to time, and if the other legislation which the Government have in contemplation, are passed into law. It is a narrow point entirely covered by the Amendment, but if you say that I must confine myself more strictly to the Amendment I will endeavour to do so.

I think the hon. Member has said all that he should say with regard to that matter on the present Amendment. He will realise that if he were to pursue that topic we might spend the whole day on this Amendment and have a Second Reading Debate. That it not the purpose of the Committee stage.

No; and it is not my purpose. My purpose is to address an honest argument for the limiting of this Bill to the period indicated in the Amendment, or the other period indicated by the noble Lord, and it does seen to me that I am entitled to point out the situation which will arise if the policy of the Government be completely carried through. However, in deference to what you have said, I do not amplify the point further, but I would venture in my last word, because it is the last opportunity, to make a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot accept this Amendment, to do something to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, and to give some indication that there will be some limitation to the time for which this Bill will continue in law, so as to mitigate the evil which is bound to be created if it goes abroad that we have a policy of coercion, and nothing but a policy of coercion, in regard to Ireland.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "termination of the war," and to insert instead thereof the words "the passing of this Act."

I make this suggestion with a view to a possible compromise on this matter and to meeting the general views of the Committee. The Amendment would then read:

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."

I accept this proposed change in my Amendment. Although it shortens the period, it makes it much more definite, and it will come up under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act. Consequently there will be an annual parliamentary opportunity of discussing the necessity for the continuance of this measure.

I have a new Clause on the Paper which runs:

An increasing number of working men are turning away from Parliamentary Institutions in disgust, and here we find men with a long experience of Parliamentary Government willing to pass on to an executive one of the most repressive machines known in the history of democratic government. It is scandalous from the point of view of those who value such an institution as the House of Commons, and it is giving no chance to those who are trying to prove that democratic government does hold out a ray of hope, and it is telling people in effect to turn from parliamentary methods and take direct action. This measure is giving them the very argument they need to do this. I am quite willing that the Amendment in its new form should be embodied in the Bill. I am putting forward the Labour party's point of view on this proposal. You are giving to the Executive for twelve months, the power to apply repressive measures such as have never been given before, and if you cannot restore order in twelve months I say that you have no right to come and ask for a lengthening of the term.

It appears to me that if the object which hon. Members desire is to be achieved, the proper way to do it would be to adopt the words suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am doubftul whether the Amendment we are now considering will have that effect. Obviously, questions would arise as to how much of the Bill was qualified by the words which it is now proposed to insert. As the Bill has several Clauses it appears to me that the Amendment would only affect the first Clause, and it would not have the effect of bringing the Act to an end at the end of twelve months. All this Amendment will do is to provide that the powers given in Clause 1 can be exercised for only twelve months after the passing of this Act.

It governs the whole Bill.

Although it is true that it might be argued that the Bill has been renewed by the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, nevertheless under Clause 1 those powers can only be exercised for twelve months after the passing, of the Act. No one could argue that the year 1922, for instance, was a period twelve months after the passing of the Act. Consequently, I think the proposal before the Committee will fail to meet the views which hon. Members have expressed, and if those views are to be carried out it should be done by some such words as those suggested in the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Mills).

I hope the Government will give us some reply on this point. This is a matter upon which we all feel very strongly. As to what the last speaker has said, I rather agree that this is not the best way to do it. The Government can either here or in the House of Lords insert the proper words and make the Clause effective. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some concession on this point, because I am sure such a course would be very acceptable to the House.

I fully intended to rise and answer the Debate which I stated at the outset raised a point of great substance, which has been very carefully considered by the Government. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) and the new Clause of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) would shorten the time suggested by the original Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles. We could not accept a period of one year. The difficulty I feel about the matter is this. Knowing as I do, and knowing possibly better than most hon. Members the very serious difficulties in Ireland, to limit the force of the Irish Executive in point of time would, I feel, affect the efficiency of the administration of this Bill which I admit at once does give the Executive very large and far-reaching powers. I have that feeling, and it is reinforced after consultation with people who can speak with the most intimate knowledge of different parts of Ireland. I am reluctant, therefore, to limit the operation of the Act in point of time, though I admit at once that the House of Commons has a perfect right not only to raise a discussion on the administration of the Bill that we are asking it to accept and pass into law, but to review it from time to time. On that point, which is the one made particularly by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), I submit that the House can review and criticise the administration almost whenever it will; and, if it felt very strongly on the question of the time for which the Act should operate, it could repeal it if it happened that another Government occupied these Benches—whether it were a Coalition Government, or a Government headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles, or by one of his friends of the Labour Party. They certainly would have the power to repeal it.

There is the House of Lords.

They certainly would have the power to repeal it. I cannot imagine any House of Lords— either the present House or a reformed House—seriously thwarting the will of the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!]—on a legislative matter of supreme importance such as this. That is not my reading of history.

Will you take the Whips off?

I do not think that would make any serious difference, but this is a Government Bill, urgently needed, and of which the principle has been accepted by a very large majority. I do not think that I could take the Whips off, although, if I thought for a moment that the majority of the House were against trusting the Irish Execu- tive in the fair and just administration of this Bill——

Just! Secret courts!

——In the fair and just administration of this Bill, and with the desire to take it off the Statute Book at the earliest possible opportunity —if I thought that we had not the overwhelming confidence of the House of Commons, I, for one, would not go on another minute with the Bill at all.

The House will renew those powers if the necessity for doing so be shown.

That may or may not be so, but it would affect the administration to limit now definitely the operation of this measure. We must set to work preparing the regulations, and the regulations will be laid upon the Table of the House and Debates can be raised upon them.

No.

Yes, I think we can manage that.

The House is going to rise.

The House does not expect to Debate anything during the Recess, and therefore I do not understand the relevance of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interruption.

It will be brought into operation.

Let me also re mind the Committee that the Bill, when it become law, will only apply to those parts of Ireland in which, in the opinion of the Irish Executive, these special tribunals must be set up for the administration of the law. It only applies to those parts of Ireland which can fairly be said to be in a state of disorder. It does not apply, therefore, to the whole of Ireland. My opinion, at any rate, my sincere hope—is that it will not apply to the larger part of Ireland, but that we shall be able to carry on—and it is my most sincere desire to carry on—without the application of these drastic measures except where they are absolutely essential. With reference to the point, raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young), that it puts into the hands of the enemies of the Empire a weapon against us, my submission is that, at this stage in the history of the Irish question, the Dominions and the United States have such an intimate knowledge of that question, and, especially, such a knowledge of the difficulties of the moment in Ireland, that this will in no way perturb them. I can speak here with an intimate knowledge of the New World and of the Dominions, and I can assure the Committee that, owing to these most unfortunate murders of the last year or so, which are the bar, in my opinion, to a more successful and generous settlement of the Irish question——

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman himself is going into a general Debate on the Bill. We shall never have an efficient Committee Stage if we follow that procedure. I hope the Committee will be prepared now to come to a decision.

I apologise, Mr. Whitley. In my natural desire to answer the criticisms of hon. Members, and to dissociate the Government and myself from any desire to thwart the wishes of the House of Commons or of this Committee, I have strayed over the Rules of Procedure which you are such a master in interpreting. I regret profoundly that I do not see my way clear to set any limit of time to this Bill, and I hope I shall carry the Committee with me.

As far as the Amendment before the Committee is concerned, I may say that what the Government may do is a matter of profound indifference to my hon. Friends and myself. We regard the Bill as fraught with such mischevious consequences that whether it operate for a long or a short period is not a matter upon which we desire to give any vote. I must, however, express my disappointment that the right hon. Gentleman has proved so deaf to the very remarkable appeal which has been made to him from so many parts of the Committee. Incidentally, I may express my gratitude for the fact that that appeal for the mitigation of this Bill has for the most part come from gentlemen who have been all their lives Members of the Conservative Party. The plea for even greater severity than the right hon. Gentleman has proposed comes to-day, as yesterday, from gentlemen who posed, to my knowledge, for many years in the House of Commons, as Members of the Liberal Party. A convert always brings that fanatical zeal into his new faith. It has come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, from the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, and from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwich, who has the respect and affection of everyone in this House for his gallant record in the War, and who certainly cannot be accused of being in favour of disorder. It has come from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney and from other quarters, and the answer of the Government is a stubborn and unyielding "No." I think that, if the Chief Secretary were to take off the Whips, he would have an opportunity of knowing what the real opinion of the Committee is. He expressed his desire not to put himself into opposition to the opinion of the House of Commons, but he cannot know what that opinion is without giving a free division.

The right hon. Gentleman is really, I think, a little green, if I may use the phrase without offence, in his knowledge of Parliamentary affairs. He asks, what can be easier for the House of Commons than to repeal this Bill? It is, he says, the simplest thing in the world. In 1887, when all England was celebrating the Jubilee of the Queen of the Realm, the Government of the day passed a perpetual Coercion Act. That was in 1887. We are now in 1920, and that perpetual Coercion Act is on the Statute Book still. It is not that there were not plenty of opportunities of repealing that Act—the Jubilee Coercion Act, as it was ironically called in Ireland. When all the world was gathered to do honour to the Motherland and to the Sovereign of this Empire, Ireland was treated to a perpetual Coercion Act. That was in 1887. There was a Liberal majority and a Liberal Government in this House from 1906 to 1916, and the perpetual Coercion Act was never repealed. The proposal was never made to repeal it for the reason, not that the House of Commons would not have repealed it, but that we knew any such measure would get up against the unconquerable opposition of another place, and therefore, the promise the right hon. Gentleman makes to us that this Act can be and may be repealed, has been proved to be absolutely illusory by these events of the past. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do and is doing, is to make a second perpetual Coercion Act, with this difference from the other, that it is much wider and much severer.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a most pregnant remark, to which I will make an allusion because I think it bears very closely upon the question we are discussing. He said that the fact that this drastic Act was made perpetual would give a weapon into the hands of the enemies of this country which they could employ to create ill-feeling against this country, and he mentioned that this might especially be done in the Dominions and in the United States, and I entirely agree with that observation. The Chief Secretary says he knows the Dominions. So do I; and I know the United States, I think, even better than the Chief Secretary. The enemies of the Empire, especially among my race in the Dominions, are very large to-day, and their numbers have been enormously increased by the policy of the Government. In the days when my party were still left by the Government in power, and were not destroyed by their action, they were friendly to this country. Now in their millions, they are hostile to your rule, and even to your Empire. What would one of the propagandists of that section of Irish and American opinion say? "Here is an Act under the provisions of which a man may be tried, convicted, and sentenced by three officers, and may be hanged, not a word of the evidence necessarily given, and not a word of the evidence known to anyone outside the dark chamber in which the trial takes place." [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I will keep strictly within the lines of order you have laid down, even since the beginning of the Debate, and I understand that I am entitled, when I am discussing the duration of the Bill, to discuss some at least of the provisions of the Bill. That was the point made by the Noble Lord, and I understand it met with your complete sanction. Can anyone imagine anything out of which these anti-British propagandists can make more capital, and which in my opinion they can more justly condemn, than this horrible spectacle of life trial, decided in the dark tomb of a court-martial.

What about the Sinn Fein Courts?

Are you there again?

I am met by an interruption from an hon. and gallant Gentleman who distinguished and extinguished himself last night by, I think, one of the most odious interruptions I ever heard. His interruption is exactly what I anticipated. Does not the Sinn Feiner meet and try in private? That is the meaning of the interruption, and it shows you the kind of spirit of some of the supporters of this Bill. Their argument is that a civilised Government in a public and civilised court of law is to be put on the same par, and to be measured at the same standard by a secret movement of secret assassination. Was there ever a more preposterous and more brutal argument made even by a Liberal convert? I will use that word in order not to be too severe, though another word would come to my lips if it were not for respect for you, Sir. These are the kind of things you are going to perpetuate for ever. I have been thrilled like many another member of an audience when I have seen a Russian play called the "Red Lamp," and I saw the interior of that awful fortress of St. Peter and St. Paul, where a man, as under this Bill——

The hon. Member is following an example which I admit has been set from several quarters of the House, but it is quite an abuse of the Rules to hang on to this Amendment a general discussion of the whole Bill. It would simply turn the Committee stage into a Second Reading debate, and we should never reach the points of detail to which I am sure the Committee wishes to get.

With great respect, Sir, of course you will not expect that I shall take quite the same view of the Committee stage of this Bill as you did. I regard it and the whole discussion of the Bill as an unmitigated, shameless, empty farce. If you, in the discharge of your duty, think it necessary to deprive me of the opportunity of exposing the character of this Bill, and speaking the voice of my people, I must obey you. Still, I hope you will put it on some stronger ground than any respect that you can ask from me for the character of such a discussion as we have under the guillotine. How- ever, I have such respect for you personally, and for the House, that I will not pursue that line of observation further than to say that Russian methods are the methods of this English Bill, passed by an English Government in an English Parliament, and that is the Bill which you insist on making perpetual.

made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

That is quite a futile and irrelevant observation. I never knew anything anti-Irish that my Irish friend has not supported in this House in his long Parliamentary career. The right hon. Gentleman gave as a reason for not limiting the Bill to the duration of the War, that it had nothing to do with the War. It has a great deal to do with the War. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment, following the speech of the Prime Minister last night—the most hopeless, wicked speech that this House has heard for many a long day—means that this Bill is a declaration of war upon Ireland. As such it follows the steady and invariable line that has been adopted for the last two years. By fatal and sinister logic you substituted Sinn Feiners for the constitutionalists who sat in this House and who were willing to discuss freely, honestly, good-temperedly, constitutionally, the quarrel between Ireland and England, and now, by your process of procrastination, and by this Bill, you have dethroned even the reasonable Sinn Feiners, and substituted in their place the men who are guilty of these crimes. That is where your policy is leading Ireland; and you and the gentlemen opposite are the creators of the hell of anarchy and excesses which exist in Ireland.

I must make another appeal to hon. Members not to turn this into a fresh Second Reading discussion. The next Amendment raises some points about which hon. Members wish to talk. That really would be the way to raise these points.

Would it not be well to have the guillotine brought in at once, and to end this farce, instead of Members of this House sitting here watching the nation's liberties being robbed from the people, and then to be told to obey constitutional orders and procedure in this House when this policy of constitutional assassination is being carried out by this Parliament, which is a Parliament of profiteers and the enemies of liberty. For my own part, I wish to get this humbug finished and this farce ended as soon as possible.

rose ——

I think the hon. Member had better speak on the next Amendment.

I wish to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dartford.

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Hear, hear! I will second that, and that the whole thing be now put.

withheld his assent, as he thought the Committee would soon be willing to come to a decision without that Motion.

I beg to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dartford.

That is not before the Committee. He has made a statement on that question. I am referring to his new Clause, which is to some extent covered by the present Amendment.

Then I beg leave to support the Amendment. Your government has lasted for over a hundred years in Ireland, and I am convinced that the Government ought to accept the limited period proposed for the operation of this Clause. I hope they will be guided by experience in the operation of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said he understands Ireland and America. I am afraid he has read history very badly if he thinks that from the experience of America this Bill is going to have any effective results in Ireland. Does he remember the name of John Brown? By such methods as these John Brown was put to death, but did you crush his spirit?

That is not relevant to this Amendment.

I will address myself to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I know a little of Irish history, and I know the sentiment of the young Irishman to- day. If the Government will be guided by experience, they will realise that coercion will not suppress the liberty-loving instincts of the Irish people. That is why we support the limitation of the period of this measure, which is repudiated by every decent organisation of the country, and which is doomed to failure. We are told that it will have uniform application to all the people in Ireland. The people of Ireland have not any confidence that there will be uniform application of this measure to the whole of Ireland. The Irishmen, with whom I have lived all my life, think that if this Bill comes into operation, judging from the light of history, its application will not be to certain people who have the government in their own hands. It is intended only for southern Irishmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "How can you tell?"] We will judge by the light of history.

These are general observations on the Bill as a whole.

The reason why I am supporting the limitation is because the Bill

is doomed to failure, and is inspired by people who do not want to establish an equitable agreement in Ireland. We believe that if this Amendment be accepted, then instead of trying to crush the liberty-loving instincts of the Irish people by coercion, the Government should give them a measure of freedom based upon the will of the people, after 12 months' experience.

I understood you to say, Mr. Whitley, that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) was not before the Committee. Can a manuscript Amendment to an Amendment take precedence of an Amendment which is on the Paper?

Yes. The question is, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted." It comes to the same point exactly.

Question put, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 216.

2.0 P.M.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) has four Amendments standing in his name on the Paper. They contain one proposition, the point of which is chiefly in the last of the Amendments,—"provided that no new offence shall be created by any such Regulation." We will take the discussion on the four Amendments together.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "for securing the restoration and maintenance of order in Ireland, and—"

The effect of these four Amendments, if carried, will be that Sub-section (1) will read: create new offences under this Act. At present Ireland is subject to punishment for crime under two separate categories. First, there is the ordinary law of the land, which deals with murder, assassination and all the other offences which are recognised as criminal offences. Then there are offences which have been created under the Defence of the Realm Act. Those I suggest included holding of meetings, the taking part in processions, the wearing of buttons, the whistling of national songs and the waving of flags. All those have been offences in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm Act. The object of the Bill, to the principle of which the House agreed last night by giving it a Second Reading, is to put down the wave of crime in Ireland. It was manifest that there was a general desire in all parts of the House that while punishing with all severity crime for which no one has any good word to say, at the same time everything should be done to appease the spirit of rebellion which seems to be growing in all classes in Ireland against this country, and to endeavour to restore, as far as possible, and as soon as possible, that good feeling which it is universally desired should exist between the two peoples. This appeasing of national feeling and bringing about of good will between the two nations will not be secured by creating petty offences. Those petty offences for which men and women are punished only irritate and exasperate, and too many of them have already been created under the Defence of the Realm Act. What the Amendment of myself and my friends aim at is to prevent any more of these petty offences being created. When I say that the powers of this Bill go so far that it will be possible for the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary to issue a crawling order, and to make it a criminal offence for anyone to fail to comply with that crawling order, the House will realise what unlimited powers we are giving under this Bill to the Executive.

Our desire is to obtain the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. The first essential for the maintenance of law in any land is that the people should understand clearly what the law is. One knows that lack of knowledge of the law is no defence But at the same time, you cannot get universal obedience to the law unless it is clearly understood by the people what the law actually is. Day after day changes of the law announced by regulations make it impossible for the people generally to obtain the necessary knowledge of what the law is. There is no doubt that during the last two or three years many people have been punished for offences which they did not know at the time they were committed were offences. I put it to the Committee, if we give the Government power to create new offences we shall only be adding to that confusion and to the difficulty of the ordinary Irishman in finding out what the law is that he is expected to obey Besides that, the officials have quits enough to do under this Bill in carrying out its provisions, so far as the maintenance of law and order is concerned, under the existing law, without having to consider new offences as part of their duty. The main object of this Bill is to punish the crime of murder and arson and similar offences which everybody understands to be crime, and things that no one in this country sympathises with. The Prime Minister, with unusual reiteration, mentioned the murder of constables in his speech yesterday, and with the punishment of crimes of that kind everyone in this House will sympathise, and everyone is prepared to support the Executive in bringing those criminals to justice. But that should be the main object of this Bill, and the only purpose of the Amendment is to ask the House to confine those extreme powers to the punishment of those criminals and not to enable the Executive to create new petty offences which will not help and which will only, irritate and exasperate Irishmen.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The object of the four Amendments is really involved in the last one, and the intentions I understand is to prevent any regulation creating a new offence. I think it right to say that we agreed that we should accept the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) which provides that all such regulations as soon as they are made shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament within 14 days. I think that goes a very long way to meet the point. One of the objections was that sufficient publicity would not be given to the making of these regulations. By the acceptance of that Amendment not merely will they be laid on the Table of the House, but they will be published broadcast in Ireland and the people will have the fullest information for the purpose of realising what the regulations are. It would be quite impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment limiting the powers which they ask for in the Bill in the way suggested by the hon. Member, because Clause 1, Sub-section (1), recites as the very basis of the Act that the ordinary law is inadequate for the prevention and punishment of crime, and it gives to the Privy Council the right to make regulations for the purpose of restoring law and order, and in particular regulations for "the special purposes hereinafter mentioned." If this Amendment were accepted, no regulations could be made which would extend the law or give it fresh power to take steps to restore law and order.

Remedies.

Remedies cannot carry you a long way unless you are prepared to deal with ingenious steps taken to break the law by certain criminal agitation. We ask that we should be given power to make regulations to secure the restoration of law and order. We want the Bill, because we cannot go so far under the Defence of the Realm Act as we can go under this Bill. In addition to that, the hon. and gallant Member will realise that this Bill has now been made permanent. I regret we cannot accept the Amendment proposed.

As we go on with this farce of a debate on a Bill which has had no Second Reading, no Committtee stage, and the Report and Third Reading of it will be put from the Chair at six o'clock, we do get some inkling of what the intention of the Government really is. The Attorney-General for Ireland now tells us that the reason that the Defence of the Realm Act—the most complete Statute ever devised for the purpose, because it was devised when we were placed in the greatest danger which ever confronted the Empire—is not sufficient, we have to go further. I would ask him what are the new offences which will be made? We ought to be told that. There must be some draft Regulations. You cannot bring in a Bill without having in mind the Regulations to be brought forward. These Regulations are now already existent, and why cannot we be told what they are. We know the action taken under the Defence of the Realm Act by the Government, when little boys were locked up for whistling in the streets, and little girls were fined for selling badges, and derisive laughter was an offence.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General for Ireland, was that the Government would accept an Amendment, further on, dealing with the Regulations on this Bill. We shall therefore be able to discuss the question of what Regulations will be made on the next Amendment.

I am very much obliged, but all the efforts of the Chair— which, of course, we receive with the respect due to them—will not prevent this Debate from being a complete farce. The Amendment he has referred to is merely an Amendment to say that such Regulations will be laid before the House. What I want to know is, what are these Regulations going to be? This Debate is rushed through because hon. Members must get to their shooting by 12th August, and because the Government desire a free hand to govern Ireland in their own way. What are the Regulations and what are the offences which the Government desire to punish? Surely we are entitled to ask that question. I should have thought that the Defence of the Realm Regulations covered everything, but the right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney-General, says that the powers given there are not sufficient. Many people have been deported without any charge and trial at all under Regulation 14 (B). That seems to me to be as wide a power as anyone can desire. Then, again, this Bill is going to be permanent. There is no nonsense about the short duration of coercion; the Government know well that a full year will not do it. If you are going to make permanent offences and lock up people without trial, and deport them to a prison in another country, surely we ought to know what the offences are, and I think we are entitled to an answer.

The Amendments put down in the name of my hon. Friend (Mr. Holmes) and myself really do not go nearly so far as my right hon. Friend man the Attorney-General for Ireland seems to represent. Does he really mean to suggest that he is going, by these Regulations, to set up offences in Ireland which are not offences in England? So far as I can see, if these Amendments are not accepted, it will be possible for the Government to set up an entirely new criminal code for Ireland. I have always thought that what the Government complained of at the present time was not that the law was bad, but that they were unable to enforce it, and that this Bill was merely to give them powers of enforcing the law. I gather now that the Government are going to set up new offences. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General for Ireland tell us what these offences are? Will he tell us what he considers the people are doing in Ireland at the present time, what they are permitted to do in Ireland at the present time, and what he thinks they ought not to be permitted to do, because it seems to me that if they are not to be allowed to commit these offences in Ireland, they should not be allowed to commit them in England, nor in Scotland.

There is a great distinction between substantive and what is called "adjective" law, and this Bill is merely to strengthen adjective law, and to enable—that was the avowed intention given when it was introduced—the Government to put in force the substantive law that this Bill should be the same in Ireland and in England. We are told that these great objections which we have put forward will be met by the fact that the Regulations when made will be laid on the Table of this House and will be open to criticism. Everyone knows that these Regulations, when they are put on the Table of this House, are very rarely looked at at all, and, indeed, I have never known—I do not remember at any rate in my short experience of this House —of a Debate arising on any Regulation of that kind that had been presented. As a matter of fact they are never considered at all. The Amendments that we have put forward may be open to some objection, but the spirit of them, I am sure, no one can take exception to. Anyone who wants to understand them can simply look at the last one which makes our object quite clear. If, in the way we have drafted them, we have gone a little further than we intended, I am sure we are quite prepared to accept any Amendment which the Government may put forward. The last Amendment is

I want to take the opportunity of this Amendment to answer the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and some of the other speeches which he made. I want to explain why it is that some of us support the Government with out qualifications and without reservations in refusing this Amendment and taking similar action. This Government may have made many mistakes. It may have committed sins of omission and commission in regard to Ireland, but it cannot justly be accused of not exercising moderation and toleration and restraint in regard to Ireland; toleration of the susceptibilities of the people of that country and restraint in regard to action. The Government has, rightly, hoped against hope that the better elements in that country would eventually prevail and give them that assistance which every Government has the right to expect from the community, otherwise it cannot function. Those hopes have been doomed to disappointment. One need not detail what has happened, but we know that offences—not of little boys whistling in the street, as referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith—we know that murder goes unpunished—

That is no new offence.

I am dealing now with the general situation, and the reason why this particular Bill is necessary. As the hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well, if he will himself be frank his speeches will be of much more value to this House than they are at present. He refuses to look the situation in the face. That is the position, and the people of this country have grown tired of seeing their citizens and their countrymen, and the countrymen of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, although he does not realise it, shot in the back for having committed no offence but that of having done their simple duty, and the time has come when hon. Members of this House are prepared to give the Government authority to take such steps as in their wisdom they find necessary to restore order to that country. Under normal circumstances the ordinary rules of law prevail. In Ireland, as the hon. and gallant Member should know, quite extraordinary circumstances have arisen, and extraordinary measures in the interests of the people of Ireland themselves, because they are the sufferers more than the people of this country, must be taken. Therefore the Government have been right and are perfectly right in coming to this House and asking to be given such powers as will enable them to introduce temporary legislation.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech.

I am coming to my conclusion, but I am referring, of course, to the powers under the Defence of the Realm Act to create fresh offences. I have the most complete confidence in this Government to behave in the future with that wisdom and toleration which they have shown in the past. I tell them that they will only forfeit the confidence of the people of this country if they fail to act with courage and determination, and they should ignore and treat with the contempt they deserve the pin-pricking arguments and the completely unhelpful speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who, unmoved, look on when their own countrymen are shot in the back, and do nothing to help the Government, and have done nothing in the course of this Debate. If the Government stand firm and do their duty honourably and fearlessly, they will retain the confidence of the people of this country, and I am glad to be given this opportunity to say that they will get the most complete and steadfast backing from hon. Members of this House if they continue on this path on which they have set their feet.

I shall certainly support the Government in taking the very widest powers they possibly can in order to cope with the situation in Ireland. I think the fallacy underlying this Amendment is this, that we are dealing, and must deal in the present situation in Ireland, with the private criminal, the private murderer, thief, and robber, and general committer of outrages. If that were the case, of course, the common law would be perfectly sufficient, but that is not the case. The basic fact of the situation in Ireland is this, and the reason for these widespread powers is this, namely, that there is not one Government to-day in Ireland, but two Governments. There is, first, the Government which does not function, and that is His Majesty's Government, and then there is the Government that functions by the way of crime, and outrage, and murder, and all the things for which these special powers must be taken. Its courts are respected and attended, whereas His Majesty's courts are deserted. It carries out its decrees by murder and terror, and that is why these wide powers must be taken. That is the basic fact, and accordingly you cannot deal with that under the ordinary rules of common law. You must get at this conspiracy of crime by every possible method you can. You must, if necessary, have quite a different code of law altogether from the ordinary criminal law. It is really a state of war you are dealing with. The Government whose decrees are respected, and whose courts are attended in Ireland, has declared war on His Majesty's Government. It has its police, it has its soldiery, its decrees are obeyed, and it has its methods of crime to carry out and to enforce its decrees, and the other Government, His Majesty's Government, simply say they do their best, and a very bad best it is, for perhaps the greatest Power in the world, the Power that has emerged triumphant out of the greatest War in history, the Power that has beaten the Kaiser——

This is another speech more germane to the Second Reading. The Amendment before the Committee at the present time is, as I understand it, that no new offences shall be created by these regulations which are to be made. That is a quite definite Amendment, and I must ask hon. Members to confine their remarks to it.

I apologise, and bow to your ruling. The point I was really pleading, although perhaps I was concealing it, was that I think the Government are right in arming themselves with the widest possible power to meet what really is a Government that is making war upon them, and so far making war extremely successfully upon them. They should arm themselves with the widest powers, and I only hope that these powers will be used. It is high time they were used, and if the Government do put in force these powers, and put them in force in the most drastic way, they will have behind them the overwhelming popular opinion of this country. I myself am a profound admirer of this Government, and I do not think a more efficient Government has been in power in modern times, but their failure is in Ireland, and it is because they have not used their powers. Now, they should take all the powers they can, and they should allay the great and growing indignation in this country at the state of matters that is allowed to go on in Ireland. Accordingly, I shall certainly support the Government taking every power they possibly can to cope with the criminal conspiracy that has succeeded so well in Ireland, and I only hope and pray that the Government will use these powers in the most drastic form.

I desire to support the Government in contesting this Amendment. I really do think it is deplorable that the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) should make speeches here suggesting we are a set of bloodthirsty tyrants, forcing coercive law on Ireland. I regret exceedingly that the Government have not passed into law the measure which they have proposed, and I hope it will be passed at the earliest opportunity. I am sorry it is not already on the Statute Book, but, although one may regret that they have not proceeded more quickly, it is surely idle for the hon. and gallant Member to suggest that we, in supporting this measure, are a set of bloodthirsty tyrants,' imposing coercive rule on a country which is peaceable and quiet. It is not fair, and, as a Scotsman and lover of liberty, I protest with all my heart.

Go and ask the people of Scotland.

I do not speak for Scotland; I speak as a Scotsman. Although I make no claim to speak for Scotland, I make every claim to speak as a Scotsman. I think the Government, in suggesting that these regulations shall be laid on the table, have gone far to meet any objection that might be made. These regulations will be published, and one knows the proper vigilance with which people interested in Ireland follow the proceedings of this House. If the regulations were objected to, a debate could, and would, be raised, and if a resolution were passed disapproving of such regulations, they would be void. That is a safeguard of an ample kind, and I do think, in the whole circumstances, the Government have adopted the right attitude in refusing to countenance this Amendment, and have acted in a reasonable spirit in accepting the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), because I do think every opportunity will be given to those interested in Irish questions, when these regulations are laid on the table, to raise the matter and have full and complete discussion.

I think the indignation against my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith is rather overdone. What is the offence? We are now told that this is a Bill, not only for setting up new courts, but new crimes. Surely it is not an unreasonable question to ask my right hon. Friend what those offences are. I cannot see what excuse he has in not answering that question, because we have been told that this is not a panic Bill, but is a Bill he has had in cold storage since June. Therefore, he ought to be in a position to answer the question put to him. We have also been told that this Bill would not have come into operation if it had not been for the failure of the Assize Courts. The Assize Courts deal with offences which exist, and it seems extraordinary that, because of their failure to deal with the law as it stands and offences as they exist, it is necessary to bring in a new Bill setting up new Courts, and making new offences. We want to know what those new offences are. Surely, if there is one thing the House of Commons ought to be jealous about it is the creation of new offences. We are here to protect the liberty of the subject, not only in this country but in Ireland, and measures which are applied to Ireland may under certain circumstances be applied to this country, and when we are considering the interests of Ireland we are also considering the interests of England.

I quite agree with those who moved this Amendment, that the Government is asking here for very great power—the power to create new crimes, as occasion may require. I want the Committee, before they are led away by that, to look at the situation, and see whether this exceptional power is not really needed by the Gevernment. Hon. Members have said that murder can be dealt with by the present law, but for every offence of murder, take the amount of terror under which a large number of people in the South of Ireland live. If you confine the Government simply to dealing with crime such as murder, you will not deal with the whole difficulty. The liberty of the subject is on everybody's lips, but we never hear now of our duty towards the loyalists in the South of Ireland. If you simply restrict it to existing crime, you will not be able to give adequate protection to people living in the South of Ireland. I know that in giving this power to the Government we are taking a very strong step. There was practically no reference to this in all the speeches yesterday. There was a great deal of recrimination between the two Front Benches as to whose fault it was that there is this state of things in Ireland. I take no interest in that discussion, but I think this Bill has to deal with the state of affairs as we have it now. What I hope we shall hear from the Chief Secretary to-day is that he really means to use these powers, and do his duty in Ireland, and one of the conditions on which I vote against this Amendment is that, if we grant these exceptional powers, the Government will realise that their first duty is to give loyal subjects protection for life and property. The one people who have remained loyal to the law and not broken the law, are the loyalists in the South of Ireland, and, as a condition of voting against this Amendment, I hope the Government will see as soon as it is possible that it shall be safe for the people to live in Ireland, not only from being murdered, but from being terrorised and prevented from going about their ordinary business, as I may be old-fashioned enough to believe, the vast majority in Ireland, Nationalists as well as Protestants, are most anxious to do at the present time, and to see the law enforced.

There is one reply to what my hon. and learned Friend has just said with regard to the Southern Unionists. That is, that the opposition to this Bill yesterday, which did not come from the regular opposition, came from those Members from this House who represent the Southern Unionists here. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend was here when the speeches were made, but the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness) made a speech, and everybody knows he represents better than most people the south.

He does not. He does not represent them—only a certain section.

I am very glad to know that there are divisions even in the ranks of the Government's supporters. In any case, the Member for Blackpool (Colonel Ashley) does not, in any sense, represent an Irish constituency.

Excuse me. I have very considerable interests in the West of Ireland, and that is more than the hon. Member for East Edinburgh can say.

We will let that point pass. I did not hear my hon. and gallant Friend's interruption owing to remarks that were being made near to me. But the reply obviously is that of those who do pretend to represent the Southern Unionists as a body, some of them in this House yesterday were opposed to this Bill. But what I have risen for is mainly this: Before we go to a Division I think we are entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Greenwood) at least one example of the kind of new crimes with which it is intended to cope. The Government should make some little attempt to satisfy the criticism put forward. My right hon. Friend said he had had some months' experience in Ireland of the operations of the present law, and the suggestion was that the new. crimes are not covered by it —[An HON. MEMBER: "Little girls sell- ing rags."]—and other crimes are suggested to me as I am speaking. But let me put this simple question, and I will not go further, so that it may not be said we are interrupting the Debate—let us limit it to one example. Let my right hon. Friend tell the House what kind of crimes are not covered by his existing powers, and what he wants this new power for, and then we shall be in a position to say whether or not we shall withdraw this Amendment. We will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will prove to us that the powers he has are not sufficient to cover the crimes which he knows about, or has in anticipation. It is most unfortunate that we should have to give the Irish Administration the power to create new crimes, so that what is wrong in Ireland will be quite right in England, Scotland, and Wales.

An appeal has been made to me by the hon. Gentleman. The amendment has been answered by my right hon. Freind, the Attorney-General for Ireland, and I do not feel called upon to add anything to what he has said except that it is essential to have the power of making new offences because of the new conditions—because of the new crimes and offences that arise in Ireland. It would militate against the success of a new Regulation if it were made to define the crime, the new offence. At the moment we are considering certain crimes, offences, to meet a situation which neither this House nor the country has ever before had to face. I submit that it is not unreasonable to request the Committee to give the Government carte blanche to meet certain circumstances they have never before had to meet. Of course, it is giving great powers to the Irish Executive. I agree. But the circumstances demand these powers. Everybody condemns the Government for not being more successful in Ireland. That criticism is perfectly natural. But no more severe criticism of the Government's failure, as it is alleged, has come from any part of the House than from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It means that the Government has not sufficient power.

You do not trust the people.

I am asking the House to give us the power to make these new offences. I am trying to be perfectly frank with the House. I decline to define it more precisely, but I say this: that the allegation that this will possibly involve the arrest of girls selling flags.

It has been done.

I do not know anything about that. I have not been responsible for anything of the sort.

You are the successor of the man that did it.

I am a successor of Adam, but I am not responsible for original sin. I can assure the House on this point that while I have responsibility for the Government of Ireland no trivial arrests shall be made. We are not dealing with trivial matters. We are dealing with rebellion—in part successful. We ask the House of Commons to give the powers necessary to try to meet this subversion of authority, and of the prestige of this House.

I had not intended to rise on this particular Amendment but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Irish Secretary. The claim which is made is one which ought not to pass in this House. I am not one of those who wish to refuse any powers necessary to put down murder. I voted against this measure simply because I believe it is going at it in the wrong way. The speech the right hon. Gentleman has just made, as I think, suggests the coercion of the country by the abrogation of the law, which ought not to pass unnoticed. The Irish Secretary comes and says that he cannot get jurors. If he had left it at that most of us would have said: "We will support you, though, of course, we object to the particular form of court-martial which, we think, is a wrong method. When he goes further and says quite frankly: "I wish to have the power to make new offences," I for one desire to protest.

The House of Commons has often given exceptional powers to the Executive to cope with disorder or rebellion. This is not the first rebellion in any part of the Empire. The House of Commons has not, I think, given powers beyond those constituted by the Defence of the Realm Act— or powers deliberately to create new offences. I regret to have to make this emphatic protest, because I know the difficulties under which the Irish Secre- tary has to labour. But no considerations of that kind can deter me from protesting against the principle that you should abrogate the law itself, and take powers to create new offences. The law of England, which is, in fact, the law of Ireland, gives the fullest powers to cope with any possible emergency that can arise. It is the growth of centuries, and quite equal to dealing with any such situation. I know that the law can be defied, and you want special powers to enable you to see that it is respected. That power can and will be given by the House of Commons, but I hope we shall never agree to the abrogation of the law, or give to any executive officer the power to create new offences. I think the Chief Secretary might have made some concession on this point, and I do not think that he fully realises the effect of his words when he claims power to create new offences. Does he mean power not to create new offences, but to deal with fresh breaches of the law, and let the law stand as it has stood for centuries?

I think it would be well for us to know exactly the claim which is made by the Chief Secretary under this Amendment. The last shred of our liberty in Ireland has gone. It is one of the advantages of law, that people should know all about it, and it is essential that offences must be known before the law is made. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked to describe these new offences, and his reply was:

"It would militate against the success of the Regulations to define the crime."

The crime is not to be put in the Act or the Regulations, and I should like to know, Where is it going to be put? It will exist only in the mind of the Chief Secretary and his advisers and the officers who compose the court-martial which is going to try these offences. Where are we in Ireland? How are we to know whether any Act is right or not? Think of the circumstances under which this claim is now put forward. When the last vestiges of British government are disappearing in three-quarters of Ireland, instead of inspiring confidence in British law and trying to win people back, the Chief Secretary comes forward with these extraordinary demands such as were never, I am sure, made even by the Germans in the whole course of their occupation of Belgium. The more we probe into this Bill, the more outrageous seems to be the powers, and the more unjustified they become. The Bill will prove most disastrous to the British Government, and it will turn all decent and honest Irishmen away from the shreds and tatters of British government that are left, and force them to return to the only government that exists in Ireland.

Sinn Fein.

3.0 P. M.

Yes, Sinn Fein, because British government has now disappeared. Do you want British government brought back again by a tyrannous and futile proposal such as that which has just fallen from the lips of the Chief Secretary for Ireland?

I think hon. Members are speaking on this question with a great deal of unnecessary indignation. It has just been said that the Chief Secretary is taking power to create new offences. We have just heard the Attorney-General state that the Government propose to accept as an Amendment the words

"Provided that all such regulations shall be laid as soon as may be after they made before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House of Parliament passes a resolution disapproving any such regulation such regulation shall be void."

All these new offences will have to be laid upon the Table of the House, and Parliament will have the right to nullify them. I submit that really the Chief Secretary has no power to make new offences. That power lies in the hands of Parliament, and in this way the subject can be safeguarded under these very distressing circumstances. The hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) says that the wretched inhabitants of Ireland will not know what are these new offences. May I point out that they will be set forth in the regulations which will have to lie for fourteen days on the Table of the House, where they can be examined, and if people do not know what they are then it will be their own look out.

The speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down shows how completely ignorant the Committee must be as to what this measure really means. The actual position was frankly indicated by the Chief Secretary himself, who declared that he could not define the offences. No regula- tions are going to specify the offences for which these people are going to be imprisoned. The Chief Secretary is now taking powers in a general way, and that is the only way in which it can be done. We ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what he really means to do by these regulations, and he says, in effect, "I am not going to tell you." The right hon. Gentleman has been very frank indeed all through. If that is the power the majority of this Committee are willing to pass on to the Executive in Ireland, then, of course, we know what is really meant.

The only power given by this Clause is to make regulations to show what powers the Government propose to exercise.

Would the Noble Lord read the Amendment? The Amendment simply asks that no new offence shall be created.

The moment you get power to consider every Regulation that is made you get all the security possible, certainly all the security that you will gain by passing this Amendment. I think that the Government have made a very considerable concession in allowing the Regulations to be laid upon the Table of the House. That seems to me a far more real, valuable security than to put in any limiting words of this kind. I rather feel with the Government that it is quite impossible to see what the possible ingenuity of the Irish people may devise which may not be covered or fully covered by the existing law, and I think it would be right to give them power to present Regulations to this House to deal with any possible new attempts to break the law.

We really are in a difficult position. What the Noble Lord says will appeal to the reason of every one in the House. On the other hand, the Chief Secretary himself says: "I must have power to create new offences." No such claim has ever been made before in my recollection of this House. I do not think the Chief Secretary really means it. I rose to protest at once. The Noble Lord says that all that is meant is that the Regulations which are to be laid upon the Table of the House will define the powers without the creation of new offences. That is the one thing which we must never do, and, if the Chief Secretary, after consultation with his legal advisers, will tell us that he does not propose to create new offences under the law, but only to have new powers to deal with offences which may be committed——

He proposes to take power to make new Regulations.

Otherwise, I shall never be satisfied.

I am rather in a fog as to what it means. Take what the Noble Lord says about Regulations. If the Regulations are laid upon the Table of the House, they must lie there for a month.

Fourteen days.

It is usually a month, but in this case it is 14 days. The Committee must remember that these days run whether the House is sitting or not. If the new crimes are of so serious a nature that the Irish Executive require power to deal with them, in Heaven's name why do you want another fortnight's delay?

You can act on the Regulations.

You are dealing with a situation in which you require power to deal with new offences. If you are going to do the thing effectively then give the Government the carte blanche for which they ask. If the House are prepared to sacrifice human liberty, then let them vote with the Government. We are not going to vote with the Government; we stand for the rights and liberty of the subject, and we say deliberately that this is an abominable suggestion made by a perfectly intolerable Government. Hon. Members laugh at us because they are numerically stronger than we are, but the day will come when they may want the protection and, apart from that, the people outside this House want to be protected. Is it an unreasonable thing to ask the Chief Secretary, after months of experience, to get up and give us one typical example of the kind of thing that is in his mind? What is the use of the Irish Secretary if he cannot do that? No Irish Secretary is worth his salary if, after months of experience in his office, he does not know the kind of power that he wants and that he has not got. We ask him, we have a right to ask, it is our duty to ask him, as representing those who cannot represent themselves here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sinn Feiners."] After all, is not the ballot of this country sacred, and, if the electors of Ireland return Sinn Feiners, do hon. Members say that they have no right to do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why are they not here?"] That is just like the Government. They never face any question; they always run away. Can the Irish Secretary give us one solitary example what kind of thing that he has in mind? If he cannot, I am going to vote against him.

I can understand very well the point of view of people who would resist this kind of Bill on the Second Reading, but I cannot understand the point of view of hon. Members who, after the House has accepted the view that this Bill is necessary, would seek to limit its chances of effectiveness. I am bound to say that I have always been sceptical about the value of the Bill. I voted just now to limit it to one year, but I am certainly not prepared to take the responsibility, and was not prepared to take the responsibility last night, of voting against a Bill which the Executive assures me may be able to meet the emergency. If in the same way the Chief Secretary tells me that in the public interest, the abnormal situation being what it is, he is not prepared to go into details for fear of limiting its effectiveness, then I am prepared to take that and to support him in making the Bill as effective as we can. Time will show whether the Bill gives him the fruits which he expects it to give him. I profoundly doubt whether it will, but far be it from me to take upon myself or from any hon. Member to take upon himself, the responsibility of hampering the Eexcutive in the most dangerous and critical moment of its existence.

I want to assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hogge) that he need not be in any fog at all.

I do not want your assurance; I want that of the Chief Secretary.

He says that he is in a fog. I want to assist him. The Chief Secretary says that he wants one certain power, the power of making regulations, even if it may so happen that those regulations may create an offence. If martial law were proclaimed, this would be incidental. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman must have that power. He has not for one moment suggested that he is going to create some new penal offence. He says only this: "I cannot, or I do not choose, at the moment to tell you what proclamations it may be necessary for me to make, but I want the power to make them when the occasion and the emergency arises." That is very reasonable, and there has been a lot of unnecessary noise about nothing.

I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wood). He can understand hon. Members voting against the Second Reading of the Bill, but he cannot understand, when the Second Reading has been passed, any hon. Member voting in favour of an Amendment which was likely to restrict the powers of the Executive. I am going to tell him exactly why we on this side of the House take this line. This Bill, instead of improving conditions in Ireland, will aggravate them. Therefore, we and those who are of the same opinion will vote for any Amendment which limits the power of any Executive in order to limit the harm which this Bill will undoubtedly do in Ireland.

I do not often speak about Ireland, but I would like to point out that the only lucid statements made by the Chief Secretary were these: That he is a son of Adam—and he is a very fine physical specimen I must admit —and he wants carte blanche to create new offences by the Regulations he is to issue. Is there any offence, real or imaginary, that cannot be dealt with either by common law or by the Defence of the Realm Regulations? We were told by the Leader of the House, and I believe the statement' was endorsed by the Chief Secretary, that the Defence of the Realm Act was very much stronger than martial law. This Amendment seems to me most reasonable, especially as the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us one example of the kind of Regulation he seeks power to issue. May I ask whether a case of this kind will come under those Regulations? I am quoting from a certain speech in which it was stated that within the past few days a most extraordinary distinction has been made in relation to prisoners convicted by the Courts, one class of person being sent to gaol for inciting to violence and another class being forgiven, although they were guilty of exactly the same kind of incitement. That was due to the existence of a craven Government, but after what had happened in the House of Commons, and the pronouncement on the policy of the Government, he was not surprised at such things happening. I would like to know whether the Government, under the proposed Regulations, will arrest the man who made that speech? [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was it?"] Surely everyone knows; it was the right hon. and learned Member for Dun-cairn (Sir E. Carson). This speech was made after dinner one night, no doubt, but I want to ask one question: Suppose the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) goes to Ireland and makes the same sort of speech. What are the Government going to do with him? Or if the hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut. -Commander Kenworthy) does that sort of thing. What will be done with him? Will these cases be covered in the proposed Regulations? This is a very serious matter. The Regulations are to be laid on the Table, but this House will not be sitting, and we shall not see them. Even if we did see them, we would have no power over the Government with its automatic registering machine that will back it up in the Lobby on all sorts of things. I repeat this is the most serious matter that has ever been placed before Parliament since I have been a Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have said that before!"] Yes, and I will say it again, and it will only be repeating what I have said. Hon. Members are treating this as a laughing matter, but it is a question of destroying the liberty of the subject in a way which has never before been attempted, at any rate since I have been in public life. I deplore more than I can say the spirit of jocularity with which hon. Members are treating this question. This Bill will do nothing but cause disaffection in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] I will sit down immediately I have said what I have to say. I heartily support this Amendment, because I consider it a most reasonable proposal to ask that no new offence shall be created under the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 46.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words

"Provided that all regulations so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next fourteen days during the Session of Parliament after any such regulation is laid before it, praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty may annul the regulation and it shall be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder or to the power of making a new regulation, and the regulation shall not be deemed to be a statutory rule within the meaning of Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893."

This Amendment is not submitted in the belief that any Amendment whatever could justify this Bill; but, having regard to the fact that the rejection moved from these benches was not accepted, we believe it to be very necessary that we should protect, as far as possible, the people involved from the more drastic operation of the measure, and that the House of Commons ought to exercise the closest supervision over this important provision. It is recognised that the sting of this Bill will be in the regulations made under it, and much will depend upon the type of those regulations and the method by which they are administered. While it may possibly be the custom, judging by what some hon. Members have said, to ignore regulations when they have been made and to complain about their effect afterwards, surely, in a matter so serious as this, it is very desirable that full cognisance should be taken of all regulations that may be made or proposed for the purpose of the operation of this Bill. No regulation ought to have effect which is not in accordance with the feeling and the considered opinion of the House of Commons, and no regulation ought to be put into operation which will not stand the test of the judgment that the House of Commons should exercise upon it. We understand that the Chief Secretary is prepared to accept this Amendment as it is. It is a reasonable Amendment—much more reasonable than the provisions to which it has to be applied—and as such I beg to move it.

The hon. Member said we are prepared to accept this Amendment in the form in which it is read from the Chair. The Defence of the Realm Regulations were not laid on the Table of the House, but I consider it my duty to put these Regulations on the Paper, restricting the period to 14 days, so that the House would possess intimate knowledge of the Regulations, and would have the power in a constitutional way to make them null and void if this House, or the other House, so desired. I think this is a better way of keeping in touch with the House of Commons than was suggested in an earlier Amendment. I hope, therefore, as this is accepted with the sole desire to meet the wishes of the House, we shall be able to get it at once and pass on to other Amendments.

Of course, one would support any Amendment which, in any sense, ameliorates the hardships of the Bill, but I am not quite clear whether this Amendment would have any effect for the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind, because we are rising next Thursday. This Bill, if it is to be of any use at all, must become operative at once. The terms upon which it is submited to the House are that there is a situation in Ireland which requires exceptional means to be taken by the Executive to deal with it. We are told that the Regulations will be laid upon the Table of the House. Obviously, they cannot be laid, except technically, during the Recess, and it will be the end of October before either this House or the other House can present a petition to His Majesty to have those Regulations annulled. Incidentally, hon. Members ought to remember the extreme difficulty there is in getting a petition granted against any Regulations. As a matter of fact these petitions cannot be discussed in the House of Commons unless the Government is willing to give time. It is not as if any Member can demand the right to discuss them. All the Government has to do to prevent discussion is to refuse time to discuss them, and we know obviously, from the nature of the Bill, that if it were inconvenient to the Government to have a discussion they would refuse time. Therefore, it seems to me that while we may accept the Amendment we ought to be very careful that the Government is not going to get credit of giving us anything—[ Laughter ] —let us be fair if we are fighting.

Share the credit.

There is no credit to share.

What is the use of the right to petition if you are going to have a Recess now until the end of October? Are not your powers wanted now, otherwise why do you want the Bill? The second point is that under this the Government claims exemption from anything it does between now and the time when we can present our petition. That is to say, the Irish Secretary and his executors will not wait. As soon as they get this Act they will put into operation the Regulations they have drawn and will act on them, and everything will be done under them and we cannot complain until we come back in October. As a matter of fact, it is a perfect farce for the Irish Secretary to pretend that this is a concession. It is not a concession.

The whole thing is a farce.

I know it is. But this is a minor part. It is no use the Government pretending that they are giving us anything. They are giving nothing. They are taking the whole power to exercise their will during the Recess, when Parliament cannot criticise it, and they are offering us a stone instead of bread.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).

Hon. Members may think this is an Amendment of the character which has been described already as pin pricking, and as purely a party Amendment. If anyone has that view I would bring to his recollection the views expressed upon this Sub-section on the Second Reading by the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cecil) and the hon. Member (Mr. Bottomley). Both of them used this Sub-section with great disapproval. When two hon. Members whose views upon general matters are not often in convergence come together in the opinion that a Sub-section of this kind should be viewed with a great deal of care and a great deal of suspicion, I think I have said enough to show that the Amendment is one of substance and deserves the careful consideration of the House. The Sub-section proposes to substitute courts-martial for the existing courts. The reasons which have been put forward for so very grave a step are inadequate. In the Debate yesterday the stress was laid almost entirely upon the fact that at present you cannot get jurors to deal with cases in Ireland. They are summoned, but they will not attend. That, I think, is the principal point which is brought forward in support of this Sub-section. It was pointed out yesterday that that position can be met under the existing powers which the Government have. Under the Act of 1887 they can change the venue, and if there are some parts of Ireland in which jurors cannot be found they can have their trial in other parts of Ireland where jurors can be found. If the Chief Secretary's opinion is that you cannot get jurors in any part of Ireland, if the public opinion in Ireland is such that in no part, not even in those parts where there are people who are opposed in convictions in general to the quarters of Ireland from which these cases come, can you get jurors to try these cases, why does he not satisfy himself with the power he has, and instead of adopting so grave a step as that of putting Ireland under martial law, which is practically what this amounts to? Why should he not content himself with the powers he has and get his convictions in those parts of Ireland where jurors can be found.

In addition it was pointed out that in courts of summary jurisdiction justices could not be got. He cannot find jurors and he cannot find judges. He has told us he does not expect that the provisions of this Bill need be applied in many parts of Ireland. His great hope is that in very few parts of Ireland would it be necessary to apply them. If that be so, why is it necessary to adopt these processes of courts-martial? Why is it not possible to find judges to carry on in such parts of Ireland as are affected? The Chief Secretary said yesterday that he had considered the matter and that he felt it was not the proper thing to ask judges to undertake duties for which they were not appointed. That seems to me a very flimsy reason. Judges have been called upon to perform other duties. They have been appointed to preside over coal commissions and other matters of that kind, and it is an extraordinary thing if in the small area of Ireland in which it is expected that these provisions are to apply a sufficient number of judges cannot be found. Is the position this, that you cannot get judges and that you will not get judges? Have the judges of Ireland been approached on this matter? Surely the Government must have exhausted every means before they bring in the process of court-martial. It may well be that they cannot find the jurors but is it true that they cannot find the judges? Is it true that the Irish judges are not willing to carry on under this Bill. That might well be, because this Bill is not only a Bill for doing away with the old Courts, but for doing away with the old law. This new Sub-section acquires new and sinister significance, following on what the Chief Secretary has said in connection with another Clause. He is taking power to create new offences. The Sub-section says:

We are putting that right by subsequent Amendment.

That is not the substantial point. The substantial point is that this Sub-section provides for extending the provisions of trial by courts-martial to persons who have committed crimes before or after the passing of the Act, and now we learn that the Chief Secretary intends to create new crimes What may arise may be this: that there are people in Ireland who are entirely unconscious of committing crime until some Regulation is put forward by the Chief Secretary. That Regulation becomes retrospective and you have people in Ireland who have been proceeding along a line along which they thought they were entitled to proceed, and then a new Regulation comes into force and they become criminals and are brought under the operation of the courts-martial. The objections to this Sub-section are so serious and so grave and the reasons advanced for substituting courts-martial are so flimsy that it is clear the Government have not exhausted the powers open to them, by which they can, if necessary, provide themselves with the means of maintaining law and order.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether the House is going to permit further procedure in connection with this Bill in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. This is a Bill which proposes to abrogate the liberties of a nation. The Prime Minister came here yesterday, and made a speech waging war on Ireland. He is not prepared to come here to fight this Bill in the House. He has his majority here to vote down every free and democratic opinion expressed, and he leaves the House and goes to another part of the Government administration, for the purpose of concocting a war against Russia. That is what the Prime Minister is doing.

On a point of Order——

This Committee ought not to continue to allow this discussion to proceed any further.

On a point of disorder——

The hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer) cannot be allowed to interrupt the proceedings.

This House, which has practically no liberties left, is compelled to discuss this Bill—a Bill for destroying every vestige of constitutional freedom, or whatever is left of it in Ireland—trial by jury, the setting up of courts-martial, the destruction of the whole of the law in Ireland—and it is proceeding in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House. I for my part will not sit in this House, and allow this Bill to proceed unless the House decides by vote to send for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House and tell them to come here and bear their responsibility for one of the most infamous transactions of which any Government ever was guilty. This is not a measure which proposes to create order or to maintain the law. It is a measure of a purely provocative character. It is a measure for the purpose of provoking the Irish people, and every suggestion made from these benches has been turned down; every Amendment has been voted down.

That is not so. We accepted an Amendment only a moment ago.