Commons Sitting of 17 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  THAMES FERRY (GREENWICH TO MILLWALL) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Order (11th February) for Second Reading of Thames Ferry (Greenwich to Millwall) Bill be read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

PETITIONS.
  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Manchester, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
Petition from Forfarshire, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW ACT, 1897.
Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Denbigh;—and, Radnor; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW RELIEF (DISFRANCHISEMENT).
Petition from Elham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour;—From Kings-nympton;—Barrington;—Lewisham;—Chulmleigh;—Ashreigney;—Newport;—Lewes;—and, Chatteris; to lie upon the Table.
TITHE RENT CHARGE.
Petition' from Elham, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
Petitions for repeal;—from Drayton;—and, Newport (Salop); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
  Copy presented,—of Army Estimates of Effective and Non-Effective Services for 1899–1900, with Statements of the variations of the numbers of Her Majesty's British Forces, explanations of the increases and decreases in the Estimates, the Amounts included for the Colonies and Egypt, and the Amounts provided for each Arm of the Service and for various Miscellaneous Establishments (by command); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 63.)
ARMY (MEMORANDUM ON ESTIMATES).
Copy presented,—of Memorandum of the Secretary of State relating to the Army Estimates for 1899–1900 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH MONEY ORDERS) (NORTH GERMANY).
Copy presented,—of Additional Articles to the Money Order Convention of the 10–18th of January 1871, between the General Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the General Post Office of North Germany (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES).
Annual Account presented,—for the period ended 20th November 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 64.)
NATIONAL DEBT (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS.
Account presented,—of the Gross Amount of all Moneys received and paid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Fund for Military Savings Banks, from 19th September 1845, to the 5th January 1899 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 65.)
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Anual Series, No. 2205 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
Copies presented,—of Diplomotic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 494 and 495 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 2, 1899).
Copy presented,—of Exchange of Notes extending to Cyprus the provisional modus vivendi between the United Kingdom and Belgium pending the conclusion of a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the two countries, 25th November 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

PAPERS LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
1. Inquiry into Charities (County of Carmarthen),—Further Return relative thereto (ordered 10th February 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson).
. Church Temporalities (Ireland),—Copy of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland for the year ended 31st March 1898 (by Act), to be printed. (No. 66.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have come to the following resolution, viz:—
Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff,—"That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to inquire into the salaries of the Permanent Staff of both Houses of Parliament, and into the present method of appointment or nomination by any officer of either House; and to report what changes, if any, are suitable in respect thereto," to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

BILL DEFERRED.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from Tuesday next till Wednesday 1st March.
NEW BILLS.
  VACCINATION (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  Bill to repeal section two of the Vaccination Act, 1898, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Boulnois, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Whitmore, Sir Seymour King, Mr. Coghill, Mr. Duneombe, Sir Reginald Hanson, and Mr. Hozier; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 1st March, and to be printed. (Bill 72.)
  OYSTERS.
  Bill to regulate the sale and cultivation of Oysters, ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch, Mr. Brookfield, Mr. Sinclair, and Mr. Usborne; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st March, and to be printed. (Bill 72.)
SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT (1879), AMENDMENT (No. 2).
Bill to Amend the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, ordered to be brought in by Sir Andrew Scoble, Mr. Bousfield, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Samuel Hoare, and Mr. Lawson Walton; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 1st March, and to' be printed. (Bill 74.)
TRUCKS ACT AMENDMENT.
Bill to amend the Truck Acts, and to make it illegal for Employers to compel their Workmen, as a condition of employment, to become or remain members of, or to leave, any Benefit or Friendly Society or Club, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Galloway, Sir Charles Dilke, Major Grice-Hutchinson, Mr. Holland, Mr. Dalziel, and Mr. Schwann; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 29th March, and to be printed. (Bill 75.)
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS.
Bill for the Registration of Firms, ordered to be brought in by Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Oldroyd, Sir James Rankin, and Mr. Philip Stanhope; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday 8th March, and to be printed. (Bill 76.)
COLONIAL SOLICITORS.
Bill to provide for the admission of Solicitors of Courts of British Possessions to the Supreme Courts in the United Kingdom, ordered to be brought in by Mr. -Warr, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Helder, and Mr. Hogan; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 77.)
QUESTIONS.

  REPORT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in consideration of the inconvenience caused by the great delay in the issue of the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, he can this year make arrangements that it shall be published earlier, and, if possible, before the Debate on the Home Office Vote?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLET,): I fear that there are greater difficulties than ever before in the way of an early publication of the Chief Inspector's Report. An important reorganisation of the factory staff has been sanctioned by the Treasury, and will have to be carried out by the Chief Inspector during the next few months. A Factory Bill will shortly be before Parliament on which I shall constantly require his assistance and advice. Numerous questions of the utmost importance as to dangerous industries have reached the point at which he must deal with them. In short, I
  1264
  feel that I cannot withdraw him from these important and immediate duties for the purpose of writing an annual report, however valuable; and I think that it will be better that the report should be left till the autumn, and be published towards the end of the year, like the reports of the Local Government Board and the Registrar-General.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Could we not have the reports of the other inspectors?
  THE HOME SECRETARY: I do not think it is possible to do that.

  HAWAII.
  MR. HARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any changes have been made in the Customs tariff of the Hawaiian Islands since they have become annexed to the United States; and whether such changes are to the disadvantage of the British trader?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware no changes have as yet been introduced in the Customs Tariff of the Hawaiian Islands, but a Bill is at present before the United States Congress "to provide a Government for the territory of Hawaii." Section 89 of this Bill provides "that the territory of Hawaii shall comprise a Customs District of the United States." A report on the import trade of Hawaii for the year 1897 is already in the press and will shortly be in the hands of Members, which deals with the effect of the preferential treatment in regard to Customs duties which has for years past been extended to imports from the United States on the trade of other countries.

  MR. C. L. FALKNER, B.L.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. C. L. Falkner, B.L., has been appointed as legal Commissioner to fix fair rents in Ireland; is he

  1265
  aware that Mr. Falkner acted as counsel for the landlords before the Fry Commission, and contested South Armagh as the landlords candidate; and whether, under these circumstances, this gentleman's appointment will be reconsidered?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I believe it is a fact that Mr. Falkner was one of the counsel to the Landowners' Committee before the Fry Commission, but the Question seems to assume that a barrister always shares the views and opinion of his clients, which is quite erroneous. Mr. Falkner stood as a Unionist candidate for South Armagh some years ago, though he did not do so, I understand, as a "landlords' candidate." In the opinion of the Government, Unionist opinions no more disqualify a man from acting justly as n Land Commissioner than do Nationalist opinions.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is this the gentleman who has been an official of the Dublin Unionist Association for some years?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: And why not?
  MR. DALY: Will Mr. Falkner be the legal Commissioner for the County of Armagh?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That depends on the Land Commissioners, and not upon me.

  POSTCARDS.
  SIR REGINALD HANSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in the interests of the commercial classes, he will consider the advisability of providing a large-sized inland postcard, of the dimensions used in other countries of the world, to take the place of the very small one now issued to the public; whether he will explain the reason why the foreign postcard (British), which is the larger-sized card,
  1266
  is sold at face value, whilst, in the case of the inland card, which is of smaller size, the material is charged for; and whether there is any hope of all postcards being sold at face value, as is done in India, and in other countries of the world?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The question of making certain modifications in the inland postcards is under consideration, and the advisability of increasing the size is one of the points that will come under review. The foreign postcard has, from the time of its first issue, been sold at its face value, mainly with the view of placing it on the same footing in this respect as the foreign postcards in other countries. This consideration does not, however, apply to inland postcards, and I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to make any change in the price of these cards.

FOREIGN PRODUCE FOR THE ARMY.
MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has seen the resolution of the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stockowners' Association protesting against the supply of foreign produce to the troops and troop horses stationed in Ireland to the injury of the home producers, who have to pay taxes for the support of both troops and horses; and whether he will take steps to remedy this grievance?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The Secretary of State has read the resolution of the Irish Cattle Traders' and Stock-Owners' Association. Every care, consistent with the interests of the taxpayers generally, is taken to encourage the supply of native produce.

NEW CAVALRY ORGANISATION.
GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House when a statement may be expected regarding the modifications which have been promised in the new cavalry

1267
organisation, and which it is hoped wi11 remove some of the grievances and anomalies of which there have recently been complaints?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM,): I propose to deal with this matter when introducing the Army Estimates.

THE CAVALRY ESTABLISHMENT.
GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the cavalry now quartered in the United Kingdom is up to its establishment; and, if not, how many men are deficient, and in what regiments?
MR. WYNDHAM: At this moment we have 24 men in excess of the establishment in the United Kingdom. It is fair to state that a draft of 267 will sail on the 24th of this month. But, since that will be the last draft of the trooping season, the inflow of recruits will, no doubt, shortly fill up the establishment.

RIOTOUS MEETINGS IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any reports have reached the constabulary headquarters in Dublin relating to the riotous behaviour in Adare and Croom, County Limerick, on Sunday last, arising out of meetings which were held on that day in these places; will he explain why the supporters of Lord Dunraven were permitted by the police in Croom to molest persons in the streets who were supposed to be supporters of the Labour candidate, Mr. Coleman; and whether steps will be taken to prevent the police from taking sides on occasions of this kind during the Local Government contests now going on in Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. There was no riotous behaviour or disturbance of any kind in either Adare or Croom on the date mentioned, and at neither of these places were the supporters of either of the candidates
1268
molested in any way. As regards the last paragraph, there is already a rule in the Constabulary Code prohibiting members of the force from taking sides on the occasion of elections. The sole duty of the police on such occasions is that of preserving the public peace.

IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOL BOOKS.
MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Board of Commissioners for National Education in Ireland have issued an order to the teachers of national schools, directing them to purchase books and stationery exclusively from the Education Department on Dublin, whether he is aware that these books are not printed nor is the paper manufactured by the Education Board, and that both the books and paper can be obtained on much cheaper terms from the ordinary booksellers and stationers; and will he countermand an order which inflicts additional expense and inconvenience on the public by creating a monopoly in favour of a Government Department?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners are not aware that books and paper of the quality supplied by them can be obtained from ordinary booksellers and stationers. The rule made by the Commissioners as to the purchase of school requisites from their stores was considered necessary in the interests of the pupils, in order to secure that the goods supplied were of approved quality, and in strict accordance with the editions and samples sanctioned by the Commissioners, and that the children should not be charged more than the cost price. I have no power to interfere in the arrangements made in this respect by the Commissioners.

IRISH PRISON TREATMENT.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is a practice in Irish prisons, when misdemeanants are re-arrested at the prison gates on previous warrants, to place them at the commencement of each new sentence on the lowest dietary

1269
scale; and, if such practice obtains, whether he can see his way to recommend such a change in the rules as will enable such prisoners to obtain, during a virtually continuous imprisonment, the dietary privileges which they have been awarded for compliance with prison regulations in the first sentence?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The general practice is as stated in the Question; but governors of prisons in such cases bring the facts before the medical officers, who have the power, where they consider it necessary, to direct that any such prisoner be placed on the diet which he was receiving immediately previous to re-arrest, or such other diet as the prisoner's health may require. The whole subject, I may add, is now engaging the consideration of the Government.

OPERATIONS IN THE NIGER REGION.
MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the military operations which have been carried on in the Niger regions and in the hinterland of Sierra Leone under British officers during the past two years have been directed by any department of the War Office; whether any reports relating to such operations have been furnished to the Secretary of State for War or to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army; and, if so, whether he can state how many of the British forces and what number of natives have been killed, 'and how many towns and villages have been burned, in such operations within the period mentioned; and, in case such information has not been furnished to the military authorities, can he inform the House where it can be obtained?
MR. WYNDHAM: NO operations have been carried out under the direction of the War Office in the Niger regions during the last two years. With the exception of the Benin expedition, the operations in those regions have been directed by the local administration under Foreign Office and Colonial Office control. The force, sent to Benin was under the command of the Naval Commander-in-Chief, acting under instructions from the Admiralty. The Secretary of State for War has received various reports from the officers in command
1270
of the Sierra Leone operations, which are not yet concluded. The British losses during the first period of the campaign, which terminated with the commencement of the rainy season in July last, were one officer and four men killed in action, and 10 officers and 59 men wounded; of the latter, three officers and four men subsequently died of their wounds. With regard to the losses of the enemy and the number of villages burnt during these operations, the Secretary of State for War cannot add to the answer given on this point by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 14th instant.

SWINE FEVER REGULATIONS.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the widespread continuance of swine fever, it is the intention of the Board of Agriculture to continue the present regulations; and if he will consider the desirability of again conferring with local authorities as to the best means of dealing with the subject?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The results of our operations against swine fever have not been recently so satisfactory as we could wish, but nevertheless the number of outbreaks in 1898 was less than half the number confirmed in either of the years 1894, 1895 and 1896, and I am certainly not prepared to abandon the precautions taken to keep the disease in check. I shall be very glad to consider any representations which may be made to me by individual local authorities, but experience has shown that their views and interests differ very widely, and I doubt whether any advantage would be gained by the convocation of another conference as has been suggested.
MAJOR RASCH: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that if he would rescind the regulation regarding compensation it would probably get rid of the disease altogether?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am not prepared to accept that suggestion.
MR. STRACHEY: Will the right honourable Gentleman reconsider his decision not to allow swine, fit for slaughter, to be removed, as was done by one of his predecessors in office?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am afraid it is not possible to reconsider the arrangements. In issuing the new regulations to which the honourable Member for Lichfield refers, our object was to reduce as far as possible inconvenience to pig owners. Reverting to a sort of middle course such as has been suggested is impossible.

MUZZLING ORDER AT LICHFIELD.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will state when he is likely to be able to remove the muzzling order from the Lichfield Union, as no case of rabies has taken place for many years, either in the district nor within ten miles of it?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am sorry that it is not possible for me as yet to name a time for the withdrawal of the Muzzling Order now in force in the' Lichfield Union. The area in which that Union is comprised is one in which rabies has been more or less prevalent for many years past, and it would be unsafe to relax the Order in particular portions of the area, regard being had to the conditions under which the disease is spread.

POSTAL RATES FOR MONTHLY TRADE PAPERS.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if the Post Office can do anything to give monthly trade papers the same advantages as weekly papers?
MR. HANBURY: The Post Office Act, 1870, restricts the newspaper privilege to periodicals published at intervals of not more than seven days. The question of extending the newspaper post to monthly publications has been very carefully considered by a Departmental Committee, and I cannot do better than refer
1272
the honourable Member to the report of that Committee, which was presented to the House in January, 1897, and which explains the chief reasons why the Postmaster-General is unable to propose any-such extension of the preferential rate of postage.

LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS' PAY.
MR. NICOL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the cause of the lighthouse authorities' delay in replying to the lightkeepers' petition for an increase of pay and other concessions, seeing that they have had ample time for the consideration of the said petition, since it was presented to them about four months ago, in accordance with a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in this House?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I understand that representatives of the three General Lighthouse Authorities are at present engaged in joint conference upon this subject. Some delay has been caused by the necessity of obtaining certain information from abroad.

ENNIS LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, now that he has received intimation of the intention of the Board of Governors of the Ennis Lunatic Asylum to grant a pension to the medical superintendent of that institute, whether he will see that temporary arrangements are made for the performance of the duties of that office, and that a permanent appointment is not made until the County Council is empowered to deal with the question?
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the retiring resident superintendent of the Ennis Asylum has undertaken to act till his successor is appointed; and if, under these circumstances, the Government will leave the question of a fresh appointment till the Clare County Council is elected?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The official notification of the resignation of the Medical Superintendent of the Ennis District Asylum was received yesterday. The question of the arrangements to be made for the discharge of the duties of the office is engaging the consideration of Government, and I must ask the honourable Members to postpone their inquiries for a few days.
MR. W. REDMOND: Is it the fact that the retiring superintendent volunteered to perform the duties until his successor was appointed?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe that is the case.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to reduce the number of officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary in proportion to the reduction in the number of men of that force?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not at present proposed to reduce the number of officers of the Constabulary.

IRELAND AND THE WORKMEN'S DWELLINGS PURCHASE ACT.
MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a resolution was passed by the Wexford Board of Guardians, on the 11th February, recommending that the provisions of the Workmen's Dwellings (Purchase) Bill be extended to Ireland; and whether he can see his way to recommend the Government to make this Bill applicable to Ireland, so as to enable the tenants of labourers' cottages to buy their homes on easy terms?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is proposed to make this Bill applicable to Ireland.

ENNIS AND CLARE MAILS.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the fact that the mails are frequently many hours
1274
delayed in delivery in Ennis and Clare generally; and whether the Post Office will do anything to meet the difficulty?
MR. HANBURY: The honourable Member probably refers to the late arrival of the daily mail at Ennis and other places in Clare. The daily mail train from Dublin has occasionally reached Limerick Junction too late to connect with the daily mail train to Limerick and Ennis, and the mails have been kept over on such occasions for the next train. The delay has been due to stormy weather, fog, or pressure of traffic and heavy American mails. The Department has frequently urged the Waterford and, Limerick Company to detain their trains at Limerick Junction for the purpose of maintaining the connection, but the Company have not seen their way to agree to more than a brief detention. The circumstances do not justify the employment of special trains when failures occur.
MR. W. REDMOND: Are we to understand that it is out of the power of the Post Office authorities to make arrangements to prevent these delays which continually occur?
MR. HANBURY: It is difficult to avoid them. We are making the best arrangements we can at Limerick Junction.
MR. W. REDMOND: If this case were in England, would not the authorities take some stepsߞߞ
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when arrangements can be made for house to house delivery of letters in the districts of Shepperton, Clenagh, Rhinana, New-market-on-Fergus, and Stonehall, in county Clare?
MR. HANBURY: The extension of the house to house delivery, of letters in the country districts of Ireland is being carried out as rapidly as possible. Proposals for establishing deliveries in the districts in county Clare mentioned by the honourable Member are under consideration at the present moment, and it is hoped to bring the necessary arrangements into operation at an early date.

NATIONAL SCHOOL REQUISITES.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to create in Ireland a monopoly in the sale of National School requisites, and whether those will be manufactured and supplied from Great Britain; and whether it can be arranged to have the articles of Irish manufacture?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners have no desire to create a monopoly in the sale of National School requisites in the ordinary trade sense, nor have they any intention to procure books exclusively manufactured in Great Britain, but they are anxious to afford the pupils of National Schools the opportunity of procuring school requisites on the lowest terms' consistent with good quality, and their arrangements are made with this object. The proportion of such requisites which shall be of Irish manufacture must depend on the fulfilment of the necessary conditions by Irish firms.
MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if he will take care that the National Board, in making their arrangements, do not exclude the small stationers who have hitherto been able to supply these things?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have a great many times explained in this House that I have no power of interference with the National Commissioners.
MR. MACNEILL: The right honourable Gentleman is the official head.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

FOREIGN MEAT FOR TROOPS IN IRELAND.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any penalty is imposed or restrictions placed upon contractors who supply foreign instead of native meat to the troops stationed in Ireland; and whether any precautions are taken to prevent a supply of embalmed beef?
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Contractors are bound to supply meat of the description and quality contracted for. If they fail or present the wrong description of meat, such meat would be rejected, and the contractor would be liable to a tine not exceeding £10 for each occasion. If a contractor were frequently to commit such an offence he would, of course, not be continued on the list of contractors.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether contractors convicted of fraudulently substituting foreign for home-grown meat to the troops in Ireland are permitted to retain their contracts?
MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: The punishment of a contractor who breaks the conditions of his contract would depend on the gravity of his offence. When a contractor is shown to have committed any serious offence in carrying out his contract he is liable to be precluded from tendering for supplies in future.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the honourable Gentleman say how it is possible to detect frauds, seeing that no steps are taken to test foreign or home-grown meat?
MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: I do not understand the honourable Member. He has probably studied the question more closely than I have. It is not a question between foreign and colonial and home-fed meat as I take it, but it is a question of refrigerated or fresh meat. My early education on this matter was neglected, but I am told it is impossible when the meat is fresh to tell whether it was grown at home or imported.
MR. FIELD: Is the honourable Gentleman prepared to take lessons on this subject?
[No Reply.]
MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that a rule has been laid down by the War Office authorities limiting the percentage of imported meat to be suppliedߞߞ
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the Question.

FAIR RENTS IN COUNTY WICKLOW.
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that applications to have fair rents fixed upon holdings situate in Donard and Kilbaylet, county Wicklow, are in the hands of the Land Commission since the midsummer and autumn of 1897, he can give the tenants any hope that their cases will be heard at an early date?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As already stated by me, there are only four cases not yet listed for hearing from the district mentioned. The Land Commissioners can give no undertaking as to the probable date of hearing of these cases.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will it be in the present year?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I can give the honourable Member no information beyond that already supplied.

LORD KITCHENER'S REWARD.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to ask the House of Commons to vote any sum of money to Lord Kitchener of Khartoum in respect of the battle of Omdurman; and, if so, when the vote will be taken?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir; we shall ask the House of Commons to vote a sum of £30,000, which will probably be invested in the purchase of an annuity for Lord Kitchener of Khartoum. I think the procedure must be by Bill, and it will be taken at an early date.

SOLDIERS AND THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been arrived at in regard to the suggestion relative to the printing on Army pension orders a few of the advantages of invest-
1278
ment in the Post Office Savings Bank; and will he state whether the Inter-Departmental Committee, to which this matter amongst other questions has been referred, have yet reported on the subject?
MR. WYNDHAM: The Inter-Departmental Committee on the mode of Payment of Army and Navy Pensions has reported, but no decision on the matter referred to in the Question has yet been arrived at.

COMMUNICATIONS ON TRAINS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any and, if so, what railway companies have yet taken steps to provide efficient means of communication on all passenger trains, as recommended in the Report issued last June by the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the subject?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, the Great Central, the South Eastern, and the Furness use approved means of communication. The question generally is being considered by a Committee of General Managers, and the Board will continue to press for a decision.

SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Department of Science and Art print on their correspondence paper a notice to the effect that all communications addressed to the Department are to be written on foolscap paper, and that post cards or letter cards are not to be used; and will he state whether there is any reason why this Department should impose on the public restrictions as to the manner and mode of their correspondence which other Departments do not find necessary.
MR. HANBURY: The Science and Art Department is by no means alone in this appeal to its correspondents. Any Department having a large correspond-

1279
ence to deal with finds great convenience in the general use of paper of one uniform size and shape. If this precaution were not taken, and correspondence files were made up of documents of every shape and size, the arrangements for storing papers for easy reference would be much impeded.

CROWN RIGHTS IN SCOTLAND.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will grant a Return of all persons to whom any Crown rights of fishings or foreshores in Scotland have been sold or leased by the Office of Woods, with the dates of grants and consideration paid, whether in a lump sum or as rent to the Crown, to the end of 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 161, of Session 1893)?
MR. HANBURY: There will be no objection, if the honourable Member will give notice of motion.

TREATMENT OF WOUNDED AT OMDURMAN.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the misapprehensions which appear to have arisen as to the orders given by the Sirdar in relation to the treatment of wounded dervishes at the battle of Omdurman, he will state what were the terms of the instructions issued?
MR. BRODRICK: We have no reason to suppose that any instructions were issued by the Sirdar at the battle of Omdurman differing from those which have governed the practice of the British and Egyptian forces in previous engagements. Every effort was made to induce the dervishes to surrender and to avoid unnecessary slaughter.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that it has been stated by more than one eye-witness that
1280
the camp followers of the Sirdar's army, on the day of the battle of Omdurman, came out and murdered and plundered the wounded dervishes, wounding also some of our own troops by their reckless firing; and what precautions, if any, had been taken to prevent or check such proceedings?
MR. BRODRICK: Such statements have been made, and on the occasion of great encounters in an uncivilised country it is clearly very difficult to prevent altogether such action on the part of camp followers. Lord Cromer has been requested to obtain and forward a report on the subject, but it has not yet been received.
MR. MACNEILL: Will the right honourable Gentleman see that the Report is laid on the table before Lord Kitchener's Pension Bill is taken?
[No Reply.]
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of certain statements recently made by General Gatacre in a published article, implying that the Jaalin friendlies employed at the battle of Omdurman so far passed beyond the control of their officers as to murder wounded Baggaras, care will in future be taken to employ only such native allies as can be trusted not to commit similar excesses?
MR. BRODRICK: The Jaalin tribe have suffered horrible cruelties at the hands of the Baggaras, and there may have been difficulty in preventing them from retaliating when not observed; but the statement made in General Gatacre's article tends to show that such cases were isolated. Every care will no doubt be taken by the Sirdar and the officers of the Egyptian Army to keep all native allies under proper control.
MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement of Lieutenant Winston Churchill, in a letter describing the battle of Omdurman, that, on the 9th September, a week after the battle,

1281
there were still a few wounded, who had neither died nor crawled away, but continued to suffer; and, if this be true, how it came to pass that organised assistance was not rendered by the Army of the Sirdar to the wounded on the battlefield; and whether he regards Article VI. of the Geneva Convention of 1864, which provides that wounded or sick soldiers shall be brought in and cared for to whatever nation they belong, as binding in all cases, or as applicable only in the case of civilised enemies?
MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government are confident that all possible assistance was given to the wounded dervishes out of the resources at the Sirdar's command. Numbers of them were brought in to the town from the battlefield and received medical attendance from the Egyptian Army doctors. The staff available for the purpose was, however, limited, and it is clearly impossible in such oases to guarantee that wounded men, who probably hid themselves to the best of their ability, shall not for a time escape notice. A special difficulty arose in this campaign from the efforts of the wounded dervishes to kill or wound anyone who came to their assistance. The Article of the Geneva Convention which is referred to is no doubt applicable in all cases so far as it can possibly be carried out.

QUICK-FIRING GUNS FOR THE ROYAL ARTLLERY.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Artillery is to be armed with Sir George. Clarke's invention for quick-firing guns; by what date the change will be fully carried into effect; whether he is aware that 50 per cent, of the French and German Artillery are already so armed; and what is the cause of the delay in the British service?
MR. WYNDHAM: The Horse and Field Batteries are to be converted to a quick-firing system devised in the Royal Carriage Department. The conversions involved will be carried out as quickly as possible. I can give no information as to the percentage of
1282
French and German Artillery already provided with a quick-firing equipment. The change involves much work, preceded by the selection of the best among several inventions for effecting not one, but several objects. This necessarily takes time.

AFFORESTATION IN IRELAND.
MR. MORRIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that Ireland is being rapidly denuded of trees, and will he advise the Government to take some steps towards replanting; and is he aware that a large proportion of lands now returned in the official list as wooded is mere coppice?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There has not been sufficient time since notice of this Question was given to obtain detailed information as to the statements contained in either the first or second paragraphs. In any case, however, the question of replanting is not one which could be dealt with in anticipation of the establishment of the Department of Agriculture.

SANDWICHMEN IN LONDON.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to his statement that the recent police order prohibiting sandwich-men from perambulating the Strand, Piccadilly, and Bond Street, was made under the authority of the Highway Act, 1835, will he be good enough to say under which section of that Act the order purports to have been made; and will he lay a copy of the order upon the Table of the House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The section referred to is 72. There is no order of the nature referred to which could be laid upon the Table of the House, but the police have instructions to prevent the obstruction caused in these crowded thoroughfares by sandwichmen.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Does not the order absolutely prohibit sandwichmen from entering the streets?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The instructions to the police are to prevent obstructions by sandwichmen in crowded thoroughfares.

BANDAH JISSEH.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the harbour of Bandah Jisseh, situated five miles from Muscat, has been leased to France; and, if so, for what period?
MR. BRODRICK: We have no information at present to this effect.

RUSSIAN RAILWAYS IN AFGHANISTAN.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a proclamation by the Ameer of Afghanistan welcoming Russian railway enterprise, and enjoining his subjects to realise the great advantages accruing from the Merv-Kushk line, have been distributed on the northwest frontier of India and posted over Herat on the 25th of December, 1898, and if this has been done with the consent of Her Majesty's Ministers?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have seen some reference in the Press to an alleged proclamation of the character described, but I have no reason to believe the report to be true.
DR. TANNER: Seeing that this report appeared in The Times yesterday, cannot the noble Lord give a more explicit explanation? The Times is the Ministerial organ.
[No Reply.]

ANGLO-AMERICAN FISHERIES COMMISSION.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-American Commission dealing with the fisheries
1284
question has fallen through, and what details will be afforded on this question?
MR. BRODRICK: Negotiations are still proceeding, but I am unable to make any further statement on the subject at present.
DR. TANNER: How soon may we expect a statement by the right honourable Gentleman?
[No Reply.]

KOLAR GOLDFIELDS.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if there is any foundation for the report from Bombay of a plague panic from the southern Kolar goldfields; and what steps are being taken to prevent further loss of life?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The latest information I have received is that during the week ending Monday, February 13, there were 12 plague seizures and nine plague deaths in the Kolar district of Mysore. Nothing is said in that report as to any plague panic among the gold-miners. The Mysore State, supported by the British Resident and aided by the Government of India, is sparing neither expense nor effort to combat the plague wherever it appears in Mysore territory.

SAMOA.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the captain of the German warship stationed at Samoa has refused to co-operate with the English Commander in respect of the English annexation of the Samoan Islands, and if this alleged proposed annexation is seriously entertained?
MR. BRODRICK: There has been no question of the annexation of the Samoan Islands by this country, and the captain of the German warship can not therefore have refused his co-operation to this end. By the Berlin Final Act of June 14th, 1889, it is declared that the Islands of Samoa are neutral

1285
territory, and that neither of the three Signatory Powers shall exercise any separate control over the Islands or the Government thereof.
DR. TANNER: Am I to assume that the report in yesterday's Times is false?
THE SPEAKER: Order, order! That is not a proper Question.

INSTRUCTION OF YEOMANRY OFFICERS.
MR. CORNWALLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War upon what principle under Army Order 152, November 1898, are officers and non-commissioned officers of the Kent Yeomanry Brigade sent for instruction to Aldershot, whilst officers and non-commissioned officers of the Berkshire and Middlesex Yeomanry are sent to Shorncliffe, and officers and noncommissioned officers of the Hampshire and Dorset Yeomanry are sent to Canterbury?
MR. WYNDHAM: Cavalry regiments at Aldershot are in a better position to give instruction to Yeomanry officers than Cavalry regiments at other stations. It is, therefore, desirable to ensure that the special advantages of Aldershot shall be open to all Yeomanry officers in turn, and not confined to those of the neighbouring counties. For this reason it has been arranged that the officers of the two regiments of the Kent Yeomanry Brigade are to be trained at Aldershot this year. To avoid inconvenience to individual officers, exchanges are permitted.

IRISH STATE PAPERS.
MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds was permission refused to the honourable Member for South Donegal to peruse, for the purposes of historic research, the documents in the Record Tower of Dublin Castle, with reference to the spies and informers of the period of the Insurrection of 1798 and the Union of 1800, and more especially the memoranda of Leonard MacNally and
1286
the briefs held by him in defending the Irish political prisoners of that period when he was hired by the Irish Government to betray the secrets of his clients and to ensure their conviction for high treason; whether he is aware that the right honourable junior Member for Dublin University had permission to inspect these documents, when writing the seventh and eighth volumes of his History of England in the Eighteenth Century; and that a similar permission was given in 1897 to Mr. Cæsar Falkner, now an assistant Land Commissioner, for the writing of a magazine article at a time when he was an officer of an Irish Unionist Association; and why privileges extended to Unionist writers have not been similarly granted to the honourable Member for South Donegal?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member asked for permission to see two documents specifically named by him. This permission was granted. He further asked for a general permission "for the perusal of State Papers till the most recent date up to which in any case permission has been given to see such documents." This general permission was refused, and, I think, properly so. Permission was not refused to the honourable Member to inspect the documents referred to in the first paragraph of this question. As a matter of fact he has never applied for such permission. As regards the second paragraph, it is true that my honourable Friend the Member for Dublin University and Mr. Falkner obtained permission to consult certain papers, but their applications were for definite periods and special subjects. No such general order as that sought by the honourable Member has been authorised in the case of any applicant.
MR. MACNEILL: Do I understand that if I ask politely I can see these papers?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Any application the honourable Gentleman makes will be considered.
MR. MACNEILL: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware I sent, on the 6th of December, a note—which appeared in the Dublin papers—bitterly

1287
complaining that I was not allowed to see these documents while Unionist Members were?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS.
MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it has come to his knowledge that, under a recent regulation of the Commissioners, those Irish National teachers who were classed first division of second class since July 1897 are eligible for promotion to first class without examination, on a basis of two years' highly efficient service, whereas teachers holding the same rank but classed prior to 1897 are excluded from the benefits of promotion for efficient service however long or meritorious that service may have been; is he aware that the bulk of the teachers are dissatisfied with this new rule, and that they have, through the executive of their organisation protested against it; and whether, in the interests of a considerable number of teachers and the greater efficiency of the schools, he will make representations to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland with a view to placing all the teachers who are classed first division of second, whether under the old rule or the new rule, on precisely the same footing?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The teachers who obtained first division of second class by examination on the new programme are the only teachers eligible for promotion to first class on the basis of service alone, and as the examination on the new programme requires a percentage of 65 of possible marks in order that a candidate may be qualified for promotion to the first class on the basis of efficient service alone, while only 50 per cent, was required for attaining to the position of first division of the second class under the old programme, the position of those two classes of candidates for first class is hardly comparable. The examination for the first division of second class under the new programme is practically equivalent to the old examination of first class. All teachers are at liberty to enter for this new examination, and, if they obtain 65 per cent., can ob-
1288
tain promotion to first class on efficient service alone. It is true that teachers' associations, excluding from view the higher qualifications required by the new programme, have on several occasions represented that both of those classes of candidates should be placed on the same footing. The Commissioners do not consider that it would be in the interests of the efficiency of the schools, as it would be plainly inconsistent with the circumstances already mentioned, to alter the conditions of promotion now in force.

NORTH ANTRIM HARBOURS.
MR. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Harbour at. Ballintry, North Antrim, has been allowed, through neglect, to fill up with sand, so that the fishermen have not got a safe anchorage for their boats; also that, owing to the shallow water it is exceedingly dangerous for the fishermen to leave or enter the harbour unless in calm weather; and seeing that the fishermen of the locality are suffering greatly from want of harbour accommodation, will he take steps to remedy this state of matters?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is some difficulty in identifying the harbour as described in the question. There are two harbours near Bushmills known as Ballintry and Ballintrae. Possibly the question refers to one of these; but neither was built by the Board of Works, and any improvement works, such as suggested, should be undertaken by the local authorities.

TUBERCULOSIS.
MR. WARNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to introduce any Bill for appointing Government inspectors to inspect and condemn cattle afflicted with tuberculosis, as uniform action all over the country is most desirable on this subject, and as one private Bill has been introduced by a corporation to give its own inspectors these powers outside the municipal boundaries?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: It is not the intention of the Government to appoint inspectors for the purpose suggested by the honourable Gentleman, and as far as the legislation to which he referred is concerned, by which I presume he means private Bill legislation, of course those Bills come before the committees upstairs, and it is impossible to say what powers Parliament would grant to local authorities.
MR. PINKERTON: Is it not a fact that at the present moment Irish cattle are entirely free from this disease?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am afraid it is impossible to answer that question.

JUDGES AS COMPANY DIRECTORS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will state why judges in Scotland are allowed to act as directors of joint-stock companies, whilst judges in England are prohibited from acting in a similar capacity?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think the honourable Gentleman is wrong in the facts he suggests. [Laughter.]
MR. WEIR: I will furnish the right honourable Gentleman with the information.

ALIEN IMMIGRANTS.
MR. LOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the large increase in the numbers of alien immigrants arriving and settling in this country; and whether, in view of the grave evils arising therefrom, Her Majesty's Government will introduce a Measure to check such immigration in the interests of our own struggling industrial population who are prejudicially affected thereby?
MR. JOHNSTON: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if he has considered the inexpediency of preventing England from being, as she has always
1290
been, a refuge for the persecuted people of all the world?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We think there ought to be increased powers to deal with the immigration of aliens who are likely to be a charge on the rates, or who are really destitute, but I cannot at the present moment make any statement with regard to legislation.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
MR. LOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will, for the general convenience of Members, cause the Answers to Questions to be posted in the Lobby or in the Library immediately after the Questions are disposed of at each sitting of the House?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There are difficulties, I am afraid, in carrying out the suggestion of my honourable Friend. A similar suggestion was made last year, and it was found impossible to make it of general application. My right honourable Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has, I believe, made arrangements as far as his office is concerned that the answers he gives to Questions should be placed in the Library for the information of those who put them; but then that is a part of a scheme by which additional and subsidiary Questions are not answered the same day. If honourable Members desire to ask Ministers subsidiary Questions, it is quite clear it would be impossible to put in the Library of the House on the same day a record of the whole transaction.
MR. PIRIE: Cannot the original answers to Questions be placed in the Library?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That would clearly be an imperfect account of what occurred.

HIGH SHERIFFS IN IRELAND.
MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take steps to alter the present

1291
arrangement by which the nomination to the office of High Sheriff in Ireland is kept almost exclusively in the hands of one class; and if he will consider the necessity of allowing the county council to nominate a fair proportion of the gentlemen who are willing to fill this office, and whose names are submitted for the selection and approval of the Lord Lieutenant?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I see no reason for altering the present arrangements in regard to nominations to the office of High Sheriff in Ireland.

PITCAIRN ISLANDS.
MR. PIRIE: I beg ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the recently issued correspondence relating to the Pitcairn Islanders, in regard to whom we have assumed a sort of moral responsibility, whether the Government propose taking steps to carry out regular communication between them and the Paumoto group of Islands, as recommended in the Report by the Commanding Officer of H.M.S. "Royalist," or to take other steps to improve the conditions of life of the inhabitants of those islands which, if allowed to continue as at present, will pause these islanders to gradually drift into imbecility?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The honourable Member will see from the correspondence that the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific has been instructed to endeavour to ascertain the possibilities of opening up communication between Pitcairn Island and Tahiti.

SEAMEN'S ENGAGEMENTS.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the engagement of a man named Stuart James Holgate, a railway servant, on board the steamship "Treveau," at Penarth upon the 12th December 1898, as an able-bodied seaman; whether he is aware that the only previous sea experience this man
1292
had was a pleasure trip on a pleasure boat to the Isle of Man; and that the man Holgate was shipped on another man's discharge, supplied to him by a boarding-house keeper named Meredith, living at Cardiff; and, whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to prosecute Meredith for supplying Holgate with a false discharge, and illegally supplying him.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade have communicated with their officials at Penarth and with the owners of the steamship "Treveau" with regard to the circumstances referred to in the Question. It appears that Holgate was shipped as stated, on another man's discharge, supplied to him by a boarding-house keeper; and that, whatever his previous experiences may have been, he was incompetent as an A.B. A prosecution will be instituted, if, upon further inquiry, the evidence is found to be sufficient.

FOREIGN SEAMEN ON BRITISH SHIPS.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a Russian and a Swedish seaman were engaged on board the steamship "Treveau" at Penarth on the 12th December, 1898, and that neither of these men could speak or understand English, or the common orders on board ship, and whether any interpreter was present, at the time they were engaged, to explain to them the nature of the articles of agreement which they were asked to sign; if he can state at what rate of wages the able seamen and firemen engaged on the ss. "Treveau," and what was the current rate of wages paid on other ships at Penarth at the same time; and, whether those men were signed on at the mercantile marine office or on board the vessel?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed that a Russian and a Swede were engaged on the s.s. "Treveau" as stated in the question. The Swede, I am told, could understand orders; the Russian, though not a master of the English language, was willing and attentive. Both performed their duties

1293
to the entire satisfaction of the master. The services of an interpreter were insisted upon by the Board of Trade officer at Penarth. It appears that the sailors and, firemen of the "Treveau" signed for £3 15s. 0d. and £4 per month respectively, and that the wages paid to seamen of other vessels were from £3 5s. 0d. to £4 15s. 0d. for sailors, and from £3 10s. 0d. to £4 15s. 0d. for firemen. The men signed on board the "Treveau," not at the mercantile marine office.
MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: Arising out of the answer, I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman why an interpreter was called in if it is correct that these men understood English.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It is quite conceivable that a man might understand sufficient English to perform the ordinary duties of a sailor on board ship, and yet not be able to enter into a discussion with regard to the terms of his service.
MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Will the right honourable Gentleman see that in all cases in which foreign seamen are engaged, an interpreter is called in to ensure that they understand the articles that are being read out?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: There was an interpreter in this case.
MR. HAYELOCK WILSON: I shall put a further Question on Monday.

THE OFFICIAL DEBATES.
MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has fully considered the suggestion he made to the honourable Member for East Mayo, on 5th of August 1898, in reference to supplying Members of the House with copies of the Debates; and, if so, will he explain at what decision he has arrived?
MR. HANBURY: AS I have already stated, arrangements are being made to issue, experimentally, copies of the Debates to such Members as specially apply for them by initialling the Pink Paper.

HART'S LANE LEVEL CROSSING
MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a footbridge has not yet been constructed at the Hart's Lane level crossing of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway; and, having regard to the fact that several persons have been killed at this crossing, will he state whether steps will be taken to require the railway company to construct a footbridge forthwith?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The company obtained powers in their Act of last Session to close Hart's Lane and build a footbridge, and the Board understand that it is the company's intention to proceed with the necessary work.

THE LATE M. FAURE.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Speaker, I am sure I shall be consulting the wishes of the House if I venture to express, on their behalf, and on behalf of those whom they represent, our deep feeling of sympathy with the French nation for the public loss with which they have been so suddenly smitten. The death of the Chief Magistrate of a great and friendly nation cannot leave us, who are its nearest neighbours, indifferent; and, when the circumstances of the loss are so sudden and so unexpected when it falls upon a whole people without warning and without preparation, it is invested with elements of additional tragedy which command exceptional sympathy. However imperfectly I may be able to express that sympathy, I am confident that it is felt, and felt deeply, in every quarter of the House, and in every class and section of the population.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House, I wish to say how entirely we concur in the sentiments so well expressed by the right honourable Gentleman. We are anxious to associate ourselves fully with that expression of sympathy with the people and the Government of France.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    NINTH DAY.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question (7th February), "That an humble Address be pre-presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,—
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majecty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Captain Bagot.)
    Main question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.

RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES IN IRELAND.
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the question to add the words,—
"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the present railway rates and charges in Ireland constitute an intolerable grievance to the Irish people, and that Measures should be adopted this Session for the remedy thereof, either by the amalgamation of the management under State control, or by the State purchase of Irish railways, so as to reduce the tariffs, and further to increase facility of transit by utilising and developing the waterways and canalising certain rivers in Ireland:"—(Mr. Field.)
MR. WILLIAM FIELD: This Amendment, which stands in my name on the Queen's Speech, is a question which more or less touches almost every person in Ireland. As a commercial man, and as the representative of the Traders of Dublin on the Chamber of Commerce, I know from the discussions which have taken place there that this question affects all classes of the community and mercantile associations in Ireland. From the report of the Select Committee which sat for months in this House on railway and canal rates and charges I find that the experience of the various places mentioned there shows conclusively that the railway question in Ireland is one which affects every portion of the population. My action in
1296
bringing this matter before the House has been approved of by every section of the community. I have received encouragement in the course I have taken from various quarters. An Ulster Unionist from Kilcock, County Kildare, writes me as follows:
"I am sorry I have not the pleasure of your acquaintance, but I, with many of my acquaintances, look upon you as our most useful and practical representative, If you could manage to bring the Irish railways to benefit the country, as they should do, you would be conferring an invaluable benefit on Ireland. As it is they are almost useless to benefit agriculture. From my county (Donegal), for instance, it would cost almost the entire value of a ton of hay or potatoes, etc., to bring it to Dublin. The salmon fishing in Ireland might be made a source of vast wealth if rightly dealt with.
P.S.—About 80 miles of light railway is being now commenced through the wilds of Donegal, and what use will it be at the present rates of carriage? Very little in deed."
Now, Sir, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House by reading private letters here. No useful purpose would be served by reading them all, because they are a mere repetition and reiteration of the same sentiments. I think they all constitute ample evidence that legislative interference is necessary to change the system which exists in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone in introducing his Bill for the State Ownership of Railways, used these remarkable words:
"There is no likelihood that the great experiment of the greatest possible cheapness to the public will be tried under the present system."
Why did Mr. Gladstone use those words? You all know that he called himself "an old Parliamentary Hand," and he used those words because he recognised that the railways should be carriers and not legislators. He also knew that the railway party in this House was the predominant partner, and he knew that the anomaly which exists in this railway legislation scarcely exists in any other nation in the world. It was simply legislation for themselves as directors, and as Members of Parliament. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had a commercial party in this House—which I hope will soon be formed—public utilities would not be abandoned to chance or entrusted to private enterprise. There

1297
is an extraordinary state of things existing in this country, and more particularly in Ireland, that is not in existence in any other country in the world. There is no Free Trade in railways. We call ourselves a Free Trade country, but we are not a Free Trade country. Our so-called policy of Free Trade is a policy of free imports really. If I understand Free Trade to be anything, it is a level competition between two countries in the interchange of goods, and that does not exist, so far as I know, in connection with the commerce of this country. Therefore, although we are, nominally, a Free Trade country, ours is really a policy of free imports. With regard to the question of transit on the iron road of commerce, and the population, we have a rigidly State-protected monopoly, and in alluding to this question I allude more particularly to Ireland. I do not intend to deal with the English railways, because England is perfectly capable of taking care of her own interests. Now, British railways have invested in them a capital of 1,000 millions of money, and that is a formidable item to deal with from a financial point of view. The Irish railways, however, compared with the English, are a mere insignificant fraction, and only total between 30 and 40 millions. But, such as they are, I maintain that the Irish railways at the present moment absolutely hold a mortgage on the entire community, and that Government monopoly is their title deed. Now, it is evident that it follows that the granting of a monopoly by the Legislature always imposes corresponding safeguards to the public, who are compelled to use such monopoly. In Ireland, however, these safeguards were not fulfilled, because there is no real competition, and there is very little State control. In the first place, the railways were permitted, and they should not have been permitted, to buy out all the canals save one, and so they prevented competition by water. That one canal which they did not buy is now doing an enormous business, almost in excess of any railway in Ireland at the present time. Now, we have this extraordinary anomaly existing in Ireland: You have lower rates for the longer distances than you have for the shorter distances in England, but that is not so in Ireland, because there is want of competition.
1298
There are only just a few stations in Ireland where there is any competition at all, and all over Ireland, practically speaking, the railways absolutely hold the whole business in their own hands to such an extent that they can charge what they like. Of course, the President of the Board of Trade will tell me that there is no branch of the Board of Trade which affects Ireland. We are not supposed to have any trade, for we are restricted simply to the payment of taxes. If the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade were here, he would probably say, "Why don't you appeal to the Railway Commissioners?" Well, I say the Railway Commission is useless in Ireland, because, in the first place, it is too expensive; in the second place, its existence is almost entirely unknown to the Irish dealers and traders, and those who are interested in this subject. I have stated that there is no competition on the main lines, as every Irish Member who is listening to me knows. There is the Midland, the Great Southern and the Western, the Great Northern, the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford, the Waterford and Limerick, and the Northern Counties' Railways, and they are managed by an institution of railway managers who manipulate the rates to be charged. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that Gentlemen not acquainted with this subject may think I am exaggerating. Now, how are things worked with regard to amalgamation? We have before us at the present time the proposed amalgamation of the Great Southern and Western Railways. I do not propose to go into this question at any length except to illustrate how things are managed in Ireland. What do these gentlemen do, and what is their proposition? They refuse, and have refused, to give any guarantee as to rates or facilities such as would be freely given in the case of Great Britain. If such a scheme of amalgamation was about to be proposed for a British railway it would not be allowed to pass, either by public opinion or by the President of the Board of Trade, unless such guarantees were given. What do we find? We find that some railways, which are interested in this scheme, absolutely endeavour to intimidate workmen by threatening them with dismissal if they gave any sign of opposing a scheme which might deprive

1299
these working men of their daily bread. They are the kind of railway directors we have in Ireland, and the kind of railway management which exists in that country. I am entirely against this amalgamation scheme—this private amalgamation scheme of the Great Southern and Western Railways. If this private amalgamation scheme is carried, it will affect nine counties in Ireland. It would practically place under this company the whole of the counties in the South-West of Ireland. Judging from what we know of the way in which railway companies have managed affairs in Ireland, we believe that the result of allowing the Great Southern and Western Railway Companies to manage these nine counties will be more disastrous in the future than in the past with respect to the agricultural interests and the commerce in those counties. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that Irish railways enjoy certain advantages. I know that Irish railway managers come to this country and declare that we belong to a very poor country, and that we have a very small number of inhabitants, but they never tell you of the exceptional advantages which they enjoy. Now, what are those advantages? In the first place, they pay no railway duty, no railway passenger duty, which is paid in this country. In the second place, they have not been compelled by Act of Parliament to provide cheap trains for working men, a provision which applies in England and Scotland. That is an extraordinary thing, because it has proved an enormous benefit to the working classes, and it was a remarkable thing to find such a provision extended to England and Scotland and not to Ireland. The Irish railways are free at the present moment from the obligation of providing cheap trains for working men. Now, I have another charge against the railway management, which, in my opinion, is an important one. The railways in Ireland enjoy this unique position: they have received from the Imperial Exchequer millions in free grants, and what return have the Irish railways given to the public for these great concessions under the Railway Act, namely, that they pay no passenger duty, provide no cheap trains for the working men, and the free grants that have been given to
1300
them? What return do they make the Irish people for these concessions? Now I will tell you, because I happen to know personally, as I have been engaged in this matter myself in making investigations. The last time there was an application in this House for a new railway honourable Gentlemen had the nerve and effrontery to come to Parliament and ask us to give them the power to charge 38 per cent, over the present charges as maximum rates. Now I challenge contradiction on that point, because I was over here in London, before I became a Member of Parliament, and I am conversant with the whole facts of the case. What is more extraordinary, and many honourable Members will be surprised to hear it, is this—and I am glad to see the President of the Board of Trade here—that the state of the law is that if an application is made by a railway company to increase their maximum charges, Parliament consents to what they ask for unless some organised body of traders oppose it. It so happened that, with regard to the proposal I have alluded to, an association in Ireland took action, and if they had not done so the railway companies would certainly have obtained the consent of the Legislature and of this House to increase their maximum charges by 30 per cent., and there was no safeguard either by the Board of Trade or any other public board to have prevented them. I always thought that it was the duty of the Board of Trade to step in and prevent railway companies doing this, in order to protect the public. It may be asked, how are these things arranged? Why, there is an institution called the Clearing House, and they hold conferences, at which they arrange railway rates. These railway managers who attend these conferences are very important individuals, who can travel free to all parts of the kingdom. When an organised body of traders give evidence before them, no matter what statements they make, they are invariably contradicted with such an amount of self-assertion that the railway witness is generally believed. Now, there is no such organisation amongst traders, and their representatives will have to pay if they want to oppose a Bill. All these things are settled in conference; they come before the directors, and they arrange these rates. Now, there is a system of what is called through rates in

1301
Ireland. These were settled, and were supposed to be advantageous to importers into Ireland. But, as usual, where commerce is concerned, England generally gets the best of the deal. The result is that although we have these cheap through rates to Ireland, it means that manufactured goods can be conveyed into Ireland from English manufacturing cities cheaper, absolutely, in some cases, than you can get them sent from Dublin and other parts of Ireland. Now, Sir, honourable Gentlemen on the Front Bench are not expected to know as much about commercial matters as I do, but most people are aware that the principal export that we have in Ireland is live stock. Now, in Ireland live stock forms no less than 14 per cent, of the total receipts of the Irish railways. Now, how is live stock conveyed? I think I may be taken as an authority on this subject. In the first place, we have the consignment note, and what does that mean? In my opinion it is an illegal document, and I have been told so by a certain Queen's Counsel, and the significance of it is that that consignment note absolutely contracts the railway or shipping company out of any liability whatever for damage, delay, or absolute loss. I challenge a denial of that, and I have brought this matter before the House once or twice before without receiving any practical result from it. But we have not done with it yet, and I repeat that this consignment note, which contracts the companies out of any liability whatever, is illegal. We had last year a meeting of the Land Transit Company in Dublin Castle, and certain evidence was given there by which it was proved that the Irish railway companies frequently used old goods wagons for the conveyance of live stock. In Ireland, in particular, we have not sufficient accommodation in this respect. We are charged what are called terminal charges, and these are supposed to be charged for services rendered, but as a matter of fact there are sometimes no services at all, and there is very little service given. Now, what is the net result of all this carelessness? Why, that we lose no less than half a million sterling of money every year in consequence of the manner in which live stock is conveyed from Ireland to England. I want to be perfectly fair in this matter, and I do not mean to charge all this upon the railway com-
1302
panies; but I do say that they have a large share of responsibility in the matter. It is an extraordinary thing in this connection that you can have live stock safely, more humanely, and more cheaply carried from the United States to Liverpool and Glasgow than you can from the ports of Ireland. That is a condition of things which ought to be remedied by legislation, and by the co-operation of all the interests concerned. With regard to the rates charged, I think the English rates are the highest in Europe, and I do not think that that will be denied. But in Ireland they were higher, and the accommodation was worse. Ireland is an agricultural country, and unless advantageous facilities of transit are given in that country Ireland could never succeed commercially. It is an axiom in other countries that facility of transit is of equal value to the volume of production, and I think that axiom is so apparent that it does not need to be argued, for commodities are not much use unless you have ample facilities for getting them to the market. Now, I happened to be one of the delegates to the International Conference which was held at Buda-Pesth, and I find that they passed this resolution—
"All means were to be employed to protect the home markets from being flooded with foreign products, and to aid the export of native produce, without interfering with the free intercourse of agricultural products; the co-operation of the State would be applicable to the creation of low freights on water and railway."
Now, exactly opposite to this appears to be what the Government, and all those engaged in private railways in Ireland, appear to be doing. I do not wish to detain the House at any great length, but I am obliged to read one letter on this point. I received the following letter from Mr. Goodbody, of Tullamore—
"I am not personally acquainted with you, but I am one of your admirers, as I see in you a Member of Parliament of the right sort, who, at all times, takes every opportunity to further the interests of his country by practical action. I manage a large business in Tullamore, in which I am a partner with others of my name."
He goes on to say—
"In England the Rhondda Valley South Wales' Collieries would keep half-a-dozen such going, if we were able to deliver to them at as cheap a rate as the French and

1303
the Belgians do. Every pound of hay and oats used in that district is imported principally from these countries. But, no; the carrying companies of Ireland place a premium on the foreigner, enabling Belgians to outdo us. Last year we brought 500 barrels of oats from Canada to Dublin at a cheaper rate than we could bring oats from Tullamore. Then, again, as to the imports into the town: I will only trouble you with one item, and that is one of the most important, as it is an actual necessity to a farmer, and that is artificial manure, the freight on which has gone up this year, over last, by 30 per cent. We have fought with the railway and canal companies until we are tired of righting. The canal company say 'Put on your own boats, and we will only charge you tolls,' but the tolls on farm produce and the like are so heavy that your own boat becomes a non-paying concern."
The sum total of this letter is this, that he cannot carry on his business owing to the high railway and canal charges. He ends his letter by saying—
"We have a tobacco factory here employing 300 hands; forage mill, saw mill, and general stores in Tullamore; flour mills and jute factory in Clare, employing about a thousand hands; and large flour mills in Limerick employing a large number of hands; and I myself am connected with a large timber and box making place in Cork, employing over 300 hands."
Now, some of these hands, on account of the high rates charged by the railway companies, cannot be employed, because their employment would not be profitable. I have just one more case to which I wish to allude. I met a friend of mine the other night, and we got talking about railway rates. He mentioned to me that he was obliged to pay on the South Eastern Line as carriage on three bundles of plain thorn quicks from Roscommon to Kingswood the sum of £2 4s. 8d. Now, that sum was almost the value of the whole concern, but in addition to that it took eight days to bring those thorn quicks from Roscommon to Kingswood by the South Eastern Line. By that time they were all beginning to grow. I have here the receipt from the railway company, but I do not want to be producing bills and returns here, because the House of Commons does not take much interest in them, but I am obliged to do it to show the reality of my case. There is only one other item to which I wish to allude. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is present, and I will give him an example, as he
1304
knows something about the Congested District Boards. I quote from their report, which states that the fishermen of Arran caught £6,316 worth of fish, and the greater portion of that fish is sent across to England. Now, if I read the report aright, it cost £3,000 of that sum to secure the transit of the fish. The fishermen of Clegan caught during the season something like £4,814 worth of fish, and the transit of that fish cost them £2,000, or nearly half the money. It is perfectly evident that, under the existing conditions, trade and commerce, and more particularly the industry of the fishermen, cannot possibly thrive. Now, as to the State-owned Continental railways, and these are facts which I desire should be considered by commercial men. Their volume of goods traffic, taken as a whole, is less than one half that of Great Britain, and, strange to say, the rates on this volume of produce is from 20 to 25 per cent, more, and the earnings per train is greater than in Great Britain. Now, I will not go into small local rates, because I want to treat this subject as a great national question—in fact, as an Imperial question. Now, I will deal with the average rates per ton in the three kingdoms, and I will show how the charges in Ireland exceed that of any other country in Great Britain. Now, the averages for the three kingdoms are as follow: Scotch, 5s. 2d.; English, 5s. 6d.; Irish, 6s. 8d. The average amounts per ton for the three kingdoms are: In Scotland, 1s. 5½d.; in England, 1s. 8½d.; and in Ireland, 2s. 4d. Well, we know that the system in Great Britain with regard to the carriage of goods is one under which they charge so much per truck per mile. In America, however, they carry all these things by weight, even as regards live stock, and that prevents a great deal of confusion with regard to the difference in rates. I do not, however, wish to go into that matter, because there is no necessity for it. The Americans also have an improved bogie truck, and, what is more important, in my opinion, they are fitted with automatic self-acting brakes. Our companies do not possess such brakes, and the result is that we have a large number of workmen killed and injured every year, and this does not occur in America, because their system of automatic brakes renders it unnecessary for men to get in between the

1305
wagons. But the most startling figures which I have in connection with my researches on this question are these: The average charge per ton per mile in America for haulage of goods is less than ¼d. per ton. I am glad to see that a couple of directors have just come into the House, because they will be able to appreciate the remarks I am making, and I trust they will help their Irish brethren to arrive at a proper understanding on this question. Now, the average per ton per mile for haulage in Ireland is 1¼d.—that is to say, it costs five times as much for the haulage of goods in Ireland as in America. I see that the Continental State-owned railways show better results even than those countries where we leave everything to private enterprise. What is the motto of the railway men of business, and what has always been their motto? It has been this, and they have openly avowed it—to put on the traffic whatever the traffic will bear. That was the avowed motto of the railway managers who gave evidence before the Select Committee on Railway and Canal Charges, of which I was a member, and I may say that I never sat so long in this House with so little result, and I hope I never shall have the same experience again. Now I read in a book called "The Produce Review" last year that in one year the English merchants and manufacturers paid two millions more for the transit of their goods than they would have had to pay in Germany. We hear a great deal about foreign competition from Germany and the United States, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, this question of cheap transit is almost as large today as it ever was before. Now, in Ireland, remember, we pay more than you do, and, therefore, if the burden of transit is heavy in England, it is heavier still in Ireland. How is this brought about? Well, it is an extraordinary thing that, although we pay more rates than foreign countries, our average train loads are less. How does this work out? In the United States the average train load is 173 tons. Now, America is a competitive nation, but we have no competition at all in Ireland. In Germany the average train load is 132 tons, in France 121 tons? in Belgium 96 tons, and in the United Kingdom it is 70 tons, or only about one-half of what it
1306
is in America. Of course, when we speak of the United Kingdom we in clude Ireland, and probably the average train load in Ireland is only about 50 tons. So much for the goods traffic, but now let us come to the passengers. As I pointed out before, the Irish rail ways are free from paying passenger duty. Now, Great Britain pays some thing like £2,500,000 for passenger duty, while Ireland pays none. How does this work out with regard to the average passenger? The average passenger fare in England is 8½d.; in Scotland 10½d.; and in Ireland 1s. 2½d. Now, although we pay no passenger duty in Ireland, and, as a rule, our distances are shorter, the average passenger rate is much higher than it is in either Scotland or England. We frequently have to complain of loss of connection in Ireland. I was glad when I read that when the Lord Chancellor was in Ireland last summer that peculiar management and supreme contempt for the public convenience which belongs to Irish railway managers was brought to his notice. The Lord Chancellor came in at one station, and, before his train could be connected, he had gone out at the other. The one incident did more to call public attention to the want of proper connection between the services of trains in Ire land than a humble individual like my self could have done in a lifetime. Now, there is just one other remark with regard to this question which I should like to make, and it is this, that apparently a passenger in Ireland has no right whatever, except the right to pay his fare. The companies make their own by-laws and arrangements, and all you have to do is to pay. They do what they like with you, and this statement is absolutely true. The accommodation provided in some of the third-class carriages in Ireland is scandalous, for they are more like antediluvian horse-boxes. Why, if such carriages were put on the lines in England, people would not enter them. I am disposed to be fair-minded in this matter, and let us look at the Great Northern and the Midland lines in England. Why, their third-class carriages are infinitely superior to our first-class carriages, and our third-class carriages in Ireland are what I call horse boxes. I think the Board of Trade ought to interfere, and see that a reason-

1307
able amount of accommodation is given to people who are obliged to travel on these Irish railways. As regards the times of the trains, they are arranged in order to suit the mails, or the directors and others who live on the line. I have known places in Ireland where stations have been made for directors, and where there is absolutely no other traffic but that of the directors. The convenience of the people is not considered in the least. I will not detain the House by reading any long letters, but there is one here from Mountjoy, Omagh, which I will read. It is dated the 9th of February, 1899, and the writer says:
"By yesterday's paper I see that you are once more going to tackle the railway companies, and perhaps you will permit me to remind you of our local grievance against the G.N. Railway Company of Ireland, about which you so kindly interested yourself some time ago. The company has done nothing since, except that their local manager went through the form of receiving a deputation consisting of the local clergy of all denominations, and a few representatives of the district."
You see that upon this occasion the Church was united. The writer proceeds:
"Nothing, however, came of this, and I believe it was only intended to keep us quiet. You will remember that our case is that this run between Omagh and New-townstewart is the longest without a station in Ireland. Mountjoy is a very populous district, and at the time of the construction of the line, the company's engineers themselves acknowledged that Mountjoy was a proper place for a station by actually showing one on their plans. This station was built, and for several years after was worked by the company. Subsequently, without the consent and against the wish of the inhabitants of the district, the station was closed, the company alleging that it did not pay. We say that it never got a real chance to pay, and that it certainly would now, as within the last eight months a creamery has been erected just beside the station."
I will not trouble you with any more of this letter. My point is that if the railways were State-managed the result would be that they would provide proper accommodation for the people, and they would not be treated in this way. Now, just one argument more about the Irish and English railways. The cost of construction of railways in England is from £47,000 to £50,000 per mile; in Scotland £33,000 per mile; and in Ire-
1308
land £15,000 per mile. Now, it is strange that, although in Ireland the railways only cost a third of what they do in England, and less than a half of what they cost in Scotland, yet we have higher rates charged than obtain in both those countries. Of course, I know some people say it is owing to the sparse population, and my reply to that argument is that the railway administration in Ireland has been a powerful factor in producing those evil results by strangling the commerce of the country, and preventing the development of industries. There is one other point I desire to draw your attention to briefly, and that is this question from a labour point of view. I have had a great deal to do with the working men of Dublin and other places, and I know that the Irish railway companies pay lower wages to their employees, and work them longer hours, than any railway company in Great Britain. There has also been on these railways a large loss of life, and the managers have frequently used intimidation towards their workmen. The officials of these companies have prevented their workmen from attending the Congress of the Amalgamated Railway Servants' Society, and in this way they have fomented strikes; and I say that a body of men who will not even attempt to meet together to prevent a strike is a body from whom this power ought to be taken away. Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the reason why these charges are so high, and this is really a question upon which a good deal more might be said. I have compressed my arguments as much as I could, and I have no desire to wander into oratory at all. What is the reason these charges are so high? Well, the main reason is this: In Ireland there are some 3,000 miles of railway, and we have no less than 303 directors. Therefore, we have one director for every 10 miles of railway.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What about their salaries?
MR. FIELD: Well, I am not going into the question of salaries, but I may say they don't work for nothing, and they have free travelling. But besides these directors you have 97 secretaries, and you have 60 other highly-paid officials—that

1309
means 157 well-paid officials, such 'as secretaries, solicitors, or actuaries—that is, one official for every 15 miles. It is easy to see that these gentlemen must cost a great deal of money, and if there was amalgamation and co-operation of the various railways there would be an immense reduction in the cost of management; and with regard to the running of trains, undoubtedly a vast benefit would accrue to Ireland. The Members of this House, and other gentlemen who sat on the Financial Relations Commission, so forcibly saw this that they made a separate recommendation with regard to this amalgamation, for the purpose of reducing these railway rates by at least 50 per cent. Now, if this amalgamation is to take place, it must be controlled by the State, which must be responsible. It could not be managed on the trust system by a body chosen by the Government, or by the owners of the railway, but it should be elected by the County Council. This might be tried for a limited time, when the railway owners should surrender their interests for an equivalent guarantee by the State over a deferred period, with an ultimate reversion to the State, which is the rule at present in operation in India under the British Government, and also in France. Now, I will explain briefly with regard to this trust system, and there are 270 trusts in existence in the kingdom. I will only mention two: They are the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board and the Glasgow Docks. Now, these two have more capital in them at the present time than the Irish railways. Now, the new rates could be arranged by a Select Committee chosen from expert railway officials, with the Government exercising a certain supervising power leading to acquisition. I am not in favour at all of mere amalgamation, for I believe that the nationalisation of the Irish railways would be the only real cure for this disease. It may be objected that this would not be easy to accomplish, but I would point out to the right honourable Gentleman opposite that the legal machinery for accomplishing this is already available in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone said, in the Commission of 1844, at any time after twenty-one years the railways could be acquired by giving twenty-five years' purchase of the average dividends of the three pre-
1310
ceding years. Further than that, in 1868 a Royal Commission sat to consider and report upon this question, and the report of that Commission was favourable to State purchase, and urged the purchase of railways by the Government. So that we have these two facts. We have the financial relations Commission recommending it, we have the Commission of 1844 recommending it, and you have a subsequent Commission also reporting in its favour. Therefore, I think that I am not unreasonable in bringing this proposition before the House at this period. Thirty years ago this matter was favourably reported on by a Royal Commission, and yet nothing has been done. As Captain Tyler once said on this question of State control of the railways, that if the State does not manage the railways the railways must very soon manage the State. Mr. Speaker, I say that if the railways are managing the State. In the continental countries and in our own Colonies they recognise the necessity for State control. In the Continental countries nearly all the railways are State owned. Of course I know very well that many honourable Gentlemen in the House will turn round and say they do not want to learn anything from the Continent. Very well, in that case let them go to the Colonies, within the Empire. Let them go to Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, New Zealand, the Cape, Natal, the Mauritius, and to India, where the railways are belonging to and are worked by the Crown. At home, the First Lord of the Treasury opened at West Point a new district railway; that railway has been exceedingly useful, and I hope that the work that has commenced there will end by the taking over and working of the railways by the State; by taking them out of the hands of a few privileged persons, who work the country in order that shareholders may obtain dividends. I would just like to point out to this House that in Germany last year the profits of the railways, which are State owned, paid the interest of the National Debt, and left a considerable sum to the credit of the community at large. Now, in my opinion, this is a most important question, and it is particularly important so far as Ireland is concerned, in connection with the financial relations, because, in order to

1311
reduce taxation and bring a benefit to the community at large, nothing more beneficial can be done for Ireland than to nationalise Irish railways. In addition to nationalising the Irish railways, you should also canalise the rivers, and free the canals, so as to open up the country. In France they spent 80 millions of money each year in freeing canals and canalising rivers. In Germany it is the same thing; in Belgiur, Holland, and America, everywhere, in point of fact, except Ireland, the railways and rivers are used for trade and commerce, and the Government should at once free the canals, canalise certain rivers, and use them in connection with the Irish railway systems. I believe that the existing railway system is a tax upon the whole community, traders, commerce, production, passengers, and labourers. In conclusion, I would ask that the right honourable Gentleman will perfect the good work which he has commenced. The question is a very urgent one, and the circumstances are favourable, and Ireland is not over-burdened with railways, and I think it is only right that the inter-communication and transportation should be owned and operated by the State in the interests of the Irish people at large.
MR. DALY: After the very able and interesting speech delivered by the honourable Member for the Saint Patrick Division of Dublin, I think he deserves the thanks of the traders and inhabitants of Ireland. There is scarcely a grievance at the present time that comes home to the people of that unfortunate country in the same manner as this of the railway companies and railway company directors in Ireland, and it is for that reason that this matter may not be treated in a way in which it deserves by the Government. An honourable Member of the Government is at the present moment a director of one of the railway companies in Ireland. I regret to say that at the present moment the management of that railway is a disgrace to our civilisation. The third class carriages, as my honourable Friend said, are the next thing to horse boxes, and I ask my honourable Friend when he next goes to Ireland, and travels on that line, to get out of the first class
1312
saloon carriage in which he is, and look at them, and he will find that there is not a single shred of covering on the seats of the third class passengers using that railway. [Laughter.] I say, considering that a Member of the Government is a director of that railway, that it is highly probable that very scant attention will be paid to this matter. I am sorry, Sir, to have to bring this matter before the House, but if any railway in Ireland should be acquired by the Government it is surely this one. There is not at any one of the stations a waiting-room which is fit for a lady to use. This state of things would not be permitted for a moment in any other part of the country, but I suppose that in the opinion of the honourable Gentleman that I have referred to, any sort of accommodation is good enough for the Irish people. The honourable Gentleman that I refer to is the Secretary to the Admiralty, and I hope that when he next pays a flying visit to Ireland in all the comfort of a first class saloon carriage he will take notice of the matters to which I have ventured to call his attention on this occasion. The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland yesterday stated that it would take some time to formulate Bills in Parliament for the benefit of Ireland. I sincerely hope it will not take long for the right honourable Gentleman to formulate a Bill for the control by he State of the railways of Ireland so that they may be controlled from this House. The railways of Ireland are not made altogether for the purposes of earning large dividends for the shareholders. The trade and prosperity of the country largely depends upon the way in which railways are managed and controlled; but I should imagine from the experience I have of the various railways in that unhappy country that the only idea that ever enters the directors' minds is to acquire the largest amount of dividend and give the least amount of attention to the wants of the unfortunate people of that poor country. The position in Ireland is quite distinct from, and different to, that of any other country that I am aware of. Because all the produce of Ireland, or, at least, the whole of it with the exception of a very small quantity is sent to Port Mattoch, from whence they are exported to Eng-

1313
land, where they have to meet the products of such countries as Belgium, Russia, France, and Denmark, where the railways are owned by the State, and where the costs of transit in consequence are governed by the State and are very small. The railway companies of Ireland and their directors, on the other hand, are allowed to charge any price which they see fit to charge; the idea being to squeeze out of the unfortunate trader the very last penny they possibly can, where there is no competition. Ireland is entirely, or almost entirely dependent upon agriculture, and, in the first instance, the people have to import linseed cake, linseed meal, and seeds, and other matters to feed their cattle, horses, and pigs, and render them fit for the market. They have to import entirely all articles reqired for the people themselves as well as the cattle; so that in the first place, the railway company comes down and makes extortionate charges on the people for cattle, seeds, and forty other matters, which the people have had to import for the purposes of their business. When the cattle are finished fattening and are prepared for the market then the railway comes in again and extorts large sums from the people for transporting the cattle to their destination, and thus makes a double charge on these particular things. Take, for instance, the Great Northern Railway of Ireland; there is not a single line to compete with that, and the inhabitants of the country throughout the provinces through which it works are entirely at the mercy of the railway. In answer to the wish of my honourable Friend that the State should purchase the railways of Ireland, it may be urged that the same request might be made on behalf of England; but to my mind there is no comparison between the two countries in any particular. In Ireland, the produce of the country has to be exported entirely to England and to Scotland. The produce of England, on the other hand, is not sufficient to support the inhabitants of the district in which that produce is raised; therefore in that particular the railway rates in England and Ireland do not compare. Another thing in which they differ is that in the district which I have referred to there is no railway competiton. That is not so in the majority of coun-
1314
ties in England and in almost every town of note or importance in England there are generally two railway stations, or a railway station and a canal. Now all the counties of Ireland are restricted to, and subject to, one line of railway or another, and these lines of railway have such a monopoly and they have such a system for preventing the development of the country that—and it is a sad thing to say in this House—the commodities that we want sent from Belfast to Drogheda, a run of a few hours, are sent out from Belfast to Liverpool and back from Liverpool to Drogheda, because the goods can be delivered at a very much cheaper rate than if they are sent to Drogheda direct by rail. Now, is it fair? Are you as a Government prepared to allow this state of things to exist in Ireland? It is time this state of things was put an end to, and the grasping and greedy railway companies were prevented by law from doing as they please with the traders of Ireland. A short time ago the Midland Railway of Ireland were about to make an extension to Armagh and the Great Northern Railway of Ireland found that if that extension was carried out the new line would considerably injure their traffic. Now, what did the directors of these two railways do? The directors of these two railway companies met and entered into an agreement that there should be no competition whatever between these two lines of railway, as between certain towns, and consequently the unfortunate people of the country have had to pay through the nose owing to this agreement which was entered into between these two companies. The right honourable Gentleman, in reply to a question of mine, said he had no power to deal with this matter; but that is the very thing that this Debate was introduced into the House for. It was brought forward in order to give the honourable Gentleman power to deal with it, so that the matter might not be allowed to remain in the same condition as it is in at present. It was one of the points of the agreement between the two countries when Ireland became a part of Great Britain that the trade and commerce of Ireland should be protected. For a short time that agreement was kept. It was kept up to the forties. Then came the repeal

1315
of the Corn Laws, and from that time to the present Irish produce had been squeezed to a very large extent, indeed, out of the English market, owing to the preference given to foreign products, through the cheaper rates which are in vogue in foreign countries in comparison with the rates in Ireland. A few years ago I was asked to send 25 tons of grass seed—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman must confine himself to the question which is the subject matter of the Debate.
MR. DALY: My honourable Friend, in moving his Amendment, referred to the Royal Commission composed of the Members of this House, and stated that the Report of that Commission stated that it would be for the benefit of Ireland if the railway companies were taken over and put under the control of the State. Now, referring to the report of the Commission, I find that it stated that on long lines of railway in Ireland, above 28 miles the charge for a first-class passenger is 1.90d., and in Belgium the charge is 0.68d. or 68 per cent, less in Belgium than is charged in Ireland. This is one indication of how beneficial it would be to the traders and inhabitants of Ireland if the railways were owned and managed by the State instead of by the companies. The different charges are below the charges of Ireland in different degrees, the extent of which is shown by the following table. On first-class goods in Ireland the charge in Ireland is 2.11d. and in Belgium the charge is 1.37, or 39 per cent, than in Ireland. On the fifth class of goods the charge in Ireland is 6.67 and in Belgium it is 2.20, or a difference of 67 per cent, less in Belgium than Ireland. On class six the Irish charge is 10.73 and in Belgium it is 2.20, or a difference of 79 per cent., thus showing the benefit of the State railways in Belgium over privately-owned railways in Ireland. The Commission, in making their report, said:
"The consideration of the past and present railway fares and charges in Belgium being the subject to which our attention was specially directed by your Lordships' instructions, we have taken great pains to ascertain through the courtesy of the Belgium Government, and from personal in-
1316
quiry, the effect which the reductions in that country had had on the traffic. The experience of Belgium was thought likely to form a good, basis of estimating what would be the result of a reduction of the charges in Ireland; but the circumstances of the two countries are not analogous; for while in Belgium the chief railway traffic is connected with mining, ironworks, etc., in Ireland it is almost wholly of an agricultural character, and the movements of the people in connection with that industry."
That is the very point. It is because Ireland is an agricultural country that the Government should step in and purchase these railways. That is the very point which this report takes.
"The peculiar feature of the alterations in the Belgian scale of charges is the gradual introduction of a very large and special reduction for long distances, both of goods and passengers, and this as regards goods and minerals has been found to be a great success. The traffic of Ireland on the contrary requires special stimulus and development for short and moderate distances, both for goods and passengers as except in the case of tourists and people travelling for pleasure, it is entirely of local character from town to town. We are therefore of opinion that the reduction in passenger fares in Ireland, to have its full beneficial effect, must be on short and long traffic equally; and that the reductions in goods and cattle charges should be arranged on the principle of a uniform mileage rate for all distances, but subject to a minimum charge. After carefully considering what would be the result of reductions, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that a slight diminution in the charges for the carriage of passengers and goods would be simply a loss of so much money. That to give an impetus to the inter-communication of the inhabitants and the moving of goods from place to place and to and from the ports and to promote the increase of the cattle traffic, already so valuable in Ireland, and generally to develop traffic to an extent calculated to overtake at no distant period the effect of the lowering of charges, it is necessary to make at once a large reduction, and after a certain fixed minimum charge, to make the mileage scale for the several classes of traffic applicable to all distances."
Now Mr. Speaker, it is 33 years ago since this report was made to this House, and the Irish railways are in the same position now as they were when it was made. It is not the first time that reports favourable to Ireland have been made by a Railway, Commission appointed by this House, and it is always the same old story. In at one ear and out of the other. I hope now the Government will take this matter into their serious consideration, and consider whether the

1317
prosperity of Ireland is continually going to be marred and prevented by these high charges which are extorted by the railways. This is the opinion that the Railway Commission arrived at—
"We are of opinion that the following-fares and charges would be sufficiently low to create such a large increase of traffic as would confer a great boon on the public using the railways, and largely develop the great industry of the country. I would particularly ask the attention of the House to the last paragraph. We do not feel it to be within the spirit of the instructions which we have received, to speculate on the degree of mineral prosperity which would be given to Ireland by the adoption of a great reduction of rates and charges and a concentration of management. It is, however, useful to know that if our anticipations of the increase of traffic resulting from the reductions be realised, the public using the Irish railways would pay for such increased traffic during a period of 12 years, the sum of £12,000,000 less than they would have paid for such traffic at the existing rates, but instead of this advantage being obtained by means of any permanent sacrifice on the part of the State, a clear profit of £50,000 would be secured in the 12 years after payment of working charges, cost of increased accommodation and additional rolling stock, and interest on all capital previously advanced, and a profit of £90,000 in the 13th year. This amount of traffic and the larger annual profits for subsequent years (supposing the traffic to continue to increase), would be available for the repayment of the money which had been advanced during the preceding period. These are vast results, and it must always be remembered that calculations of this nature are subject to disturbance from unusual or unexpected circumstances, but having obtained the most accurate information in our power, and having brought our own experience to bear upon the questions submitted to us, we do not hesitate 'n giving our opinion that such results may be fairly expected to follow the suggested reductions."
That is 32 or 33 years ago, and yet no steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the report. It was made in 1868. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very strong report, but strong as It is, no attention has been paid to it by either the present Government or by any of its predecessors. I hope that, as the matter has been raised now, it will be taken seriously in hand, and that in a short time the railways in Ireland will belong to the State. It may be said that it would take a great deal of money to purchase the Irish railways, but, from my point of view, if the State did purchase them they could pur-
1318
chase them very largely with Irish money. I suppose I would not be in order in calling attention to the Financial Relations Report, but in that Report it is stated that vast sums of money have been taken from Ireland within the last 50 years, and that money could be used in taking over the Irish railways. In 1893 during the time of the last Unionist Government a Bill, called the Classification of Rates Bill, was passed, but it is absolutely of no use to the people of Ireland, inasmuch as it only benefits large traders. Now, any person connected with trade in Ireland knows that the people engaged in trade there are rather poor men. The result is that, while the railways give a special rate for a five ton lot of stuff, it is of no benefit to the small traders. One or two traders might be able to buy a five ton lot of goods and so get the advantage of the special rate, but for every one of such traders who could buy a five ton lot there would be 30 traders in the same town who could not buy more than a one ton lot. To give an idea of how this classification of rates works in Ireland, I find that, while a ton lot costs 9s. 9d. per ton, a two ton lot can be carried the same distance for 6s. 6d. per ton. But it must be taken into account that a two ton lot would serve most of these small traders for more than a couple of years, and their money could be much better employed in their shops than in buying such largo quantities, say, of oil, which they could not work off for two years. The next item I shall call attention to is coal, an article of every day consumption in the country. A railway with which I have some business—the Greenore Railway—charges for 14 miles 1s. 1d. per ton, or 6s. 6d. for a six-ton wagon; but if this wagon is run on to the next town, a distance of 14 miles, the next railway company—the Great Northern—charges 13s. I would ask the Government, is this state of things going to be allowed to continue, and are railway companies to be permitted to charge what they please? I think when such extraordinary charges are made it is time the Government stepped in to prevent the extraordinary differences of rates in regard to articles of daily consumption. Take another case. If you send a two-ton lot of oil from Belfast to Castle-blaney, the charge is 16s. per ton, but if you send it eight miles further away, to

1319
Bally Bay, the carriage is only 13s. 4d. But the reason of that is that there is a canal within a few miles of Bally Bay, and lest the unfortunate Canal Company should get the carriage of the oil, the railway charges 3s. 4d. less for the longer distance. I think these facts should waken up the Government. There is another matter I wish to bring before the House. I repeat a question which I put to the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the Great Northern Railway Company refusing to stop the five o'clock train at Castlebay, when this same train stops two stations further down the line if a director—Mr. Foster—wants to get on board.
MR. SPEAKER: To discuss the stopping of a train at a side station is remote from the question before the House, and a very unusual course to take in the Debate upon the Address.
MR. DALY: Well, this matter is a great grievance to my district. I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this is the only opportunity I have of raising the point. To go back to Belgium, I find that in that country the carriage of a ton of butter for a certain distance costs only 7s. per ton, while for the same distance in Ireland the carriage amounts to 22s. per ton. In Belgium the lines are owned by the State; in Ireland the lines are owned by railway companies. When a certain article is carried in Belgium for 7s. per ton, and the same article in Ireland is charged 22s. per ton, it is time for the Government to interfere, and to see that Irish traders are not treated just as the railway companies please. Then, again, the carriage of flax from Belfast to Donegal costs 18s. per ton for the three hours' run, while a ton of flax carried from Belgium to Belfast, a five days' run, costs less. Is it any wonder that the trade of Ireland has become strangled, and that the country is day by day becoming poorer? I admit that it must be very difficult for my honourable Friend and myself to get the Government to take up this question, considering that there are Members of the Government who are directors of Irish railways, but, all the same, this is a grievance which the Irish people have taken much to heart. I hope that the Debate inaugurated by my honourable Friend will bear good fruit,
1320
and that public attention will be fastened on this great grievance of the Irish people, and that it will not be long before the produce of Ireland can be placed on the English and Scotch markets on as favourable terms as the produce of other countries at the present moment.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I regret that the honourable Gentleman who seconded the Motion should have introduced into the discussion a personal element. He referred directly and by name to my honourable Friend the Member for South Antrim, and suggested that the cause of reform in the management of Irish railways was prejudiced by the fact that my honourable Friend is a director of an Irish railway. I do not think for a moment that the House will accept a suggestion of that sort, and' I hope the honourable Member, in his cooler moments, will not continue to maintain it.
MR. DALY: I beg pardon. I would be very sorry to attribute anything to the honourable Gentleman I referred to that is not right, and if I have said anything that is considered to be hurtful, I withdraw it.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course, I accept at once the honourable Member's disclaimer, but he will probably agree with me, on reflection, that if he did make a suggestion such as I have referred to, it is not likely to assist the cause he has at heart. The Amendment sets forth—
"That the present railway rates and charges in Ireland constitute an intolerable grievance to the Irish people."
Without associating myself to the full with the strength of that statement, I am not prepared to say that I do not to a very considerable extent sympathise with the complaints made by the honourable Member who moved the Amendment. The honourable Member, in an interesting, but at the same time somewhat rambling, speech, went into a large number of details into which he will hardly expect me to follow him. It would require more expert knowledge than I have were I to attempt to do so. I can, therefore, only treat the question in its more general aspects. I think that in some respects the honourable Gentleman over-

1321
stated his case. For instance, it is hardly reasonable to expect, in a country like Ireland, that it would be possible to have rates and charges universally as cheap and low as in countries like England, where there is a very much larger amount of traffic to be dealt with. Indeed, if the Legislature had imposed upon Irish railways maxima rates as low as those he quoted in the case of other countries, probably many of the Irish railways would not have been constructed at all. Even as it is, there has been considerable difficulty in securing the construction of the railway system in Ireland. I may remind the honourable Gentleman that the State has, with the view of promoting the construction of railways in Ireland, lent during the last 50 years no less a sum than £4,000,000 sterling. In discussing this question we must consider not merely the probable shortcomings of the railway companies, but the difficulties which the boards of directors of Irish railways necessarily have had to encounter in developing the traffic of a poor country like Ireland, as compared with those to be met with in rich countries like England and Belgium. Then the honourable Member spoke of the cheaper cost of construction of railways in Ireland as compared with those in England and Scotland. One reason of that is that the permanent way in Ireland is, as a rule, lighter than in England and Scotland. And another reason is that the value of laud in Ireland is less than in the other two countries. Another point made by the honourable Member was that rates and charges were kept unnecessarily high because the different companies came to an arrangement on the subject. But I do not think it would be possible under any system of ownership by private companies to exclude traffic arrangements between the companies. The honourable Member is somewhat inconsistent when he argues that the rates are high because there is competition, and then goes on to advocate amalgamation of the companies; for if all the companies were amalgamated the result would be that there could be no competition. While I have made these remarks on the honourable Member's observations, I must say again that I have considerable sympathy with the general nature of his case against Irish railway management. I think it is true that
1322
Irish railway directors are too apt to consider the somewhat narrow interests of their shareholders rather than the interests of the general public. It is true that there are in Ireland a very large number of companies in comparison with the number of miles of railway, and it is true that these companies do not always work smoothly and harmoniously together, and undoubtedly the public convenience must suffer from that cause. And I think it is also true that the companies in Ireland have shown themselves somewhat unenterprising. That may be partly due to their being insufficiently equipped with capital; but even the wealthier companies have not realised that they could improve the dividends for their shareholders by a larger traffic at lower rates than by small traffic at high rates. All these complaints urged against railway management in Ireland are, to a large extent, well founded. I cannot help agreeing also with the honourable Member when he says that the Railway Commission, so far as Ireland is concerned, has not proved of very great utility to the public, and that for two reasons. In the first place, it is an expensive matter to have recourse to the Commission; and, in the second place, the Commissioners rarely hold sittings in Ireland, and when they do come to Ireland to hold sittings they are a body almost unknown to the general public. A similar view was taken in 1888 by the Allport Commission, which reported—
"As regards Ireland, the practical working of that (the Railway) Commission appears not to be considered as satisfactory. It has, it is true, power to sit in Ireland, and has done so occasionally, but the delays and the legal expenses involved in an appeal to it are considered such as to make it of but little practical utility in a country where the interests involved in any particular complaint are comparatively small, as compared with the cost of the procedure. The most practical part of Irish opinion appears to be, on the whole, to the effect that what is wanted under the present railway organisation, in the absence of State purchase, is a cheap and expeditious machinery for securing attention to complaints and redress where a genuine grievance is substantiated; and that no strengthening of the present Railway Commission, and no mere improvements in the facilities of access to it, would suit the circumstances or satisfy the legitimate and reasonable requirements of the country. In these views we largely agree, and we think that they would still be true

1323
under a simpler and more centralised system of management."
Well, that view was taken by the All-port Commission, in 1888, and although since then we have had two important Measures relating to railway traffic—the Act of 1888 and the Act of 1894—it does not appear that there has been very much improvement as regards Ireland. At all events, I find that in the year 1896 there were altogether 136 appeals to the Railway Commission, and only two of these came from Ireland, and only one of these two had reference to rates. As regards this matter, the honourable Member may perhaps recollect that in a Bill which I introduced two years ago for creating a Board of Agriculture in Ireland, which was not carried further than the first reading, there was a clause enabling the Board to appear as complainants in any matter the Commission had power to determine, and it is my intention to include a similar clause in the corresponding Bill to be introduced this Session. I now come to the remedies which the honourable Member suggests for the improvement of the existing condition of things. These remedies are either State purchase, which is the remedy particularly approved by the honourable Member the Seconder of the Amendment, or the amalgamation of the existing systems under State control, leaving it open to the State to purchase afterwards—which seems to be most approved by the Mover of the Amendment. Now, these are very big proposals. As regards the purchase of railways in Ireland by the State, I may say that the honourable Member was incorrect in stating that the Commission of 1868—the Devonshire Commission—reported in favour of the State purchase of the Irish railways. The honourable Member who seconded the Amendment read evidence from a report of a Commission on Irish Railways, but if he looks more closely into it I think he will find he was reading from a minority report made by a single member of the Commission. Both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment seem to have fallen into the mistake of confusing the report of a single member with the report of the Commission as a whole.
MR. DALY: The report from which I read was dated December 7th 1868,
1324
and is signed by A. Y. Spearman, John Mulholland, John Fowler, Seymour Clarke, C. Johnston, and W. Neilson Hancock.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not got the report of the Devonshire Commission of 1868 with mc, but I feel sure I am right in saying that the majority of that Commission did not report in favour of State purchase. In support of that statement, I may refer to page 45 of the Report of the Allport Commission of 1888, where I find this statement as the conclusion to which the Devonshire Commission arrived—
"We are of opinion that it is inexpedient at present to subvert the policy which has hitherto been adopted, of leaving the construction and management of railways to the free enterprise of the people, under such conditions as Parliament may think fit to impose for the general welfare of the public."
In paragraphs 76 to 80 they deal with the special case of Ireland, with regard to which they say—
"We consider that there is not sufficient reason for excepting Ireland from this general conclusion."
In the report of the same Commission it is stated that—
"As the result of various inquiries and discussions, we think it may be stated that while the preponderance of local opinion in Ireland has been in favour of State purchase of the Irish railways, the weight of expert judgment, of successive Governments, and of the House of Commons has been against that course, whether considered as an end or as a means. On the other hand, there has been a general agreement at all times and in all quarters that the railways of Ireland may be, and ought to be, treated separately from those of Great Britain."
And in another paragraph of the Allport Commission Report it is said—
"As the analogy of the Post Office is often cited, we should wish to point out that one essential and important difference between the management of a railway and that of the Post Office is, that the former involves great commercial knowledge in order to keep touch with the requirements of trade; whereas the work of the Post Office, whether as respects letters or telegrams, is to a large extent routine, and questions of adjustment of rates and charges and other matters of commercial management are almost entirely absent. We ourselves completely agree with the consensus of practical opinion, which is unfavourable to State management."

1325
There are many obvious and very well known objections to any course of that kind. I do not speak merely of the financial risks and responsibilities involved, which are, of course, considerable, but, over and above that objection, it has not been the view held—in this country, at all events—by experts that the State development and State management of railways is carried on so well as by an independent company. But there are other considerations. If the State purchase the railways, all the men employed on the railways would become the servants of the State, and I do not think that our experience of government in this country is such as to encourage us, without the greatest necessity, to largely increase the number of persons employed in the service of the State. I would just ask the House to consider what would be the immediate result if the railways in Ireland were to be managed by a State Department, with a Minister at its head responsible to Parliament, and sitting in this House. That Department would be expected by all honourable Members from Ireland, whatever part of Ireland they represented, to secure that the railways, and those who were carried by the railways, and whose goods were carried by the railways, should be managed entirely from their point of view. The necessity of economical management would be absolutely, or nearly, lost sight of.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Well, I have no hesitation in saying that I think that would be the result, The unfortunate Minister would be absolutely bombarded with questions from day to day as to why this or that had not been done, and as to whether the rates in this or that district were fair, and should not be made lower. That would be the result of placing the management of railways in Ireland in the hands of the State. It is a singular thing that while there are no people in the world so ready to quarrel with the Government, and so ready to find fault with Government management, as are the Irish people, there are also no people in the world so anxious to entrust every possible thing to the Government. That is a curious thing, which I only note in passing. Sir, I
1326
think it must be clear to the House that for us to undertake during the present Session, as we are asked to do by this Amendment, a Measure of State purchase of the Irish railways, is to ask us to do the impossible. Personally, I very much doubt whether the policy is a wise one, for reasons that I have pointed out. In any case, it would be absolutely impossible for us to deal with so enormous, so complicated, and so difficult a question in this Parliament. I will just say one or two words on the subject of the amalgamation of the railways in Ireland, which is recommended as an alternative to State purchase. No doubt there is a good deal to be said in favour of amalgamation. I think a plausible case may be made out for it. I think it probable that, if carried out under proper regulations, it would result in increased convenience to the public, and it would certainly result in a very great saving in the expenses of management; and such amalgamation might lead to a considerable reduction in rates and charges. On the other hand, I see also very considerable difficulty in a policy of amalgamation. Amalgamation, I take it, is amalgamation of universal application; all the railways in Ireland should be united under one management. Well, Sir, if that was done, of course it would at once do away, as I have already indicated in the early part of my speech, with everything in the shape of competition. It would, therefore, involve the establishment of a Board of Control, which would have, to some extent, judicial and to some extent administrative duties. Personally, I should be very sorry to be trusted with the task of laying down exactly what the powers of such a board should be. I do not think that any Government could undertake that task without finding in this House almost as much opposition to any proposal of that sort as to State purchase itself. Therefore, all the objections which I have urged to the proposals of this Amendment, so far as the necessary claims on the time of the House are concerned, would apply equally to a scheme of universal amalgamation under State management. On the other hand, it has been suggested by others that this amalgamation should not be universal, but only partial; in other words, that you should have Ire-

1327
land divided into certain railway districts, let us say into three districts, with the railway systems under a single management in each of those districts. That, I think, is also a possible policy to pursue, but it is a policy which would not necessarily involve the interference of the State. A universal amalgamation can only be accomplished by legislation, but partial amalgamation—that is to say, an amalgamation of the numerous companies in Ireland, the numerous small companies in Ireland, into two or three large companies—that, I think, possible without legislation. The honourable Member has referred to a large scheme of amalgamation which is to come before the House during the present Session. That is a question which the House will have ultimately to decide, and I do not wish to go into it now; but, personally, I am rather inclined to believe that the best hope of improvement in the condition of Irish railway management lies 'in the direction of this voluntary amalgamation. You would then have, at all events, powerful and enterprising companies controlling the system, companies who, in my opinion, would see that it is to their interests to develop the traffic to the utmost by cheap rates and cheap fares. That is what I regard myself as probably the best solution of the difficulty. At all events, I cannot, on behalf of the Government, undertake those large and very difficult schemes of legislation which are put forward by the honourable Member as the only remedy; and, beyond this voluntary amalgamation, of course, under proper conditions, I can hold out no hope that we shall be able to do anything towards dealing with the matter in the present Session.
MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: It is a remarkable thing that the speech to which we have just listened contains even less hope of anything being done by the Government than was promised to us exactly a quarter of a century ago, when the right honourable Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Secretary for Ireland. Anyone who turns to the saddening pages of "Hansard" to find the manner in which it was then dealt with, the manner in which it has slumbered ever since, will get a further
1328
lesson, if lesson be needed, of the utter neglect of every question affecting the material interests of Ireland by the shifting and vacillating courses of this country. Sir, I do not complain of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman. He is only a link in the miserable chain that forms the system by which we are ruled. He has only done what he conceives it is necessary he should do—made a few observations which suggested themselves to him with reference to the time of this House and the difficulties of this question. Sir, what is the time of this House to us? When you took away our Parliament you took away from yourselves any right to reply that you have no time to deal with our affairs. If you are going to deal with our affairs, deal with them. Then, with regard to the difficulties, I admit there are enormous difficulties in dealing with the question. I am not enamoured of the system of State purchase of railways, but, slowly and gradually, and reluctantly it has been forced upon my mind that some means must be found for dealing with the glaring injustice involved in the present system. What did the right honourable Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Irish Secretary, say, in 1874?—and let me point out that this matter has gone on not merely for a quarter of a century—you must go back to 1837 to find the beginnings of this question. I am not going back any further than 1868, when circumstances gave rise to the appointment of the Royal Commission already alluded to by my honourable Friend the Member for Monaghan. In 1868 a declaration was signed by 72 Irish Peers and by 90 Irish Members, out of 105, there being four Irish Members in the Government who refused to sign it. In 1868 the Peers and Commoners of Ireland united in a declaration, stating that if in the eleven years which might be required to make the Irish railways pay their own way there should be any loss, that should be met out of Irish resources, and that nothing would be more easy than to raise the money by a tax upon Irish property, which would improve in value by the proposed change. In other words, the Irish Peers and the landlords who then sat in this House put forward a proposition asking for a tax upon their own property to enable

1329
them to improve the railway system. What was done? Mr. Gladstone, as soon as he came into office, appointed a Commission. The Lords Commissioners of the Treasury constituted a special Commission upon this question. They were desired to report on—
"1.—An approximate estimate of the immediate loss which would probably be occasioned by such a reduction of the fares on the part of the Irish railways as would assimilate them to the principles upon which charges are levied on English lines, and their opinion as to the probable period that would elapse before the increase of traffic would overtake the loss occasioned.
"2.—An estimate of the saving to be effected by concentrating the control of the railways under one or more administrative departments.
"3.—An estimate of the diminution of charge which would be effected by placing the whole of the debenture capital on a uniform rate of interest under Government guarantee."
And to that these Gentlemen gave answer, every one of them, in favour of the Irish line upon this question; these five Gentlemen, every one of them, gave answer in favour of the view put forward by the united declaration of Irish Peers and Commoners. My honourable Friend was not quoting from a minority report, he was quoting from an important State document by a Commission of which Mr. Hancock, the well-known statistician, was the secretary; and from that hour until the present day—31 years ago—the British Government has not done, so far as the important main question is concerned, a single stroke. I turn to the Debate initiated on the 24th April, 1874, by Mr. Blennerhassett, to see what the then Irish Secretary said. Sir, it is perfectly true that this quesion is surrounded by enormous difficulties, but when English opinion is unanimous upon any question, when the Conservative and Liberal parties are united to a man, does the English Minister, be he President of the Board of Trade or Secretary of State, get up and trot out the enormous difficulties of dealing with the question? No, Sir, if he did he would lose his place within 24 hours. He has to bow to English opinion, to conform to English opinion as expressed by English votes. We have no such remedy; and we have got to-day a
1330
speech which, while admitting our grievance, gives us even less hope of redress than did the speech made so long ago by the right honourable Gentleman who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a very remarkable thing that the case of the amalgamation of the Waterford and Limerick Railway, which formed a portion of the speech of the honourable Member for Dublin, was then one of the chief points of illustration touched upon by both sides of the House. Consider what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, by way of giving us some hope, that an attempt would be made to alleviate our grievances—and I ask the House what is to be thought of this system of governing a country when this admitted grievance exists, and has existed, for over a quarter of a century, and yet nothing is done. While you are able to legislate for perpetual Coercion Acts and other Acts of that nature, you never find it to your interest to deal with matters that are of immense importance to the country. The right honourable Gentleman said—
"I have stated this to show what improvements in railway communication may be made by Irishmen themselves, or by Irishmen in concert with Englishmen, without any aid from the State. Parliament might beneficially lend its assistance in promoting amalgamation, and possibly facilities might be given by the Government, by which it might be rendered easier and cheaper than at present."
What have you done since then? Nothing. And if we allow you, you never will do anything. And yet it is made a grievance that we are always appealing to the Government to do something. In the name of Heaven, who are we to appeal to? Are we to be mute in this House? You have undertaken to rule our country and govern it for us. Are you, then, to make it a subject of complaint that we should venture to open our mouths to express the sentiments of our constituents? It is true that nobody is more willing to appeal to the Government than are the Irish. You have our money; you stick to it. You have got hold of the government. You have the whole thing in your hands. What are we to do except come here? What power have we? About as much power

1331
as the rats and the cockroaches. That is the position into which you have reduced the vast body of our population, and because at times the Irish raise a feeble complaint—once a quarter of a century—upon a question of real concern, are we to be put down? Sir Michael Hicks Beach went on to say—
"Both this question, and also the suggestion whether some provision compelling amalgamation might not be introduced into every Private Railway Bill brought before Parliament, require very careful consideration."
And it has been getting it ever since, and nothing has been done. Then he went on, and he dealt with the suggestion made by Mr. Gladstone himself in the previous year. Mr. Gladstone had put forward some scheme for endeavouring to arrive at a remedy, and this is how the right honourable Gentleman the then Irish Secretary dealt with the speech of the then late Prime Minister. He said—
"It was evidently to meet such cases as these that a suggestion was thrown out last year by the right honourable Gentleman the late Prime Minister, to the effect that the Irish railway companies should first agree upon some reasonable principle of amalgamation, and should arrange among themselves for the interchange of traffic, and that then, as if in return for changes to be made by them for the better service of the public, loans should be granted to them by the State upon terms which should place them in a better financial position."
To that suggestion the right honourable Gentleman gave no assent, although it had the approval of a man of the great financial position of Mr. Gladstone. Lord Hartington was then Leader of the Opposition. Every Irish Member then in the House, Conservative and Liberal without exception—except only Mr. Percival Vaughan and the Member for Waterford—voted for the Motion of Mr. Blennerhassett. Well, Lord Hartington in his speech dropped one or two observations, in which he said—
"The previous Government of honourable Gentlemen opposite certainly did not approach it in an unfriendly spirit by appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of Irish Railways, with instructions so worded as almost to show that, if a case could be made out at all in favour of the purchase of Irish Railways, the Government would be ready to consider it."
1332
And he said—
"Certainly the late Government"—Mr. Gladstone's Government—"also approached the question in an equally willing spirit."
He said—
"I know that my right honourable Friend at the head of the late Government would have been exceedingly glad if he could have seen his way, by any interference by the Government, to remove the evils of Irish Railway management: and, speaking for myself personally, I may, perhaps, say I approached the subject with a desire still more keen than most of my colleagues, that we might see our way to meet the wishes of a large number of Irish people. Perhaps I ought even to plead guilty to the charge that by too open a statement of my own views on the subject I may have raised hopes which I was not able to fulfil. I certainly did think that some reparation might be due to Ireland for having sanctioned a system of railways there that did not give the country the fullest advantages which it is entitled to enjoy."
I think the way this House has approached the subject of Irish railways affords us a very striking illustration. Why was a 5ft. 6in. gauge started in Ireland and a 4ft. 6in. gauge in England? If you had given the same gauge to both countries we might have bought an occasional second-hand engine and second-hand carriages, and you would have had what little advantage there is in English manufacturers and coach-builders making their goods upon a particular standard, a particular plan, instead of having to have separate machinery for making different machines, You foisted upon us the 5ft. 6in. gauge, with its more expensive bridges, more expensive tunnels, more expensive carriages, and so on, while taking a 4ft. 6in. gauge yourself. And how was it arrived at? Sir, I am creditably informed it was arrived at on the principle upon which, in a breach of promise case, the jury arrive at a decision on the question of damages. There had been ten different gauges recommended for England and for Ireland. The Committee first decided that because there was a sea road between the two countries, and we had a Lord Lieutenant of our own, there should be a separate gauge for Ireland, and then it added up the ten different suggestions and divided them by ten, by which means they arrived at 5ft. 6in., and upon that intelligent system the

1333
railway gauge of Ireland was settled, and so it has remained until the present time. What did you do next? There was an excellent system of canals in the country; and certainly, if anything is due to the credit of the Irish Parliament—and that was at the time when engineering was at, perhaps, its highest development and skill—it is the magnificent system of canals then developed and projected. Almost the first act of the English Government after it had obtained, by the unhappy Act of Union, some control over these canals, was to sell the Royal Canal to the Midland Railway, which has done nothing to promote it, and since that day every effort has been made by the British Treasury to get rid of the canal control. Take the case of the Ulster Canal. Why, in conjunction with the late Mr. Biggar, how often did we represent the case of the Ulster Canal to the British Government, until at last the British Treasury brought in an Act giving it away for nothing, with a sum of £5,000 in addition, to some Belfast jobbers. Now the whole thing is in a state of bankruptcy, and its last state is worse than the first. Only two years ago you passed another Bill, getting rid of another canal connected with Drogheda. That is the way in which the English govern Ireland. Instead of looking at her case paternally, you are mere tax-extracting machinery. The whole idea is to shoulder off responsibility. You see processions of Ministers, now Tory, now Liberal, anxious simply in their day and generation to draw their salaries quietly, to get what little popularity and honour they may by acting as Irish Secretary, using our country as a spring-board from which to get elevation to other jobs. We know that this railway question has become one of the most extraordinary and pressing grievances of the people, and there is no suggestion of redress except that we might go to the Railway Commission. The right honourable Gentleman is going to give us the offer to go to the Railway Commission through this Agricultural Board. It is very curious that exactly the same contention was made by the then Irish Secretary in 1874. The right honourable Gentleman has told us that two only out of 150 appeals came from Ireland. Well, how is the owner of a farm of ten acres
1334
to go to law with the Great Southern and Western Railway over the carriage of his turnips, when his whole consignment probably does not amount to more than 30s. The cost of such, a proceeding is by no means inconsiderable; and I have been informed that the cost in the case of "Goddard v. the London and South-Western Railway Company," recently heard by the Railway Commission, in which the decision was given in favour of the plaintiff, was only £3 11s. 6d. Yes, Sir; but it is unfortunately the case that all the consignments which reach the Irish railways are the consignments of small men; £3 11s. 6d., the cost in "Goddard v. the London and South-Western Railway Company," is a cost which no small farmer could pay. Many of them are too poor even to go into Court against their landlords to get a fair rent fixed, because they are unable to find the preliminary charges. How are they to fight one of the strongest monopolies in the world? Here we have a country which is purely pastoral. It is becoming more and more pastoral every year; the country is going to be one vast grazing farm. We have no minerals, we have practically no merchandise of any account. Take the railway upon which I worked some time myself, the North Eastern Railway. Why, Sir, upon that line, you have, I may say, at every five minutes of the day a goods train, a mineral train, or you have a passenger train; and how does it happen that these wretched Irish railway companies, who have not all the minerals of England, all its vast merchandise, all its goods, to carry, as well as its teeming population—how is it that the Irish railway companies, which only have Biddy's cow and Paddy's potatoes to carry, are able to pay as big dividends as your English companies? Is it not a condemnation of your system? And how are these lines managed? I hate the British Government in Ireland. I do not want to give them, if I can, any additional element of power, and I would be very careful, very guarded, in any Bill that is brought in to see that the control of the central authority, so far as it is the control of the Treasury Bench and of Dublin Castle, should be reduced to a minimum. But how are they managed at present? Why, Sir, we from time to time in this House see, per-

1335
haps it may be as through a glass darkly, a great many millionaires springing up, or a great many rich men in this House. They are the people who control our industries. Did you ever know a millionaire who was fit to be trusted on any question? We do not put millionaires upon the Treasury Bench to manage the Government. Was Mr. Gladstone a millionaire? Is the First Lord of the Treasury a millionaire? No, Sir; when you go to manage this great Empire you look for brains. But brains will not purchase Great Southern stock. It is by the money franchise, by the mere ownership of money, that these great undertakings are all controlled and managed, absolutely in entire disregard of the true interests of the country. And the Government stands by, year after year, and sees them carrying away our population, carrying away our merchandise, sees them screwing the last farthing out of the unfortunate shipbroker, sees them ruining our industries—the few industries that still exist in the country—by piling up the load of freights and charges. It does nothing except to give us an occasional Railway Commission, whose reports never are useful. Look at the condemnation by the Allport Commission with regard to the Castlecomer Collieries. The Southern and Western Railway runs within 20 miles of that district. There is coal there, and coal most valuable, as we know, for exporting purposes and for steam purposes. And such is the great enterprise of these railway people that, having got their five or six per cent., they are content to go to sleep upon it; they will not run a little railway from the closest point on their system to Castlecomer to enable these collieries to be worked. You are the Government of the country, yet you do nothing, although your Royal Commission has condemned the system. This is one of the things by which the people of Ireland judge you and condemn you. Your whole management of the country is fiscal and political. You do not enter into the domestic affairs or manufactures of the people. You are not concerned in
1336
them, and it is impossible that you should be. I cannot see myself how any Scotchman can love any country but his own, or any Irishman love any country but Ireland, and so long as we are ruled by people having no interest in our country, or caring nothing for our affairs, and only anxious to make a decent exit from office, it is impossible to expect right honourable Gentlemen opposite to engage in those enterprises and experiments which it should be the duty of the natives to undertake. One word more. It is said that this Amendment is for State control. There are many evils connected with State control. A whole army of officials—railway porters, ticket collectors, guards, and other officials—all over the country, wearing the uniform of the State, and bearing its badge, would not be a grateful thing to any of us to see established. Sir Rowland Blennerhassett brought forward his Motion in 1874; he calculated the then value of Irish railways at 22 millions—a mere bagatelle. My honourable Friend the Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin estimated that it would now take 40 millions to buy up the Irish railways. I am not a financial expert; I know nothing of the question. But if you will not allow us to manage our own affairs, hear our voice, accept our views, and govern the country as we desire to govern it in matters that do affect the stability of the British Empire. You must remember that Ireland is a small island getting more and more out of proportion in wealth and population as compared with England. The sun is always shining on the British Empire. Yes, Sir, but it is also shining on fewer Irishmen in Ireland every day. Our country is becoming less important to the interests of the Empire at large, and it behaves the individual Irishman to look with much more concern and anxiety to the well-being and welfare of the unfortunate diminishing population left behind. We have our Department of State to look after our railways; but what is your Board of Trade to us? What can it do for us? Would not the shoulders of an angel be almost borne down by the multifarious duties carried on by some of your great officers of State? You deal with the question from an official point of view; but our country—our fallen and unhappy island

1337
—requires especial attention. She has one Minister—and he not even a Cabinet Minister—to manage her entire affairs. When we show you that our railway rates are double yours, that our dividends are greater than yours, you give us the answer you gave us a quarter of a century ago—that you will put a clause into the Agriculture and Industries Bill to enable us to go to law with the railway companies. That is no remedy. I sympathise to some extent with the helplessness of the right honourable Gentleman. If he were a fixture in his office, and if he had to bear the brunt of Irish opinion, he would take an entirely different view. All he does is to point out difficulties. It is this unfortunate spirit—however amiable be the Minister who exhibits it-—it is this constant neglect of our material interests day by day that makes Ireland more and more intolerant of your rule and more determined to shake it off.
MR. PARKER SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that most of the arguments used by the honourable and learned Member would have been more appropriate last night. He has abused successive Governments for doing nothing and for not listening to the voice of Ireland. I am not aware that the voice of Ireland has been heard in this matter for 25 years. I have heard and read many Irish Debates, but I cannot recollect that this matter has ever been raised since the occasion in 1874 by Gentlemen from Ireland in the House of Commons. I am sorry for that, because it seems to me an extremely practical question, and I should really like to ask the Government, and especially the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to consider whether something should not be done in regard to it. There are, of course, very great difficulties in the way, But I do think that the scheme suggested by the honourable Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin is a matter which deserves the attention of the Government. I have had occasion to look into the question of Irish railways to some extent as a member of a committee which sat in Dublin. I have also taken an interest in railway matters generally, and I do think that what one sees of Irish railways shows that the present system is far from being satisfactory. We have imagined that what
1338
is good on this side of the water should also be good on the other, and we have left the British system of competition to take its chance in Ireland. But the whole circumstances of Irish railways are absolutely different from the circum stances of British railways, and the conditions under which our present system here has grown up are also different in the two countries. The problem is absolutely different with regard to Ireland. In England the amount of paid-up rail way capital is 784 millions, in Scotland 114 millions, and in Ireland not more than 39 millions. That is the amount of paid-up railway capital in Ireland, and I do not suppose the market value of Irish railway stock is far from that sum. In England the average cost of rail ways is £53,000 a mile, in Scotland £33,000, and in Ireland only £12,500. That shows that Irish railways must be entirely different from either English or Scotch railways. It shows that Irish railways are far more of the nature of Indian railways, and ought to be treated as such. In India the average cost per mile is very similar to what it is in Ireland. We have exactly the same difference, though even more exaggerated, with regard to receipts. The gross receipts in England are 75 millions, in Scotland 10 millions, and in Ireland, with a mileage only 300 miles less than Scotland, they are only 3½ millions. That is to say, that the gross receipts in Ireland are only a third of the receipts in Scotland with very nearly the same mileage. Look at the question from the number of journeys taken, which is a very fair test. In England there are 898 millions of passenger journeys, in Scotland 106 millions, and in Ireland only 26 millions. That is to say, every inhabitant takes about 31 railway journeys in a year in England, 26½ in Scot land, and only 5½ in Ireland. That shows that the railway system in Ireland is entirely different to that in either England or Scotland. The receipts per mile per week in the three countries show the same difference. In England they average £97, in Scotland £56, and in Ireland £21. The last figure closely concurs with the receipts per mile in India, and the same kind of system that suits India satisfactorily ought, if possible, to be applied to Ireland. The rail ways of Ireland are numerous; they have rival boards of directors, and they ex-

1339
pend an excessive amount on administration in every direction. The facts I have just stated show that Ireland requires a railway system different from that which admirably suits England and Scotland. No man in his senses would dream of proposing that the railways in England or in Scotland should be bought up by the State. But the problem in regard to Ireland is very different, and the question of buying the railways in that country should be very gravely taken into account by the Government. The Chief Secretary has put forward what I feel are very great difficulties in the way—difficulties which, I think, have been emphasised by some of the speeches made in support of the Motion. It would take a great deal to persuade the House of Commons to enter voluntarily into a system under which every detail, such as every place where a train ought to stop, would be brought up in the House in the style to which we are accustomed with reference to other Irish matters. I do think that the political element in the matter—the pressure that would be brought to bear on the Government Department responsible for it, the amount of employment and patronage which would come into the hands of the Government, and the political pressure which would be used in regard to it—is a very serious consideration. But the Government have already faced this question in many cases in Ireland. They have undertaken much of the risk in connection with light railways, such as the choosing of sites and the expenditure of the money in different districts. Surely if they were able to face that without having been subjected to undue pressure and influence, it is not too much to ask them whether this larger problem cannot also be solved, and whether these Parliamentary objections, which to us probably seem larger than they do to people outside, cannot be faced in the same way, and the railway system of Ireland brought into harmony and worked more economically. I am not throwing any blame on those responsible for the present system, because when we were in Ireland we found the companies most anxious to work their lines satisfactorily. In many cases it was the poverty of the lines which we found prevented them from adopting the measures which the Committee thought necessary.
1340
The railways in Ireland, both as regards the expense of fitting out insisted on by the Board of Trade and also the attitude of the Government as to their working, must be regarded differently from railways in either England or Scotland, and, I believe, there are few things which would tend more to enrich Ireland than if the present system could be overcome, and a uniform system of railways throughout the country, worked by one single authority, could be brought into harmonious existence.
MR. LOUGH: Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member who has just sat down commenced by jeering at the honourable and learned Member for North Louth for the speech he made, but the honourable Member himself has given greater support to the Amendment than was given by all the arguments of my honourable and learned Friend. I think the House ought to be indebted to the honourable Member for the figures which he gave. There are two things about these statistics that might strike the mind of the House. One is how extraordinarily the figures of England and Wales and Scotland march together. The honourable Member stated the capital invested, the number of journeys, and the cost of the railways in these countries, and although they were not exactly the same, they brought home to us a lesson recognised by statisticians, that certain parts of these islands march together. We had a remarkable illustration of that from the honourable Member to-night. Then he went on to speak of Ireland, aid what did the House notice—the greatest possible contrast between the conditions existing there and the conditions existing in Great Britain. I think every Irishman ought to thank the honourable Member for his speech. It was a most powerful argument in favour of the claim which has been put forward. But why did he jeer at the honourable and learned Member in his first sentence? What would he do if the House did not listen to his pleading? As my honourable and learned Friend said in his most beautiful and eloquent speech, "How long will we go on applying to you—how long entreating you?" We have had repeated Commissions. We had a Commission in 1837, another in 1847, and one in almost every decade since. The

1341
same reply has always been made by the Government, but that cannot continue. The present Government have done a great deal for Ireland. Nearly every Session has been occupied with Irish legislation, and now they are asked to buy up the Irish railways and institute a national system. But the problem will have to be faced, and if right honourable Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench have not the sense to face it others will have to do it. I ask the House to notice the nature of the reply given by the Government to-night. Did honourable Gentlemen observe that the President of the Board of Trade sat on the corner of the Front Bench during the Debate. Why did he not reply? The Board of Trade is one of the two offices charged in the Irish Estimates as Imperial offices. In theory the Board of Trade does something for Ireland. This is a Board of Trade matter, and why did the right honourable Gentleman throw on that long-suffering Minister—the Chief Secretary—the duty of making a reply? I say that when the historian of this half-century comes to examine this question he will blame next to the Treasury—which is the worst of all—the Board of Trade for the infamous system carried out in Ireland. It does nothing for Ireland except charge a portion of its expenses to that unhappy island. Look at how the right honourable Gentleman treats the whole question of Irish commerce. He will not supply any statistics, and there is not an island in the seas that does not know something about its commerce except Ireland. And when matters for the amelioration of the existing system are being discussed he sits by and listens to the eloquence of the Chief Secretary. But something will have to be done, whether the question is argued on the broad lines of the honourable Gentleman who spoke last or looked upon from another standpoint. I have been in Ireland twice during the Recess, and the house in which I resided is on a small spur of the Midland Railway, built at the cost of the State, and for which £600 a year must be locally paid for interest. The village at the end of that branch of railway became absolutely dependent on the line. All other means of locomotion, such as horses and donkeys were destroyed, End we are absolutely at the mercy of the railway. How does it treat us? I may
1342
mention one illustration. The distance between my house and the market town is nine miles. Coming home on a market evening it takes 1½ hours to make the journey. There is a junction at which we have to stop for two hours, and although we have protested again and again the railway company only laugh at us. The Grand Jury also protested, but they have no power whatever in the matter. Take another case: In the little village to which I have referred we have, as in other parts of Ireland, with the co-operation of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, started a creamery. We try to get our own butter to Lan. What is the result? The freight from that village to Lan is 56s., whereas the freight from Canada to Lan is only about 20s. But there are other difficulties. The other day a parcel of butter was lost. It was properly put on the train, and a goods receipt was given for it, but it was never found afterwards. The railway company was prosecuted, and it made the good defence, that having delivered the parcel over to another carrying company it was no longer responsible. The point was taken to the High Courts, and they decided that if any company receiving goods can prove delivery to another carrying company it is not responsible. Think of the meaning of it. Between the village to which I have referred and Lan there are probably five different carrying companies, and how can a villager sue under such circumstances.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is not peculiar to Ireland.
MR. LOUGH: I think it is very peculiar to Ireland, and we cannot get the Board of Trade to put it right. Take another case: In certain parts of the district of which I am speaking fuel has become very scarce, and in summer hardly a fire is lighted. Yet eight or 10 miles away is a district which is one vast bog. But there is no means of getting fuel from that bog to the village. Honourable Members travelling in Ireland must have felt that the thought never entered the minds of the foolish people who built the railways to make them suitable for the people for whom they were constructed. Of course, in such a district there should be peat wagons and

1343
cheap rates in order that fuel may be taken from where it is plentiful to where it is scarce. I have been going into the details of the system in my own place in Ireland. Let me give another instance: In that village of 500 inhabitants there are 10 policemen going about idle all day long. The right honourable Gentleman objects that we cannot have State Railways in Ireland because of the multiplication of Government servants. Why on earth should we not have three or four Government railway servants in that village and only six or seven policemen instead of 10? You might easily provide a staff of railway servants if you made the police do some useful duty instead of loafing about the country doing nothing. There is nothing in the argument which the right honourable Gentleman has presented to the House. The contrast between Ireland and Great Britain is this—in Great Britain we have competition; in Ireland there is none. Where you have a system of private enterprise without competition that system becomes a vast and cruel monopoly. You want competition and control to enable people to do with private enterprise at all, and we get on in this country because we have the control of the Board of Trade in addition to effective competition. In Ireland there is no such control. I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade has not thought fit to stay and listen to our Debate, or to say a word upon it. In Ireland there is not a vestige of competition throughout the country, and the situation is very different to what it is in Great Britain. An honourable Member opposite told us that this Debate should have taken place last night in connection with the Home Rule Question. I venture to say that points such as this will crop up again and again whenever we discuss Home Rule in this House, and the sooner we hear that question approached from a practical standpoint the better it will be. The question is, is the Government justified in destroying a prosperous and fertile country by an infamous system which it could easily cure, but which it has maintained for so many years?
MR. FIELD: After the discussion which has taken place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. BRYCE: Before
1344
the discussion closes I wish to say a few words on this matter, and I shall be glad to take this opportunity, although I will not long detain the House. I have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the appeals made by the Irish Members. They have raised one of the gravest problems. Ireland is a country which, above all things, requires cheap transit, and the people cannot get it on account of the way in which the railways have been constructed. The railroads have been built on a scale commensurate, in a general way, with that which we have adopted in England and Scotland, where there has been a large traffic to deal with. It is true the expense of construction per mile has been much smaller than in England and Scotland, but, then, according to the figures given by the honourable Member for Partick, the land is of much less value. At the same time, the expense in Ireland has been far in excess of what the railroads ought to have been made for in that country. We are told that the average cost is £12,300 per mile. It is quite possible to make railroads at half that expense, and in Ireland many light railways are being made for less than that. It is to be regretted that when the railways were first built an endeavour was not made to bring them more into line with the economic conditions of Ireland. That is the first great difficulty which the position presents. The second difficulty is that there is no competition. The Member for Islington will surely agree that in order to have competition there must be traffic able to bear it, and the difficulty in Ireland is that the traffic is barely sufficient to enable the payment of dividends on the existing line.
MR. LOUGH: My argument was that the State should take over the lines.
MR. BRYCE: Another honourable Member has suggested that the dividends paid by the Irish lines are too high. Now, the only line which pays a large dividend is the Great Northern—
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: And the Midland.
MR. BRYCE: I do not think that the Midland pays more than 5 per cent. on its capital, and we cannot expect that a company shall be forced to reduce its

1345
rate of dividend very much below that. If we could have more manufacturing and other industries in various parts of Ireland the problem would be less difficult. The suggestion is made that there should be a better control over the railways. But in what respect is that control to be exercised? I understand from my right honourable Friend the Member for Islington that there are two ways in which he thinks that control might be exercised. One is to make the companies adapt their relations with each other so as to better meet the public convenience. I admit that my knowledge of Irish railway matters is not very great. But, so far as it goes, it is unhappily the fact that the foremost complaint made has reference to that matter. It is suggested that the companies do not manage their business nearly as well as they could, and that they pursue a policy of controversy and of captious interference with one another which is very much to the disadvantage of the travelling public. In that respect, I think, the Board of Trade might interfere more actively than it has done. But my honourable Friends must remember that the powers of the Board of Trade in these matters are very limited. The Board of Trade does not quite deserve the charges which have been brought against it, because it can only act in those cases by bringing a sort of indirect pressure to bear, and if a company chooses to stand out in a stiff and obstinate way against that pressure the Board of Trade may find itself at the end of its resources. It may be said that the Board of Trade should have larger powers. I am not prepared to say that in the case of England it is desirable, in the long run, that the powers of the Board of Trade should be greatly increased, but I am well prepared to believe that it should be so in the case of Ireland. I think it well deserving of consideration by the Board of Trade whether, next time it comes to Parliament for legislation with regard to railways, it ought not to take power to extend considerably its right of interference with and control over the railways of Ireland. Certain powers are undoubtedly invested in the Railway Commission, but to tell Irish traders to go to that body for relief is not much good, for they would probably get a stone instead of bread. The Railway Com-
1346
mission is not suited to the Irish railway problem, and this is a matter which the Chief Secretary might well take into his consideration. It is much to be desired that there should be given an opportunity of dealing with this difficult problem in a cheaper way than is possible by going before the Railway Commission. Another question, however, which has been suggested by the Motion, and reverted to by several of the speakers, is that of consolidating the Irish railway system—in fact, of amalgamating the lines. Now, the question of amalgamation must be considered in connection with the question of control. If you force the companies to amalgamate you make them at once a dangerously powerful body in Ireland, and you will require to impose much greater State control than you now have. Whether it is wise to entrust that power to the State or to the Chief Secretary is certainly a difficult question. I am not prepared to say it will be found impossible to give Ireland the cheap railroad transit she requires in any other way. The other plan which has been suggested for dealing with this question is that of State purchase, and several Members have pointed out obvious objections to, that. I confess, it appears to me at present that Ireland is one of the last countries to which the experiment of State purchase should be applied. I think the objections to having a large body of additional persons in the service of the State in a country like Ireland are extremely great, and I should be prepared to exhaust almost every other plan before coming to that. Those who know the result of State purchase in some of our Colonies, where the conditions in several respects are more favourable than is the case in Ireland would be very reluctant to try the experiment. That is all I think I ought to trouble the House with on this occasion. I hope the House will not think that we on this side are at all indifferent to the force of the appeal made by my honourable Friend the Member for Louth, for we do feel that in this matter of railways is to be found one of Ireland's grievances, which comes out most clearly and strongly. We must not forget that the Irish Question is still with us, and, as my right honourable Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last night, the view that it is our duty to give Ireland

1347
the management of her own affairs remains unchanged.
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.

DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,—
"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the frequent recurrence of severe distress in certain districts of Ireland is the source of much suffering to the population of these localities, and calls for the speedy application of an efficient remedy for this social misery and privation by the introduction of legislation during the present Session for the enlargement of holdings, and the carrying out of feasible schemes of migration, in accordance with a resolution passed by the Congested Districts Board of Ireland in 1895, asking for compulsory powers to acquire suitable lands with which to provide increased opportunities of employment for the victims of this chronic distress."—(Mr. Davitt.)
MR. DAVITT: Sir, I hope that whatever views honourable Members may take as to the expediency of moving this Amendment, no honourable Member will be found in opposition to the object which the Amendment seeks to promote. That object is, Sir, to have an effective remedy applied by this House to the great and growing evil of recurring distress in the West of Ireland, and also, by the application of such a remedy, to prevent the evils flowing from the application of public moneys to the relief of distress amongst an industrious people. Sir, it will, I think, be admitted on all sides of the House that this chronic evil of distress in the West of Ireland is doubly injurious to the people of those localities—injurious to the moral, as well as the material, welfare of thousands of the industrious population, and that the remedy which will relieve or ameliorate that condition of things will confer a corresponding benefit upon both people and country. Sir, it may be in the recollection of some honourable Members who were present this time last year, that I felt it my duty, as one of the Members for Mayo, to move an Amendment to the Address asking for adequate measures of relief for some
1348
30,000 or 40,000 of my fellow-countrymen who were the victims of a bad harvest, who had had land and small holdings as a primary cause; and money had to be voted by this House, appeals had to be made to public charity in Ireland, Great Britain, and America, in order to save some 30,000 or 40,000 people of those districts from starvation. Now, Sir, that is a condition of things which I venture respectfully to say to the Chief Secretary we are resolved to do our best to alter, and will take every available opportunity which presents itself to press for a remedy. It will be found that there is practically no difference between the leading Members of the Ministry and the Irish Nationalist representatives with reference to this remedy. I will deal with the remedy I propose, but I think I must help honourable Members to form some idea of the extent of the chronic character of this evil before I come to deal with the remedy which we seek in this Amendment. Now, Sir, I have already referred to what we felt it our duty to ask this House to do last year, in order that tens of thousands of our people should not be face to face with starvation. Public money had to be voted by this House, and I have already mentioned that large sums had to be obtained from a benevolent public in order to relieve these poor people. Well, Sir, in 1890 and 1891 much larger sums of public money had to be demanded from this House in order to erect something like a barrier against this recurring evil in the congested districts of the West of Ireland. Going back a little farther, in 1886 this House voted, I believe, £40,000 or £50,000 in order to relieve the distress in these very districts in the West of Ireland. Going back still farther, to 1879 and 1880, a much larger amount had to be asked for, and was voted by this House, in order to deal with a similar condition of things. Now, Sir, I could go even farther back still—right back to the last 50 or 60 years—and show how, at recurring periods of six or seven or eight years, this evil came along in these very districts, and this House and the public had to be appealed to in order to avert starvation from hundreds and thousands of people along the West Coast of Ireland. Sir, the one terrible lesson which this experience of the last 20 years—going no farther back—ought to teach

1349
this House is, that so long as this condition of things exists in these congested districts we have to look for a small famine every five or every seven years. Now that is not in any way, Mr. Speaker, exaggerating the condition of things which I respectfully ask the House to consider in connection with the discussion of this Amendment. But, in order to give to the House some idea of the actual social condition in which these people are compelled to live year by year, generation after generation, I will read a brief extract dealing with this phase of the question from the first report of the Congested Districts Board. This extract also deals with the area over which this recurring distress is felt. The population of the congested districts, so called, is in round numbers, 500,000—about one-eighth of the total population of Ireland. The inhabitants of these congested districts are distributed as follows, according to the report to which I now refer:—Donegal County, 20 electoral divisions; Leitrim, 5; Sligo, 4; Mayo, 21; Galway, 16; Roscommon, 7; Kerry, 13; Cork, 6. Possibly a few other electoral divisions have been added to the area of the congested districts since the first report of the Board was printed. Altogether, Sir, we have 84 electoral divisions in eight or nine Western counties. The area of the districts amounts to 3,500,000 acres, and the poor law valuation to £500,000, or £1 per head of the population. The general social condition of these people is described in the same report, and I prefer in discussing this question to adopt the language of the Board than to give the House my own intimate experience of these districts in the West of Ireland. This report says on page 8—
"Even in the most prosperous of these districts the standard of living is low, the diet being altogether vegetable, with the exception of salt fish at times, which is used more as a relish than as an article of food. The houses, furniture, and bedding are too often unhealthy, mean, and comfortless, and the week-day clothing is frequently ragged and scanty. Very many families are on the same low level with regard to their resources. The farms or holdings are small in extent, and from two to four acres are planted with potatoes and oats."
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible state of things to obtain in these districts in the West of Ireland among a population of 500,000 of my fellow-countrymen—
1350
one-eighth, or one-ninth of the total population of Ireland—100 years after this House has taken from Ireland the rule of that country. I venture to say that it is a state of things that reflects no credit of any kind upon the responsible rulers of Ireland. Well, Sir, I have given in official language one picture of the condition of things we wish to deal with, but side by side with this class of stinted and stunted industry there are extensive grazing tracts embracing the very best land, and giving bracing the very best land and giving industrial population to which I am referring. To these economic conditions of life and labour the term "congested districts" has been applied, and to show how ludicrously inappropriate that name is with reference to my own county, I may mention that in Mayo at the present moment there are 560,000 acres of the best land devoted entirely to grazing purposes. Well, Sir, the extent of similar pasture land as compared to industrial population would be about the same in the counties of Galway and Roscommon, the result being that you have the land-workers of these three of the largest counties in Ireland cooped up in small patches of the poorest soil, while vast areas of richer soil lay before them with all the potential requisites for industrial redemption and social comfort—if they could be helped to share with the sheep and the bullocks this natural source of labour and livelihood. Now, Sir, these are the main economic features of these congested districts. The condition of the people is a disgrace, as I have said, to the Government, which boasts, now particularly, of its good intentions towards Ireland. The state of these people is that of one degree above actual want, a state of social existence which becomes one of pauperism or famine, as I have already pointed out, once every five or every seven years. Now, this description of these localities will certainly not be denied by the Chief Secretary, because I find in the report of the Congested Districts Board for 1879—and I would respectfully call the right honourable Gentleman's attention to this fact—seven years after the work of the Board began, an even darker picture of these localities, drawn, I believe, by the hand of the Chief Secretary him-

1351
self. Speaking of the normal state of these localities, the report says—
"The poverty and, in some cases, the destitution prevalent in these districts is undeniable."
And it goes on to say that opportunities should be afforded to the Board to help these people—I again quote—
"To raise themselves out of the chronic poverty in which they have been sunk for generations."
The "chronic poverty in which they have been sunk for generations"—to use the language of the responsible ruler of Ireland—is the justification, Mr. Speaker, for this Amendment, and the reason why we have resolved on these Benches to press him in season and out of season, until the remedy we ask for is granted by this House. Now, Sir, there are other circumstances in connection with this life in these congested districts to which I could refer if I cared to detain the House, I will only mention one of them. It is the migratory labour to England and Scotland. Every year hundreds—sometimes two or three thousand—of peasant girls go from Achill, Donegal, and the North-West Coast to Scotland to work in turnip fields during the hoeing season in order to add a few pounds to the family earnings, and those girls have to sleep in barns during this labour exile. Well, I need not dwell upon the risks that are run by those girls in having to go once a year to Scotland to do this work. I say that the remedy we ask for is one which, when applied, would enable those girls to find better and fuller employment at home. Then, again, some 15,000 or 20,000 labourers have to cross to Scotland every year to seek employment in the harvest season, and to earn a little money with which to keep their families at home and pay the rent. Well, Sir, I hold that it would be better for them, it would be better even for the interests of your Government in Ireland, if you could give opportunities for employment to those Irish workers at home. They would then be saved from entering into needless competition with the labourers of England. Well, Sir, I shall doubtless be met with the argument, to be put forward, I am sure, by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Plunkett), that much
1352
has been done already in the right direction; that the Congested Districts Board has been called into existence for the express purpose of ameliorating the lot of the people in these localities, and that it is part of the policy of the present Government to help to develop the industrial resources of Ireland. I admit that something has been done, that more has been attempted, and that we have, in connection with this question, at any rate, the great advantage of possessing the active sympathy of the Leader of the House. All this, however, strengthens the case we put forward, because we are virtually asking the Government to proceed along the road upon which it has already entered, and to deal with the evil which it acknowledges exists, in a way that is consonant with the views of the whole of Her Majesty's Ministers. The First Lord of the Treasury, speaking in the House on the 9th of August last on this very question, made his view as to the evil and the remedy very plain when he said—and I would ask the attention of the Chief Secretary to these views—
"Unless we can increase the size of the holdings, I do not see how it is possible altogether to prevent the recurrence of these periodical seasons of distress when the potato disease makes its periodical visitations."
And then he went on to say—
"Much may be done, but still it is obvious that if a holding be too small to support a family in comfort, year in and year out, no mere improvement in the method of agriculture would afford a sufficient remedy for the evil."
That is a point which I respectfully submit to the consideration of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin. I will continue to quote from the First Lord of the Treasury—
"I hope, therefore, we may gradually see in the West of Ireland, especially those districts of it to which I have referred, such gradual growth in the size of the holdings as may ultimately make these recurring diseases more and more rare in their occurrence, and in time, it may be, finally to disappear altogether."
MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: What is the date of that?
MR. DAVITT: The 9th of August last, just before the adjournment of the House. This, Mr. Speaker, is the case

1353
for my Amendment, clearly and convincingly stated by the right honourable Gentleman, my only objection being to the reservation as to a gradual growth of a remedy which, if it is to be effective at all in its purpose, must be assisted and hastened in its operation. That, of course, is the view of the right honourable Gentleman himself, who I am glad to see in his place, and whose sympathy and support I claim in connection with this Amendment. But, Sir, con tinuing my argument that there is virtually no difference between her Majesty's Government and the Irish Members as to the remedy we want applied, I will quote briefly from the last report of the Congested Districts Board, namely, that for 1898. The words are probably those of the Chief Secretary. They say:—
"We regard the improvement and the enlargement of holdings, through purchase and re-sale of estates to the tenants, as likely to prove, if wisely and prudently carried out, the most permanently beneficial of the measures it is in our power to take for bettering the condition of the small occupiers in certain of the congested disricts."
We have, therefore, the evil and the remedy recognised on all sides, and the question which the House will probably want answered is this: Has not a good deal already been done in the direction indicated, and cannot the task be left safely in the hands of the Congested Districts Board of Ireland? Well, Sir, a few facts and figures from official sources will be the best reply to tha question, and I would kindly ask the Chief Secretary's attention to them. The total operations of the Congested Districts Board in the enlargement of holdings during the eight years of the Board' existence amount to the purchase of 12 small properties, situated mainly in Mayo, Galway, and Roscommon. The total amount of land thus acquired is about 15,000 acres, having a combined poor law valuation of £3,000. Now on the improvement of these few estates and holdings the Board has expended, according to the figures given on page 86 of the last report of the Congested Districts Board, £13,200, a sum equal to four and a half times the valuation, or to one-third of the entire purchase money, about £40,000. Now, I allude to these figures, not to criticise the wisdom or otherwise of the expen-
1354
diture, but to make them emphasise the character of the land on which the people were compelled to live before the land was purchased by the Congested Districts Board and this amount of money expended upon it. Summed up, Mr. Speaker, the work done in the enlargement of holdings by this Board up to the present moment amounts to this. In the course of eight years some 200 out of, say, 50,000 cottier tenants have had their holdings enlarged; and land of an annual value of £3,000 has been purchased out of an area valued at £500,000 a year. Now, Sir, at this rate of progress the 50,000 small tenants in the congested districts to which I have referred will have their plots of land enlarged and improved by the operations of the Board if they can only manage to live for the next 2,000 years. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a trifle too long for the Irish peasant to live in the expectation of having his condition improved. The work that has been done in this direction is, I venture to say, the very best work which the Congested Districts Board has in its hands. I think the Chief Secretary will agree with me when I say that wherever the holdings have been enlarged, and reasonable assistance given to the poor tenants, their condition has been materially improved. During the last year, when money had to be devoted out of the public purse for the relief of the distress of Ireland, none of those 200 tenants to whom I have referred were recipients of that relief. Now, Sir, this work will, I trust, be increased in the future, and will be made, as far as possible, the chief occupation of the Congested Districts Board. What is wanted is increased means to enable the Board to do this work speedily, and in a more satisfactory manner. Money is not required for the necessary purchase of land, because under the provision made in the Land Act of 1896 the Congested Districts Board can have this land purchased through the Land Commission. What the Board stands urgently in need of is more assistance—and adequate assistance—at the hands of this House in order that this work of placing this effective barrier against the evils of recurring distress can be pushed forward more satisfactorily and more speedily. Now, I venture to say, Sir, that when a demand of this kind has been made upon this House for practical

1355
work of this description, it cannot be refused. The demand for increased powers for acquiring additional lands by compulsory means may not be readily agreed to on the opposite side of the House; though one fails to see why, when the public good is the object sought for in the West of Ireland, this objection should be made to the application of compulsory powers. The interests that stand in the way have purely a monetary value, and can be bought out; and I have every reason to believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government show themselves anxious to push forward this work in this way, they will experience very little difficulty in the West of Ireland in acquiring the necessary amount of land for the enlargement of holdings. On this important phase of the question, a resolution of the Congested Districts Board, which was passed four years ago, marks out the right way in which to facilitate the work of that body. In the annual report for 1895, the Board say [page 10]:—
"The following resolution was adopted by the members of the Board and transmitted to the Chief Secretary for Ireland then in office: 'That the Congested Districts Board is in possession of information through their Inspectors, that there are large tracts of land that could be used to enlarge the holdings of small occupiers, and promote schemes of emigration in congested districts. The Board are, however, of opinion that it would be impossible for them to give due effect to this important department of their work unless more funds are placed at their disposal, and compulsory powers given to them to acquire such lands at their just value.'"
Well, Sir, that is our view, and I believe that it will be found to be the view of many Members, at any rate, on the other side of the House, if they would only give a brief study to this question. I may mention that in a series of able articles contributed by the Colonial Secretary to the "Birmingham Daily Post" in 1888, called "A Sketch of Unionist Policy for Ireland," he advanced a similar remedy. He says:—
"For the sake of showing how the treatment of congested districts might be worked out, we assume, for the moment, that it is undertaken by County Boards (to be established throughout Ireland for purposes of local government). The nine cases should be scheduled as containing congested districts. The County Boards of such counties should cause an examination to be made of
1356
such lands within their respective counties, in pasture, or mostly pasture, to which tenants in congested districts in those counties could be most advantageously removed. Certain lands must, of course, be exempted from the range of selection."
And then he goes on to particularise those lands. He says:—
"Schedules of such land examined and found suitable should be published, with notice to tenants, owners, and agents. An appeal should be allowed as to the exemptions above mentioned, the appeal to be to the Land Court, whose decision should, be final. Subject to such appeal, the County Boards should be empowered to acquire scheduled lands by compulsory purchase; in case of disagreement as to price, the County Board and the owner each to appoint an arbitrator, and the Court to appoint an umpire. Compensation for disturbance, in accordance with the terms of the Land Act of 1870, to be allowed to tenants removed under the operation of the proposed measure."
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I ask in conclusion is no visionary or revolutionary reform, but an extension, an enlargement, of a work which the Government are already carrying on in Ireland—a work which can bring nothing but credit to themselves. To improve the industrial status of the poorer labouring classes, to give them a helping hand in efforts to uplift themselves by hopeful means of food cultivation, and keep them from crowded cities and emigrant ships, is a work recommended by all parties as a duty of enlightened and responsible Government, and I, therefore, plead for these people of the West with all the greater confidence to both sides of the House. There is a strong feeling abroad on this matter in the counties comprised in the congested districts. That is not to be wondered at, Mr. Speaker, when the sufferings and trials of such a life as these people live are keenly felt; increased education and developed intelligence must necessarily beget impatience at the tardy application of remedial measures. Popular feeling on this and on kindred questions in Ireland is seldom rightly understood by English rulers. They forget, in condemning strong language or heated expressions, that these words are born of the knowledge that land is life in Ireland—is home, and food, and raiment—in a sense which does not obtain, Mr. Speaker, in England, or in countries

1357
favoured with varied industrial opportunities. Those, too, who speak in hot, strong terms of reproach against systems and laws responsible for the perpetual poverty which leads either to the workhouse or to labour exile, have felt the experience of the past 20 years, with their relief funds and public doles, and all the other degrading circumstances belonging thereto. They know their grievance, and speak it as it is felt; they know that the remedy which they demand is admitted to be practicable and just, and they would not be the people they are if passionate feeling did not play its part in the work of seeking amelioration at the hands of unsympathetic and un-Irish rulers. I ask the Government, therefore, to say whether this feeling shall be allowed to grow in intensity, or be calmed down by assurances that the redress which we seek in this Amendment will not be long delayed. The time and the circumstances are favourable to a message of hope from this House to the West of Ireland. The country is peaceful, there is no agrarian crime; the people are watchful and expectant; and I urge Her Majesty's Government not to deny these yearning hopes. I conclude my appeal, Sir, to the Ministers and to the House, in the words spoken by the First Lord of the Treasury on this very question in this Assembly on the 9th of August last, when he said:—
"That the Irish of the West of Ireland should be put far above the necessity of appealing for public assistance is my most earnest desire, and as far as the Government can further that object, I can assure the honourable Member that they will do so. … I, for my part, fully concur with the honourable Member in the object he has in view. I think he has put his finger on the evil with which we have to deal, and I should be glad to give him, or any other person, every assistance in my power to carry out this object."
Mr. Speaker, I look with confidence to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House to redeem that promise.
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
MR. R. AMBROSE: Mr. Speaker, this ground has been so well travelled over by my honourable friend the Member for South Mayo that it is
1358
not my intention to keep the House very long.
[At this point attention was called to the fact that there were not 40 Members present. House counted; 40 attending, the speaker resumed.]
MR. AMBROSE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this Amendment has been so ably gone over by my honourable Friend the Member for West Mayo, that it is not my intention to keep the House very long. He has informed the House that the population of these congested districts—but perhaps the House is not aware of the definition of a congested district. A congested district in Ireland is one in which the poor law valuation is 30s. per head of the population. But, Sir, I find that the average valuation of the congested districts in Mayo not only comes within that description, but is only £1 0s. 3d. per head. I could mention other districts, extending over about three-fourths of the county of Mayo, where the valuation is as low as 18s. 3d. Well, Sir, within a late period Distress Acts have been passed for the relief of these people. There is the Act of 1880, by which £750,000 was voted from that good old milch cow for the relief of distress, the Irish Church Fund. But, like other Acts passed in this House for the benefit of Ireland by the Government of the day, it was found by the succeeding Government that its predecessors did not understand the cause for which the Act was passed. It consequently amended the Act immediately afterwards, so that in the very same year the Relief of Distress Act was passed, the Relief of Distress Amendment Act was also passed, by which £1,500,000 was borrowed for the same purpose. Again, in the same year, the Seed Supply Act was passed, and also the Relief of Distressed Unions Act, under which a sum not exceeding £50,000 was allowed to be borrowed from the Land Commission; and last year we had that happy-go-lucky sort of thing—I cannot call it an Act—from the Chief Secretary, by which Boards of Guardians were allowed to levy rates on the people whom they were supposed to relieve. Well, Sir, I think we had an admission from the Chief Secretary last year that those people were in a state bordering on chronic poverty. Surely, if the Government

1359
admit that, it is fully time for them to wake up to the fact that the time is ripe to do something to relieve the distress in those districts. A resolution was passed in 1895 by the Congested Districts Board, in which they admitted that without compulsory powers their endeavours to relieve the distress were greatly hampered. I have been reading the report of the Congested Districts Board, and I find that in 1897 and 1898, while they did not exactly pass resolutions, I think, reading between the lines, it is pretty clear that they came to the conclusion that even in those two years, without compulsory purchase, their efforts would be futile. Indeed, if the Chief Secretary would only look over the files of "Hansard" in the library, he would see that for a number of years it has been found necessary to bring before the House the question of the relief of distress, not only in the West of Ireland but in other parts of the country. I think he would be ashamed of himself if he were not in a position to stand up to-night and say that the time has now come when the present Government, at all events, will do something to relieve the distress in the West of Ireland. I find that from 1831 to 1898 it has been necessary to bring the subject of the distress in the West of Ireland before the House 27 years, which means a great many more than 27 times, and this being the case we have a right to expect some promise from the Government that they will remedy this state of things. I can assure the House that in other parts of Ireland—even in Ulster—I could quote figures to prove it—the population has dropped one half, while the poor rate has doubled. Well, Sir, what ought to be the duty of a wise Government in the face of these facts? Is it not to take into consideration the suffering of these unfortunate people? Surely it is not by talk about champagne and the South of France, or by making Connaught a prairie, that this question is to be settled. A wise Government ought to raise these poor people out of their state of poverty and put them in a position to find proper scope for their energies.
MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a complete agreement on both sides of the House, among those who know anything
1360
at all of the West of Ireland, as to the conditions with which it is now sought to deal. The honourable Member for South Mayo very accurately stated that there is an absence of industrial pursuits, and that the people are dependent upon agriculture alone; and I suppose he will admit that, through no fault of the people, such agriculture as theirs is necessarily of the most primitive description. The only difference of opinion that there will be in the House is not so much as to the remedy to be applied, but as to the way in which we are to proceed to apply it. The honourable Member based his Amendment upon a resolution passed by the Congested Districts Board in 1895, a resolution with which I heartily concurred. I cannot speak, of course, for every member of the Board, but I can say with certainty that if such a resolution were to be proposed to-day, it would be negatived, and for reasons which were stated very fully last year, and which I am quite ready to repeat. At the time that the resolution was passed, I was very much impressed with the fact—as I believed it to be—that compulsory powers for the purchase of land had been given to the Crofters Commission, and that the powers were utilised by them. I found subsequently, however, that the powers that were given were not to purchase land at all, but only to take land for the purpose of leasing to tenants. In any case the powers have not been utilised in dealing with the problem in Scotland, and I do not believe, at present, at any rate, that they are needed in Ireland. In the first place, as explained last year, there are several large negotiations on foot which we hope will lead to the allocation of a very considerable amount of land, and I may say, in passing, that the honourable Member was not quite fair to the Board in the figures which he gave to show the very small progress we have made. By elaborate calculations, exaggerating the time the Board has been in existence, and still more the period during which it has had an opportunity of dealing with a problem such as this, he said that it would take 2,000 years before we could give all the holders in the congested districts enlarged holdings. I do not think they all require them, but that is a detail. I believe the honourable Member was actively engaged in another scheme for enlarging

1361
holdings some years ago. If I were to apply the same argument to his scheme, I could prove that he would never migrate a single family nor enlarge a single holding.
MR. DAVITT: I was not a member of the Board.
MR. PLUNKETT: At any rate the honourable Member's friends were. I do not, however, want for a moment to criticise the promoters of this scheme—I do not blame anyone for its failure; but the honourable Members who did promote that scheme ought to know the extreme difficulties that are to be met with in any scheme of the kind. I am quite sure that my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary will deal with the subject, and, therefore, I will not pursue it further. I will only say this, that since we passed that resolution the utmost difficulties have been met with in working out the scheme, and even when you have got the land it is an extremely slow process to re-settle it. I would ask the Chief Secretary to explain it to the House, because I think the honourable Members ought to know the difficulties that have to be encountered. However, the matter stands this way, that all parties are substantially agreed that the holdings have got to be enlarged, and the only difference between us on the point is as to whether compulsory powers are required now to carry out that object. I think myself that a very large majority of the Congested Districts Board, if not all the members, hold that at the present time these powers are not required. I wish, however, to pass to another aspect of this question. It is always assumed by Nationalist Members from Ireland that the whole problem of the congested districts would be solved if only we could put into operation a large scheme of migration and enlargement of holdings. The whole question of peasant proprietorship is an extremely difficult one. I am not going to discuss the relative advantages of large farming and small farming. We all know that in favour of large farming you have improved appliances, a smaller capital per acre required, and much better facilities. On the other hand, in favour of small cultivators, you have the greater personal interest of the owner in his holding, and
1362
the greater value of the owner's labour as compared with hired labour. But it must be remembered that the lot of the peasant proprietors in Continental countries is not an enviable one. In industrial countries, where there are large centres of population, the system, no doubt, succeeds. But I have read that in France and in several other countries, even with methods of cultivation of a high order, the peasant proprietors have a terrible struggle for existence. In Ireland we have not the advantage at present, although I hope we may have, of advanced methods. The people, through no fault of their own, are in a very backward condition. They have had no educational facilities, and the Congested Districts Board consequently find great difficulty in carrying out any scheme of peasant proprietorship. Then, again, I do not myself think that the instincts of the Irish people are agricultural; I think they are much more pastoral than agricultural. They are an extremely adaptable people, but I could not help noticing in my travels about the world that agriculture is the very last pursuit that Irishmen, especially those from the poorer parts of Ireland, take to.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: I have met them on the goldfields, and they always say that they have had such a scalding from agriculture in Ireland that they leave it severely alone when they get away from Ireland.
MR PLUNKETT: That is true, perhaps, but the great emigrations from Ireland to America have been coincident with the greatest opportunity that has been offered to an agricultural population to acquire cheap land of great fertility in rapidly rising countries. I think it is generally admitted that the instincts of the Irish are more pastoral than agricultural.
MR. DILLON: Not a bit.
MR. PLUNKETT: The honourable Member does not admit that that is so, but a great many people hold that opinion. Professor Goldwin Smith is no mean authority on the subject. The establishment of a peasant proprietary is not to be brought about by simply making the peasants proprietors of land. You have to do a great deal more than

1363
that. I hold very firmly that if this House in its wisdom were, in this Session of Parliament, to pass an Act dividing up all the land of the congested districts among the inhabitants of those districts so that each head of a family had an economic holding—and by an economic holding I mean a holding on which a man could live in decency and comfort, and bring up his family, but not a holding large enough to require hired labour—in 10 or 15 years you would have a worse state of congestion than you have to-day. Everybody knows what would happen. Of course, the sons of these farmers would marry, and then they would be faced with the alternative of either emigrating or living in the one house, which we know is not a satisfactory arrangement, or else of dividing their holdings. The last state of the congested districts would then be worse than the first. On the other hand, I firmly believe that, while an isolated peasant proprietary is not in these days an economical possibility, a carefully created and well-organised peasant proprietary is quite possible; but it must be of gradual growth. The land must be gradually obtained. But quite as important is the improvement and entire reorganisation of the agricultural industries by which the land must be made profitable. The people must be taught to get more out of the land; they must produce more cheaply, and that means that they must have improved appliances. Honourable Members, I know, will laugh, but to do this it is absolutely necessary to have a system of agricultural co-operation. The whole distribution of agricultural produce duce must be reorganised, and industrial combination is absolutely essential for that purpose. [AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Does not the same apply to England?] I think that applies to England, though not so much, because England is not so dependent upon agriculture as Ireland. The farms are so much larger in England that combination, in order to give the small holders the advantages obtainable by the large holders, is not so essential as in Ireland. Then there is another extremely important factor—namely, the getting of capital into the farming industry. Honourable Members sometimes argue as if, in spite of what economists tell us, that there is
1364
only one element in agriculture—namely, land, and labour and capital count for nothing. But I consider that to make labour effective and the acquisition of capital upon reasonable terms easy is just as essential, and perhaps more so, than the acquisition of land. I cannot honestly argue that very much good would be done in Ireland by State aid unless it is accompanied by a self-help movement in the country. All these things I have been mentioning are necessary to the improvement of agriculture, but they cannot be brought about by the State for the simple reason that in a constitutional sense that would involve interference with trade. Some countries do not look upon the organisation of farmers for the improvement of their business as interference. France, for instance, has Government instructors going round the country doing exactly the work which the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is doing in Dublin. However, I admit that that cannot be done here, but I would wish honourable Members opposite to understand that while we are in entire sympathy with them in asking the Government for further aid, there are a great many of us in Ireland, and a large number of men who do not belong to either the religious or political creed which I profess, who hold very strongly that self-reliance is far more important in Ireland to-day than State aid. We have set before our minds an ideal condition of these congested districts. We desire to see a peasant proprietary with a higher standard of living, and educated so that they can maintain it. We believe that this is the only possible way of preventing sub-division and a disaster on the small holdings in these poor and remote districts. The honourable Member who moved this Amendment referred to what he described as the not unnatural excitement which existed and the heated words which had been spoken recently in the west of Ireland in reference to the inaction of the Government. The honourable Member has himself been a great deal in these districts organising a movement which apparently has this object.
MR. DAVITT: And I will do so again.
MR. PLUNKETT: The honourable Member says he will do it again. I

1365
think it is rather misleading to the House to speak of this feeling as spontaneous and natural when such an extremely able organiser, and one of the most powerful out-of-doors orators of the day, have been going about among the people advocating economic doctrines which, apart from their political aspect, are absolutely disastrous for the reasons I have tried to explain.
MR. DAVITT: Will the right honourable Gentleman inform me what reforms have ever been obtained, even in England, without a popular movement?
MR. PLUNKETT: I quite recognise the political object of the honourable Member, but from an economic, social, and moral point of view, it would be wiser for him to give support to those who are promoting the self-help movement. In August last the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, when speaking on the question of chronic distress in the west of Ireland, described it as one of the most perplexing problems which the State of this country or any other country had had to face. I welcome such an utterance from such a statesman because the right honourable Gentleman has not only helped these districts by legislation and administration, but he has, by public appeal, by private charity, and by personal investigation, shown an interest in the subject which has seldom been equalled. I am very glad to find that my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is equally interested in this problem, and, whatever may be thought of a man who does not largely advertise himself, I wish to testify to the fact that I have never seen anyone work harder upon that problem than he has worked since he has held his present position. I apologise for having taken up so much time of the House, but my only excuse is that this is a subject in which I am deeply interested.
MR. FLYNN: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the speech which the right honourable Gentleman has just delivered three or four times. It has been slightly varied, perhaps, but it is the same speech over and over again—the same lecture on economic doctrines. Anyone would think that the right hon-
1366
ourable Gentleman is the only man who has read John Stuart Mill or has given any attention to the other economic writers. I do not know whether the attitude of the right honourable Gentleman towards the Members on these Benches may be considered patronising; it is certainly too well-meant to be offensive. But we are told that the Irish people are sunk in deplorable ignorance, and are utterly unacquainted with what has gone on in the world for the last century or two. How, in the name of Providence, are these people to learn any of these lessons in improved agriculture if you do not give them sufficient land to cultivate? These people in the west of Ireland are calling out, in the same way as the Scotch crofters, for an enlargement of their holdings, and for that enlargement to be brought about on fair terms. Only a few days ago, on the Address, we had the Scotch crofters' grievance, and one honourable Member pointed out that it was the duty of the Government, in the interests of the locality in which there was so much chronic poverty, to enlarge the holdings by means of purchase. This is the meaning of the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo, and it is the only real and genuine remedy for dealing with the present wretched condition of things. The creameries which the right honourable Gentleman refers to have been established in some of the most fertile portions of Ireland, but, notwithstanding outside aid, I challenge the right honourable Gentleman to say how many of them have paid. How many of them publish balance-sheets?
MR. PLUNKETT: Every one of their balance sheets may be seen by the honourable Member, because they are all registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and the honourable Member has only to go to the Registrars office.
MR. FLYNN: I understood the money was given to keep the movement going, and to keep it alive, and I have been informed by people who know more about it than myself or the right honourable Gentleman. They informed me that the bulk of these creameries never published their balance sheets, and that if they did the balance would be on the

1367
wrong side. I again challenge the right honourable Gentleman that these balance sheets are not published, because we know they are not.
MR. PLUNKETT: Of course they are public property if anybody likes to go to the office of the Registrar in Dublin.
MR. FLYNN: Well, perhaps that will throw a light upon the question when we come to see them. But, Sir, surely the right honourable Gentleman knows very well, whatever else may be that those creameries are not suitable for the place. The land is too poor, and you want really, Sir, as we contend, to enlarge the holdings of these people. Before you give them lectures on economic doctrines, and lessons upon improved methods of agriculture and production, you ought to give them the land on which they can carry out your lessons and instructions. How can a poor, wretched man, cultivating four or five acres of rock, from which his forefathers were driven by these landlords—how can he possibly derive any benefit from improved methods unless he has sufficient land to cultivate? The whole thing is a contradiction of terms. These poor people live in a chronic state of poverty, always in misery, and oft-times on the verge of starvation. We see these hundreds and thousands of the population in this condition in Ireland, and nobody who knows their condition will hesitate to say that it is a disgrace to this Empire, and a reproach to any Government. If that condition of things had been brought about by the misconduct of these unfortunate people themselves, perhaps there would not be so much to say about it. But no, Sir, everyone who knows the history of that country knows that these people have been driven to it; and that they are the descendants of people who were driven from the fertile land of their forefathers on to these wretched plains. It is not a mere question of congested districts today, but it is as much an historical question as can possibly be. How great is the futility of trying to close your eyes to this state of things. These unfortunate people go from Mayo and Galway, and other parts of Ireland, across to England and Scotland—and they are strong, able-bodied men—in order to earn the rent to keep these
1368
wretched holdings going. That condition of things is a matter of reproach to any Government, and it is enough to stir the indignation of any feeling man to see these unfortunate men going hundreds of miles away, to work in the land of the stranger, for a small pittance in order to keep their little holdings going. There is a lot of these unfortunate people who might as well be Chinese coolies, for their condition is quite as bad. Sir, I thought the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin was more sympathetic in his view of this question, but I am very much afraid that the danger pointed out by the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, in connection with this congested Districts Board, has affected the right honourable Gentleman. When that Board was being formed the Irish Members put forward the argument that there should be some popular representation on the Board, and we still adhere to that opinion. I do not deny that there are several gentlemen on that Board who have a sympathetic spirit, and who are doing most useful work for these districts. But our contention then was that some of the representatives of the congested districts—some Parliamentary representatives—ought to be put upon the Board, because they would be in touch with the people, and would be able to guide that Board in a proper direction. What, Sir, was the reply? The reply of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, when he was Chief Secretary, was that it was not advisable to keep that Board free from all political tenour, and that no politician sitting in this House should be upon that Board. I regret to observe that, although in many ways and upon many 'occasions the right honourable Gentleman has expressed himself in a sympathetic way towards Ireland, there is a distinctly reactionary tone about the right honourable Gentleman's remarks. In 1895 he agreed in passing that resolution calling for compulsory powers, and now he discovers that compulsory powers are not only not needed, but he contends that they would be dangerous. And, what, forsooth, is his explanation? In 1895 he was in favour of compulsory power, and he said that the Board would not per-

1369
their work in a large and useful way without having compulsory powers to acquire the land in the West of Ireland. Now, nearly four years after, the right honourable Gentleman has changed his mind, and what do I find is one of the very curious reasons given by him for changing his mind? Why, that he was under the impression that the Crofters Commission had compulsory powers, and he finds now that he was mistaken, and therefore the Irish Board must not have them.
MR. PLUNKETT: I said that I found that they had not used those powers.
MR. FLYNN: But they have not got those compulsory powers. The Scotch Members have declared that the Crofters Commission has not got these compulsory powers, and surely they cannot be wrong, for they must know something about it. If they have these powers, why have they not used them? I feel myself walking in a kind of maze, for the right honourable Gentleman gives one version, and the Scotch Members give another. Let me state the proposition as fairly as I can; the right honourable Gentleman gives as one of his reasons for going back and withdrawing from his decision to support compulsory powers that the Crofters Commission had never exercised those powers, but the Scotch Members tell us distinctly that they have not got these powers. Surely the Congested Districts Board—a body composed of intelligent men, the Chairman of which is the Chief Secretary of Ireland—would not adopt a resolution of that kind without due consideration of the circumstances. Now, the Chairman of the Board is, to some extent, responsible, unless he repudiates such action. Even if it was the Chief Secretary for the time being, there is supposed to be a kind of continuity of administration even in connection with Irish affairs. Surely it is not feasible, nor can it be put forward before this House as a fair argument, that the Congested Districts Board can pass a resolution which is printed in their report, a copy of which is sent to the Lord Lieutenant, and which is read here in Parliament, and then we are afterwards told, "We did not mean it at all." Surely the right honourable Gentleman has been too long in public life, and is too keen a judge of public affairs, to
1370
expect public opinion in Ireland or in England can be met fairly by a statement of that kind. In 1895 the Congested Districts Board passed that resolution, and they meant it or they did not, and the Members who passed it must have known more about the condition of Ireland than the right honourable Gentleman. I do not say this as any disparagement of the right honourable Gentleman's administration, or of his keen grasp of public affairs, but these members are continually on the spot, and I take it that they are better informed, or quite as well informed, upon this difficult and perplexing problem as is the Chief Secretary, or the Member for South Dublin. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin concludes his speech with an expression of thanks to the First Lord of the Treasury for his speech of last August. Now, we would like to see that translated into action this Session; hence the necessity for this Amendment. The right honourable Gentleman quoted a portion of the First Lord of the Treasury's speech, in which he said this question was, perplexing and embarrassing. Of course it is perplexing and embarrassing, and the Congested Districts Board, with its present limited powers, cannot grapple with it, and they cannot and will not do so until this House gives them sufficient powers to enlarge the holdings of these poor people. When these holdings are enlarged, and the people placed upon them, they will then be in a position to receive all the useful and valuable lessons which the right honourable Gentleman or the Agricultural Board can give them. The present system is like trying to make bricks without straw, for it is no, use giving them these instructions unless you give them the land upon which to carry them out. We hear a lot about self-help and State aid, but we should want no State aid if we had the management of our own affairs. A Home Rule Government would deserve to fail if they could not have worked this question out better than you have done. The figures, to my mind, in the last report of the Congested Districts Board, are absolutely conclusive as to the necessity for compulsory powers to purchase land. You give public bodies compulsory powers;

1371
you give private companies compulsory powers to acquire land for the building of their lines, and the enlargement of their stations, and all other necessary powers. You will do all that for a private company, and yet you are reluctant to give to the Congested Districts Board, formed under your own administration, the necessary compulsory powers to carry out a scheme for the enlargement of these holdings. Why should that be. We do hope that the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will see his way to take his courage in both hands and to grapple, if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland cannot do so, with this question, which is a reproach to the Empire and a sad disgrace to Ireland herself. The honourable Gentleman for South Dublin gave some figures some time ago which were very suggestive with regard to the operation of the Congested Districts Board; but in working out this problem I have ventured to take the liberty of investigating other figures, and I find that of the 12 estates that have been purchased in the last six years, and which comprise 14,400 acres odd, the poor law valuation is £2,784; but I also find that out of those 12 estates purchased at a total cost of £36,386 that two of them, Port Royal and Clare Island, comprised two-thirds of the entire amount of land purchased; so that it has taken practically all these years to purchase two estates in the very poorest portion of Ireland. At that rate of progress, of course, it would take many hundreds of years before the scheme could be worked out, but I also observe that the total sum expended by the Board is actually less than one year's revenue. Surely, we are justified, in view of a condition of things like this, in coming to this House and impressing upon the Government the necessity of arming the Congested Districts Board with compulsory powers to purchase land, so that the system of planting these people on their holding should be done with rapidity, and some attempt made in our own generation to settle this embarrassing question. It is better for us to ventilate this question at this period of the Session, and I wish that more time had been allowed for this purpose, and that this Amendment had been placed earlier in the proceedings than later on,
1372
because this is a question of very great interest to Irishmen, and, however long the Debate may last, it is easier for Irish representatives, who respect themselves' and their country, to come here now and urge the Government to deal with this perplexing and crucial question, and far better than that they should come 12 months later appealing for alms and money to keep the body and soul together in these unfortunate people, in the way in which we have had to do year after year in language which self-respecting Irishmen find difficult to use in this House. It is hard to do so, but your finicking remedies will not assist Ireland; the relief which she requires must be given in the direction of an amendment in the law; and before the Session draws to its close I sincerely hope the Government will recognise the necessity of dealing with the question in a statesmanlike spirit.
MR. DRAGE: I have always taken a great interest in Irish Labour Questions, and I venture to interpose in this Debate, as I have just returned from the West of Ireland. I think we must all admit on this side of the House that the evils to which the honourable Gentleman who moved the Amendment referred are very great, and that we should support any Measure likely to mitigate them. The whole population of Mayo and Gal way is actually on the verge of starvation, and the slightest failure of the potato crop would produce great physical suffering among them. The population of the present time no longer live on the wholesome food which they had a generation ago, and when they come to England for the purposes of seeking work it takes a week or two of good English food to give them proper health and strength in order that they may be able to compete with English labourers. Now, the condition of their cottages is pretty well known in this House, and I have ventured on more than one occasion to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to extend the operation of the Labourers Housing Acts. The circumstances under which these people live are so well known that I need hardly refer to the fact that it is a common thing for cattle and pigs and human beings to be herded together in one room. Irregularity of work is, no doubt, another

1373
cause of distress in Ireland, and honourable Members of this House who are acquainted with the irregularity of employment in England know that it is almost impossible for a man whose employment is irregular to exist without getting into debt. The general condition of the West of Ireland is well known, and everyone must regret to see that little change for the better has been made there during the last 20 years. But there are other difficulties besides those which were enumerated by the honourable Member for Mayo. There are circumstances which very greatly increase the difficulties with which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has to deal. Illiteracy is one. The figures show that 18 per cent. of the whole population of Ireland are illiterate; while in Galway and Mayo the figures show that no less than 33 per cent. of the population are illiterate. Then there is another problem to be solved, and one which is most important to the Irish people, and that is the migration of labour and the conditions under which that is done. A recent return published shows that no less than 18 per cent, of the adult members of Galway and Mayo are obliged to come to England to labour, and I should just like to call the attention of the House for one moment to an examination of these figures. I find that the labour returns, as published in the Labour Gazette, showed that no less than 40 per cent. of the adult labourers of Mayo and Galway come to England to labour. That is to say that 27,000 of the adult labourers of those two counties migrate annually. That is not the worst of it. What I call attention to is this, that whichever percentage is correct, the Irish official returns or those of the Labour Gazette, whether you take 18 per cent. or 40 per cent., three-fourths of this large number of persons when they return to Ireland in the winter are landless. I have no doubt that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has an answer for that, but these figures, conflicting as they are, show that the Irish labour problem is a very serious one, and one which requires to be dealt with immediately.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course these people, in all probability the whole, but certainly the majority of them, are
1374
members of the families of small landowners, and, therefore, a very large number of the labourers who migrate to England on the West of Ireland are naturally landless.
MR. DAVITT: The right honourable Member will admit that a very large number of these small tenants also join their sons in their migrations to England.
MR. DRAGE: My point is this, that these landless labourers come back for the winter to Ireland whether they are landless members of a small landowner's family or not, and that circumstances render it more difficult for them to obtain work—the regular agricultural work they are best fitted to perform. There is another circumstance connected with these districts, and that is the indebtedness of the population; partly owing to a bad system of accounts, partly owing to payment in kind, and in labour, a large proportion of this population is indebted; and it is certainly borne in upon us that if the tyranny of the landowning classes has been bad in the past, there is growing up in Ireland a system of tyranny, or at any rate, supremacy, of the debt-owning shopkeeper, in some respects more terrible than that of the landlords in the past. That is another problem with which the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has to deal. The remedies for this state of things were set forth by the honourable Member for Mayo, and are well known and recognised on these benches. First there is the enlargement of the holdings of the small landowners, and there is the settlement of the landless upon the land. On those two points the honourable Member for Mayo and both sides of the House agree; but where we differ is in the space of time in which these changes can be carried out. Those who have visited the Trench estate are acquainted with the practical difficulties involved. Each tenant must have a patch of arable land, a patch of pasture, and a patch of bog. These patches have to be connected by a right of way. The holdings on existing estates are already much subdivided. You have

1375
therefore so to subdivide the land as to prevent a recurrence of present evils, and you have to content the people, and prevent litigation over rights of way. Honourable Gentlemen opposite, and those interested in Irish affairs, know well the great love the Irish tenants have for litigation. You have this additional problem to solve: the education of the people to avoid litigation between tenants. But, once these difficulties are met, there is another question which I think has not altogether escaped the attention of honourable Members opposite—the evils of money-lending. Few people are probably aware of the amount of interest which the poor tenants have to pay on small loans. I have been assured by priests who have spoken to me on the matter that the smallest rate of interest which is current is 26 per cent.
MR. DILLON: Is the honourable Member speaking of banks?
MR. DRAGE: No, of the village money-lenders. The common custom is to borrow £1, but the borrower does not get a sovereign—only 19s., the other shilling being retained as interest—and the loan being paid back at a shilling a week. Of course, honourable Members will see how that works out. At any rate the interest on these loans is found to be not less than 26 per cent.
MR. DAVITT: That is what we call the gombeen system.
MR. DRAGE: Well, then you have got to bring agricultural and technical education more home to the people; for if, under present conditions as to education, the farmers fail on a small scale, they will fail on a large. Last of all—and on this point honourable Members opposite will bear with me—there is the necessity, as the priests admit, of a change of character. Everyone interested in the Irish peasantry will ackowledge that we have to encourage in them a greater spirit of self-reliance and independence. These being the difficulties, what has been done by the Government in the last three years of its administration? In the first place, there are the State grants and the efforts of philanthropy. The Chief Secretary will probably agree that for the amounts so lavished in the past no adequate re-
1376
suit has been obtained. It seems to be the opinion of all really interested in the peasantry that such grants have produced the utmost demoralisation, although it was our good fortune to find that all the districts in the very poorest parts of Ireland had not been affected by this demoralisation. A second remedy provided by the Unionist administration is that of labourers' cottages. The Labourers' Cottages Acts did not apply to the districts under consideration, but in other parts of Ireland a great deal of good has been done in the way of fresh housing of the labouring classes by the authorising of 15,000 cottages and an expenditure of £1,909,000. The small holders in Mayo could qualify for a share of this expenditure, but the unions are poor. Then we come to the comprehensive policy of the Congested Districts Board. Honourable Gentlemen opposite must admit that a mere examination of their report shows that, so far as it goes, a great deal of good work has been done. The Board has encouraged agricultural education; it has introduced the spraying of potatoes; it has established experimental plots; it has done much to improve the breed of horses, of cattle, of sheep, and even of bees. It is engaged in the reorganisation of the fisheries, and in introducing improvements in fish-curing. Then you have the institution of factories and home industries; I quite admit on a small scale, but that is no reason for refusing credit to the Government for what has really been done. Further there are the repairs on the bridges on important main roads which were a danger to traffic. New railways, new roads, have been built, holdings have been enlarged, and something has been done for the settlement of the landless, and the encouragement of improved methods of agriculture. I quite admit that, with all the Government have done, sufficient has not yet been done to meet the demands and the necessities of the people. Another point on which I venture to think sufficient credit has not been given to the Government, is the new Poor Law system introduced by the present Chief Secretary. It constitutes a really great reform, and is pretty much on these lines: The Government has agreed to pay 75 per cent. of the relief where the unions are embarrassed on the condition that the labour test is employed, with the workhouse as an alter-

1377
native. I believe that 11 unions in the districts under discussion have adopted the system already, and that they are satisfied with the new conditions, although the system has only been in force for one year. Next, there is the new Department of Agricultural Industry and Technical Education, and, last of all, there is the Adulteration Bill which the Government propose to introduce this Session. I am quite at one with those who say that, though much has been done, a great deal has yet to be done. I have been going to Ireland for the past nine years, engaged in inquiring in every part of the country into the social condition of the people, and it is a pleasure to come back to England and to be able to tell this House that there is a new movement in Ireland of extraordinary power and promise. This movement has been initiated and promoted by the Agricultural Organisation Society, which seeks to solve the problems of social Ireland on the principles of self-help and self-reliance. It is a movement founded by Irishmen and led by Irishmen on principles which are dear and intelligible to Englishmen, and which promises to solve many difficulties in the economic field, but most of all in the agricultural field where the English movement has hitherto failed. Honourable Gentlemen know that trades unions, friendly societies, building societies, and the like in England have built up practical answers to the most difficult of social problems, but all these associations have failed in dealing with agriculture. This movement, as I have said, conducted by Irishmen, began by recognising that the evils from which Ireland suffers are economic, not political. Its success in a few years has been remarkable. It has now no fewer than 37,000 members, with a turnover of three-quarters of a million sterling, and branches of it are to be found everywhere throughout Ireland. Honourable Gentlemen opposite are not altogether fair in their attitude towards this movement, nor to those who are making a special study of social problems in this direction. It is, I hold, one of the most remarkable movements which this century has brought forth. Irish agriculture suffers, like agriculture elsewhere, from competition and from the transition which is going on from production on a small scale to production on a large scale. Very well, the first
1378
thing the Organisation Society has done is to organise production so as to obtain a regular supply at a uniform standard of quality, and then, by co-operative agencies, it establishes a regular connection between the producer and consumer. It has established creameries, it has arranged for the sale of the produce, it has provided the means by which the best machinery and manures can be obtained at cost price; it is giving technical instruction of the highest value to the farming classes; and it is bringing Irish produce into close connection with the English and Scotch markets, with their demand for 40 millions' worth of such produce. Where the English capitalist and Government failed in the economic field in England, the organised working classes solved many problems. Now, a most remarkable fact which has struck the student of the reports of trades unions and Friendly Societies is, so far as Ireland is concerned, these societies outside Belfast and the North have been a failure. An examination of their accounts by representatives of English trade unions or friendly societies showed extravagant recklessness and mismanagement, and that they were seldom able to make revenue and expenses meet. A further point in this movement which has made it so remarkable and so extraordinary in the history of Ireland is the knowledge that it is giving to these working men, who are, as the House will remember, for the most part brought up under circumstances of the utmost misery, and with the utmost disregard of sanitation and the ordinary principles of civilisation. It is giving them a knowledge of business certainly not surpassed by any working men with whom I am acquainted; it is giving to them a knowledge of how to manage their own affairs, and it is teaching them the value of foreign trade, the value of markets, the facilities they have for entering into the English market; and last, but not least, it is bringing all classes in Ireland together in a way in which, at any rate, in the West of Ireland it has never yet been done. Why, at one meeting which I had the honour to attend, in a Catholic clergyman's house, we found a Protestant clergyman taking the chair, and the audience included two Unionist Members of Parliament and others interested in this great work. I am told by

1379
those who are acquainted with the West of Ireland that this union of all creeds and all classes—for there were representatives of the landlord interest as well as working men—has not been known, or at any rate, has never been marked by such cordiality within their recollection. This seems to me to be a great sign for good in the present condition of Ireland. It seems to me that honourable Gentlemen, opposite have, in attacking the Government, to deal, in the first place, with the legislation to which I have referred; and in the second place, they have to show that they have a movement which can do the work which the organisation to which I have referred is now doing in Ireland. I hope they will allow me to assure them that if I were an Irishman I should be only too proud to take part in the good work which is being done by the society, work unequalled in the nineteenth century, and which, whatever its results, whether it ultimately succeeds or fails, will always be regarded as one of the most remarkable attempts which have ever been made to reorganise Irish social life and bring all classes and creeds together.
MR. POWER: Sir, we recognise the spirit in which the honourable Gentleman who has just addressed the House has approached this very complicated problem, and it is a relief to us to recognise that spirit, because it is not the spirit in which Englishmen, as a rule approach this topic. Now, Sir, a part of the right honourable Gentleman's speech was taken up in enumerating the difficulties there are in the way of carrying out the scheme that, the honourable Gentleman for South Mayo advocates. We are all aware that there are difficulties in connection with this problem, as there must be with every other problem. None of us pretend that cottars till their land perhaps as well as it might be done; but we all recognise that not only is a change of seed desirable for the production of a good potato, but a change of land is necessary as well, and that the existing state of things in Ireland does not allow the people to have that change of land which is necessary to produce a good potato. It has often been asserted that the Irish Members dwell on the poverty that exists on the seaboard in the West
1380
of Ireland, and are inclined to exaggerate that poverty. On my own behalf, and I am certain on the behalf of my colleagues, I think I may say no duty is more disagreeable to us than to parade the poverty of our land, and to go round year after year, not only in our own country but in many cases to go into distant lands, asking for something to keep the people from starvation. It is, I maintain, one of the greatest condemnations of British rule that after you have engaged to manage Irish affairs the present state of things should prevail, a system that brings untold woe and poverty on the residents of the western seaboard, and a system, I maintain, Mr. Speaker, which is a standing disgrace and humiliation to a great and rich country like this. Why, what is the present state of things? If you get one summer a little more wet than is customary in an ordinary summer on the western seaboard you will have the people, not on the brink of starvation, but actually starving; and it has always been the habit of the Minister who is accountable to this House for the government of Ireland to minimise these famines, and to try to persuade the people of this country that these famines do not exist. Within 12 hours' journey of this great capital you will find a state of things prevailing which I say is not only unhappy for us, but is a downright humiliation for this country. I do not mean to say that there is not to be found in this capital of yours great poverty side by side with great wealth. The honourable Gentleman who has last spoken has alluded to the illiteracy that prevails in these congested districts. Well, Sir, this would not be the time to go into that subject, but if the time were proper I think we would be able to show that a great deal of the illiteracy which he deplores, and which we must all deplore, is a direct result of the system of government which you have forced upon the country, and which for generations, owing to our conscientious convictions, has prevented the people from having that education which we all recognise is so necessary in the battle of life. The honourable Gentleman has likewise alluded, and alluded in a sympathetic tone, to the labourers who come from Donegal and Galway and Mayo to eke out an existence, or try to do so, in the

1381
harvest fields here. I can imagine no greater proof of the poverty of the people than that these people do come over here with such regularity. These Irish labourers I know have been regarded by English labourers in many districts as to some extent "blacklegs," interfering with their labour, and naturally their appearance was considered an intrusion. But I am happy to state that a better state of feeling now prevails. I had recently an opportunity of speaking to a number of these men who were-working in this country, and they told me that latterly the state of things had changed, and that now the labourers of this country recognised that the land system in the West of Ireland has been the cause of these people being compelled to come over, and that they are no longer recognised as "blacklegs." I was told that until recently on many large farms in Scotland the house in which these men were lodged was known as "the Paddy house," a term of humiliation, a term of opprobrium, because these poor people were sent to live under conditions that the English labourer would not put up with for one night. And I say that people who will endure the humiliation and ill-treatment that these people receive must be driven by keen poverty to do so. I believe that a better system now prevails; I believe that the English labourers now recognise that these men are compelled by their poverty to come over; and one of these labourers said to mo that the great change which had taken place on the part of English and Scottish labourers towards them was, to a great extent, the result of the labours of Mr. Gladstone on the Irish question. I am not in a position to say, but I am quite prepared to believe that there was a great deal of truth in that assertion. Mr. Speaker, the difficulties of compulsorily taking the land have been alluded to, and the difficulty of sub-division has been alluded to. Anyone conversant with Ireland knows that these difficulties have to be faced; but I ask, What are statesmen for but to face these problems and find a solution for them? And if you, with all the means at your disposal, your untold wealth, a great part of which has been filched from us—if you are not able to find some way out of the difficulty, I think it does not speak very well for your powers as statesmen. Now, even
1382
last year there was an inclination to pooh-pooh the poverty that prevailed. To my mind, the very fact that the Chief Secretary, who is responsible for Irish government, was able on his works to get able-bodied men in large numbers at from 3s. to 6s. a week to work at hard work, and to go long distances to and from their work, is proof that great poverty did exist. And I think it is gratifying to know, for those of us who believe that the people have a right to live in their own country and to give their labour to their own country—it is satisfactory for us to know that where emigration has had even a partial trial last year there was little or no cry of destitution. I am very glad to have listened to this Debate and to find that no one has advocated a system of emigration from Ireland as the solution of this question. Our population is spare enough, Heaven knows; and we say the solution of these difficulties is to be found, not in sending people out of their own country to seek employment in other lands, leaving their country as capable of improvement as the country to which they go, but in giving the people some of the lands from which their forefathers had been expelled, and enabling them to live in some decency and some comfort. That ought not to pass the skill of men who say they are able to manage the affairs, not only of their own country, but of every country in the world. What the result of this Debate may be I do not know. I heartily support the Motion my honourable Friend has brought forward, and in reply to the remarks made by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, as to the action of my honourable Friend and Mr. William O'Brien have taken in organising the United League in the West of Ireland, may I ask those who so very glibly criticise what is the duty of Irish representatives? This problem has been put before you again and again, and you have done little or nothing, and the Irish people would be mere slaves and serfs if they did not act on the wisdom they have learned. As long as the Irish people remain quiet nothing will be done for them, no matter how glaring the injustice they suffer under. It is easy to criticise my honourable Friend and Mr. William O'Brien for the action that they have taken. But, knowing what

1383
the people suffer, and believing, too, that they know what would cure them, they would be false to their position if they did not prove to the people that until they are united and coercive they will get no reform from this House.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question which the hon. Member for South Mayo has raised, the real difficulties and character of which he seems very imperfectly to have grasped, had been for some years past the subject of experiment by the Congested Districts Board. Migration and enlargement of holdings were, in fact, two of the objects to carry out which that Board was founded, and it is worthy of note, in view of the Motion which is now being made, that little or no assistance was rendered to the Government of that day, and to my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury when he brought forward his proposals for the Board to carry out work with which it is now occupied. It is only when the labours of the Congested Districts Board are beginning to ripen that honourable Members come forward in order to reap where they have not sown. The honourable Member for East Mayo, in particular, is constantly calling the Government to task for not dealing with the various problems which arise in connection with the government of Ireland; but the honourable Member himself has been absolutely barren of any useful suggestion for the government of Ireland since I have been in the House. The honourable Member has criticised, where anything has been done; but he has never made a fruitful suggestion, and in connection with the work of the Congested Districts Board the honourable Member has been found, not among those who helped, but among those who endeavoured to hinder.
MR. DILLON: I think I was in gaol.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It seems to me that there is some misconception in connection with this question. The evil is one which we all admit. It is the miserable poverty which undoubtedly exists over a large portion of the West of Ireland—a poverty which during years of scarcity culminates in something approaching famine. That is, of course, a real and serious evil, and we would be the last persons in the world to deny
1384
the reality of its existence or the gravity of it. What are the remedies proposed in the Amendment? They are: first, migration, and secondly, enlargement of holdings. The House is called upon in the Amendment to provide legislation of the present Session for the enlargement of hoi dings, and to carry out a feasible scheme of migration. Now a distinction must be drawn between migration and the enlargement of holdings. By migration is meant the removal of the peasant occupiers or of the cottiers from the place where they are now living to some other place at a distance. The late Mr Parnell made an experiment in migration, and the House knows that it was an absolute failure. The Congested Districts Board have also made experiments in the direction of migration. I cannot say that up to the present time their efforts have met with any considerable measure of success. Those who have read the latest report of the Congested Districts Board will see that it is mentioned that three persons were migrated from one locality in the district of Carragh to another district of Carragh, and they seem to be well satisfied with the change. The report added that this is the first successful experiment in migration which they have been able to carry out. It is an important fact that migration is an excessively difficult operation. It is hampered in every possible way, but particularly bj the extreme reluctance of the people themselves to remove from their homes. The honourable Member spoke of compulsion, but I do not believe that such a scheme would be successful, unless it was made compulsory on a large scale to establish persons in a new locality. I do not know whether the honourable Member is prepared to support legislation which will give to the Congested Districts Board compulsory powers to migrate the inhabitants of the west from one locality to another, but without such powers the idea of carrying out immediately any feasible scheme of migration seems to be absolutely out of the question.
MR. DAVITT: I do not believe that compulsion would be required.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that the honourable Member has had so much experience in this matter

1385
as I have. I have been watching the operations of the Congested Districts Board ever since I have been Chief Secretary, and I say that the greatest possible difficulty is experienced in connection with any scheme of migration. But what does this bring us to? I do not say that migration may ultimately prove to be impossible. Attempts are being made to renew the experiments in that direction, and if they are successful so much the better. But if the Government should introduce a large scheme to deal with poverty in the west, migration is out of the question. That reduces our consideration of the subject to the second proposal of the honourable Member—the enlargement of holdings—that is to say, the enlargement' of holdings by adding to them other land contiguous, or land in the immediate neighbourhood. It is immediately evident to anyone who has studied the question that we can no longer have a remedy of anything like universal application; and for this reason, compulsory powers or no compulsory powers, we cannot find throughout the congested districts a sufficiency of land to make any really appreciable difference in the size of those holdings we wish to increase. Take, for instance, the congested districts north and south in County Donegal, and especially in its most congested districts, there is not sufficient land materially to add to the holdings of the peasant farmers at present living there. It cannot be done, whether you have compulsory powers or not. In County Mayo there is land available in Castlebar, Westport, and other districts, but there is not sufficient land in East Mayo to carry out this operation on a large scale. In Roscommon and Sligo, too, it would not be possible to apply a remedy on the last scale which the honourable Member desires. I need not deal with the cases of Kerry and Cork. The honourable Member for South Mayo told the House that migration and the enlargement of holdings are the only possible remedies in the major portion of the congested districts; and yet in the greater part of them it is no remedy at all. I have given a great deal of attention to this subject. I will not say that it is not possible in these districts to increase the holdings to some slight extent, but it is impossible to do so to such an ex-
1386
tent as would provide the remedy for which the honourable Member looks. Therefore it is necessary to fall back on the other remedies of the Congested Districts Board, on which the honourable Member for South Mayo poured such contempt.
MR. DAVITT: I have not spoken of them with any contempt.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member referred to them with contempt in comparison with certain Measures which he suggested. There is, in connection, with the operations of the Board in relation to the purchase and re-sale of the estates, another operation besides migration and enlargement, to which I think attention should be called. When the Board buys an estate, before re-selling it to the tenants, it has been found necessary in the cases of which we have had experience, to spend a very considerable sum of money in improving the estate—in the re-allotment of the holdings, in the erection of fences, in drainage, in improved dwellings, in roads, and in cattle-sheds. Reference has been made to a speech delivered by the First Lord of the Treasury in August last. I was unable through ill-health to be present on that occasion, but I make no complaint of the statement the honourable Member has made. I wish, however, to call the attention of the House to some other speeches which were made in the same Debate. The honourable Member for South Mayo made a speech from which it would appear he was under the impression, which I have endeavoured to some extent to correct, that the principal object of the Board in purchasing estates was the enlargement of holdings. That is not the case. Enlargement of holdings is only one of the operations of the Board, and perhaps not the most important of them. To show how little the honourable Members for South and East Mayo have studied this question, I will refer to the case of Clare Island. In the Debate to which I have alluded, the honourable Member for South Mayo said that no distress had prevailed in Clare Island where the Congested Districts Board had purchased land and enlarged the holdings. The honourable Member for East Mayo, in the same Debate, said that whereas those who had

1387
studied the question knew perfectly well that in the past the first cry of distress had always come from the islands of Clare and Achill, now that the land was being distributed among the people, not a single application for relief had come from those islands. The honourable Member for East Mayo professes to have made a special study of this question? Will the House believe that there have been no operations in connection with the enlargement of holdings in Achill at all? As to Clare Island, what are the real facts? The report of the Congested Districts Board shows what was the condition of things there and what has been done. It states that the wall has been finished at a cost of £1,600, and that the Board is engaged in making arrangements which have for their object an increase in the size of the holdings, and new houses are to be built. Only a very small amount of land is available for division—less than one-fifth of that already occupied. What, therefore, becomes of the contention of the honourable Members for South and East Mayo, that the improved condition of the island is due to the enlargement of holdings? That improved condition is due rather not to the enlargement of the holdings, but almost exclusively to the numerous improvements which have been carried out by the Board. This is a very important matter. We can do an immense amount of good by processes such as I have described. We do enlarge the holdings whereon land is available.
MR. DAVITT: That is a part of the Board's work.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, but there are numerous operations which require a great deal of time, and they cannot be carried out in the rough-and-ready method suggested in the Amendment of the honourable Member.
MR. DAVITT: The Amendment is founded almost word for word on the resolution of the Congested Districts Board.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not the words of the Resolution before me, but at all events I am speaking with three years' fuller information and experience of the work of the Board, and all the careful and patient work during that interval is ignored by the honour-
1388
able Member for South Mayo. He calls by his Amendment for some speedy, rapid and superficial way of dealing with the problem; he wants to compulsorily expropriate the landlords.
MR. DAVITT: That is what you said three years ago, when you signed the report.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am almost tired of saying that the fact of my name being attached to that report does not imply my adhesion to it. It was passed before I joined the Board. Now the honourable Member has on the present occasion made a speech of very great moderation, and, although I am unwilling to introduce into the discussion an element of controversy, I cannot help comparing the kind of language used in this House with the language employed by the honourable Member and his friends in the West of Ireland. The fact is that this demand is part of a movement to renew agrarian agitation in Ireland, and it has a political object. To show this it is only necessary to read a few extracts from speeches made in the West of Ireland by the honourable Members for East and South Mayo and Mr. W. O'Brien. If necessary I can repeat these extracts indefinitely, but I think it well that the House should hear some of them to be able to contrast them with the statements made in this House with bated breath and whispered humbleness.
MR. DAVITT: Not at all.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In a speech which he delivered on 30th May last year the Member for South Mayo said that he
"never troubled his mind or conscience about the rights of the landlords. They were the rights of the robber."
He went on to say that the fight was
"going on under overwhelming odds—they were fighting against the landlord garrison and the might of the English Government across the water."
Then there is a speech made by the honourable Member for East Mayo on the 14th December last year, in which he said that the object of this meeting was to enable them to distribute the rich lands amongst the people of the country,

1389
and that it was within their power to force that distribution. He added that there were many there who took part in the old Land League movement, and that the example set by that league would enable them to carry out the work easier. He further asked them to remember the methods adopted by the Land League, and that they must practise the same methods now. Then next was the speech of Mr. William O'Brien, made on the 18th December last at Roscommon, who said that the movement was growing. Their first cry, he said, should be "Down with the grabber," and that the grabber ought to be put down by the good old methods adopted in County Mayo. He continued that, whether the farmers liked it or not, if they were to keep their heads above water the time would come when they would have to reduce the land question to such a question of resistance and turbulence, if need be, that the landlords would jump at any great measure of compulsory purchase that would make every farmer in Ireland master of his own holding, and would, at the same time, sweep away the last barrier of the landlords' resistance to Home Rule. I have quoted these speeches, which might be easily multiplied, in order that Members of this House might understand that when the honourable Member for South Mayo comes here and makes a quiet, sober, and plausible speech in favour of his Amendment, he is using very different language indeed when he gets amongst the people of the West of Ireland.
MR. DAVITT: I should use the same language if I had the honour of addressing Mr. Speaker in County Mayo.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I can quite believe that in using very different language in this House the honourable Member is wise in his generation, but he is making an appeal to the Government to extend the opportunities of migration and of the enlargement of holdings in the West of Ireland, and it would be indeed too absurd if he came down to make that appeal by saying that his real reason was to sweep away the landlords and bring about an era of Home Rule.
MR. DAVITT: You are sweeping them away yourselves.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It would not be in the mouth of the honourable Member for South Mayo or in the mouth of his friends to complain if the Government, in consequence of the action which he had thought fit to maintain in Mayo and Galway, should refuse to give further assistance in the direction in which he desires us to go. I do not see how he could possibly complain if we were to say that his action prevented us from advancing in that direction. But as we were not indebted to him for the policy which the Congested Districts Board has followed, so neither are we going to depart from that policy, because, while he pretends to encourage us, he is really doing his best to prevent us from pursuing the same. Let there be no mistake. We propose to carry that policy out in our own way and not in the way of the honourable Member. The honourable Member's methods are not our methods; he has frankly admitted that he has a double object in view. He is not merely a philanthropist who desires to see the position of the people improved. He is a politician with a politician's principles, and his real object is to stir up an agitation like that which devastated and disgraced Ireland some years ago.
MR. DAVITT: I do not charge the public £4,000 a year for my services as you do.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think I ought to be subjected to these interruptions.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What about the champagne?
MR. SPEAKER: I must ask honourable Members not to interrupt the right honourable Gentleman.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will not deny that the honourable Member and his friends desire to see the condition of the people of the West of Ireland improved, but they are politicians as well, and that is the meaning, I believe, of their cry for the compulsory expropriation of the landlords. Now, Sir, what is the Government intending to do in connection with this question? The honourable Member for South Mayo himself has pointed out that the Congested Districts Board has no difficulty in acquiring land for the purposes which I have described so far as mere want of funds is concerned.

1391
By a provision introduced into the Land Act of 1896 the Congested Districts Board is enabled to purchase land from the Land Commission, and it has practically the resources of the Land Commission at its back, and therefore we have money enough to carry out any operations we may desire, and also, so long as we are able to do so, we shall have no difficulty in acquiring voluntarily all the land which, at all events, will be necessary for the carrying out of its operations for a very long time to come. The honourable Member has referred to the resolution of the Congested Districts Board. This Act was passed nearly four years ago, and surely the opinion of the Congested Districts Board at the present time must be taken as of more value than its opinion when it had three or four years less experience. The question has not been raised in that specific form, and if it were now proposed to the Members of the Congested Districts Board that they should pass a' resolution in favour of obtaining compulsory powers of purchase, that resolution would be rejected by the Board. The truth is that in the earlier days of the Board our resources were straitened. In the first place, we had not that power given by the Act of 1896 of purchase, and one result of that was that, having to purchase entirely out of income, we naturally tried to get estates at the very lowest possible price, and such estates as did come to us were purchased at a very low price indeed. I think it was during a Debate some time last year upon a Bill brought forward by one of the Members opposite that I stated that the average price of purchase was ll¼ years' purchase of the entire rental. This is obviously a very low price. One of the estates purchased by the Board was purchased at the unusually high price of 13½ years' purchase, but, generally speaking, I have not the slightest doubt that the Board has endeavoured to get land at less than its nominal value, and it is not surprising that they have found very great difficulty in finding vendors. But since that time they have had no difficulty in purchasing estates, and they have at the present time a very large number of estates ready for sale. It all points to this—that we are not to be embarrassed by any difficulty in finding vendors who are ready to sell suitable land. It may be asked why we have not done more. In the first place, it must be
1392
remembered that the work is difficult work, that it required a great deal of experience, and that we were unwilling during the first period of its existence to make experiments on too large a scale. Then there is another difficulty, and that was that, in order to carry out the process which I have described to the House, a very large staff is required, and you cannot form such a staff in a month or even in a year. Such a staff requires experience, and until we have acquired that experience by dealing with one or two estates, and not until then, it is no use attempting to enlarge the sphere of our operations; and, in order to do so, it will be necessary to increase the resources of the Board, not for the purpose of purchase, because we have ample resources, but in order to provide for the large expenditure which is necessary to be made upon the estates between the period when it is purchased by the Board and of resale to the purchaser This question of resources has been the subject of considerable anxiety to the Board, and, as honourable Members know the Board has more than once indicated that in their opinion it will be desirable that, if this work is to be carried out on a large scale, their resources should be increased. In the latest report of the Board we have suggested a method by which these resources might be increased without adding to the income proper of the Board. I will explain how that is. The improvements which are made, and the expenditure which is incurred on the lands purchased by the Board between the original purchase and the resale to tenants, of course have the effect of increasing the value of the lands concerned. A large portion, and in some cases practically the whole of that increase, is represented, when it is resold to the tenants, by an increase in the purchase money given by the tenants over that originally given by the Board. Now, let us suppose that in that way the whole of the expenditure of the Board was recouped. In the cases of the Ffrench estates and Clare Island, I believe that the Board has got back, if not the whole, almost the whole of the money exepended on the estate, and what that means really is that these improvements, in three years' time about, get back the amount that was spent in improving the estates, and, therefore, it is clear that expendi-

1393
ture of this kind is properly employed and legitimately employed as floating capital. That is the suggestion made by the Board in this report, and it practically means this—that the Board shall be able to borrow floating capital to an extent which would allow it to carry out these improvements upon a larger scale. The fund will be a growing fund, and in a few years will repay the expenditure incurred. I have, on behalf of the Congested Districts Boards been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am glad to say that my right honourable Friend has met me to this extent—that he has consented to allow the Congested Districts Board to use floating capital for this purpose, and under certain conditions, to the extent of £60,000 a year. Now, taking three years as the average time required to improve an estate, that means that the Board will be enabled to spend£20,000 a year upon improvement of estates alone, and that without any actual increase of the income of the Board. But my right honourable Friend has met me further than that. He has consented in addition to give an actual increase to the income of the Board. At the present time the income of the Board is derived, to the extent of about £40,000, from Church funds, and about£6,500 is paid to the Board annually for the votes of the Imperial Exchequer in aid of administration expenses. My right honourable Friend has consented in lieu of the sum now paid, amounting to£6,500, to give, under conditions which I need not state here, a fixed grant of£26,000 a year to the Board, which in other words means an addition annually of£20,000 a year to the funds of the Board. The facilities which we shall enjoy by being enabled to use floating capital, together with the income of the Board, which I have just mentioned, will enable the Board to spend, so far as my calculations go, from at least£30,000 to£40,000 a year upon improvements upon estates alone, and as our resources for the purchase of estates are practically inexhaustible, I think the House will will see that the Board is sufficiently equipped with resources to carry out those operations in the way of the purchasing and reselling of estates upon a sufficiently large scale for all practical purposes. I think, Sir, that I have now explained to the House what the Congested Districts
1394
Board will be enabled to do under the new condition of things, and the operations it proposes to carry out. Let me just conclude by saying that I listened with great interest to the speech of my right honourable Friend the Member for South Dublin, whose name, I believe, in spite of the laughter and jeers of the honourable Members opposite, will be remembered with gratitude in connection with the work he has done to solve the agricultural problem in Ireland. I quite agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Derby when he says that no doubt it is an important thing—an essential thing—that we should improve the condition of those small holders in the West of Ireland, but that alone is not sufficient. My honourable Friend has pointed out that in addition to increasing and improving their holdings, it would be necessary to increase their agricultural skill and their knowledge of the processes of agriculture. It will be necessary, so far as we are able, to raise the standard of living amongst them. It will be necessary to stimulate amongst them a sense of self-respect, and a spirit of self-help. The methods which have been pursued by the honourable Member for South Mayo are not calculated to bring about these results. The only spirit of self-help which they have encouraged in the West of Ireland is a desire of the small holders to help themselves to other people's property. It is not from methods such as these that any real progress can be made. I am firmly persuaded that the policy of the honourable Member, and all those who are connected with him—that the arguments which the honourable Member uses, not in this House, but in the West of Ireland, and the methods which he, and his friends encourage, are not likely to improve the condition of the people, and are not likely to raise them, but rather to demoralise them; and for these reasons I ask the House to reject the Amendment of the honourable Member.
MR. HEMPHILL: I do not wish to trespass on the patience of the House for any lengthened period, but as an Irish Member, I feel bound to express my opinion upon this Amendment. There was only one portion of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary which will be received in Ireland with anything

1395
like satisfaction, and that was the announcement which he made that he has induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a fixed grant of £25,000 a year to the Congested Districts Board, in addition to the existing grant. We have also had the satisfaction of hearing from the right honourable Gentleman that the resources of the Board, under the Act of 1896, for the purchase of land are unlimited for all practical purposes. The right honourable Gentleman admits that there are ample funds for carrying out what is sought to be carried out by this Amendment, and I will, very shortly, touch upon the Amendment itself, and endeavour to explain to the House, that every observation of the Chief Secretary is quite consistent with the carrying of this Amendment to the Address. Before I come to that, however, I wish to express on my own part the satisfaction which I have felt at hearing the sympathetic speech of the honourable and learned Member for Derby. What Irish Members are most anxious for is, that Englishmen generally should visit Ireland and judge for themselves the state in which that country is. The evidence of a disinterested witness, like the honourable and learned Member for Derby, who has travelled through the counties of Mayo and Galway for several years, and has had an opportunity of seeing the misery and degradation of the people of those counties, is of the greatest possible value to those who are supporting this Amendment, and I thank him very heartily for that testimony. I also thank my right honourable Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, the Member for South Dublin, for an admission that he made to the effect that we are all agreed that the holdings in the congested districts should be enlarged. In that he gives away the whole of the case, because the rest of his speech had reference to a Bill with regard to a Board of Agriculture. We are not expressing any opinion upon that Measure—I think we know what it is; but the right honourable Gentleman seemed to me throughout the whole of his speech, and in the whole of his arguments, to be putting the cart before the horse; his argument was, that you should teach these starving peasantry who have an acre or two of land to support themselves and their families the art of agricul-
1396
ture, and that you should instil into them the principles of self-help and self-reliance; ana, when you have done that, the right honourable Gentleman thinks that it will be advisable to enlarge their powers. I should like to know how many years the right honourable Gentleman thinks will be necessary to carry out that scheme, difficult in all cases and with all people; it seems to me quite absurd, and, if I may use the phrase, it is the merest nonsense to suggest that this wretched peasantry, living under conditions already described, should be, in the first instance, taught the principles of agriculture and farming, and of self-help. I suppose the right honourable Gentleman will next suggest that they should purchase the famous work of Samuel Smiles. The suggestions of the right honourable Gentleman seem to me to be extremely absurd, but, at any rate, I thank him for admitting that the holdings should be enlarged, and I thank the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for admitting that everyone is agreed that the people are in wretched poverty—nay, on the very verge of starvation. I regret that the experience of the last twelve months does not seem to have added to the stock of sympathy in the breast of the right honourable Gentleman. I am aware of the difficulties with which he has to contend, but, having admitted that the people are in that desperate state, having admitted that they are on the verge of starvation, knowing, as he must know (because he is a man of great culture, and studies these subjects), that these people are the worst housed, the worst fed, and the worst clothed people in Europe, or, perhaps, in any part of the world, he yet hesitates to give them that relief which their dreadful condition demands. I would ask any honourable Members opposite in what part of the world they could show a population more wretched and more miserable in every respect than the inhabitants of some portions of these congested districts. The right honourable Gentleman does not appear to me to have read the Amendment, because, while opposing it, his whole argument is consistent with carrying it; because he says that the labours of the Board are being directed to enlarging the holdings,

1397
and arming the Board with compulsory powers would not in any way interfere with, or interrupt, what the Board is now doing. What the Amendment seeks, and what we want, is not to leave the acquiring of these lands merely to a contract. It may have happened that the proprietors did agree to sell at 11½ years' purchase, or 12 or 13 years' purchase; but that is not enough. If it is necessary in the case of railways and the case of working men's cottages, and in the case of the Labourers' Dwellings Acts, to give compulsory powers, it is necessary equally to give compulsory powers to the Boards who are to carry out these improvements in Ireland; and it is no argument to say that the Board has enlarged the holdings. What we want is to enable them to do so whether owners of land are willing to sell or not. It is not advisable, in my opinion, that the right honourable Gentleman should ignore the finding of that Commission to which his name is attached, and which was issued to all the world on his responsibility. Whether his mind went with it or not, we have the solid fact of the findings of that Commission of 1895, and the right honourable Gentleman cannot get rid of his responsibility. I appeal to this House as men of sympathy, of feeling, and of humanity, I appeal to them as members of this great Empire, that they ought to blush to have any portion of the Empire, especially a portion within 15 or 16 hours' reach of this great metropolis, in the dreadful condition described by the learned Member for Derby, and admitted by the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I appeal to them to endorse the views as expressed in this Amendment, and to say that the Board should be armed with those compulsory powers which will enable them to carry out the policy of the Act, and will enable them to enlarge these wretchedly inadequate holdings on every fitting opportunity. The right honour able Gentleman the Chief Secretary also appears to me to support other portions of this Amendment. Of course there may be a difficulty in inducing some of the people to migrate even from their wretched holdings to other and better places. That is another matter. We only want that legislative facilities should be given—compulsory powers—
1398
to enable the Boards to offer these wretched tenants an opportunity of migrating. If any of them were such fools as to refuse such an offer, it would be their own faults, and neither the Government nor this House could be held responsible for such folly. What we want is that they should go and migrate to places where they can live with more contentment and comfort. It has been suggested that, possibly, if you get peasant proprietorship you might get sub-divisions, but the whole tendency of modern legislation is to ensure a peasant proprietary, and I am glad that I have found the honourable Member for South Dublin holding forth that the panacea for all the evils of Ireland was the Land Purchase Act; which means a peasant proprietorship. All this Malthusian doctrine will equally, and in the same way, apply when you have conferred peasant proprietorship, which I think every humane man looks upon as the infallible cure for the evils on the West Coast. Now, there is only one topic more on which I wish to touch, and I beg to say that I do not wish to stand in the light of any honourable Member below the Gangway for any length of time, and that is this: That I think the right honourable Gentleman, in his reply, made a rather unfair use of those speeches that have been delivered since the Land Commission. The right honourable Gentleman seems to have forgotten the history, or, at least, the recent history, of Ireland and Irish land legislation; he seems to me to have forgotten that it was to an agitation like that; of the United Land League that the Irish are indebted for the Land Act of 1887, which was passed by the members of the Government to which the right honourable Gentleman now belongs; that it was to a like agitation that they were indebted for the Act of 1896; and, going further back, it was to agitation in the country by the mass of the people that they were indebted for other previous beneficent legislation. But, for my part, I would not ask my honourable Friends below the Gangway that in delivering these speeches they should keep within the law, because we know full well from previous experience that if they do not keep within the law there are in the Castle of Dublin means in readiness to make them do so.
MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary has introduced into the Debate an element of bitterness which was entirely unnecessary. He opened his speech by delivering a ferocious attack upon myself, which appears to me to be entirely and absolutely out of place, as up to that time I had taken no part in the Debate. He levelled against me three charges, all equally false and all equally preposterous. He said that I had offered his brother, the present First Lord of the Treasury, no assistance when the Congested Districts Board was founded in 1891. He also said that I had sat in this House for many years, and that I had never offered a fruitful suggestion towards the government of Ireland; and, further, he accused me of having a most absolute ignorance of the work of the Congested Districts Board, and of the needs of the poor people in the West of Ireland. In reply to his first charge, I have to remind the right honourable Gentleman that I was under lock and key in Gal-way Goal when the Congested Districts Board was started, and therefore it would have been rather difficult for me to afford him any assistance, but I have on many occasions since expressed my sympathy with the Board, and given what I consider to be a very conscientious appreciation of the work which it has done. Now, with regard to the second of these charges, that I have never made a fruitful suggestion towards the government of Ireland, how is it possible for us to make suggestions in this House, when every suggestion we do make is treated with contempt, and not infrequently with insult in addition? Sir, in order to make a fruitful suggestion for the government of Ireland, you must have some influence, and that is an attribute and a power which no Irish Member can exercise, excepting by resorting to such proceedings as those announced by the right honourable Gentleman to-night. When the right honourable Gentleman goes out of his way to charge me with ignorance of the condition of these people of Ireland, amongst whom I have spent my boyhood, and whom I have represented for 15 years in the House, I think I ought to remind him that he came to Ireland only three years ago.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not accuse the honourable Gentleman of ignorance of the condition of the people. What I did accuse him of was ignorance of the work and actions of the Congested Districts Board.
MR. DILLON: I have to say in reply to that that I have read and re-read every line of the Congested District Board's reports as soon as they are issued, and, notwithstanding the fact that Nationalists are not allowed to have any insight into the operations of the Board, I have acquired as accurate a knowledge of its operations as can be procured from the published reports of the Board. I see an honourable Member laughing as though that answer was not to the point, but the Government has packed that Board with Unionists, and that is one of the very-points we complain of. My statement is perfectly true that no Nationalist Member of Parliament is a member of that Board, whereas Unionist Members of Parliament for Ireland are members. Now, Sir, I shall be obliged, in consequence of the assault made by the right honourable Gentleman not alone on me, but upon my Friend the Member for South Mayo, and upon Mr. William O'Brien, to refer very briefly to the observations he made; but before doing so I think it would have been in better taste, and far more wise, if the right honourable Gentleman had left such matters as he dealt with in his speech to be dealt with on some other occasion when controversy entered into the Debate, and have allowed this Debate to continue, not introducing the topics he has done in a Debate which has been most interesting, harmonious, instructive, and useful. In language of menace and, if I may venture to say so, of insult, he contrasted the language used by my honourable Friend the Member for South Mayo, when speaking in Mayo, with the language he used when speaking here to-night, and in making that contrast he forgot to give the context. He forgot to tell the House the circumstances under which the honourable Member for South Mayo speaks here to-night, and the circumstances under which he endeavoured to address his constituents. When he went down to his

1401
constituents last autumn in Ballinrobe he was met by an army of 400 policemen, and the grossest conduct was pursued in regard to the honourable Member which, if pursued with regard to any Member of Parliament pf this country, would have convulsed the country with indignation. The town in which he was to speak was cordoned by a huge force of policemen. The ordinary traffic was interrupted; doctors, priests, and the ordinary population were turned back upon the public roads, and the honourable Member was not only prevented from addressing his constituents, but he was not allowed to go within three miles of the town. The honourable Member for South Mayo was right in the language he used; the language was the result of the tyrannical measures adopted by the Government to prevent him from addressing his constituents after a long, troublesome, and toilsome journey; and so long as the Government of Ireland is conducted in such a spirit, so long will strong language be used. Is there a Member sitting on any of the penches in this House who, if called upon to address his constituents under similar circumstances, would not use similar language? The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in referring to the speech which I made in Galway, charged me with referring to the Land League agitation. I referred to the fact that the example of the Land League ought to be followed, and I advised the people to do likewise in regard to the present movement, and I advised them not to cease from the present movement until landlords were entirely abolished. I think that was most wholesome and excellent advice, and I repeat it now to the House. The policy of the Land League in regard to the abolition of landlordism was said, on both sides of the House, to be a policy of confiscation and revolution. Within three years of that being said, the late Mr. W. H. Smith stood up at the Table and announced, after a short tour in Ireland lasting 48 hours, that he was converted to the policy of the abolition of landlordism. The abolition of the policy of landlordism and the establishment in its
1402
place of an owning and occupying pro prietary is accepted now universally throughout the land, and it has been part of the policy of the Tory party. The right honourable Gentleman comes here to-night, and gives a very feeble imitation of the denunciations of the late Mr. Forster and others, which we remember in those more stirring and violent days, and he said across the floor of the House, at the commencement of the speech, that the United League in Mayo would not affect one hair's breadth the policy of the Government. We have been long accustomed to threats of this kind. We were told in 1879 and in 1880 that nothing would be done until-peace was restored in Ireland, and that then only the position of the Irish tenants would be considered. These threats were as idle as the winds that blow around us, because we judge our position from the experience of the past, and the facts of history, and because we know full well from past facts that all this vapouring is mere pretence, and that when the people made an organised demand a Home Rule Bill was introduced. I must tell the right honourable Gentleman that it is not by language of that character that he will maintain—I will not say order, because order has not been broken in Ireland—but content, and he will not stop organisation from going on by using language of that description. He has got to turn over a new leaf in the government of Ireland. He has got to teach the people of Ireland that their representatives will be listened to when they bring forward reasonable demands in a reasonable way, and that they will not be met by insult and by threats. We Irish Members of Parliament do not enjoy agitation, because we would much rather get our reforms by the same means as the people of this country; but the people of Ireland have learned the lesson from long experience that without violent agitation it is impossible for them to obtain any reform whatever. I desire to call the right honourable Gentleman's attention to a passage in the last report of the Congested Districts Board, which will be

1403
found at page 20. It is the first time that I have come across anything in the report which is of a distinctly partisan and political character, It says—
"We do not therefore intend to permit our desire to assist one class to lead us to countenance injustice to another class"—
and, after explaining some other matters, it says—
"We hope it will be clearly understood that any attempt to bring undue or unfair pressure to bear on landlords or tenants in order to induce them to sell their property will only defeat its own object."
Let me ask the honourable Gentleman whether that ill-judged paragraph is not in fact an attempt to turn the Congested Districts Board into a court of criminal inquiry? Who is to judge what is unfair? Are these speeches we are making to-night unfair and undue, and what machinery has this board got at its disposal to find in any particular case whether undue or unfair pressure has been exercised? I say that paragraph has been inserted with the intention, and certainly with the effect, so far as I am concerned, of turning the board into a political weapon, and I say it is impossible to carry out, or to attempt to carry out, that paragraph into effect, because by so doing you are turning the board into a court of criminal inquiry. Now, let me call the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to a most important speech by a man whose authority will not be questioned in this House—I refer to Dr. Healy, the Bishop of Clonfert, who said, referring to Mr. Horace Plunkett—
"I want a man like him to tell Mr. Balfour, and to tell other leaders of the Unionist Party in England and Scotland, that never will there be peace and happiness and prosperity in the country until a radical cure is effected, that is until the grazing lands are distributed amongst the people."
I want to know, would that be considered undue pressure? How is it possible for the Congested Districts Board to decide what is undue and unfair unless they have the machinery to inquire into the matter? What is the meaning to be put on that
1404
passage in the report? Unless it is to be interpreted as an attempt by the Chief Secretary to make the board's work unworkable. Now, Sir, I turn to the speech of the Chief Secretary himself, and I notice that he proceeded to a long and elaborate argument to show the impracticability of adopting this Amendment. He said there were large areas of these thickly populated districts in which nothing could be done excepting migration, and he pointed out the enormous difficulties which surrounded the question of migration. Now, I followed that part of his speech with the keenest possible interest, because it affects Mayo to a greater extent than most other parts of the district. In many of the districts of East Mayo there are no large grazing parts suitable for division amongst the people, and that is the reason why the greater portion of the congested districts of East Mayo demanded or required the possession of enlarged holdings.
And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday-next.
CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn till Monday next—(Sir William Walrond.)
House adjourned at Twelve of the clock.