Sitting of 7 September 1893

QUESTIONS.

  SHEFFIELD UNION.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has any objection to communicating to the Guardians, or the Sheffield Press, the Report of the Inspector as to the division of the township into wards for the election of Guardians of the Poor, for the satisfaction of the ratepayers concerned?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The Reports made to the Local Government Board by their Inspectors in cases such as that referred to are confidential, and I cannot furnish copies to the Guardians or the Press. The responsibility for the decision in cases like the present one rests exclusively with the Local Government Board.

  CUSTOMS BOATMEN.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in announcing to the Customs boatmen the promised information of the decision of the Treasury as to their improved pay; whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the employment of some of their number for over 100 hours a week, taking into account the time necessary for clearing, leaving for the night, or being relieved; and is it the fact that a man entering the service at 20 years of age cannot attain 30s. a-week until he is 45 years of age?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The delay is due to some necessary correspondence between the Treasury and the Board of Customs as to minor details; but the delay will not affect the men prejudicially, as the improvements now sanctioned will take effect retrospectively
  454
  from 1st April, 1891. The second paragraph is assumed to refer to boatmen in London assigned to boarding duty. I am informed that no such officer has been employed for over 100 hours per week; the average attendance per week is from 80 to 90 hours, but for 20 to 25 hours of this time the men are only kept within call, and may devote the time to reading, sleeping, or recreation, as they please. The statement in the last paragraph is not correct even at the old rate of increment, and under the new rate of increment a boatman will reach 30s. a week still earlier than at present.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that, despite the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, the vaccination officer of the Uppingham Union is again instituting proceedings against persons who have already been convicted and punished for not having their children vaccinated; and if he will direct such officers in the Uppingham and other Unions to discontinue prosecuting persons who have previously suffered the penalties for the same offence in regard to the same children?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Local Government Board have no information as to the case referred to. The opinion which the Board have held as to repeated prosecutions was expressed in what is known as the Evesham letter, and they still hold the same view. I am not empowered to give the directions which my hon. Friend suggests.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Ernest Ambrose Adams, residing at Binghurst, in the Harborough Division of Leicestershire, was in October last proceeded against for not having his three children vaccinated, and then paid fines and costs amounting to 30s. or thereabouts; and was on Tuesday the 5th instant again prosecuted before the Uppingham Justices on account of the same offence in regard to the same children, and, although not fined, was again ordered to pay costs amounting to 10s. 6d.; and if, having regard to the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Vaccination,

  455
  he will order the costs in this case to be remitted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): As I have frequently been obliged to say in answer to similar questions, I cannot give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission until Parliament sees fit to alter the law.

  THE GWYLWYR SETT QUARRY.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary' to the Treasury whether the Crown Quarry, called the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Carnarvonshire, is being worked by the lessee; and, if not, will he explain why; whether there is any, and, if so, what provision in the lease to compel the lessee to work it; and why that provision is not enforced?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Gwylwyr Sett Quarry is being worked, and there are five men at present employed there. The provisions in the lease for compelling the lessees to work are a certain or dead rent of £50 per annum, and a covenant requiring the lessees to work continuously with at least two able-bodied quarry-men. These provisions are being complied with.

  THE WATERFORD AND LIMERICK RAILWAY.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the resolutions passed at the last half-yearly meeting of the shareholders of the Water-ford and Limerick Railway Company on 31st ultimo, stating that they considered the action of the Board of Trade, in limiting the number of mixed trains on their service, as interfering with the interests of the company, the convenience of the public, and the progress of local business; and whether he can advise that this resolution will be favourably considered?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Board of Trade have not received the resolution referred to; but while I can promise that such a Memorial would have careful consideration, I must remind the hon. Member that the Legislature has imposed statutory duties on the Board of Trade, in the interest of public safety, which it is not possible for me to disregard.

  TORY ISLAND.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has been made to him by the Committee of Lloyds with regard to the maintenance of cable communication between Tory Island and the mainland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; my attention has been called to this matter by the Committee of Lloyds, whose letters on the subject have been referred for the consideration of the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on Supply.

  EXAMINATION IN SEAMANSHIP.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, during the examinations in seamanship on the Britannia, the instructors in seamanship are allowed to be present; and whether he will consider the advisability of excluding the instructors from these examinations, and leaving the cadets alone with the examining officers?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WOBTH,): The answer to the first paragraph is that it is under orders of the examiners that the instructors attend during the examination; and to the second paragraph, that no reason is known for their exclusion.

  LIGHT VESSELS AND LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what light vessels have been or are being connected with the land by telegraph or telephone; whether all the shore, island, and pile lighthouses recommended by the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication have been so connected; and whether the experiment of connecting the Fastnet lighthouse with Crookhaven by a non-continuous cable has yet been carried out?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The work of connecting the Kentish Knock light vessel with the shore by telephone is now in progress. Lundy Island has been connected. Either the Tuskar or Gunfleet lighthouse will be put in hand at once, and my right hon. Friend the

  457
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has also authorised the connection of the Goodwin (North Sand Head) light vessel; all the shore lighthouses recommended except that at the Needles, which is now in hand, have been already telephonically connected with the land. The experiment of connecting the Fastnet lighthouse with Crookhaven by a non-continuous cable has not yet been carried out.

  POSTMEN'S VACANCIES.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can state approximately the number of vacancies for established postmen which occurred in the Metropolitan district and in the Provinces respectively in the years 1892-3, and the number of telegraph messengers who were eligible for such vacancies; and whether the preference of soldiers over telegraph messengers and outsiders had come into operation within the Metropolitan District in the said year?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I have the figures for the year ended August, 1892, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be satisfied with those. They are as follows:—Number of postmen's vacancies filled in London during the year, 522; in the rest of the United Kingdom, 1,478. For these vacancies, there were in London 245 telegraph messengers eligible, and in the rest of the Kingdom 543. The policy of giving preference to soldiers over telegraph messengers has never come into operation, because the list of those with claims was not exhausted when the rule was altered. The preference to soldiers over outsiders in those cases in which there are no telegraph messengers with claims was made effective in November, 1891, and is still in force.

  ABERDARE JUNCTION STATION.
  MR. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that General Hutchinson, in a Report dated 17th June, 1893, to the Board of Trade, stated that to enter the Aberdare Junction Station by the existing approach is a most dangerous proceeding and one that ought to be put a stop to without unnecessary loss of time, will he
  458
  explain why no steps have been taken to render the approach to the station such as could be used with safety?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Railway Company have constructed a footbridge over the main line, and they contend that an improved access to the station should be constructed by the property owners or the inhabitants at large. General Hutchinson reported that it was reasonable that a fair share of the expense of improving the means of access should be borne by the property owners and the Local Authority, and the Board of Trade will be glad to use their best endeavours to arrange a settlement. The hon. Member will, however, understand that the Board have no power to use compulsion in the matter.

  WALNEY LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. CAYZER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the charges now made on all shipping entering the Port of Barrow for the Walney Lighthouse dues, a light which is reported by shipmasters entering that port as useless and not required, he will take steps to enforce the powers the Board of Trade possess, and call upon the proper authorities to inspect this light and report if the light is required, and whether it should not be abolished; and whether he will obtain a Return of the receipts and expenditure of the Walney Light, and the application of the surplus revenue reported to amount to several thousand pounds yearly, which, contrary to the Local Lighthouse Act, is applied by the Lancaster Harbour Commissioners and Furness Railway Company to other purposes than maintenance of the light?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Walney Island Light was not established merely as a harbour light leading vessels to the Port of Barrow, but for the benefit of all vessels navigating Morecambe Bay. Light dues in connection with it are chargeable under Statute on all vessels trading to the several ports in the district. No complaint has reached the Board of Trade as to its inefficiency for the purpose for which it was instituted. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, the Board are already engaged in collecting the information asked for from the different authorities concerned.

  PAYMENTS FOR MAIL SERVICES.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what sums were paid in the last financial year for mail services or otherwise by the Post Office to each of the following Companies:—Cunard Company, Royal Mail Company, Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, New Zealand Shipping Company, Union Company (African), Castle Packets Company, Orient Steam Navigation Company, and Pacific Mail Steam Ship Company; and whether any subsidies or payments for mail services were received by the same companies from any Colonial or Foreign Governments; and, if so, how much?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The amounts paid by the Post Office in the last financial year to the Companies named were as follows:—Cunard Company, £49,399; Royal Mail Company, £92,855; Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, £49; New Zealand Shipping Company, £99; Union Company, £424; Castle Packets Company, £528; Orient Steam Navigation Company, £85,738; Pacific Steam Navigation Company, £20,114. I am not in a position to say what subsidies or payments for mail services were made to these Companies by Colonial or Foreign Governments.

  MONEY LENDING IN THE DOCKYARDS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the County Court Judge at Sheerness as to money-lending in the dockyards; and whether he will put a stop to such practices, in the interest of the men and officers in the employment of the Government?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): My hon. Friend has not supplied me with a report of the learned Judge's observations, and I have not been able to obtain one. I am informed that the money-lending transaction in question took place outside the yard, and, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the superintendent. In such a case, I do not see how the authorities could interfere without unduly trenching upon the personal freedom of the men.

  NAVAL OFFICERS' LEAVE.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there has been any exceptional advantage, as regards leave granted to the men, as compared with the officers engaged in the past Naval Manœuvres; and, if so, why?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No such comparison as the question suggests can fairly be made. I informed the hon. Gentleman on Friday last what leave had, in the usual course, been granted to officers who served in the Naval Manœuvres. To the men seven days' leave has been given.

  LARNE AND STRANRAER MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that there is no mail boat service on Sundays between Larne and Stranraer, although the line is subsidised by Government; and will he take steps to remedy this state of things in the interest of the public?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am aware that the mail boats between Stranraer and Larne do not run on Sundays. The improved service on weekdays not long since afforded involved a very large additional expenditure, and further outlay for the purpose of establishing a Sunday service would not be warranted.

  VOLUNTEER EQUIPMENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the heavy expense entailed upon Volunteer corps, and especially upon the officers, to provide the equipment necessary to earn the capitation grant, if by their exertions the strength of a battalion largely increases, it is possible to make a grant per head in respect of such equipment as was done two years ago for the Volunteers then serving?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): The special issue of 1890–1 was made under exceptional circumstances, and it is not proposed to further supplement the regulated allowances of Volunteer corps. For an explanation of the practice in this matter, I

  461
  would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answers to him on February 27, 1893, and to the hon. Member for Preston on May 1, 1893.

  VOLUNTEER DECORATIONS.
  MAJOR RASCH (: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Volunteer Decoration is still conferred by Parcel Post; and whether he will consider the advisability of conferring this decoration in some more formal manner?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Volunteer Officers' Decoration is usually presented at a parade or other suitable assembly of Volunteers; but in cases where officers, owing to ill-health or on account of distance, are unable to attend such parade, the post is obviously the best means of transmitting the decoration. I may add that officers of the Regular Army, under similar circumstances, receive their "orders" and medals in the same way.

  THE QUEEN'S BUCKHOUNDS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to do away with the Royal Buckhounds?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): My hon. Friend has asked me a very difficult question indeed; but, of course, I do not know whether he is aware of the difficulties of it. The Government have had the matter in view; but they found so many difficulties surrounding it that they have not been able to arrive at a conclusion with regard to it. I hope that on more mature deliberation I shall be able to give my hon. Friend a more satisfactory answer.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: In the Autumn Session?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid that this can scarcely be regarded as a "non-controversial subject."
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will in this case adopt the process which has been followed with regard to the Welsh Suspensory Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a matter that will require consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether,
  462
  instead of doing away with the Royal Buckhounds by a suspensory process, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of poisoning them?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No.

  THE IMPORTATION OF RAGS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether cholera is now prevalent in Smyrna; and whether he is aware that one of the largest importers of rags in England has received a telegram, dated September 2, offering 800 bales of cotton rags to be delivered forthwith in Liverpool; and, if this be so, what steps the Government propose to take to prevent so serious a risk and danger to the lives of so largely a populated place as Liverpool?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am aware that cholera is prevalent in Smyrna. The Medical Officer of Health of Liverpool has informed the Medical Department of the Local Government Board that no difficulty has arisen there in connection with the regulations as to the importation of rags packed in bales and imported as merchandise, and no difficulty is anticipated by him. The hon. Member, on September 1, asked me whether I was aware that there were lying in the wharves at London Bridge over 300 tons of rags imported from cholera-stricken places in Europe which the rag merchants in London refused to touch or take from the fear of introducing cholera. As I was unable to obtain any information which supported this statement in the question, the hon. Member subsequently informed me that the 300 tons of rags were then lying at Cotton's Wharf, London Bridge. An Inspector of the Local Government Board immediately visited that wharf; he found no rags there, and he was assured by the superintendent that there had not been any rags at the wharf which the merchants had refused to take.
  MR. MACDONAasked whether it was true, as stated in The Globe of yesterday, that 400 bales of rags, weighing 200 tons, were despatched from St. Katherine's Dock, the destination of the greater part being Yorkshire, and thousands of tons of rags, which had been imported from Turkey and the Eastern ports of Europe were stored in the different docks and warehouses on the

  463
  Thames, and that these rags were in a foul and filthy condition?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I cannot answer for the accuracy of a newspaper paragraph. I have already explained that the importation of filthy and infected rags is absolutely prohibited. What were described at the recent Congress at Dresden as "rags of merchandise" which have been collected over a long series of years, packed by hydraulic pressure, bound round by iron bands, and having the name of the place of origin marked upon them, are held by medical authorities at home and abroad to be rags that ought not to be prohibited. Under these circumstances, acting upon the advice of the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, and with the full knowledge that by prohibiting the importation of these rags I should be putting a stop to many important industries and putting a large number of people out of employment, I have not felt justified in prohibiting the importation of these rags, and in acting in direct violation of the Resolutions that were passed by the Dresden Congress, and which were signed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. It is the opinion of the Government that no risk or danger will be incurred through the importation of these rags of merchandise.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board has lately issued any instructions to rural Boards of Guardians with respect to the course to be adopted in case cholera should break out; if the Local Government Board possesses any temporary hospitals or huts which can be at once furnished on an outburst of cholera to any locality; and has it made any provisions for an immediate supply of nurses for first cases?
  MR. ASQUITH (who replied)said: The Local Government Board have issued full instructions to all Sanitary Authorities, including Boards of Guardians, as to the course to be adopted in case cholera should break out in Ireland; and during the present year the Board have been in frequent communication with Sanitary Authorities on the subject, both by correspondence and by personal
  464
  conference between the Authorities and the Board's Inspectors. It is believed the Authorities are now fully alive to their duties and responsibilities in the matter. The Board have no hospitals or huts which could be furnished for the use of Local Authorities, but they have prepared plans and specifications for an inexpensive form of temporary hospital, particulars of which have been communicated to the Authorities, and will be found in the Board's last Annual Report lately presented to Parliament. I may also observe that an Act has been passed this Session enabling Sanitary Authorities to take possesion of land for the erection of cholera hospitals. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, it is the duty of the Local Authorities to provide nurses; and the Board, through their Medical Inspectors, as well as by a recent Circular Letter, have impressed upon the Local Authorities the importance of this matter, and pointed out how the object in view can be attained.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has succeeded in drafting a clause to deal with sub-contracting; and, if so, whether he will place it upon the Paper in the course of the present Sittings, in order that there may be time for the consideration of it in the country by those interested before the Employers' Liability Bill is brought forward on Report?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; I have not been able, up to the present moment, to devise a satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. If I am able to do so, there will be no delay in putting down the clause.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman do the same in regard to any Amendments which he may have to propose to the new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Crewe in reference to insurance?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government have no intention of proposing any Amendments to that clause.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has

  465
  been called to the unanimous Resolution passed by the Trades Congress calling upon him and the Government to stand by the clause of the Bill preventing contracting out of the Act?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the proceedings at the Trades Union Congress; but the Government never had any intention of making any alteration in the clause as to "contracting out."

  CAMPS OF EXERCISE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any arrangement has yet been arrived at with regard to the acquisition of the deer park in Antrim Castle demesne as a camp of exercise?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; no arrangement has been arrived between the General Officer commanding in Ireland and Lord Massereene as to the use of the deer park of Antrim Castle.

  THE IRISH EVICTED TENANTS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state, with any degree of definition, when he intends to introduce his promised Bill with regard to the evicted tenants?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Government will not be in a position to make any statement on this subject before the Adjournment, nor until they have viewed the legislative business of next Session as a whole.

  THE CONVICT DALY.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Daly, a convict, is being punished for statements alleged to have been made without his knowledge at a distance of some hundred miles from his prison; and whether Daly is now prevented from receiving visits?
  MR. ASQUITH: The answer to both questions is in the negative. Daly will, in the course of a few days, be visited by a relative.

  FOLKESTONE CASUALS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the
  466
  Elham Guardians to increase the existing accommodation for casuals at the Union workhouse, instead of providing a casual ward at Folkestone, from which a large number of casuals have to walk; and whether, in view of the fact that Elham Union is over five miles distant from Folkestone, it is intended, during the coming winter, to subject applicants for relief in Folkestone, men, women, and children, to the necessity of walking over five miles before they obtain that relief?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand that the Guardians of the Elham Union have had under consideration the provision of additional casual wards, and that they resolved that these wards should be erected at Elham, and not at Folkestone. I have not, however, as yet received any application from the Guardians on the subject. When that is received it will be my duty to give the proposals of the Guardians my most careful consideration. Since the previous question of the hon. Member as to the casual ward arrangements of the Union was put to me, the Local Government Board directed the Inspector of the district to visit the wards and report fully on the subject. The facts are these:—The casual wards of the Union were erected in 1886, and are about the best wards in the County of Kent. They are built on the cellular system, and accommodate 20 men and 10 women. Each cell is warmed by a hot-water pipe and fitted with a bell. The beds are straw mattresses and rugs on a wooden platform. There are day rooms, and a disinfecting and drying room. This is the only building which has been certified by the Local Government Board as the casual wards for the Union. There have, however, during the present year frequently been a larger number of male casuals than could be accommodated in the certified wards. Temporary accommodation has in these cases been provided in a building containing two rooms, which, prior to the erection of the new wards, was used as the casual ward. This building is used once a fortnight as a temporary stable. To provide sleeping berths on the occasions when there has been an overflow wooden platforms raised from the ground have been fixed, the bedding being a straw mattress with two rugs. The provision for women and children in the certified casual ward is

  467
  four single and six double cells. When the number of women has exceeded the accommodation in the certified wards it is the practice to provide for the surplus in the receiving ward. On three occasions during the year when there was a small excess in the number of women the receiving wards happened to be occupied by cases which had not been examined by the Medical Officer, and then the overflow was provided for in one of the two rooms of the old building, but, of course, not in one which was occupied by men. As to the situation of the proposed new wards, I may observe that casual wards are not intended for residents in Folkestone, but for vagrants moving across the county, and that as regards several workhouses a casual ward at Elham is on a more direct route than wards at Folkestone would be. As I have already stated, the Guardians have informed me that the relieving officer has instructions to make provision for the conveyance by train of persons who, in consequence of age or infirmity, should not be subjected to a journey on foot to Elham, and in cases of illness he is also instructed to find the applicant a home at one of the common lodging-houses at Folkestone. With reference to a statement which I believe has been made that tramps of both sexes have been put into one room, I can only say that if any workhouse master is guilty of such a course he will be instantly dismissed.

  EXTRA CUSTOMS OFFICIALS.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is in contemplation by the Government to improve in any way the pay or position of extra outdoor officers of Customs in the Port of London?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The pay and conditions of employment of extra outdoor officers of Customs in the Port of London have been recently improved under Treasury authority dated June 16 last.
  MR. DARLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention to further improve the conditions under which those men are employed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The conditions under which these men were employed were very fully considered, and it was felt that a great improvement in their
  468
  behalf was effected by placing a large number on weekly instead of daily employment and wages.

  OUTDOOR DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the Treasury Minute of 24th March, 1891, relative to an inquiry into the administration of the Outdoor Department of Customs, states that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been directed to the success which elsewhere in the Public Service has attended Departmental examinations held to gauge the qualifications of officers at certain stages of their career, whether he can say if this statement refers to the Excise Department; and, if not, to which Department of the Public Service it does refer; and whether he can say what is intended to be conveyed by the words certain stages in their career?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Minute was issued before I went to the Exchequer, and I am unable to give a more exact interpretation of the meaning of the passage referred to than that which appears from its wording. If the hon. Member desires more detailed information he should apply to my predecessor.

  THE AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from a firm of merchants in the City, stating that their American correspondence, ex Etruria, was not delivered at their office until after 1 p.m. on Saturday, the 2nd instant; whether these letters reached London ready sorted shortly after 10 a.m. on that day; and whether steps will be taken to insure a speedy delivery of the American mail viâ Queenstown, upon arrival in London?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that on Saturday last the American mails, ex Etruria, which left South Kingstown by the 12.57 train, and which reached Holy-head at 4.31 and London 10.17 a.m. with the mails fully sorted and ready for immediate delivery, did not reach leading firms in the City until after 1 o'clock that day; and whether this period of three hours between arrival and delivery

  469
  is within or beyond the average time considered necessary for such delivery?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have seen the letter referred to. The first van conveying from Euston Station the American mails brought by the Etruria reached the General Post Office at 10.41 a.m. on the 2nd instant. The letters, although sorted in the usual manner for the various London districts, had to undergo some further preparation before they could be sent out for delivery by postmen. They just missed the delivery in the City commencing soon after 11, and could not be sent out until noon. Every endeavour will be made to insure a speedy delivery of the letters as far as possible.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General at what hour the Teutonic, which left New York on Wednesday, 30th August, at 10 o'clock a.m., reached Queenstown on Tuesday last, and at what hour the New York, which left at 8.45 a.m. on the same date, arrived at Southampton; and when were the mails conveyed per Teutonic and per New York delivered in London?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Teutonic arrived off Queenstown at 3.10 p.m. on the 5th instant, and the New York arrived at Southampton at 7.20 a.m. on the 6th. The correspondence for the City brought by the Teutonic was sent out by the delivery commencing at 2.5 p.m. p.m. on the 6th. That brought by the New York had already been delivered, having been received in time to be included in the delivery commencing at 11.5 a.m.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Were the mails which arrived by the New York taken on by ordinary or special train?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Not by special train. It was not a case in which a special train was required.
  MR. SEXTON: Was there a special service from Queenstown for the Teutonic?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No; there was not—the full mail came by Southampton.
  MR. SEXTON: If there had been a full mail, would there have been a special service from Queenstown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot answer that, but I will make inquiry.
  MR. SEXTON: I understand that this was one of the cases where, the mails
  470
  arriving on Tuesday, a special service would be given to insure that merchants in London and other large towns would be enabled to forward their replies by the mails going out to-day.
  MR. A. MORLEY: I believe that is the case, but I will inquire about the matter.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that the mails which arrived by the New York at Southampton at 7.20 a.m. were delivered before the specially addressed letters by the Teutonic, these letters having arrived in London between 6 and 7 a.m?
  MR. A. MORLEY: They arrived off Queenstown at 3.10 p.m. on the 5th, and in time to be sent out by the delivery commencing at 2.5 p.m. on the 6th.

  TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will inform the House what steps have been taken with reference to the promised inquiry into the circumstances of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, the nature and scope of the proposed inquiry, and the name of the official who has been appointed to conduct it?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury has written to the Board of Public Works expressing the opinion that an inquiry should be held by an expert as to the actual condition of the Tralee and Dingle Line, and the outlay on alterations and rolling stock necessary for safe working, and asking the Board to suggest an engineer to whom the inquiry might be entrusted. I have not yet received the Board's reply.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will agree to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of any Correspondence, or of any facts that may be ascertained by the inquiry?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will consider the matter.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up the Board of Works?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have already done so.

  DRUMCONDRA TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-

  471
  tenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland communicate the results of the examination held in July of candidates for the Training Colleges to them or any other persons; and, if not, whether he can state why not; and whether there is any objection to publishing a Return of the names of the candidates admitted to Drumcondra and the other Training Colleges, with the percentage of their answering as well as that of the rejected candidates?
  MR. ASQUITH(who replied) said: The Chief Secretary is in communication with the Commissioners of National Education with reference to this question, and will be glad if the hon. Member will repeat the question next week.

  KILDYSART PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the appointment of Head Constable Crosby as Petty Sessions Clerk at Kildysart; whether Constable Crosby has yet served his time for a pension; and whether, as he was not retired, he is eligible for the appointment?
  MR. ASQUITH (who replied)said: The name of the Head Constable is Cromley, not Crosby. He received the permission of the Inspector General to become a candidate for the post, and was appointed by the Magistrate. He was entitled to a pension on his retirement from the force. The matter is now under the consideration of the Irish Government.

  THE COAL CRISIS.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information as to the serious rioting in various colliery districts?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have telegraphed to the Chief Constable of the West Riding for a full Report. I regret to say that very serious disturbances are reported to have taken place at Knottingley; but I am not able to give the House any information.

  SUSPICIOUS DEATH.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is
  472
  true that one of the female cleaners on the establishment of the House of Commons was taken ill on Tuesday last and died this morning of Asiatic cholera?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The hon. Member has not given me notice of the question. I am aware that a fatal case of a very suspicious character has taken place this morning of one of the cleaners of this House. The question is receiving the most complete examination by the Medical Department of the Local Government Board; and, although I am sorry to say that all the indications are very suspicious, I am not prepared to say that it is a case of Asiatic cholera.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): A promise was given recently that a statement should be made on behalf of the Government with regard to the future progress of business. I think it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I were to mention, in the first instance, that the Army Estimates will be taken on Monday next.
  MR. HANBURY: The War Office Votes first?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes. With regard to the Bills the Government desire to keep on the Paper, I prefer to mention the names of those which we hope may live rather than those which we fear may die. I would divide those Bills into several sections. The first section I would call Bills that we must pass, I think. These necessary Bills are three—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and I must also reserve power to bring in occasioned Financial Bills that may arise out of the circumstances of the time. Then I come to the second class, which are Bills of an extremely useful and non-contentious character, mostly Consolidation Bills, which are of immense convenience to all classes of the community. They have been prepared with great care, and, as they merely re-enact the present law, I hope the House will allow them to be taken in the interstices of business. They are the Sale of Goods Bill, the Trustee Consolidation Bill, the Merchant Shipping Bill, and one that does not belong entirely to this category

  473
  —namely, the Public Authorities Protection Bill. Then I come to the third and last class of what class of what the Government hope may be regarded and accepted by both sides of the House as non-controversial. The first is the Naval Defence Amendment Bill, which is necessary in consequence of certain difficulties that have arisen in the winding up of the Naval Defence Act. Then there is a Bill mentioned the other day by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, the Madras and Bombay Army Bill, and there is the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill. Then I come to another Bill, which I hope will be accepted as non-controversial, the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. That has been agreed to in all its main particulars by the Scotch Members, and is identical in principle and similar in its provisions to the Bill introduced by the late Government. Its provisions have been recommended by a unanimous Report on Sea Fisheries this Session. Then there is the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Pistols Bill. I hope that Bill may be accepted as non-controversial. [Mr. HOPWOOD: No.] I understand that my hon. Friend is the only opponent of the measure, and I hope that he will withdraw his opposition, in order that the very general sense of the House may be carried out. Though it is difficult to call a Pistols Bill a non-controversial Bill, I hope it may so be treated. Then there is a Bill which comes down from the Lords, called the Law of Commons Amendment Bill. I hope that may be put in the same category. Another Bill of great importance is the Savings Bank Bill; and although the banking interest is offering considerable opposition to it, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General that negotiations are taking place with a view to a compromise. I should, therefore, hope that the Bill would be kept on the Paper. Coming to the last Bill upon which a good deal was said the other day—I mean the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill—I would make a very earnest appeal to gentlemen on both sides of the House to allow this measure to be placed in the non-controversial category. The opinion of London is very strong in favour of this measure, the London Members are almost unanimous upon the
  474
  subject, and there is no opposition to the principle involved. I hope the late Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow the Bill to be kept upon the Paper, and to be treated as a non-controversial one. If great conflict of opinion should be found with regard to it, it could then be dropped. It is a great disappointment to the Government that the circumstances will not permit of these Bills being more numerous. I hardly think it necessary to state that the Employers' Liability Bill and the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill will be kept upon the Paper as the principal Bills to be dealt with during the Autumn Sittings; and I should hope, if the right hon. Gentleman is able to state that he agrees with the list I have mentioned, that the proceedings may be shortened, and we may have an early holiday.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think the House will agree that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a most conciliatory speech, the list of Bills which are still to be retained on the Order Paper, and which he hopes will be discussed, is rather a long one. There are 14, which the right hon. Gentleman has divided into three categories—the necessary Bills, the Consolidation Bills, and other Bills. With regard to the necessary Bills—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Statute Law Revision Bill, and the Occasional Finance Bill—I have only two remarks to make. Of course they are necessary Bills, but I am under the impression that there are matters in connection with the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which will lead to some discussion. That has to be taken into consideration when we are discussing the distribution of the time of the House. About the Statute Law Revision Bill I presume there will be no difficulty. As to the Consolidation Bills, I have no authority to say how they will be dealt with by the House; and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that it would be impossible for me to give a definite answer without consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and Members interested. I see no objection to the Naval Defence Act Amendment Bill passing; but I can give no answer to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, the Pistols Bill, or the

  475
  Law of Commons Amendment Bill. I believe the Savings Bank Bill is the same measure as was introduced by the predecessor of the present Postmaster General, with this difference—that the limit of the amount of deposits is raised from £50 to £100. I understand that there is a possibility of a compromise with the bankers, and if the latter are contented we shall be prepared to see the Bill pass. Of course, I cannot speak for the bankers without consultation, but I can undertake that there will be no Party objection to the Bill. Then I come to the last Bill mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the London Equalisation of Rates Bill. I must say I was rather astonished at the manner in which it was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman; and I think it is scarcely fair, after the previous declarations which the right hon. Gentleman himself has made, to re-introduce this question. The right hon. Gentleman has been, no, doubt, under considerable pressure, but with that the House really has nothing to do. The right hon. Gentleman said that if it was treated as controversial it would be dropped. Certainly, there are large questions of controversy in the Bill; it is not, however, a question of the Members of this House only, but of the Local Authorities in London, and it would be unfair to the Local Authorities to call upon them at this period of the Session to present their case before the House. The Bill involves considerable difference of opinion, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will adhere to the declaration with regard to it that he made upon a previous occasion. It is highly probable that Members may have left London under the distinct impression that the right hon. Gentleman's decision was final. I do not feel that I am in a position to give any answer as to other Bills, though personally I think the Bombay Army Bill is a good one, and should not be treated as a matter of controversy, and that the Light Railways (Ireland) Bill might be passed.
  SIR C. W. DILKE, on a point of Order, asked whether it would be in Order for anyone to make observations going beyond those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Oppo-
  476
  sition, or whether questions only could be put?
  MR. SPEAKERruled that questions only could be put.
  MR. WEIRasked whether the Government intended to do anything in the way of legislation on behalf of the Highland Crofters?
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked whether, as the Law of Commons Amendment Bill and the Sale of Goods Bill were likely to give rise to protracted discussion, it would not be better to withdraw both Bills?
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked whether the discussion on the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill could be taken at a reasonable hour; and whether the Government, in order to facilitate the passing of the measure, would accept, without debate, all the numerous Amendments which stood on the Paper?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether, in view of the notes on the Bill made by the draftsman, the Merchant Shipping Bill was not more than a consolidation measure?
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked whether Progress would be reported that night at a reasonable hour, to allow the London Equalisation of Rates Bill to be discussed?
  MR. STUARTasked that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Equalisation of Rates Bill might be read a second time?
  COLONEL LOCKWOODinquired whether "the interstices of Public Business" meant Saturday Sittings?
  MR. DARLINGasked that sufficient notice of the Equalisation of Rates Bill coming on might be given, so that Members might be present at the discussion.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether a Parish Councils Bill for Scotland would be brought in during the Autumn Session?
  MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the promised Bill would be introduced for the repeal of the property qualification of Magistrates in England and Wales?
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Government intended to

  477
  move Amendments on the Madras and Bombay Armies Bill or not?
  SIR A. ROLLITasked that, in view of the urgent need of such a measure, the Savings Banks Bill might be passed this Session? He intended to support the Equalisation of Rates Bill in favour of which he had presented a Petition from his Vestry, and thought opposition to it might be removed by bringing on any discussion at an earlier hour than 2 in the morning.
  MR. HENEAGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take these Bills after 12 o'clock, or whether he proposed to carry them over to the Autumn Session?
  SIR H. ROSCOE, considering the recurrence of cholera, asked for facilities for passing the Isolation Hospitals Bill.
  MR. NAOROJIasked when the Indian Budget would be taken?
  MR. HOWELLasked that the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill should be pressed forward this Session.
  SIR R. TEMPLEasked whether the Madras and Bombay Army Bill would be taken at some hour when it could be fairly discussed?
  MR. MOREasked what arrangements the Government had in contemplation to enable them to send those Bills which they expected to pass shortly before Christmas to another place?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has divided the Bills which he proposes to take into three classes. As to the first of these, I do not think there can be any objection on any side of the House. As to the second class of Bills, relating to consolidation, I should, for my own part, have no objection to them if the Government give their pledge, which I understand them to do, that they would involve no alteration of the law [cries of" Order!"] Nor can I believe there would be any objection to the third class, provided—[cries of "Order!"] I shall move the adjournment of the House if hon. Members persist in their interruptions.
  MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.) rose to Order, and asked the Speaker whether there was one rule for the right hon. Gentleman and another for other Mem-
  478
  bers of the House, who would like, not simply to put questions, which the right hon. Gentleman was not doing, but to speak?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman was intimating that there was no objection to certain Bills, he thought the progress of Business might be facilitated if he were allowed to proceed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, Sir. I cannot understand what the objection was. As regards the third class, there can be no objection to taking them if the Government would undertake to deal with them before 12 o'clock; but if they intend to take advantage of the new Rules I can only say there is the very greatest objection to all these Bills.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I thoroughly admit that no Bill ought to be taken as a Consolidation Bill which is not really of that character, and if the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) is at all right in what he said respecting the Merchant Shipping Bill—namely, that there are serious alterations in it—we shall not attempt to proceed with a measure of that volume and magnitude. I will take notice of what the hon. Member has said, and inquiry shall be made into the matter. All we are doing now is keeping these Bills on the Paper. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews Burghs (Mr. Anstruther), as I understand those Burghs are on the East coast of Scotland, coming forward as the principal opponent of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, treating him unfairly, and endeavouring to misrepresent what he had said. All he had done was to put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman respecting the Bill. He had said no word against the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that most of the Scotch Members, except the hon. Member, have withdrawn their Amendments; but if there is any serious opposition to the Bill, and it appears that the measure will require considerable time to dispose of it, it will not be taken. As to the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), I forgot to mention that what we propose is that the Merchant Shipping Bill

  479
  should be read a second time for the purpose of referring it to a Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that he objected to the Second Reading of the Bill, on the ground that it was not a Consolidation Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Something was said about the interstices of business. I did not mean by that phrase a fugitive half-hour. It may occur that we may have a spare day, and in that case we shall endeavour to proceed with the least controversial of the Bills, and get them forward. I also meant that these Bills would be taken at any time during the Session. I have always endeavoured to make that clear as well as I could.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I do not know that he has said anything inconsistent with what he says now; but what he says now is distinctly inconsistent with the pledge the Prime Minister gave.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in that. These matters have been discussed between the Prime Minister and myself from the commencement, and I am sure if he had said anything of that kind I must have known. My recollection of what he said is that it related to the main business of the Session. It is not our intention to proceed with the Magistrates' Qualification Bill during the present Session.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: The Government gave notice of the Bill early in the Session.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: At all events, it would be regarded as a new Bill, and we cannot ask the House to go on with it now. Objection was taken by an hon. Member to the Commons Amendment Act. I think that may be regarded as not a very dangerous or revolutionary measure. I am not acquainted with the Isolation Hospitals Bill, but I will inquire concerning it. If it is a useful and urgent Bill, and no objection be taken to it, it may be disposed of. I am very sorry I cannot mention the date of the Indian Budget, because we have already stated that it is to be taken with the Appropriation Bill. I wish I knew when the Appropriation Bill would be taken. As to the Madras and Bombay Army Bill, I hope to take it in reasonable time.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Government proposed to support the Bill, or to move Amendments to it?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Generally the Government support the Bill in its present form, but, of course, they do not preclude themselves from introducing Amendments. As to the Scotch Accidents Bill, we are obliged to exclude it from the list of those to be dealt with in this part of the Session, because I understand one of its provisions is very much disputed.
  MR. WEIRasked whether the Crofters Act Amendment Bill was to be taken?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That would be a new Bill, and we cannot undertake to ask the House to consider new Bills now.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSasked what was to be done in relation to the Bills of Sales Bill? He understood that the Attorney General was willing to re-consider the point when he (Mr. Williams) opposed the Bill. As he believed the Bill as a whole was a very useful one, he hoped that it might by arrangement be placed in the category of unopposed measures.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have inquired of the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby), and he thinks there is so much opposition to the Bills of Sale Bill that it cannot be included in the list of unopposed Bills.
  MR. GOSCHEN: What is to be done respecting the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill? I presume that, a protest having been made against it, it will not be pressed forward this Session?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There was just now a like controversy between my right hon. Friend and myself, which I think I am now able to clear up—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is displaying a newspaper. It is usual when a newspaper is used in the House to reduce it to the smallest possible compass.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry to say, Sir, I have no other report of the Debate to which to refer; but it appears that on a previous occasion I asked the Prime Minister whether, supposing that, with the assistance of the Opposition, the Second Reading of the

  481
  two important Bills which had been referred to were got through in a month, the Government were going to introduce other Bills. The Prime Minister replied that he thought I was going a little beyond what he had said, and referred me to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) said—
  "We are asked if we intend to take any other measures. Our object certainly is to promote these two measures, and, although we cannot bind ourselves before the House, it is not our intention to promote other measures than these two in the Autumn Session."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman will see that I stated on another occasion, in reply to the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who asked me what I meant by "other small Bills"—I am speaking from recollection, and cannot say that those were the exact words—that I meant non-controversial measures. I am very sorry that a misunderstanding has arisen between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but the intention of the statement I made was certainly what I have described.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether the question alluded to did not refer entirely to Bills to be dealt with during the present Sitting?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think so, or I should certainly never have bound myself at all. I have always intended to ask for these non-controversial measures. Surely if we have spare time we are not to sacrifice all these Bills. I think our proposal is perfectly reasonable, and it is one which has certainly always been in our minds. With reference to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, I have said, and I am bound by the statement, that, if the responsible Leaders of the Opposition regard it as a controversial measure, we shall not feel at liberty to proceed with it. I understand that my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Goschen) does think it a controversial measure, this opinion is in some degree reinforced by what was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton).
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that was not the case.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) spoke hostile to the Bill, but he asked very fairly whether notice would be given, so that Members would
  482
  be able to discuss the Bill if it came on. If that were the only condition I should be able to comply with it, as it is a very fair one. That, however, I do not understand now to be the present state of the case. I understand that the hon. member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit) considers that the Bill could not proceed without a good deal of discussion.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I said I was in favour of the Bill and intended to support it, but I thought that early to-morrow morning was not quite the proper time for discussing it.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he had expressed no opinion that the Bill was controversial. He was in favour of the Bill. He had asked merely whether the Government would report Progress at such a time as to afford an opportunity of having some discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, Sir, we cannot in the present state of business stop Supply in order to proceed with this, that, or the other Bill. I had hoped that as far as the Second Reading of the Equalisation of Rates Bill was concerned it would have been agreed to without further discussion. I understand that the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) desires a discussion on the Second Reading. Well, that, of course, prevents the progress of the Bill. There is, however, very little use in considering whether there should be a discussion because I understand the Bill is not accepted as non-controversial.
  MR. R. JASPER MOREasked what arrangements the Government had in contemplation for sending these measures to "another place." Would the House of Lords sit between Christmas Day and New Year's Day?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot undertake to answer for what is done in another place. We can only pass our measures here.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: My hon. Friend opposite has asked me, as to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, whether I propose to consider it on Monday as the Army Estimates are down for that day? Unless the Army Estimates are continued until a late hour I propose to take the Bill on Monday. It is necessary that the measure should pass either during the present Sittings or the Autumn Session.

  483
  I know that some hon. Friends of mine opposite take objection to certain Acts which are included in the Bill, but I do not think their opposition can be serious, because it will be impossible for them to take any portions out of the Bill. The Bill continues 52 Acts of Parliament, all of them, with the exception of two, having been continued from 20 to 40 years. As nearly all of those Acts expire on the 31st December, I think I can show a good case why the Bill should be allowed to proceed on every opportunity.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is proposed to take tonight any of the Bills mentioned, and, if so, at what time he proposes to report Progress?
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Parish Councils Bill for Scotland during the Autumn Session?
  MR. ANSTRUTHERinquired whether it was not the case that, on the Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill to which he (Mr. Anstruther) had an Amendment extending the operation of the measure, the Secretary for Scotland had stated that he would accept the Amendment, whether the Debate was not very much restricted in consequence, and whether the right hon. Gentleman now considered it was fair to ask Members to forego all discussion of the very important branch of the subject to which the Amendment related?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I may say that the Government have prepared not a Parish Councils Bill, but a Local Government Bill for Scotland. This measure would give to Scotland everything that will be given by the Local Government Bill for England, but of course it would be adapted to Scotland and drawn on Scotch lines. Whether or not it would be in accordance with the engagements made by the Government that this Bill should be introduced during the Autumn Session I will not discuss, because I do not think there will be any need to introduce it and have it before this House. The Bill is prepared, and I have no doubt that the
  484
  English Bill will be a pledge and a prelude to the introduction of the Scotch Bill. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Anstruther), the Government would have been extremely glad to introduce the Amendment relating to the salmon fisheries which he proposed, and no doubt it is true that if the Government had not expressed that willingness my hon. Friend would have occupied, and would have been justified in occupying, for a longer period the time of the House. But, as the matter now stands, the only chance of passing the Bill is to pass it without the salmon Amendments. The Government believe that the Bill in its present shape is unanimously approved by Scottish Members, except with regard to some omissions from the financial clauses which the Government are prepared to make. I am afraid if my hon. Friend insists on salmon Amendments being inserted there will be no chance of passing the Bill this Session.
  MR. ANSTRUTHERasked whether the Government had any intention of proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill before Monday? He wished to have an opportunity of considering whether it was possible to adopt the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HOZIERinquired whether there were not certain Amendments with regard to the payment of fishermen's expenses, and so on, which were important?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government propose, in deference to what I believe to be the pretty general opinion of the Scottish Members, to leave out Clause 20—the financial clause. There are also some small Amendments which the Government are prepared to accept, and I believe we shall be able to meet all the objections taken to the Bill by Scottish Members, though I cannot say we shall be able to introduce all the Amendments they wish to make. I earnestly hope that between this and Monday my hon. Friend (Mr. Anstruther) will consider the position, and that he will agree to the course I suggest.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether we are to definitely understand that he feels himself unable to proceed with the Equalisation of

  485
  Rates Bill for London in consequence of the hostile attitude of the Opposition?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, Sir; that is not right. I stated some time ago that with the exception of the two Bills mentioned, we did not intend to take controversial measures, and therefore I endeavoured to ascertain as far as I could what the opinion of the House was as to what was controversial business. I am satisfied that a considerable portion of the House regard this as a controversial Bill. We therefore have decided not to go on with it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was intended to go on with the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill that evening, or whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake not to proceed with the Second Reading until his (Mr. Bowles's) objection had been fully considered?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member must be satisfied with the declaration that we will not take it to-night.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir J. T. Hibbert) was aware that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill contained the Ballot Act, and that as that Act was a controversial measure, as shown by the discussion which took place last Session, he would allow it to be discussed separately?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members, does not seem to understand that no Amendment could be made in any Act included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. An Act can be omitted, but not amended. Hon. Members should bear this simple fact in mind in connection with my statement that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is a measure of a non-controversial character.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY-COMMITTEE.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £45,471, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum
      486
      necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he rose to continue the statement which he was making on the previous evening in regard to Siam. He was at a little disadvantage in beginning afresh, but he hoped the Under Secretary would have the points before the House—the delimination of the country within the bend of the river; the fate of Luang Prabang; the neutral zone effective if it were broad, ineffective if it were narrow; and most of all the true definition of integrity and independence of Siam not only according to French ideas, but according to English ideas. He would remark, in the first place, that, as the friend and ally of that country, it might be well if some assistance could be afforded, perhaps indirectly, to Siam in raising the amount of the indemnity which had been imposed by France, so that no excuse could be given for prolonged occupation. At all events, he wished to know how the matter was progressing. The river which ran through the district in which Chantaboon was situated came from the hills, in which were situated mines of precious stones and possibly minerals; and in those mines British capital and British mining engineers were employed. The Great Lake was also a very important point, as also were the islands in the Gulf of Siam. He wished to be informed as to the position on the western shore of the Great Lake, as to whether the islands in the gulf were still occupied by the French, and, if so, were they going to be evacuated, and when? Were the Government without reliable and definite information as to the French works round Chantaboon? A still more menacing matter was the nature of the proceedings of the French Special Envoy, who was now at Bangkok, and as to whom he had addressed several questions to the Government. Possibly the answers given to those questions merely indicated that the Foreign Office did not know of any arrangements between France and Siam which would have the effect of excluding British interests in the latter country. He further wished to ask the Government whether any commercial arrangements were being

      487
      negotiated at Bangkok which would have an unfavourable effect upon England as compared with France. He should also like to know whether the British Government would object if Siam showed any tendency in the negotiations with the French Envoy to infringe the existing Treaties which secured to England the most-favoured-nation clause. The answers previously given on these points could not be regarded as satisfactory, and there was undoubtedly considerable apprehension existing that something of this kind was now going on between the French Envoy at Bangkok and the Siamese authorities—that some concessions were being made, and that commercial conditions were being entered into which would have a tendency to exclude British commerce. He had had a letter from one who was well informed, part of which he would read to the House, as it showed how, by making separate arrangements, France might drive a coach and four through the Most-Favoured Nation Clauses. So he could say that he thought there was reason for his demand for information. He believed that unless the British Government exercised considerable watchfulness and firmness it would be perfectly possible, despite all influences to the contrary, for negotiations to be entered into at Bangkok which would prove to the disadvantage of British commerce, and which would be discovered when it was too late to effectively safeguard British interests. That some secret negotiations were going on seemed to be very probable, for what else was the French Envoy doing at Bangkok? He could not be there to settle the details of the ultimatum, for they had already been unreservedly accepted. There was reason to believe that France was engaged in negotiations with some ulterior object, and it was of great importance to England to provide against those negotiations affecting the integrity and independence of Siam. He would simply say that, notwithstanding any promises or assurances that had been made on the point, the Government should not hesitate to question the French Government on the matter—not with reference to old matters which had already been practically settled, but with regard to the future integrity and independence of Siam. On the one hand they should
      488
      warn Siam that they should object to any arrangement with France which might prejudicially affect their treaty and commercial rights; and, on the other, should intimate to France in a friendly manner, though with a proper degree of firmness, that they should strongly object to any arrangement which affected the independence of Siam. Considering the great interests which England possessed in Siam, and the great importance to her of the integrity and independence of that country being maintained, he wished to urge these points on the attention of the Government as strongly as possible. It might be said that it was too late to take any such steps; but he admitted that many precious interests had been already sacrificed, and he denied that it was too late for the British Government to take steps to prevent Siam from being absorbed into the French Empire, and to insure that she should become a real and solid buffer State between the English and French possessions. He did not wish to say one word hostile to the French. He did not desire to show any unbecoming jealousy of them. On the contrary, he heartily wished them success in the consolidation of the dominions they had acquired in that part of the world. But there must be a limit to French ambition, and that limit should be drawn somewhere in Siam, so as to keep an inviolable zone between our Indian Empire and the French possessions in Eastern Asia. Certain articles had appeared lately in the Press and in the London magazines, in which it was stated that our Indian Empire was coming more and more between the two fires of Russia and France, and, although he was sorry to say he had not written those articles, he could say that the statements in them were perfectly true, and would be confirmed by any Englishman who had resided in the East. In conclusion, he trusted that in his speeches on this subject he had not pressed too hard upon the Government in point of argument, because he had frequently admired the firm, resolute, and forward attitude they had taken up with regard to Egypt and Canada, and other places, and he heartily concurred in the able speeches made by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but the present state of things in Siam was so serious that it

      489
      was necessary to call the Government to account as strictly as the Rules of the House might allow, in the hope that they would be able to give a good account of their stewardship in this matter. He was looking forward to the Blue Book which would inevitably have to be presented, and he hoped that would justify the nation in reposing confidence in the Government as English Ministers acting on behalf of England.
      MR. CURZON: No one in the House, I am sure, will be disposed to blame the hon. Baronet for raising this important question, which he has discussed in so interesting and authoritative a manner. Not even the most ardent supporter of the Government will say we are doing wrong in taking up a small amount of the time allotted to Supply in calling the attention of the House to so grave a question as British interests in the far East. Throughout this Session of Parliament I venture to say that the Opposition have shown more than ordinary forbearance towards the Government in respect of their foreign policy, mainly, no doubt, due to the confidence which has been hitherto reposed in the administration of Lord Rosebery. Before proceeding farther, I would say that the importance of this subject must not be gauged for a moment by the depleted state of the Benches I see around me. It is unfortunately, but undoubtedly the case, that there are considerable sources of attraction in a sometimes much derided place elsewhere, where the Foreign Secretary is speaking on a subject on which his views to most of us are at least of as much interest as his views upon matters connected with his own Department. But though those of us who speak on this question here have but a scant audience, much greater importance is attached to our words elsewhere than is perhaps apparent to the minds of our colleagues. That which is said in this House is not only printed and circulated in the newspapers at home, but is telegraphed and published in every country in the far East. I do not desire on this occasion to repeat what I said last time this matter came before the House, but this I would venture to say, that there is not a single criticism in which I then indulged or a single anticipation I then hazarded that has not been
      490
      justified by what has since transpired. I adhere to the opinion previously expressed that if in March last the noble Earl had found it compatible with his duty to address a perfectly friendly letter to the French Government pointing out that, while we had no desire to interfere in the frontier dispute between Siam and themselves, we should regard any further encroachment upon the integrity and independence of Siam with disfavour and as unfriendly on their part, recent occurrences would never have been seen or heard of. In my travels in Tonkin and Cochin China last November and December I discussed this matter with French officials, and gathered from them that it had never entered into their heads that Great Britain would acquiesce in the French demands, which will result in the virtual dismemberment and extinction of the independence of the Kingdom of Siam. But at an early stage of these proceedings Lord Rosebery, carrying to an extreme limit diplomatic courtesy, assured the French that we had no concern in their quarrel in that part of the world, and the French Government forthwith, interpreting these assurances in the most liberal and most agreeable sense to themselves, proceeded step by step at a rate of progression which can only be described as geometrical, and presented first one ultimatum, then a second, and now, we understand, a third to Siam, expecting at each moment to be pulled up, and as much astonished at our forbearance—I might almost say our weakness—as they were gratified at their own success. Meanwhile, we have been assured by the representatives of the Foreign Office that the French Government is still respecting the pledges it gave. But one of the terms is that the Siamese are not to keep any troops within 16 miles of the right bank of the River Mekong, although they are to be allowed to retain a police force there. The only police, however, in Siam are the military—and I doubt very much whether they would be called military in any other country in the world. To say that Siam is not to maintain military in this district, but is yet to be allowed to keep police there for the maintenance of order, is, therefore, to perpetrate a joke at the expense of that country. It may be suggested that it is from fear of future collision that this precaution has

      491
      been insisted upon. But have the French themselves withdrawn, or consented to withdraw, their troops from a space of 16 miles on their side of the river? Not a bit. The French are at present concentrating their forces there, and have sent two gunboats up the river. There can be no doubt that this particular condition has been introduced into the ultimatum, and is being enforced by France: firstly, to cut off communication with the territory which will still be left to Siam on the left bank of the Mekong, and, secondly, to facilitate that to which we must look forward in the future as certainly as I am now addressing the House of Commons—namely, the carrying out of further French ambition and aspirations on the right bank of the river. With regard to Chantaboon, the hon. Baronet seems to think we have no interest in it, and says he had no official information about it because we have no Diplomatic Agent there; but he is nevertheless able to state that the 300 or 400 French troops in Chantaboon are in a state of alarm because of the contiguity of 3,000 or 4,000 Siamese troops. In my opinion the hon. Baronet entirely underrates the importance of Chantaboon in connection with the recovery by the French of the two provinces which a hundred years ago belonged to Cambodia. The French have occupied the river, and have advanced eight miles inland, have seized the town of Chantaboon, have thrown up earthworks, and have telegraphed for additional forces. I do not share in the matter of Chantaboon the sanguine anticipations expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey), and I respectfully invite him to keep an eye on Chantaboon during the course of the next few weeks, and to pause until it has been evacuated before he congratulates the Government and the House upon having saved those provinces for the Siamese Government, and upon the fact that the French and Siamese question has been satisfactorily settled. I will leave that point, and turn to what is the most important question to us—the question of British interests in Siam. What are British interests in Siam? They have been more than once stated and restated in the course of our discussions, and in reply to a question from myself they were defined by the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) himself in terms
      492
      on which no one can improve. He defined British interests in Siam as being four in number. The first, he said, was the protection of the life and property of British subjects residing there; the second is the continued preservation of a neutral zone between the British and French territories; the third, the protection of British trade; and the fourth, the continued independence and integrity of the Siamese Kingdom itself. I will venture to say a few words on each of these interests. As regards the protection of the life and property of British subjects in Siam, I think Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the alacrity with which, the moment there was any fear of those interests at Bangkok being jeopardised, they despatched British war vessels to the scene of operations, although it is a pity that they did not inform the French Government of the object with which those ships were sent, since the French Government made the despatch of the ships an excuse for forcing the passage of the river, and menacing the capital itself. As regards the second British interest—the continued preservation of a neutral zone between ourselves and the French—we understand that negotiations are proceeding at Paris with the view of carving out from the body of the unhappy victim a more or less narrow slice of territory—possibly some hundred miles in width—the object being to prevent the frontiers of Great Britain and France from coming into perilous contact in the far East. I presume that this neutral zone, about which I do not desire for a moment to press for information prematurely, will be constructed out of territory which lies to the West of the trans-Mekong part of Luang Prabang, and that it will consist partly of the former Burmese State of Chieng Kheng, which we ceded to Siam. Whether my anticipations be correct or not, I should like to know to whom is this neutral zone, when constructed, to belong, and by whom is it to be administered? If it is to belong to and to be administered by Siam, are the Siamese to be allowed to keep their soldiers there, or are we once more to have raised this farcical plea of a police that has never existed? Again, what guarantees are you going to obtain for the preservation of its integrity? Supposing that its integrity is

      493
      in the future violated by French troops, or supposing that the wild tribes who inhabit it appeal to the French to come over the border, how are you going to carry out any guarantee you may have previously given or exacted? There is another point. The hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) has more than once talked about this neutral zone as if it were identical with a "buffer State." There is the greatest possible difference between the two things. A neutral zone is the merest apology, the palest simulacrum, of a buffer State that can possibly be conceived. A buffer State implies the creation or existence of a third or intervening State between two Powers whose territories would otherwise come in contact with each other. It implies the exercise by the third State of the rights of sovereignty and the possession by it of a certain stability, and it implies the respect of its territories by the two important neighbours who are situated on either side of it. Of such a character is the buffer State of Afghanistan, and of such a character, though perhaps in a modified degree, was, until recently, the Kingdom of Siam itself. As long as the independence and integrity of Siam were something more than a mere name, so long did it preserve the character of a buffer State. But both that integrity and independence have now been fatally impaired, and unless the Government are able to procure guarantees from the French that they will respect the integrity of the Siam that is left, and will give similar guarantees themselves, the buffer State, in so far as relates to Siam, will have totally disappeared. In any case it is certain that the neutral zone you are going to construct in the north-west will in no respect take its place. Your neutral zone, as I understand, is to be a mere strip of territory, which you are going to mark out with white paint, much as you might mark a crease upon a cricket pitch, and within which I do not suppose the French position will be more effective than would be the position of a somewhat weak batsman standing at the wickets exposed to the attack of a formidable bowler at the other end. The tendency to argue that if this neutral zone is constructed we may hold our peace and thank God that we have got a Government that has done so much for us shows the existence of a mere
      494
      vain delusion. If we are to come out of this lamentable affair with no better result than that, it will be regarded, if not by ourselves, by everyone else, as a painful exhibition of weakness. I come next to the protection of British trade and British traders in Siam. That interest is not one that is capable of being satisfied by the mere protection of British property or British subjects at Bangkok, or by the mere defence of British shipping in the river. The Committee must remember that, if Siam is considered as a commercial factor, far and away above any other interest is that of the trade of Great Britain. Of the whole export and import trade of Siam 93 per cent. is British, and the French portion is less than 1 per cent. Only one French steamer has plied between Saigon and Bangkok, and that was sunk the other day. At Bangkok itself, where you read in the papers of the passing of resolutions at enthusiastic meetings of French tradesmen, there are only two French tradesmen, one being a barber and the other a keeper of a knick-knack store. The entire export of the main products of Siam—its rice, its teak, and its pepper—is in British hands. The great commercial emporium of Singapore is to a large extent sustained by Bangkok, and the 200,000 Chinamen who live at Singapore in contented subjection to British rule depend for their sustenance on the rice which is floated down the Menam and shipped at Bangkok. The mines of Siam are for the most part in course of British exploitation, whilst the one considerable railway enterprise in which the Siamese Government have been led to embark—from Bangkok in a northeasterly direction to Korat—has been given to a firm of British engineers. These are no doubt somewhat tedious details, but it is necessary to give them in order to convey to the Committee the character of not merely the important but the overwhelming interest, nay, the monopoly of British trade which exists in Siam. When we hear that this interest is to be jeopardised and thrown away out of consideration for a French trade which has never existed and the establishment of which in the future the French national temperament renders impossible, emotions are aroused which cannot be regarded as satisfactory. What is the

      495
      attitude of the French towards the trade of which I am speaking? Wherever you get French and British competition you find that it is French policy, by whatever means in their power, to cripple and crush British trade. The absence of commercial attributes on their own part does not deter them for one moment from endeavouring to injure, and, if possible, to destroy, British trade in those parts of the world with which they are concerned, even if the process of destruction involves injury to themselves. Take the case of Saigon, the capital of French Cochin China. It was for some time a free port, and became a very flourishing and wealthy place; but as soon as the French realised that the bulk of the trade profits were going into the pockets of the British merchants they revolutionised their policy; Free Trade was abandoned, and the normal French barrier of a prohibitive tariff was raised, even though Saigon was drained of its life-blood in carrying out that policy. This will be the policy that will be pursued if the French have a free hand in commercial and fiscal matters in Siam. I hope Her Majesty's Government are already, or, if not, that they will become, fully alive to their responsibility in this matter; that where French Consuls are appointed in the interior of Siam to foster or protect French trade, which does not exist, they will be employed to protect British trade, which does already exist; that the Government will take very good care to maintain on our behalf the Most Favoured Nation Clause in accordance with the Treaty of 1855; that they will allow no tampering whatever within the Malay Peninsula, which distinctly falls within the sphere of British influence, and that they will require the fulfilment by the Siamese of the contract they entered into for the completion of the Korat Railway and other undertakings in which the commercial community is so largely interested. The fourth and last interest is far and away the most important—namely, the independence and integrity of Siam itself. It was in July last that Lord Rosebery said in the House of Lords—and it was repeated by the hon. Baronet—that the integrity and independence of Siam were matters of great importance to the British, and more especially to the British-Indian Empire,
      496
      and that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to their responsibility in the matter; and similar declarations of respect for the integrity and independence of Siam emanated from the French Foreign Minister. Whilst we have been disposed to give full credit to these assurances coming from both quarters, we have been confronted with the very remarkable facts that the French Government and the French Foreign Minister appear to have been engaged, step by step, in violating the very conditions which we believed they undertook to respect, and the British Foreign Minister, almost in the same breath that he declares that the independence and integrity of Siam are British interests, invites us to witness their progressive disappearance with almost Spartan composure on the ground that the minor British interests of which I have been speaking are not at stake. Surely, after all, the main British interest in Siam is the political stability of Siam itself. If you allow the power of Siam and of its King to be crippled, and the country to be under French protection, there will not be the slightest good in going out with your paint-pot to demarcate a neutral zone, or in insisting upon commercial equality for your merchants. I would point out that a Siam under French protection, either actual or nominal, must be an anti-British, anti-English Siam, and the only Siam that can possibly stand on its legs between France and Great Britain is a Siam whose borders are defined and respected, whose Monarch's authority within its borders is not challenged, and which possesses not merely the symbols, but the realities of independence. I hope, therefore, that in conducting negotiations Her Majesty's Government will not lose sight of this far larger question in the background, compared with which the question of a neutral zone is comparatively of very small importance. If we are to attach the credit which we desire both to the declarations of Lord Rosebery and the French Government; if Great Britain desires to maintain the autonomy of Siam, and if the French have no further designs on the independence of that Kingdom, there can be no reason why both countries should not join in a formal guarantee of the integrity and independence of the Siam that is left, which shall be equally

      497
      binding on both Powers, and shall enable Siam, even at this late hour of the day, once again to raise her head and take her place amongst the Kingdoms of the East. I await with interest "what the hon. Baronet will say on the matter; and although, I am sure, I do not desire for one moment to demand from him any relaxation of the diplomatic reserve he has so skilfully maintained up to the present, I hope that he will at once give us some assurance that this larger and Imperial aspect of the question to which I have alluded has not been lost sight of by the Government, and that in addition to counting up the gains and losses of the moment itself the Government will keep an eye upon a matter which intimately and deeply affects the future peace of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula.
      SIR C. W. DILKEreminded the Committee that negotiations were still pending in Paris, but, seeing the scant opportunity they would have in the Autumn Sittings of dealing with the question, he thought that the Government was taking a great responsibility, He was completely in accord with what had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey and by the late Under Secretary of State for India, as to either a buffer State or a neutral zone in Northern Siam. It was a mockery; but, on the other hand, its creation could hardly be said to be needed in the same way in which it was needed against Russia. France could only get to Siam by the high seas, and on the high seas she was at the mercy of England. She was in this respect in a completely different position from Russia, who was all but our Continental neighbour. The Government could make no statement with regard to Siam, inasmuch as negotiations were pending; neither could they make any statement with regard to a matter which was of high interest to many—Uganda—because they had not yet received Sir Gerald Portal's Report. With regard to Uganda, it was impossible the Government could take any final step until they had consulted the House of Commons. He wished to refer to another case of relations with France, in which, as in the case of Siam, it was possible that the French were trying to make themselves disagreeable to us. He meant the case
      498
      of Madagascar. He had never been able to understand why the late Government had gone so far out of their way in surrendering the independence of Madagascar. It was a country in which our trade was as predominant as in Siam; and it was a country in which British missionary enterprise had been more successful than in any other portion of the world. Fortunately for Madagascar, its capital was not on the coast like the capital of Siam. It was, therefore, difficult to march on the capital, and the French, when they invaded the island, had failed to reach it. A Treaty was signed by which the French recognised the sovereignty of the Hova Government over the whole island. This was a great concession on the part of the French, to gain which the Hovas agreed to entrust their foreign relations, but their foreign relations only, to France. The late Government having come to an agreement with Germany as to Zanzibar, which it was necessary to force on France, with whom we had a self-denying arrangement as to Zanzibar, recognised a French Protectorate over Madagascar. The present Government could not put them back where they stood before the late Government took this step. What he wanted to know was, how far the present Government was going in the same direction? He would ask what they were doing?—nothing, as he hoped. He would not go into the question of the revival of the Slave Trade on the coast of Madagascar in consequence of the Convention recognising a sham Protectorate, because that would arise upon the Slave Trade Vote. But he would point out that they had gained nothing by the concessions they had made. He could not help thinking that their pledges with regard to Egypt had something to do with bringing about bad relations between the French and ourselves, and that the policy pursued in Siam and Madagascar and with regard to Newfoundland was the answer of the French. In regard to our relations with Newfoundland, a matter which would be referred to on the next Vote, he knew nothing to the discredit of the Foreign Office, but thought that it would be an unfortunate thing if from any idea of proceeding with the arbitration to which the Foreign Office were committed by the late Government we should put further pressure on the colonists.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he had great pleasure in bearing his testimony to the admirable and efficient way in which the commercial work in connection with the Foreign Office was carried out, and he acknowledged in very handsome terms the services of Mr. Kennedy, Chief of the Commercial Department, who was about to retire. The Commercial Reports published by the Foreign Office were full of information. Their high value was recognised by the Chambers of Commerce of the country, and the more widely they were read the more they would be appreciated, and the greater would be the service they rendered. The extension and prosperity of commerce now largely depended on the policy and the action of the Foreign Office through the Consular Service; so much so that it had been stated by a high authority that commercial considerations had now become one of the most important features of the duty of a diplomatist. Several foreign countries had recognised this fact, and acted upon it by extending their Consular Service, and he hoped this country would adopt a similar policy. The point applied with special force at the present time to Siam, where their Consular representation might be wisely strengthened. Most of the import and export trade with that country was British and carried in British bottoms, and he desired to impress on the Foreign Office the fact that the Chambers of Commerce in the country were very anxious not only as to the protection of their present commerce in Siam, but also as to the action to be taken with a view to develop British trade in that part of the world. In these days of hostile tariffs and competition they must always look out for new markets, and when Siam was developed it would become a most important commercial centre for the trade of this country. Siam must, however, have a real independence, and there must be no interference with the advantage they derived from the Favoured Nation Clause, for without that clause their commercial position would be seriously embarrassed. He hoped the commercial interests at stake would be kept in view by the Foreign Office.
      MR. HANBURYrose—
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I do not wish, Sir, to exclude discussion on other subjects, but I think I am justified in asking the Committee to allow me to state at once the somewhat narrow limits to which I can go in dealing with this matter. In the course of the Debate some time ago on the Vote on Account I stated that the position of affairs was such that my language had necessarily to be guarded and restrained within narrow limits. I regret that that is still the case, and, while I have to acknowledge the forbearance of the hon. Member for Southport, I regret that it has not been further extended. As to the assurances given by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the French Government, it is true that the British Government took no part in the disputes between the French and Siamese while those disputes were confined to the territorial question South of the 18th parallel and on the far side of the Mekong; but directly the dispute covered a wider area, it was perfectly obvious to the whole world that the Government considered British interests were involved, for they entered upon negotiations with the French Government for the delimitation of a neutral zone. Hon. Members seemed to think that we went too far in relying on the assurances that were given by the French Government as to what the limits of their action would be, but the French Government contended that they were not breaking their pledges by their operations on the left bank of the Mekong.
      COMMANDER BETHELL: Which bank is that?
      SIR E. GREY: The Eastern bank. There is no difference, so far as I am aware, between the two Governments in holding that similar operations on the West bank would break the assurances given. The hon. Member for Southport admits that the Government have been prompt to take measures for the protection of British life and property at Bangkok, so I need say nothing more on that point. As to the question of the neutral zone, that is a matter which now forms the subject of negotiations, and it is consequently impossible for me to enter into details. Then there is the question of British trade at Bangkok, It is said that we

      501
      have a monopoly of the trade of Bangkok, but that is not the only place where Great Britain monopolises a large share of trade. I will only say, in reply to this question, that I read out to the House the other day the provisions of the Treaty between ourselves and Siam. I cannot conceive that more than one interpretation can be placed on the Treaty, and by reading it I did not intend to convey the impression that it was not meant to put it in force. With regard to the independence and integrity of Siam, I will undertake to say that no one can maintain that that independence and integrity have been violated in a way that affects British interests. No one can seriously contend that British interests or trade in Siam have been injured as yet by the action of France. Our trade is untouched, and the negotiations for a neutral territory are proceeding satisfactorily. But hon. Members opposite have been induced to bring forward this subject not so much because of what has happened in the past as because of their apprehensions of what may happen in the future. With regard to the future, I am sorry to say that, inasmuch as negotiations are still proceeding in Paris, I am precluded from saying more upon the subject than that Lord Dufferin has the fullest and most definite instructions for the protection of our rights in Siam, and to express a hope that the Committee will continue to place confidence in the Government. With regard to Madagascar, I have very little to say further than that the relations between the French Government, Madagascar, and the British Government have remained unchanged' since the present Government came into Office. We have conceded no point in reference to that country. The question is left absolutely as it was when the present Government came into Office. I have only, in conclusion, to express the great pleasure with which I heard the hon. Member who preceded me in this Debate refer, in words of the highest praise, to the way in which the Foreign Office is served by all those in its service, especially as to the commercial side of its policy. I endorse every word the hon. Gentleman said. I desire to express my gratitude, which is great in proportion as I am conscious of my own experience, to those gentlemen at the Foreign Office who by their energy, their
      502
      ability, and their industry have given me such invaluable assistance in performing the duties of the position which I hold. We do not in this country, under our present system, follow the example of some other countries in opening up markets by Reciprocity Treaties for our trade and commerce. We rely entirely on the great energy and ability of our commercial classes. We recognise at the Foreign Office that our duty is to clear the channels of communication and keep them open, relying upon the enterprise and energy of our commercial classes. That is the system which has brought to us so enormous a share of the trade and prosperity of the world.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the Committee would agree with the hon. Baronet that it was impossible for him to make public the instructions given to Lord Dufferin in regard to the negotiations which at the present moment were being carried on in Paris in reference to Siam. They on the Opposition side of the House were anxious to make certain that the Government fully recognised the extent to which British interests were involved in the maintenance of the independence and integrity of Siam. He did not think there was much in what had been said by the hon. Baronet in reference to Siam to quarrel with. But he felt bound to draw attention to one observation of the hon. Baronet, and that was that up to this time nothing had been done to impair either the independence or the integrity of Siam. That was an observation that he could not allow to pass without notice.
      SIR E. GREY: The hon. Gentleman has not quite caught my expression. What I said was that up to the present time the independence and integrity of Siam have not been violated in a way that has permanently injured British interests.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that he quite admitted the force of the hon. Baronet's qualification. It put the matter in a different light. He did not think they could fairly admit that the independence and integrity of Siam had been fully maintained, leaving British interests out of the question altogether, when they found that at present this so-called independent State

      503
      was not permitted to have a military force within its frontiers. When they found that some three or four of her islands had been actually seized by a foreign Power, and when they found that her ports were in the occupation of a foreign Power, he admitted at once the great difficulty the hon. Baronet had in making any further statement in the matter, and he would simply say, before passing from the question, that they desired specially to call the attention of the Government to the great extent of British interests in Siam, and to the manner in which these interests might be affected by agreements which might be entered into between France and Siam without our knowledge. He next came to the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to Madagascar. The right hon. Baronet had taken the line that the late Government had recognised a Protectorate which had no existence either in fact or in paper. What were the actual facts in regard to the matter? The facts were that after the war between the French and the Hovas in the year 1884 a Treaty was concluded, the first Article of which provided—
      "The Government of the French Republic will represent Madagascar in all its foreign relations. Madagascar abroad will be placed under the protection of France."
      He could conceive nothing wider than those words in the direction of giving a Protectorate to France in the foreign affairs of Madagascar. That Treaty was laid on the Table of the House by Lord Salisbury in March, 1886, and it lay on the Table of the House during the whole of that short Parliament, but, no exception was taken to it. Then, in the year 1890, Lord Salisbury's Government simply recognised the existing state of affairs. They entered into an arrangement with the French Government by which they recognised the Protectorate of France over the Island of Madagascar. His contention then and now was that the Treaty of 1890 did not go one step beyond the Treaty of 1886 between the French and the Hova Governments, and he hoped that the present Government would not go one step beyond the position in which they at present found themselves in relation to Madagascar. So far as his recollection went of the negotiations which had
      504
      taken place in the short time he had had the honour of being at the Foreign Office, he did not think there was anything in the Papers, which could not properly be laid on the Table of the House. The last Papers were laid nearly nine years ago, and as a great deal had happened since then, he thought another instalment of Papers on Malagasy affairs should be furnished by the Government. He was sorry to say he differed from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean with reference to the arbitration between the Colonies and France in regard to the Newfoundland fishery disputes. The right hon. Baronet had implored the Government not to go on with the arbitration; but he should be inclined to implore the Government to go on, for it seemed to him that until they got that one point settled it would be impossible to arrive at a solution, satisfactory or otherwise, of this difficult question, which had been pending now for so many years. It was true that the Colonial Government had protested against our going into arbitration on this point. The Colonial Government really desired that the Treaty of Utrecht should be ripped up, and that the whole question as to the right of France on the east and north-east shores of Newfoundland should be re-opened. The Government made such a representation to France, and it was not surprising that the French rejected it. France had its rights upon that particular coast, and whether Newfoundland was a British Colony or whether she was in a position of independence or whether she was joined to the United States, the rights of France would still attach to the particular coast. He said again that until they got this question as to whether lobsters were fish or not settled they could not make any progress in dealing satisfactorily with the cod fisheries, and other points of dispute between the two Governments. In the agreement for arbitration it was provided that it should be in the power of either the British or the French Government to submit further questions for consideration to the arbitrators. He desired to join with the hon. Member for South Islington and the Under Secretary in the tribute which they had paid to the gentleman who had served the Foreign Office with exceptional ability during a great number of years, and whose loss, if

      505
      he ever had to leave the Foreign Office, it would be extremely difficult to replace. During the short time he had been in the Foreign Office he owed a great deal to the assistance which he derived from that distinguished public servant, Mr. Kennedy. A Return might, he thought, be issued as to our position in relation to tariffs of foreign nations. He had received many inquiries from Chambers of Commerce as to the issue of such a Return. The last Return had been issued five or six years ago, many changes had since been made in the foreign tariffs against our goods. The work of preparing the Return would be heavy; but the materials for it must, he believed, be in daily use at the Board of Trade. He trusted that before long they might have the promised Paper in regard to Vitu. He thought that before deciding anything definite in regard to Uganda we should ascertain the position occupied by the British Company in the sphere of influence. The position of affairs in Samoa had gone from bad to worse, and he would like to be informed as to what had been decided in regard to Mataafa, and whether there was any prospect of a settled Government being carried on in Samoa?
      MR. PROVANDsaid, it was only becoming that someone on his side of the House should acknowledge the work which was being done by the Foreign Office, and which had been referred to by the Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit). He remembered that in 1885 and 1886, when Lord Rosebery became Foreign Minister, the delays in obtaining Consular Reports sometimes extended over two or three years, but a change came about during Lord Rosebery's administration, and since then these Reports, or extracts which were likely to be of benefit to the commercial community, had been furnished with commendable rapidity. For the last three or four years the Foreign Office had given them commercial information of a fuller character and with greater promptitude than was furnished by any other Government, and he thought that a Parliamentary Vote of Thanks should be accorded Mr. Kennedy and Lord Rosebery for the good work they had accomplished in this direction, and which, it was to be hoped, would continue and, if possible, be even
      506
      improved in the future. He should like to say a few works in reference to what had been said as to Saigon and the other French possessions. He had been for many years, and was still, connected with the trade of Eastern Asia, and therefore perhaps he might speak with the authority of one who had not only lived there, but had been actually engaged in the trade of that part of the world. France had done enormous work, and at very great cost, in trying to develop trade in Eastern Asia. Between 20 and 30 years ago the French established a line of steamers there to which the French Government gave an enormous subsidy, but these vessels were chiefly employed now in carrying British merchandise. The French trade, with the exception of the silk trade which they had with Shanghai, was a very small and trifling trade indeed. He had been astonished sometimes at the language of French diplomatists, journalists, and politicians. One would think, to read their statements, that the French had an enormous trade out in the far East, but as a matter of fact the most of what was said and written upon the subject was largely mythical, and French trade in the far East, as we understood the word, had practically little existence at all. There could not be any French trade in any ports in the East if trade was free, because it would pass into our hands or into those of the Germans, or would be taken by the Chinese, who were no doubt the dominating trading race of the East, and unless the French prevented us or the Germans or the Chinese from doing trade then it was certain they would get no trade for themselves. This was true of every place the French had in the East. When they obtained possession of any place they immediately sat down and concocted fixed regulations aimed expressly against ourselves, and if the first series of enactments or regulations were insufficient, they concocted a few more, and finally arrived at this state of things: that, whatever little trade could be done or was done, must filter through their hands. They must take a toll for everything done in the place, and unless they made the regulations he spoke of, they might as well leave the place, so far as doing any trade themselves was concerned. He desired to call attention to the position of two places

      507
      in the East which did a large trade with Siam—uamely,Hong Kong and Singapore. They were absolute commercial mysteries to all Frenchmen who had never lived there. These places, 40 years ago, had no existence as trading places at all. What were they to-day? Singapore was an enormous trading entrepôt for Java, Borneo, Siam, and the whole of the places in the Straits, and Hong Kong was an enormous trading port for the whole trade of the seaboard of China. Any person and any country might trade there. But that was not the French idea of trade at all. If the French were to obtain possession of these two places they would immediately concoct fiscal enactments with a view to direct the whole trade into their own pockets. If France were allowed to impose such fiscal regulations as these on Siam the trade of Singapore and Hong Kong would suffer materially. It was not that the trade would be done by France, but it would cease to be done at all; the little that remained passing into French hands, and the trade that we had, at the present time, connected with these places would be very seriously affected. Something like 83 per cent., or about four vessels out of every five coming to the ports of Siam wore under the British flag. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be able to give us an assurance that our interests would be amply protected in any arrangements that were come to. There was not the smallest doubt we should be able to retain the large trading business he had spoken of unless we were interfered with by France in the regulations which were now being made. He hoped the Foreign Office would see that whatever settlement was come to there should be nothing in it to prevent our continuing our trade relations, both by sea and land, between this country and Siam, and Singapore and Hong Kong.
      MR. HANBURYdesired to support the views which had been stated, more particularly by the Member for South Islington. Looking at this question of Siam almost entirely from a commercial point of view, representing, as he did, a manufacturing constituency very keenly interested in finding new markets for its trade, he should like to say he listened with great pleasure to what the hon. Baronet said as to the deeper
      508
      interest the Foreign Office was now taking in commercial matters. He could assure the hon. Baronet that if the Foreign Office acted firmly and vigorously where the trade of this country was concerned, they would have behind them such a force of popular support—from the industrial population—as perhaps no Foreign Office had ever had before. Referring to the subject of Madagascar, it struck him as a most peculiar fact that there should be this difference of opinion between France and England as to the proper interpretation of the Treaty relative to Madagascar. It seemed to him to be a loosely worded document, and it was quite clear that France, at any rate, did not quite take the view of that rather ambiguous phrase, "the Protectorate of the Island of Madagascar," which our Foreign Office then took, and which he hoped was taken at present. It was really a pity that the language of the Treaty was not less ambiguous, and it would also have been better if the Foreign Office had not lent itself to the French interpretation by withdrawing two Consuls from Madagascar somewhat, it appeared, at the dictation of the French, thereby implying that the French interpretation of that Treaty was the more correct one. As to the question of Siam, he wanted to press the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs for an answer on two points, which he did not think were necessarily confidential, and on which the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) asked for information. They were questions as to matters of fact. The hon. Member for Kingston asked for information as to how the indemnity was being paid by Siam, and whether it was believed that Siam would be able to meet the obligation that France was imposing upon her, and he also asked as to what information had been received with reference to the French entrenchments around Chantaboon. These were two plain questions, which could be answered without any disadvantage to the Public Service. The hon. Member for Kingston told them on the authority of a statesman well known and versed in Eastern affairs that the Most Favoured Nation Clause was really no protection for our interests in Siam against the kind of concessions that it was to be feared the French would be able to wring out of the Siamese. This statesman contended

      509
      that in the face of that Most Favoured Nation Clause the French would be able to treat with the Siamese in this fashion. They would say to the latter—"We shall not require the whole indemnity we are asking for if, in return for our not doing that, you will give us certain monopolies and certain concessions in your own country." It was maintained that it was perfectly within the obligations under which Siam rested towards us and the Most Favoured Nation Clause that she should come to some terms of that kind with France. It would be well to know from the Foreign Office whether, according to the interpretation they put upon the most favoured nation clause it was possible for the Siamese to treat with the French on such terms. In view of the fact that it was possible these concessions and monopolies might be granted to French subjects under French pressure it was important to show how vast were our interests in Siam, and how small was the French interest at the present moment. No less than 87 per cent. of the whole shipping in the trade to Siam was English shipping and of the remainders per cent. was German. The value of the English imports was 93 per cent., German 2 per cent. In value the English exports were 85 per cent., German 8 per cent. But there was something further, and that was that the greater number of the vessels carrying foreign flags were chartered by Englishmen, and the whole of the cargoes carried were English cargoes representing English trade. In contrast with all this, according to the last Foreign Office Report the French cargoes, both imports and exports, only amounted to 03 per cent., which was a perfectly trifling and ludicrous state of trade in comparison with that carried on by England with Siam. The mines in Siam, he understood, were in English hands. Taking the special exports from Siam, rice, which was the principal, was almost wholly in English hands; the tea trade was almost entirely carried on by English firms, and the paper and spice trade was in the hands of two English firms. Coming to the trade of cotton manufacturing, he was told that one-fourth of the whole import trade of Siam consisted of cotton manufactures, and the latest Report stated that the goods now sold were almost entirely of English
      510
      manufacture. This showed the enormous extent to which England was interested in this country, and although it was quite fair for the Under Secretary to say that hitherto English trade had not been much affected by what had been going on, still it was possible that if care was not taken as to concessions to France being outside the Most Favoured Nation Clause it might happen that a great danger would be done to English trade which represented three-fourths of the whole export and import trade of the country. He came to another matter connected with the trade in Siam which, prospectively at any rate, affected Lancashire considerably. He had been speaking hitherto of internal trade, but he wanted to say a word or two about external trade which might be opened up through Siam or Burmah with the South West of China. There was a teeming population there, and great openings for trade. It had been the object and desire of English merchants for a considerable time to get into this corner of China through the Burmese State. He fancied the road for a railway had been surveyed three times—namely, in 1866, 1869, and 1873. Of course, the annexation of Burmah made this route a great deal more possible. Whatever might happen to France in Siam, we could no doubt go a long way in the direction of the southwest corner of China through our own territories; but whether we were able actually to reach that south west corner of China through our own territories would depend a great deal upon what was done in Paris, and in the negotiation as to the Burmese Shan States. It was a question how far portions of these Shan States could be dealt with by Siam, or how far we could claim to have complete control over them. Unless we retained the power to go through certain of the Shan States, about which there was this doubt, the railroad could only be carried to a certain point, because it would then have to pass through a very mountainous district not under our control, and the whole of the trade would then have to be carried on by caravans. This would have the effect of making the carriage about £30 a ton—an almost prohibitory rate. So far as he was able to gather what the French were trying to do was this: Their railroad would run up the east bank of the Mekong,

      511
      and if they were able to run through the neutral zone they would be able to reach North West China by their own railway, and no doubt a good deal of the present difficulty had been caused in Siam by their desire to obtain this railway. He expressed the strong hope that the Foreign Office, in the negotiations that were taking place, would lose no opportunity of peeing that, even if the French did get this communication to the South West of China, that important district, teeming with population and presenting large openings for English trade, should not be shut out from us, and that we should be able to get this communication through the Burmese State which at the present moment there seemed some likelihood of our losing. He wanted to ask one or two other questions as to the closing of the trade in the Soudan, and also as to Nyassaland. With reference to the Soudan, he approached the subject entirely from the point of view of his constituents interested in the trade there. Until 1877 we acted on the idea that the only way of taming the Mahdi and his successor, Osman Digna, was to try and starve out that country. But in 1887 a better system was adopted, and General Grenfell and Sir Charles Hollis Smith, as representing the English Government out there, encouraged trade in every possible way. They had advanced to a station there in the west side of the mountains called, he thought, Boshee. The result was that the tribes were able to pasture on the mountains during the summer; they were bound to us very much by the fact that they received this protection from us, and they also acted as an advance post against raids from the Arabs from Khartoum and that side. But General Grenfell and Sir Charles Hollis Smith had been succeeded by other representatives, a now system was adopted and trade was closed under the somewhat mistaken idea that we should be able to starve out the people of that country, and so, if necessary, be able to clear the Soudan and go back as far as Khartoum; but that, he was told, was a wholly mistaken notion. What occurred was this: We had not been able to starve them out, it was clear, and two things had happened, one of which was very detrimental to the honour of this country. Undoubtedly we did give a pledge to the Arabs, and during the time of Sir
      512
      Charles Hollis Smith we practically contracted that we should protect them in future. Under his successor he believed they were disarmed; Osman Digna came down upon them, raided them, destroyed their crops, carried away their women, and we gave no protection whatever to these disarmed men. If that was true, it was dishonouring to this country. Speaking from the trade point of view, these raids tended to destroy what little civilisation there was in that country; it destroyed the people there, or, at any rate, it destroyed their crops, and consequently the opportunity of purchasing our goods by a people who might be very useful customers. Again, the policy of trying to starve out Osman Digna in the Soudan had entirely failed, for he was able to get supplies from the Masai; and the only result was that the Arabs whom we had disarmed and had pledged ourselves to defend had been raided, and the whole trade with the Soudan had fallen into the hands of Italian merchants. With regard to Nyassaland, he would point out the anomalous position which Mr. Johnston occupied there, being at the same time Portuguese Consul, British Commissioner, and agent for the British South Africa Company within the sphere of influence. He believed Mr. Cecil Rhodes, when he was last in England, spoke very plainly to the shareholders of the British South Africa Company to the effect that he had the reversion of Nyassaland, and that he was actually subsidising it at the present moment by paying for a large force of police there. This matter ought to be cleared up. He had received many complaints that so much power should be put in the hands of ft British Commissioner who was at the same time the servant of a Chartered Company; and he would like to know how far Mr. Johnston, in acting in this double capacity, was paving the way for Nyassaland to fall into the hands of the Chartered Company? He was no great believer in these Chartered Companies, and he was not sure they should find that this one was destined to be somewhat of a failure, as he was sorry to say the British East Africa Company had been. Before they gave extended powers to the British South Africa Company and allowed it to extend its territory so much, they ought to be more careful that it was

      513
      really a company with sufficient means to carry out the work confided to it. The Chartered Company claimed a large jurisdiction over Matabeleland and Mashonaland; but he was told the deeds and documents transferring to the Chartered Company the rights over these territories had not been handed over to the Chartered Company by the United Concessions Company from whom they acquired them; the Directors of the one Company being to a large extent Directors of the other Company. There were many things that required looking into in connection with the British South Africa Company, and he should like to know from the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether Mr. Rhodes was justified in telling the shareholders of the Company when he was last in London that he had the reversion of Nyassaland, and that he was actually subsidising it by finding a large force of police.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to refer to the statement that the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) made with regard to our policy towards Madagascar. The right hon. Baronet appeared in a new capacity. He (Sir Ashmead-Bartlett) remembered him well in the old days, when he represented the Foreign Office, and when he was always the defender and the advocate of France. The right hon. Baronet, according to the belief of the Opposition at that time, was the principal cause of the unfortunate policy of the Government of the day, which was based on the overthrow of the understanding with the great German Monarchies, and upon an alliance with France and Russia. There was no doubt that the Government of 1880 to 1885 was led into that disastrous Egyptian policy more or less by the influence of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet attributed the Protectorate of France over Madagascar to Lord Salisbury's short Administration of 1885–6.
      SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he did not attribute any French Protectorate over Madagascar to Lord Salisbury's Government. What he complained of was the terms of the recognition of the Protectorate. General want of confidence.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the right hon. Baronet was referring to the Treaty of 1890, which recognised the Protectorate of France over Madagascar; but he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) was referring to the Treaty of 1885, which was the result of the policy of the present Prime Minister's then Government. The Treaty of 1890 was practically but the recognition of the Treaty of 1885. What had happened since 1885 was simply the consequence of the ignorance and weakness displayed by the Government of the day. That Government made a great surrender in regard to British interests in Madagascar in allowing the French to do as they pleased. He would say that there was generally a want of confidence felt in a Government which had the present Prime Minister at its head. That want of confidence was nowhere more conspicuous than in the results which had followed upon the administration of foreign affairs by the present Government during the past twelve months. They had at the Foreign Office a man of great ability and patriotism; but, all the same, there was a fatal gloom overshadowing the present Government in their foreign relations. He did not say they were responsible for all the attacks that had been made on British interests in different quarters of the globe; but there was a general feeling abroad that when a Government, of which the present Prime Minister was the head, was in Office, British interests could be attacked with impunity. That feeling had been illustrated in Egypt. The pronouncement of the Leader of the House in 1891 with regard to the embarrassment and injurious character of the British occupation of Egypt led the French to attack that occupation, and to intrigue and manœuvre against us there, and so had necessitated the recent increase of our garrison in that country. The Prime Minister was the cause of all their troubles. Siam was another instance of the same disastrous influence. As the hon. Member for Southport had said, if the Government had before June informed the French Government that a moderate rectification of the frontier on the Mekong would not be objected to, but that anything which would cripple Siam, or would deal a blow at British prestige in the East, would not be permitted, the whole diffi-

      515
      culty with Siam would have at once subsided. What would the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have said had he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), or any hon. Member, got up in the House 10 weeks ago and said that the French would filch 75,000 square miles of territory from Siam; that the Siamese troops would be driven away from both banks of the Mekong; that the revenues of the richest Southern Provinces would be seized by France, and important strategic positions on the Gulf of Siam would be occupied by the French forces; that France would inflict a great blow on British trade, and that they would injure British prestige throughout the East? The Under Secretary and his Colleagues would have poured out the vials of scorn on him, and he would have been laughed out of the House. Yet every one of these things had happened. Questions were repeatedly put to the Government, and assurances were as often given that no danger was threatened to Siamese or British interests; but all these assurances had been falsified. The Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assured the country that the independence and integrity of Siam were objects of first-class importance to Her Majesty's Government. He did not know about the independence of Siam, but he thought, unless the present policy was reversed, that independence would exist only in name. With regard to the integrity of the country, there was not the slightest doubt that that integrity had been destroyed by the forcible transfer of the 75,000 square miles of Siamese territory of which he had spoken. Four-fifths of the export trade of Siam was in British hands, and any disturbance with our foreign Imperial trade inflicted an injury on this country, and especially on the working classes of the country. On this subject he should like to read a quotation from The Times' correspondent at Bangkok. He wrote in Tuesday's issue—
      "I must emphasise everything that I have hitherto telegraphed to the effect that it is England that is really attacked through Siam. Great Britain must harbour no illusions, as she has lost prestige in the East up to the present in this Franco-Siamese conflict. The letters which I have received from China and Japan clearly show this, and, as regards Siam itself, so far from British interests being considered as fully protected, I am in a position to state that
      516
      important British enterprises which were con templated here, and which would have given employment to labour and capital, have been abandoned owing to fears for Siam's future."
      That, he thought, was worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. With regard to our Indian Empire, he looked upon the influence which the weak and unsuccessful policy of the Government with regard to Siam would have on India as being probably the most serious phase of the whole matter. There was no use in our affecting an ostrich-like security while Russia was advancing on one side of India and France on the other. There was little doubt that France and Russia were combining their aims and their policy in Europe, and it was more than likely that they would also co-operate in Asia. He feared that unless the policy which the Government had pursued in the past was soon and completely reversed with regard to Siam, they would find ere long that the injury which had already been done to Siam, and the blow which had been struck at British prestige, would be very largely increased, and to an extent that might even menace our power in the East. He had desired to say a word with reference to the Pamirs, but at this late period of the evening he would refrain. He would only say that he hoped the Government were correct in the statement they made that the Russian force in occupation had not been increased, and that the promise of the Russian Government not to increase their force, or to fortify important Passes on the road to India, would be carried out.
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid that, interrupting the Debate on Siam, he would invite the attention of the Committee for a short time to the subject of the West Coast of Africa. They had heard many encomiums on the efforts and services of officials of the Foreign Office, both at home and abroad, and nothing he intended to say would detract from the value of those services. The action of the permanent officials had, no doubt, been dictated by the general policy that had animated the various Cabinets that had ruled over this country for the last few years. He desired to call attention to the monopoly which the Royal Niger Company had set up against the express words of their Charter granted in 1885.

      517
      This monopoly was exercised in a country comprising something like 500,000 square miles, and said to contain a population of 30,000,000. The district was not an entirely new one, so far as British trade was concerned, like other districts in regard to which Charters had been granted. It had been known to British trade for 50 years, and the British Government itself had been spending money there to the tune of £500,000. It was stated, when the Charter came before the Cabinet of the day, that the interests of all the British traders had been bought up, but that statement was incorrect, because within the last few months they had purchased the business of the African Association, which had all along protested against the Charter, and besides this Association there were about 12 other firms engaged in the trade. The petty native traders who for a large number of years had been trading up and down the river had according to Bishop Crowther, entirely disappeared, and the potash trade, which was at one time entirely in the hands of those native traders, who were agents for British firms, had been monopolised by the Company. Thus a trader writes—
      "We were not permitted by the Agent to leave Lokoja. From February to July, 1885, we were detained there, unable to obtain a passage for us and our potash, while the Company poured into Lagos some hundred tons to take advantage of the 'boom' then existing in that market."
      This was not a Party question, both Parties in the State having been responsible for what had occurred. The fact was that five or six years ago the colonising enterprise of recent years was not so distinctly manifest. Imperial federation was not so much talked about. Cabinet after Cabinet came into power, and while they could not deny the great British interests that existed up the Niger they had not the courage, as they should have had, to send out a representative of their own to organise and civilise the district, but through lack of courage they handed over to this company the duty that they themselves ought to have discharged. The Charter was granted, practically, without public inquiry and behind the backs of the Glasgow, Liverpool, and native traders, who, until it was established, had no knowledge that it was going to be granted. The Charter
      518
      stated that no monopoly should be set up, but the ink of the Charter was hardly dry when, in July, 1886, Lord Aberdare, at the annual meeting, had stated that the Company had set out with the full intention of trying to get a monopoly of the trade in the district. When a monopoly of this kind was set up enormous injustice was done to other traders. He distrusted the policy of handing over a great territory to a limited body of traders, believing that competition was far more civilising. Lord Iddesleigh, in November, 1886, through the Foreign Office, had stated that he considered the terms of the Charter were a sufficient guarantee against any monopoly and differential duty; but the Committee would see how little was the effect of those words. It was clear to everyone that when a person was Governor as well as a trader, he was at a great advantage over other traders. He could collect revenue from the outside trader; he could, and he (Mr. Lawrence) believed he did, in this case, pay backsheesh to some of the black potentates inland in order to induce them to bring down trade to the offices of the Company. It was clear that a monopoly, though protested against on paper, was certain to be set up in practice. A duty of £50 and £60 and up to £100 had to be paid for stations on the Niger. It had, too, to be paid in gold, and if the Committee remembered that at present barter was the sole method of exchange in the district it would be understood what a hardship it was to make these traders bring gold out from England. The Company had imposed very high Import and Export Duties, and a tax upon salt of 20s. per ton, while in the other African States in the neighbourhood it was 5s. a ton, and in the adjoining Niger Protectorate 4s. per ton. The duty on palm oil was 20 per cent. ad valorem, and on palm kernels 30 per cent. ad valorem. These Export Duties, which did not exist in other British territories, had been put on owing to suggestions thrown out at the Berlin Conference, to meet the special expenditure of keeping down slavery. He should like to ask the hon. Baronet to say, when he replied, what was the extra expenditure in putting down slavery that this Export Duty was meant to meet, and whether the expendi-

      519
      ture was as large us the amount received in duties. The result of the duties had been that in two years ending 1888 the export of palm kernels from Lagos dropped from 2,500 tons to 1,000 tons. The Committee would see, therefore, that the Lagos traders had just reason to object to the monopoly which, owing to the action of Cabinets at home, had been set up on the Niger River. If the Government at home had been content merely with having called into existence the Royal Niger Company, and had limited its trading to certain places, say, north of Onitscha, perhaps those he represented would not have asked him to specially draw the attention of the Committee to the matter; but the Cabinet of 1892 improved on the Cabinet of 1885, and had extended the area over which the Company ruled, handing over to them the Mahini country, a large and most fertile portion of the Oil Rivers district—about 90 miles of some of the richest territory in that part of the world. How was it that the Foreign Office permitted this to be done, notwithstanding that they had a most serious representation from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the Lagos traders against it—supported, too, by the opinion of Her Majesty's Consul resident in those parts? Those he represented believed that the extension of Sir Claud Macdonald's rule over the whole of that area would be of enormous advantage to the trading community. It would do away with the double system of duties obtaining there. At present, the charging of duties on goods going out of that territory would lead to confusion. The unhappy natives had no idea of customs houses, and would be easily placed in an interminable fog as to whether they were breaking the law or not. The country was riddled with countless streams which were the road ways of the district. Clearly it was expedient that such a district should be under one authority. He should be told that the Niger Company originally came into existence owing to the enterprise of our Gallic neighbours, who were going north, south, east, and west annexing territory; that the Company was chartered in order to secure possession of these territories to the British Crown. But, if so, he hoped the Committee would agree with him as to the reasonableness of the Company leaving the Claud Macdonald
      520
      territory and going farther a field, with all its advantages—its Imperial support and so on. It should leave, under the jurisdiction of Sir Claud Macdonald, the lower part of the river, which had long since been opened up to British trade, and which had been brought under British influence by Treaties made with Her Majesty's Government, direct through its own Consuls, and not in the least owing to the action of the Niger Company. Although this most successful government of the Oil Rivers Protectorate—which had immediately begun to pay its way—had been established, the district had been sliced off and handed over to the Royal Niger Company. He did not think this Company came to them with the cleanest of hands. They all knew that beyond seas many things were done by people who bore our name and sailed from our shores which could not be defended. He did not wish to believe that all the statements which came from these districts were true, but it seemed pretty clear that some very questionable things had been done by agents of the Company; and he should like to know how far they had been made the subjects of inquiry by the Foreign Office in days gone by? He believed there was a great deal open to censure in the early conduct of the Company. There was one thing which had been brought under his notice in 1885 and 1886. A few months before the Charter was granted an agent of the Company captured three children belonging to a certain tribe, and held them as hostages. The Company had written to the Foreign Office saying that the act was an exceptional one under an exceptional state of things. But after the three children were captured, and a white person was taken in retaliation by the natives, and kept in a black hole for some time, an agent of the Company was actually sailing by and taking no measures to secure this person's liberty. There were other stories of a sinister character, which had been narrated in the columns of The Liverpool Daily Post—a journal whose editor had been a well-known man in the House. It was stated in that paper that natives endeavouring to run the gauntlet through the territory of the Company had been shot at. He could not vouch for the truth of that, but this and the other stories to which he referred could easily be verified.

      521
      Then, again, the Company was surrounded with mystery, and its own servants were bound to secrecy as to its action under a penalty of £1,000. The clause in the contracts with their servants ran as follows:—
      "Mr.—agrees that he will not, either during the currency of this agreement or for a period of ten years after its determination, from any cause whatever, without the assent of the Company, communicate to the newspapers of Great Britain or other countries, or to any outside persons, official or private, any facts, whether commercial, industrial, scientific, or political, in connection with the business or administration of the Company, or the district occupied by the Company, or with those who shall have visited or become acquainted with it during his employment in the Company's service, and that he will not publish, or distribute privately, any pamphlet, book, or other paper disclosing any such facts, nor in any way knowingly induce any person, or persons, to carry on any occupation of profit within such districts. … The amount specified is by way of liquidated damages, and not by way of penalty, but any such payment shall not prejudice the right of the Company to restrain a continuance of such breach."
      Sir Claud, when Major Macdonald, had been sent out to inquire into the allegations against the Company, but his Report had never been published. He was afraid that many Foreign Office Reports were for the Foreign Office alone, and could not be published, but he had good reason to believe that many officials—not merely Major Macdonald—had several times brought to the knowledge of the Government facts which showed that the operations of the Royal Niger Company ought to be more carefully looked into than they had hitherto been. To his mind what should be done was this: some Crown Commissioner should be sent to reside in the district. Furthermore, in his opinion, the Company ought to be compelled to publish periodical accounts similar to those which were published by the old East India Company, showing the receipts and expenditure, both administrative and commercial. Administration and trading accounts should be kept rigorously apart. What the British East India Company were compelled to do under Acts of 33 Geo. III., c. 52, and 53 Geo. III., c. 155, he claimed that the Royal Niger Company should be compelled to do, because they had ousted all other traders from their district. This did not apply to the British South Africa Company, in whose territory there were no outside traders; but in the case of the
      522
      Niger Company the Government ought to require it to send up accounts of all their expenditure and revenue to be laid before Parliament. He had ventured to bring this matter before the Committee, because they had hitherto received no reply on these matters from the Foreign Office. No doubt it would be said that these Companies were the cheapest form of annexing territory to the British Crown, and that it did not matter in the long run which trader made the profit; but he felt convinced that, if they wanted to spread civilisation rapidly and to found it on a sound basis, the soundest policy was to allow competition to come in. That would be much more efficacious than the policy of tying the hands of traders by allowing a monopoly.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he had already trespassed upon the time of the Committee for some little space, but would now promise to be brief. He was glad the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Lawrence) had at last had an opportunity of bringing this matter before the House, though he was afraid he could not agree with the hon. Member in the view he had presented in regard to the action of the Niger Company. The hon. Member represented that the Government had handed over the administration of this vast territory of 500,000 square miles to the Niger Company. That Company, by pressing up the river, had enabled Great Britain to bring under her sphere of influence the vast territory in question. Liverpool merchants who traded with that part of Africa had not ventured up the Oil Rivers.
      MR. LAWRENCEsaid, that he knew of one firm which had been up there for 40 years.
      MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that his information pointed to the fact that at the time the Charter was granted to the Niger Company they had bought out every one of the traders on the whole river, and they had gone behind the Liverpool traders, who confined their operations to the mouth of the Oil River, and had pushed up to the east, and therefore it was not unnatural that a certain amount of trade jealousy should arise on the part of the Liverpool merchants as against a Company whose operations had proved to be eminently successful. His hon. Friend talked about monopoly,

      523
      but where was the monopoly? By the Berlin Treaty of 1885 the navigation of the Niger was open to all the world; therefore, the clients of the hon. Member were entitled to make use of it. And what duties were imposed on merchants? Absolutely none. There is not a single Import Duty imposed on any merchandise on the two rivers, except in the case of alcohol, tobacco, and war material. If the clients of the hon. Member wished to introduce those things into the country duty would have to be paid, but as to ordinary articles of merchandise—in which the hon. Member's clients probably dealt—there was not a single Import Duty of any sort or kind to be paid throughout the length and breadth of the dominions of the Chartered Company. According to the information supplied to him (Mr. Lowther), not only was there no monopoly, but the trade of the independent traders had actually increased in the district since the Niger Company had been granted a Charter. In 1886 the Niger Company had the whole of the trade; in 1887 independent traders had l–17th of the trade; in 1890 they had l–12th; and in 1891 they had l–9th. He did not feel called upon to defend the Niger Company, the Conservative Government having been in no way responsible for the granting of the Charter. While he was at the Foreign Office he came to the conclusion that the Company was doing a most admirable work, because they prevented any importation of spirits above the deltaic region, and in the lower regions had imposed a very high duty on alcohol. It had enormously developed the country in the time it had been there, and had acquired for British trade and influence this vast territory, which amounted to nearly 500,000 square miles, and which, if it had not been so acquired, might have been swallowed up by France 10 years ago.
      SIR E. GREYsaid, that in regard to the point raised in the first speech of the hon. Member for Penrith, as to whether any fresh Papers on Madagascar would be laid on the Table, he could not give an answer without further inquiry. The question had been raised in the House already this Session, and the consideration which influenced the Government in refusing to give them was that, affairs in Madagascar being still in
      524
      a critical state, even if Papers which might be produced had no direct bearing on the questions at issue, they might indirectly have some disturbing influence which it was not desirable to provoke. However, the point raised would be considered. The question of the Return of the tariffs of foreign countries would have to be considered by him with the President of the Board of Trade before a reply could be given. The Papers as to the cession of Vitu were in course of preparation, and he did not know why they had not yet been presented to Parliament. There had been no intentional delay in presenting them. With regard to Samoa there had, no doubt, been some trouble there, but there was no intention to inflict retributive justice on the person who was the cause of it. Mataafa was unfortunate; he did not happen to be the nominee of the Treaty Powers; and, secondly, he was not successful. He was placed on board a man-of-war, and it was for the three Treaty Powers to decide what should be done with him. He would probably be placed upon an island belonging to one of the Treaty Powers, where he would be secure, so far as Samoa was concerned. By his removal the Government of Malietoa had been strengthened, and it was hoped that affairs in Samoa might progress satisfactorily as soon as the new officials had arrived. With regard to Manicaland, the British and Portuguese Commissioners had met on the spot and had gone through certain delimitations, but failed to agree. The question of final settlement was now the subject of correspondence between the two Governments. Regarding the Soudan, he was as much against the policy of starving the Soudan as the hon. Member himself, but the question must depend upon the future influence of political considerations. As to Chantaboon, they had received assurances that its occupation was only to be temporary, while as to the Most Favoured Nation Clause, the Treaty was so distinct that the Government would be bound to see that no commercial advantages were given to other countries which would result in the exclusion of British trade. With regard to Nyassaland, it had been the object of the present Government to insure that its administration should be impartial as regarded the

      525
      various interests concerned, and the Government had hitherto made no change in the conditions under which it was administered. It should be remembered that in all new territories this country had to consider whether the taxpayers would agree to expenditure enough to take them over. If the British taxpayer was not asked to pay, they must be prepared for some anomalies in existing administration. As to the Niger Company, it had administered the territory over which it ruled well, and had raised no political complications. After the most careful inquiry it appeared that the Customs raised did not so much as cover the amount which the Company spent in administration. It was one of the few Chartered Companies which paid a dividend.
      SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, the Debate had been necessarily discursive, but beyond all doubt the most prominent subject before the Committee had been the state of affairs in Siam. In his humble opinion, the Committee ought to accept as satisfactory the statement made by the Under Secretary. He could not associate himself with the opinion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), as he did not believe that British prestige had been lowered in the East and in India by the occurrences that had taken place. We did not, and we never had, assumed responsibility for a protectorate in Siam, and he ventured to think our reputation was more likely to suffer from extravagant pretensions than from confining our efforts to our legitimate interests. The Under Secretary of State had accentuated the statement he made on a former occasion with regard to our great commercial interests in Siam and the Resolution of Her Majesty's Government to defend and protect them. He believed they might look with confidence to the Foreign Secretary to act up to the spirit of that statement, and they would pay careful attention to the result of the negotiations that were going on. He believed the Secretary of State had due regard to the interests of British commerce, for it would be not only a national loss, but a national disgrace to allow those interests to be injured or destroyed. The Committee ought to be
      526
      satisfied so far with the assurances of the Under Secretary.
      Mr. HANBURYrose—
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 140; Noes 55.—(Division List, No. 296.)
      Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported.
      Motion made, and Question proposed
      "That a sum, not exceeding £25,680, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Expenses connected with Emigration."
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to call attention to the position of affairs in Mashonaland. That position was critical, if not perilous, for British subjects and British interests. There were some 1,500 British subjects no w engaged in developing the resources of that distant, but most promising and naturally rich country. They were practically cut off from the rest of the British possessions. Hundreds of miles separated them from any immediate assistance which could be afforded either by the Imperial or the Colonial Government. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), in a speech he had made earlier in the evening, had attacked Chartered Companies. He (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) was sorry to hear that from the hon. Member, because if the hon. Member would carry his mind back to the latter portion of the last century and the earlier portion of the present century he would see that the East India Company, the great prototype of the present Chartered Companies, had done the greatest amount of good for the commerce and Imperial power of this country. The greatest commercial development of this country abroad had originated from the efforts of private individuals, working sometimes for their own hand and sometimes banded together as Chartered Companies. What was the

      527
      position of the British Chartered Companies in South Africa? They had been carrying on a great work of exploration and development in one of the richest territories of the world. A grave danger now threatened them. Lo Bengula, a powerful and savage Monarch, who could put from 15,000 to 20,000 armed men in the field, was dissatisfied with their progress, and threatened them with serious danger, if not complete destruction. Although the colonists might be able to defend themselves within Forts Victoria and Salisbury from any attacks by Lo Bengula's warriors, their work, their wealth, and their resources were of such a character that their retirement within the forts would practically ruin all their enterprise. Their work was twofold—mining and agricultural. There were no two forms of industry so open to destruction by an enemy as mining and agriculture. Everybody knew how easily crops could be destroyed, cattle carried off, and the machinery and appliances of mining ruined by an active enemy. Therefore, the retirement of the colonists within those forts would mean the practical ruin of their settlement and the destruction of their agricultural and mining enterprise, which were very open to the enemy's attack. The Government had assumed an unjust and illogical attitude towards this great British enterprise, for they had said to the Chartered Company that their forces, which would be adequate for the defence of the forts, but absolutely inadequate for the protection of the settlement from the raids of the Matabele, were not to undertake any offensive movement, but were to remain on the defensive. But the only practical way of dealing with the danger would be by a speedy movement of the whole of the British forces in Mashonaland upon the King's kraal. He had asked the Prime Minister the other day whether the defence of a position was not often best secured by offensive tactics. That statement was received with ignorant jeers by the Radical Party, and he was not surprised at that. The latest news from Mashonaland was that, in the opinion of Sir H. Loch and of the responsible authorities in Mashonaland, Lo Bengula was at the present moment temporising, because he had sent some 6,000 of his men on a raid into the Mashukuhunbwe
      528
      country to the north of the Zambesi, and until they returned he would be unable to take the offensive against our colonists. When that force returned Lo Bengula would be in a position to throw between 15,000 and 20,000 armed barbarians against the small body of 1,500 colonists in that distant country. What was the character of those Matabele? The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had tried to throw some responsibility on the late Government. "Though Lo Bengula's character was known," said the hon. Gentleman, "the late Government had some negotiations with the Potentate." He would venture to submit that that argument was wholly beside the matter. The hon. Gentleman had added that these raids of the Matabele, which used to be of a most destructive and horrible character, had practically ceased. But that was not so. The raids had been resumed in the present year, and had been attended with all the horrors of the massacre of the helpless Mashonas and the carrying into captivity of their women and children. Every British Government had at some time or other to enter into negotiations with Powers and Potentates whose character for humanity might very largely be disputed. The object of the late Government, as well as of the Chartered Company, in entering into negotiations with the King was to secure peace and order for the large districts which had hitherto been exposed to the raids of these savage tribes; and it was because that policy, which had been successful for several years, was now threatened with attack by Lo Bengula that he now brought the matter before the Committee. He would refer hon. Members who wished to know anything about the Matabele and their raids to the letters which appeared in The Times of that day and on previous days, the statements in which would be fully confirmed by everyone who knew anything about South Africa. He would read a few extracts from a letter which had appeared in The Times of August 29th, from the Bishop of Derry, whose knowledge of South Africa was derived from the most authentic sources—
      "The Matabele are descended from a Zulu tribe which emigrated in 1825 under Ummilhquiri, father of Lo Bengula. They form a military state or caste: they are soldiers, not for defence but for the raids upon feebler tribes for cattle, slaves, and especially women. Mashona-

      529
      land is the centre of their raids, their happy hunting ground. The Matabele loves to kill, lives to kill."
      The Bishop then went on to describe the raid of the Matabele. The kraals of the Mashonas were surrounded at night. In the morning the savages made a descent on them, massacred the men, and carried off the women, children, and cattle into captivity. A certain number of Mashona men were preserved in order to drive the Mashona cattle into the country of the Matabele, and when they arrived there these unfortunate men were brutally slaughtered before the eyes of their families. That happened this very year, and yet the Under Secretary for the Colonies told them that the raids were things of the past.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I did not say that. I said to a large extent.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the words "large extent" were not used by the hon. Gentleman, or, if they were used, they were used in such a way that the attention of the House had not been fixed on them.
      MR. S. BUXTON: The hon. Gentleman's question to me was whether or not I could say that the raids had ceased within the last few years. As a matter of fact, with the exception of the raid the other day, the raids are to a large extent things of the past.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid he differed from the hon. Gentleman as to his impression of what he had said on the subject. The cessation of these murderous raids was due to the policy of the late Conservative Government and of the Chartered Company. But what had happened this year in Mashonaland? In July one of Lo Bengula's impis raided the country, and many of the unfortunate Mashonas were massacred close to Victoria itself, and their women and children were carried off. Lo Bengula, when remonstrated with by the agent of the company, said that the Mashonas were his slaves, and that he had the right to treat them as he chose. For the last 50 years the unfortunate Mashonas have been subjected to this persecution, and thousands of them had been killed and their women and children made slaves. The country in which
      530
      these atrocities were being perpetrated was a country under British protection, a country in which the British flag was flying. It might be true that the Chartered Company were largely responsible for peace and order in Mashonaland; but it was impossible for the Government to repudiate the responsibility, which must in the last instance fall upon them for the protection of the British subjects in that country, and for the security of those who looked up to them for security. The Government had thrown upon the Company the responsibility of protecting British subjects within their territories, and yet had forbidden them to take aggressive action against Lo Bengula, which seemed to be the only effective method of giving protection to those who were dependent upon them for their lives. All that was asked was that the Company and the British settlers in their district should be allowed to deal a deadly blow at this barbarous and cruel tyrant, and thus secure Mashonaland for all time against the raids of the Matabele. When Lo Bengula's impis returned from the raid they were making against the Mashukuhunbwes it would be impossible to protect Mashonaland from the overpowering numbers of these savages should they attack the settlement. If such a thing occurred, Her Majesty's Government would have to bear the responsibility. The Government had adopted the very worst policy that it could adopt. They had adopted the half-and-half, meddling and muddling, policy which always characterised a Ministry of which the present Prime Minister was the head, and refused to permit the Company to adopt the only rational means of defending themselves against these raids. Lo Bengula claimed that the Mashonas were his slaves, and that he had a perfect right to carry off their cattle and their women and children. What were these Mashonas doing for the settlers? They were supplying the necessary labour by which alone the country could be developed; they acted as agricultural labourers and mining labourers in Mashonaland. These unfortunate people had taken refuge from Lo Bengula in their mountain fastnesses. They had been induced to come down from these fastnesses in the belief that they would be preserved from the cruelty of the Matabele under the protection of

      531
      the British flag. But they did not get that protection; they were still being raided by Lo Bengula. The Bishop of Deny in his admirable and eloquent letter well described the terrible results of these raids—
      "The Mashonas are absolutely necessary for the development of the country, whilst their extermination is growing nearer every year. The sight of gentle, unoffending servants simply hacked to pieces, their blood spurting over the Englishman's gown, or the Englishman's coat, is something too terrible for thought to dwell upon. This cloud, big with death, ever threatening to break into a fresh storm, and forming again and again, must be dissipated, unless the peaceful development of Mashonaland is to become impossible."
      The present condition of affairs was described in an extract which he would read from The Times newspaper—
      "Dr. Jameson, the Administrator of Mashonaland, who knows more about the situation than anyone, has declared the present position to be impossible, and says that it renders action of some sort imperative. Mining work in Mashonaland is suspended; the natives who supply the manual labour cannot be induced to come down from their fastnesses. Prospectors are obliged to remain within the protected area of the Company's occupation. On all sides the opinion appears to be gaining ground that a trial of strength between the forces of barbarism and civilisation in that part of Africa is becoming inevitable. Such a trial has in no way been courted by the Company. War is financially undesirable, and if the conflict could have been postponed for another decade, the Company would have been in a better position to enter into it with the necessary assurance of success."
      All this showed that a grave responsibility would rest on the Government if they adopted the policy they had announced to the House. Her Majesty's Government had no right to blow hot and cold in this matter, for it involved the well-being and prosperity of 1,500 British subjects, and possibly their lives as well. Either the Government should undertake responsibility for the protection of our fellow-subjects in Mashonaland, or should give the British South Africa Company a free hand in dealing with Lo Bengula.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, it was obvious that the Chartered Companies must be restrained by the Government to some extent; it was not less obvious that if war ensued the Imperial Government must sooner or later interfere to protect British subjects. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had that evening spoken of Chartered
      532
      Companies as excellent institutions, but in his own view the policy of colonising by means of such Companies was very doubtful. It might be that the accounts which had been referred to might turn out to be somewhat exaggerated, and it might even yet be found preferable to square Lo Bengula rather than to fight him. But whether that was so or not, he thought it was quite clear that inasmuch as the Imperial Government restrained the Chartered Company from taking any step which they have believed to be necessary for the safety of those over whom they ruled, obviously in some way or other the Imperial Government would have to come to their assistance in time of difficulty. He would suggest to his hon. Friend, who thought more vigorous action should have been taken by the Government that he should remember that if the Imperial Government was called upon to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the Chartered Company, it might have something to say to the Chartered Company about the chestnuts after they were pulled out. He would not now enter at greater length into the ethics of Chartered Companies. He would prefer to proceed, as formerly, by slow steps into a new country. That course was pursued in Nyassaland with extremely happy results; and, while upon this point, he would like to ask that more frequent Reports might be published as to the condition of this part of Africa. Although he would have liked to have had some discussion before Parliament closed on certain important questions connected with Uganda, they could not well discuss anything until the Papers relating to that part of Africa were before them.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I want to say a word or two upon questions relating to African colonisation, but before I do so I would like to say that I am also very much interested in another Colony—the Bahamas—the discussion in regard to which, I believe, will be raised by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. It is quite as much for the convenience of the Government and the Committee as for ours that we should separate what we have to say and keep each subject distinct; but, of course, if the Government are going, without giving us the slightest warning, to move the Closure at some early period, then, of course, it will be

      533
      necessary for us to deal with the various subjects together. I do hope that the Under Secretary will take this opportunity of giving the Committee in some detail the opinions of the Government upon the whole question of Chartered Companies, which is a subject of the utmost importance, and has, within the last few years, received great development. The Chartered Company of Borneo has, perhaps, been made a precedent, which has been largely followed in the case of Africa. I am not prepared to say that this is the best policy to follow, and experience must have shown that there are great difficulties connected with it. On the other hand, there is much to be said in its favour. If we are to proceed with that policy there ought to be some continuity, and some rule ought to be laid down as to the responsibility of the Imperial Government in connection with Chartered Companies. There is no advantage at all in Chartered Companies unless you intend deliberately and permanently to throw upon them the responsibility which you have committed to their charge. You say to a Chartered Company—"We give you powers to provide for the peace, order, and good government of the land which we trust to your care," and then at the very first opportunity, the moment there is any trouble in the land, there is at once a demand upon the Imperial Government that they should interfere, and, apparently, the Imperial Government drifts and drifts until at last it does interfere. We have, therefore, all the disadvantage with regard to Chartered Companies, all the trouble and risk, and none of the advantages. I think that is altogether a mistake. For myself, I may say that I have not seen reason to doubt that the system of Chartered Companies might have been a very good system, at all events, in the early days of the colonisation of these countries; but, as I have said, you should make an arrangement with a Chartered Company and stick to it. You must say to them—"You have the responsibility, and you must take it up. If you go into a country you must take the risk." In the case of the British South Africa Company, I am not aware that they have even disputed this responsibility, or their readiness to fulfil their obligation; but then the Government comes in and interferes with them,
      534
      and when the Company, which, by the way, had asked for no assistance, proposed to take a forward movement or an aggression, as it had been called, but which was really a defensive movement, as he understood it, against this Chief Lo Bengula, then the Imperial Government steps in and says, "You shall not move an inch without consulting us: you are not to take the only true method of protecting the people who look to you for protection; you are not to take the only reasonable method, which is to punish Lo Bengula for his aggressions." If the Government was going to take the responsibility of saying—"You shall not punish Lo Bengula for his aggressions," then all I can say is that in that case the Government will have a very heavy responsibility if any massacre of either native or European subjects of Her Malesty took place. I think the Government ought really to state the matter plainly for the information of the Committee. We ought to know exactly what our relation is to these Chartered Companies. Are they practically independent bodies? In that case let them take the responsibility, and then they will have no claim on this country; but if the Government resolve to interfere with the policy of the Companies, we shall be answerable for any failure of that policy. I hope we shall have a clear statement on this subject.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I do not think the Committee will expect me on this occasion to enter at length into the question of Chartered Companies generally. We have Chartered Companies in various parts of the world. So far as the Colonial Office is concerned we have only one in any sense under our control; the Foreign Office have four or five, and I do not think it would be expedient on the present occasion that I should attempt to lay down any principle which ought to direct the Foreign Office, as well as the Colonial Office, in dealing with these Companies. But so far as the British South Africa Company is concerned, the position is that they acknowledge themselves to be entirely responsible both for the administration and the protection of the territory over which they have control, but in their Charter, as regards any question of dispute between

      535
      them and the chiefs in their territory, there is a distinct clause which enables Her Majesty's Government, if they think fit, to interfere in that dispute and to forbid the Company taking a forward action, or to come to some arrangement with them in regard to that particular matter. Government are in communication with the Company in regard to the dispute with Lo Bengula, and they have made no complaint whatever in regard to the attitude Her Majesty's Government have taken up. They have declared themselves perfectly competent to look after their own protection, and they have declared themselves very well satisfied with the moral support which we have given them.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What is the moral support?
      MR. S. BUXTON: The moral support is that we have, as regards the posts of danger in Bechuanaland, sent up more police, and we are prepared in that sense to show Lo Bengula that, as far as we are concerned, he cannot attack our territory with impunity. It has been assumed that the Company are in a position to attack Lo Bengula at the first moment. That is entirely and absolutely incorrect. The Government are, of course, bound to take an interest in the action of the Company, and what we have done so far as regards their position is simply this—we have said that at the first moment they should not make an aggressive movement on Lo Bengula without our knowledge and authority. A good deal has been said about Matabeleland and Lo Bengula and his raids, which I do not desire to defend; but I think we ought to require two things. In the first place, these raids are no new thing, and, in the second place, as regards the raid the other day, Lo Bengula declared that he sent the impi in order to punish the Mashonas, partly on our account—because they had stolen some telegraph wires—and partly because he wanted to get back some cattle that had been stolen. I think it is quite clear that this impi did largely exceed his orders, and that they were very severely punished by a large number being killed.
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (interposing): What was the subsequent statement?
      MR. S. BUXTON: His statement was that which we have always admitted
      536
      —namely, that the Mashonas were his subjects. We have always admitted that they were his subjects, and his statement that they were his slaves was another way of saying that they were under his jurisdiction. What I wanted to point out was this: at the present moment, whether as a matter of right or wrong, there can be no justification on the part of the Company for an aggressive movement which the hon. Gentleman is so anxious should be undertaken, and where also, quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the case, at the present moment they are not in a position to make it. And, so far as we are concerned, we are not going to be rushed into another South African War. We feel it is only right and just from the point of view of Imperial interests as well, I am bound to say I think of the interests of the Company themselves, that they should not by a forward movement, without proper support, be allowed to suffer some reverse which might raise a very large number of native troops throughout other parts of Africa against the white men. We are, as far as we can, desirous of ending this dispute in a peaceful way; we are very anxious to take no more risks than we can possibly help, but at the same time the Government are fully aware of the responsibilities which they have undertaken by forbidding this forward movement. They believe that is the right policy. They know that at the present moment the Chartered Company themselves are in accordance with the action they have taken, and I can only say in the very delicate position of the question at the present moment that remarks such as those of the hon. Member are, in my opinion, very mischievous and highly inexpedient. [Sir E. ASHMEAW-BART-LETT: Which remarks?] The observations which the hon. Member used more than once, that in his opinion we ought to allow and encourage the Company to attack Lobengula whether right or wrong—[Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I said nothing of the kind]—or whether they are likely to be successful or be defeated. These remarks are so much in accord unfortunately with the views of persons on the spot—but not with responsible people in the Company—that I fear unless a strong expression of opinion in this House is made, they

      537
      may easily rush us into this war which we are very anxious to avoid. I hope, at all events, that we may be able to avoid any difficulty with Lo Bengula, and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the Company and these Colonists have been very fortunate in having had up till now a very easy and peaceful time, and I do not think on the first difficulty which arises that they ought to complain, or that they ought to call upon Her Majesty's Government to support them in their aggressive movement. We are prepared to defend the territory for which we are responsible; we are prepared to do our best to avoid difficulties of this sort, and the Company themselves declare that in their opinion they are quite prepared to meet any emergency. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, while we fully feel the responsibility of any action we may have taken in the matter, we believe that such action as we have taken has been in the interest of peace and in the interests of the company themselves, and we believe that if a difficulty arises we shall be in a proper and right position to meet and deal with it. With regard to what has been said as to further Papers on this and kindred matters, I have in the last day or two laid some Papers on the Table, which I hope will be printed and circulated in a very short time. As regards the question of Swaziland, I think hon. Members will feel that it will be more convenient to discuss that question when we reach it in the ordinary course; and if hon. Members desire to speak on it they had better do so on the special Vote instead of mixing it with other questions.
      THE CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID,)called upon Sir C. Dilke, when—
      SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid: I desire, by way of personal explanation, to say that the Under Secretary has very considerably misrepresented what I have said. I did not advise a forward movement. I said that the Government had no right to throw all responsibility upon the Chartered Company, and at the same time forbid all offensive movement. The first I knew of the forward movement was the statement by the Government that they had distinctly forbidden a forward movement. With regard to the statement of the hon.
      538
      Gentleman, in my opinion, on the whole, not unsatisfactory, and if his answers to my questions had been in the same sense, the House would have been spared much of my remarks to-night.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that this is more than an explanation.
      SIR C. W. DILKEcalled attention to the action of naval officers on the Treaty shore of Newfoundland, and said it would be impossible for Parliament to impose its will upon any other Colony which had responsible and representative institutions in the manner in which it had attempted to do in the case of the self-governing Colony of Newfoundland. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had been reported to have said, in reply to a question, that the recent extraordinary action of the naval officers was in pursuance of a discretion conferred by Treaty. He had afterwards explained that he was misreported and had not said "Treaty." But the discretion alluded to was not contained in any Statute, and it appeared to him that the powers which were exercised by the naval officers were outside any law. Turning to the Blue Book which had recently appeared, he said that the first action taken by Lord Ripon in the matter, to judge by a telegram sent to the Colonial Government, went in the same direction as that in which the late Government had gone in their dealings with the colony, only the language was still more peremptory. In the telegram Lord Ripon threatened that Her Majesty's Government would be compelled to resort to coercive Imperial legislation. The whole question now in dispute arose out of the meaning to be attached to the words saying that we should not molest or interfere with the French fishery in the Royal declaration attached to one of the Treaties. The British contention was that we had a concurrent right of fishery on that part of the Newfoundland shore upon which the Treaty of Utrecht had given the French the right to land and dry fish. That part of the coast was an integral portion of the Colony and it returned two Members to the Colonial Legislature. It had not been until the lobster fishery commenced, in the year 1882, on the Treaty shore, that conflict arose on the French Treaty rights. In 1887 the French naval officers began to cut the nets of British

      539
      fishing boats that were engaged in fishing off the Treaty shore, and to remove British lobster pots, and so did that which our Government had declared that they had no right to do. He denied that Newfoundland had been unwilling to carry out Treaty obligations, and declared that if, instead of a feeble colony, they had had to deal with an Australasian Colony, no attempt would have been made to bully the Colony or to propose Imperial coercive legislation, as had been attempted in the case of Newfoundland. He did not think that it was to the advantage of the Colony that arbitration should take place upon the limited subject to which it was confined, and as regarded which it constituted a partial admission of a monstrous claim. He did not wish to interfere with the Treaty rights, but in their protection of the French they had gone far beyond the letter of the Treaty. They had prevented their own Colonists from making use of their own country, and it was because he felt that they had gone much too far that he ventured to call the attention of the Committee to the matter.
      MR. A. C. MORTON MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough) rose to Order.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, there was no question of Order involved, and called upon
      COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT, who had risen simultaneously with Mr. Morton. The hon. Member said that, having been recently in Newfoundland, he would impress on the Government how deeply the Colonists felt upon this question, and how necessary it was to arrive at a settlement.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he did not intend to detain the Committee unnecessarily, but he was of opinion that they ought to protect the British citizens in Newfoundland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had stated that the colonist desired to "rip up" the Treaty of Utrecht. That was not so. The Newfoundlanders had stated distinctly, through their Delegates who were here in 1891, that they desired and were willing, to purchase the French rights, whatever they were, at a fair price. And all that they asked of the British Government was that, as Newfoundland was a poor Colony, the British Government
      540
      should lend them the money at a low rate of interest, and he (Mr. Morton) was assured that the Newfoundlanders would pay both interest and principal of such a loan. He (Mr. Morton) did not think much of the proposed Arbitration. After all, it would only decide whether a "lobster" was a fish or not, and would leave the main question undecided. On the whole, he (Mr. Morton) thought it would be just as well to drop the proposed Arbitration altogether, and to approach the French Government in a friendly manner with a view to settle the question finally by purchasing the French rights; and it was admitted that the French people had rights on the Newfoundland coast. Until that was done the "Newfoundland difficulty" would never be settled. And he (Mr. Morton) earnestly hoped that the present Government would do their best to get the matter settled. He (Mr. Morton) had by several questions called the attention of the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Buxton) to some grievances of the Newfoundlanders, but the replies were not very satisfactory. One of those matters was with regard to the naval officers acting as Magistrates in questions affecting the rights of the colonists. What the Newfoundlanders said was that they had Magistrates and Courts of their own on the land, and they objected to their citizens being tried in secret on British ships without any chance of their being properly represented or protected by publicity. He (Mr. Morton) hoped that the Government would in this matter allow the colony complete Home Rule. Then there was the question of Admiral Sir B. Walker, and the compensation cases. He was informed that the Admiral had evaded service of the writs which had been issued against him. That, if correct, was a disgraceful state of things, and should not be allowed by the British Government to exist for a single day. Surely the British Government could appoint some respectable solicitor at St. John's to accept service of these writs, and allow the Supreme Court to hear and settle these cases. In this, as in other matters, he (Mr. Morton) hoped that the Colonial Office would do their best to remove the grievances which were properly complained of, and do justice to our oldest colony.
      SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, as he understood the matter, there were three points of complaint. The Colonists complained that the Government here had decided against them without fairly considering the position of affairs; that by the Treaty the French had the right to put up temporary buildings only for the purpose of curing cod, whereas they had put up most substantial factories in order to do something else; and further, that the British Government did not protect them against the French, who destroyed the nets and implements of the local fishermen, although they had at least equal rights with the French to fish for Crustacean as well as for cod. He thought the Admiralty might easily give instructions to the Naval Officers to prevent the French from taking the law into their own hands. He could not see the object of arbitration. What was the point for arbitration? Was it whether a lobster was a fish? If that were determined, how would it settle the dispute? He agreed with much of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke), and he thought it was only fair to the Colonials that they should be consulted with reference to what should be done in these matters affecting themselves.
      MR. S. BUXTON: Three points have been raised, and I shall deal with them in their order. With regard to the objection as to Justices of the Peace for the Colony, they were appointed at the request of the Colony; and as soon as the Colony is able to appoint local Justices, the Government will be glad to relieve these officers from a position which they do not desire. In many parts of Newfoundland they have been of great advantage to the inhabitants, who have approved of the bulk of their actions. We cannot now go back, and we are bound by the Acts that previous Governments have for many years passed. As to the question of coercing the Newfoundlanders, I can only say that England has always sympathised with their difficulties, and has made attempts in a sympathetic and liberal spirit to meet their views. In 1857, in 1864, and in 1874 action was taken, and the difficulty with France as nearly as possible concluded; but, unfortunately, the Newfoundlanders rejected our proposals, and no settlement was arrived at. As to the
      542
      question of the particular matter to which the permanent Act will apply, I admit to the full it is a limited reference which goes to the Board of Arbitrators; and I think every one of us—certainly Her Majesty's Government—would be only too delighted if every one of these difficult and anomalous French Treaty questions could be referred to arbitration and settled by definition. Unfortunately you cannot go to arbitration unless both sides are prepared to do so. The late Government more than once approached the French Government with a view to seeing if all the questions at issue would not admit of arbitration. The French Government, however, have refused to arbitrate on all the points, and I think we shall all agree that the present moment is not at all a favourable one to meet the French Government with a view to complete arbitration. That being so, and the position being an anomalous one, it appears to me better to have these small questions arbitrated upon than to allow them to add to the friction already existing. I can only say that we have endeavoured, and will still endeavour, to meet the Newfoundland Government in the most friendly spirit we possibly can. The Despatch referred to, which I am glad to think the hon. Member regards as an advance in the right direction, was written with a view to getting them to send a delegation over here to discuss the question, and to show that we, as far as we could, consistently with Treaty rights, were ready to meet them in regard to their own local matters. We trust that they will endeavour to meet us in the same spirit, so that this section of the matter may be removed as one source of friction with France. That is the position so far as we are concerned. We are anxious to settle this section of the matter.
      SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, that during the five years he was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs this question had constantly occupied the attention of the Government. Nothing could be a greater mistake than that which appeared to dwell in the mind of the hon. Member for Peterborough—namely, that the late Government—and he supposed he could speak also for the present Government—were in any way indifferent to this question,

      543
      because Newfoundland was not one of the largest Colonies, or its people one of the most numerous and best able to make their voices heard. On the contrary, this question had occupied an amount of attention out of all proportion to its magnitude and the size of the Colony, or the interests involved. As the Under Secretary of State had said, it was a matter of great difficulty with which, after all, two great Powers were concerned, each tenacious of the privileges and rights of its subjects, involving questions as to which there was considerable difference of legal interpretation. He had been surprised at the remarks of the hon. Member, but he had been still more surprised to hear from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke), who had had large experience in connection with foreign affairs, and who, he freely admitted, was a very considerable authority on many points of foreign affairs, arguments which showed such a total disregard of the rights and susceptibilities of other Powers. When the right hon. Baronet deprecated arbitration and said that we had the rights of our Colonies to protect, and that they should be left to manage their own affairs, was it possible that he was ignorant of, or indifferent to, the position of the French Government on this question? How was it possible that one nation—still less a colony of a nation—could judge its own cause? Where there was an International difference for one Power to say—"These are our rights, and these we will maintain," is nothing less than saying—"We will go to war unless our view is accepted." Was it to be supposed that the French Government would tolerate an assertion by us of the right of the Colonists of Newfoundland to say what was the interpretation to be placed upon certain Treaties, and to what extent they would carry them out? It was evident that the responsibility rested with the Power who made the Treaties, and that it was the duty of that Power to see that they were carried out. The British Governments had been far from indifferent to the susceptibilities of the Colonists. They had run considerable risks of difficulty with the French Government, and he was bound to say that the French Government had been forbearing in the
      544
      matter. To say that we could permit a Colony to ignore obligations under which it lay, to interpret a Treaty for itself and disregard the rights of France under that Treaty, seemed to him to ignore and disregard the plainest principles of International Law. The hon. Member for Peterborough said—"Why go into arbitration about the matter of lobsters?" There were a school of politicians who said—"We ought to go to arbitration upon all matters of International difference;" but when it came to any particular point that had to be arbitrated upon they said—"You have no need to go to arbitration." It was perfectly impossible to contend on the one hand that arbitration was the course in all cases of difficulty, and then to decline to go to arbitration because it did not suit them to do so.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: I never said that.
      SIR J. FERGUSSON: But the hon. Member said that some way of settling the matter ought to be found with the French Government. Well, the only way of settling a dispute was to go to an International tribunal, and that Her Majesty's Government had been willing to do. But here arose the difficulty. They had to consider the limits and grounds of arbitration. Neither Power was willing to refer to arbitration what it regarded as sovereign rights. The French asserted their right to something like concurrent possession of the Treaty shore with ourselves, and to build salmon weirs on the streams—they did build them, in fact, and they had to be removed. The French would like us to refer to arbitration whether they had a right to do such things, and whether they possessed concurrent rights on the Treaty shore. This we could not allow. Neither would the French Government submit to arbitration matters they considered to be their undoubted rights under the Treaty, consequently the Reference had to be narrowed to the limits we had stated. Novertheless, there were some questions of principle here involved, because, if the curing of lobsters, which was not an established practice when the Treaty was entered into, lay within the right of "drying fish," then it might follow that the necessary buildings must be put up for the purpose. A good deal depended on that question. He had only risen to

      545
      point out how vain and futile it was to say that they could leave to the Colonies the right to settle affairs that were matters of International arbitration. We could not deal in amity with a foreign Power with whom we had contracted International Treaty engagements were we not to charge ourselves with the fulfilment of those Treaty obligations, and were we not ready to settle by arbitration matters we could not settle by diplomacy.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was unable to agree with the strictly official view put before the Committee by his right hon. Friend opposite. The right hon. Gentleman was bound by his responsibilities to support the view taken by successive Governments, and to accept the view which had been stated to the Committee by the Under Secretary. When he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) was in America, dealing with a fishery question of a different kind, he had had the opportunity of making the acquaintance of some of the foremost Representatives of the Colony of Newfoundland. He had entered into conversation with them on this subject, and had learned a great deal about it. He confessed he had come to the conclusion which had been so well stated to the Committee by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Those who heard the right hon. Baronet would say that these discussions in Supply were not purely obstructive. The right hon. Gentleman had given an account of this dispute with regard to the lobster fishery on the Treaty coast of Newfoundland, which had been accepted by the Under Secretary of State as substantially correct; and what was the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman drew from the statement—a conclusion which must have been accepted by everyone who heard him, and who, at the same time, was prepared to accept his facts as correct? It was that the French had extended their rights under the original Treaty and under the King's Declaration until they were now claiming more than either in equity or in law they were entitled to. The Newfoundlanders, according, to the right hon. Baronet, were absolutely right in their contention. What was to be done? It was suggested by the Government that they
      546
      should be forced to arbitration because the Colony would not go willingly. The right hon. Baronet said there were certain questions affecting territorial rights which were not fair subjects for arbitration. "Suppose," he said, "the French claimed a Treaty shore on the Isle of Wight, would you go to arbitration on a claim of that kind? Clearly not. Why should you go," said the right hon. Member, "to arbitration on a similar question because it happens to affect a Colony?" Under these circumstances, they arrived at this conclusion—that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, they could not admit the claim of the French—they could not go to arbitration. What was the alternative? Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to go to war? Really, this was very important. This question had been raised by two supporters of the Government who belonged to the New Radical Party. Whenever people came forward to defend the rights of the Empire, and the property of the Empire, they were accused of being Jingoes at once; but here were two hon. Members, belonging to the New Radical Party, who pressed on the Government a course of action which meant war if it meant anything.
      SIR C. W. DILKE: If it is put tome as a question, I say we have no demand at all to make on the French. We have simply to remain in possession of the rights which we have. If he asks me whether I think there is any risk of war in that I say no.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had not asked any question of the right hon. Baronet; but he was prepared to give way to him at any moment he desired to make a further statement. As he had said, he was in agreement with the right hon. Baronet; but he wanted to have a clear understanding as to the position of the new Radical Party on the question of Treaty rights, for it seemed to him that it must inevitably lead them into war. The right hon. Baronet said it would not lead to war, but that was simply the right hon. Gentleman's ipse dixit. It would not lead to war if the French Government gave way; but how did the right hon. Baronet know that they would give way? What authority had he to speak for the French Government? He said we had no demand to

      547
      make on them, but at the present moment French officers were cutting the nets of our people, they were preventing the establishment of railways and of local communication, and interfering in many ways with the territorial right of our Colonists. And were we to sit still? "No," said the right hon. Baronet, "we were to give instructions to our Naval officers to prevent the French from doing these things." But what would be the result of that? War. ["No, no!"] It was absurd for the right hon. Member to interrupt him and to say that it did not mean war with France. What was the alternative? It was repression—to say to the Newfoundlanders—"You are a small Colony; you do not interest us. It is true you are the oldest of the British Colonies; but as a pecuniary matter, if we strike a balance, we shall not be the gainers by your possession; and under the circumstances, if you do not take our advice and give way to the French, though we admit that you are right and the French are wrong, we will not protect you, and you must workout this question for yourselves." This was really a most important question, on which it was well he should clear their minds of cant, and to have a clear notion of what their policy should be. This was a case in which his right hon. Friend would, he thought, be prepared to say—"Our honour in this matter is concerned, and we are bound to accept even the risk of war in protecting our Newfoundland Colonists." If the right hon. Gentleman said that, he would not say that he (Mr. J. Chamberlain) should not be inclined to support him; but, then, do not let the new Radical Party accuse him and his friends of being jingoes. The other alternative was to say to the Colony—"Go, in Heaven's name, and settle affairs with the French!" That was the position taken up by the hon. Member behind him.
      MR. A. C. MORTON: No, no!
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member's desire was to repeat his statement.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he objected to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying about him. He (Mr. Morton) had stated in his speech that what he desired was that they should approach the French Government in a friendly way with a view to purchasing their
      548
      rights. He had said that the people of Newfoundland had stated distinctly that they were willing to pay for these rights.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the proposals of these amateur diplomatists were most ridiculous. The view now put was not that put by the hon. Member in his original speech.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had put that view.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member proposed that they should approach the French Government in a friendly way and say—"You are absolutely wrong; you have no rights. Now, what will you take for your rights? "It was well-known that the French would not sell their rights; but if they were prepared to do so, it was equally certain that any price they put on them would be much larger than Newfoundland could afford to pay. Newfoundland was a miserably poor Colony, with a population of 300,000 or 400,000. But did the hon. Member propose to put the expenditure on the British taxpayer? They had seen no inclination on the part of the new Radical Party to spare the British taxpayer; but he confessed it would be another thing to be carried to their credit if they required Parliament to pay for the extinction of rights which did not exist. This discussion threw light on many interesting questions. It threw light on the foreign policy of the new Radical Party and on their self-governing legislative policy and their policy with regard to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and the veto of the Crown. In the case of Newfoundland there was an undoubted and unimpaired and indefeasible supremacy of the British Crown; the Imperial Parliament had a veto over the legislation of the Colony, and yet here was a case in which a small Colony refused to carry out the Treaty engagements of the Imperial Power, and the right hon. Baronet said that he and a great number of his friends would do everything in their power to prevent the Imperial Parliament from exercising the supremacy of the British Crown and from vetoing the concurrent legislation of the Colony.
      SIR C. W. DILKE: I am loth to interrupt my right hon. Friend, even when he refers to me as speaking for the new Radical Party, though I have spoken simply for myself. I repudiate the sug-

      549
      gestion that I would back up the Colony in refusing to carry out Treaty engagements.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was well aware that the right hon. Baronet contended that the French had no Treaty right, and that they were wrong in their claim. But the position of the Government was the reverse of that. They admitted the claim of the French as a subject of contention which they were willing to submit to arbitration. How was supremacy to be exercised over Newfoundland when they found a powerful Party led by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean ready to use all the Forms of the House to prevent it?
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he wished to repudiate a great deal that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had said. He believed that the French had Treaty rights; so did the Colonists, and they had no desire to rip up the Treaty. They were willing to buy the French out. With regard to the practicability of this purchase, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that the United States purchased two of their present States—one from France and one from Spain—and that within recent years they had bought a large tract of territory from Russia. Surely the British Government could do something of the same sort. [Cries of "Divide!"] It was nonsense to talk of the "new Radical Party" as desiring to carry out a Jingo policy. They had no such desire. What he desired was that whatever rights the French had we should purchase. There was no question of war in the matter, because all these things could be settled if the Government wished it in an amicable manner. [Cries of "Divide!"] The Under Secretary had said that the cases he (Mr. Morton) had brought under the notice of the Colonial Government were mares' nests; but judging from the reply of the hon. Member he, at least, did not seem to think so. The people of Newfoundland did not think so. It had been admitted that there was something in some of the cases; but it was contended that the matter could only be settled by the Government. This was, unfortunately, the way in which the Colonial Office had generally treated the Colony. Whatever complaints were
      550
      made they were almost always said to be "mare's nests," and until they could induce the Colonial Office to adopt a better mode of dealing with the questions, difficulties would be constantly arising. [Cries of "Divide!"] He contended that it was the duty of the Colonial Office to arrange with the British Admiral as to accepting service of writs. He (Mr. Morton) had a letter from a Member of the Assembly of Newfoundland, in which he stated that he had taken out a writ against Sir Baldwin Walker, but had been unable to serve it because he had left the country. Six other cases had been sent to him, in one of which the claim was for 2,000 dollars; but Sir Baldwin Walker, although he had been in the country, had evaded the service of the writ by only coming on shore on Sunday, and getting away to his ship before the time at which the writ could be legally served. He (Mr. Morton) did not wish to concern himself in any dispute between the Colonial Office and the Admiralty; but he trusted that care would be taken to appoint someone in Newfoundland to accept service of the writs. ["Divide!"]
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion which has taken place has been no doubt interesting and important; but I think it will be felt that it has now reached its natural termination. [Cries of "Oh!"] I understand there are still several questions to be raised under the Vote in regard to other Colonies than those that have been dealt with, and I think the Government might now consent to report Progress. [Cries of "No!"] I beg to move to report Progress.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope the Committee will be disposed to sit a little longer. I believe that the other subjects to be discussed will not take long, and seeing that the Government have obtained only two Votes in the past two days—the Home Office Vote yesterday, and the Vote for the Foreign Office to-day—I think the House should go on a little longer. [Cries of "No!"] Do hon. Members opposite think that one Vote a day is a satisfactory rate of doing the large amount of work yet before them?

      551
      In these circumstances, I think we should go on with Supply.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the time which has been occupied on this and the preceding Votes had been unreasonably long. If he will look back at the record of the proceedings of previous Parliaments he will find that, by comparison, the time which has been occupied on these Votes has been extremely limited. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that two days for discussion on the Home Office and Foreign Office Votes is a very limited amount of time compared with that occupied on those Votes last year. The Foreign Office Vote, which has been closured after four hours' discussion, has usually taken two nights; and it must not be forgotten that we have yet to discuss the Report of the Supply taken last night. There are many important questions to be raised on the Votes, and it is only in Supply that Members find their opportunity of criticising the policy of the Government. I do not think there is any desire to discuss unimportant Votes at undue length. All we ask is that discussion shall not be cut short by the arbitrary action of the Government.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Dealing only with our discussion to-night, I would point out that at least two or three of the important questions which have come before us have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman's own side. I would also point out that Members—notably the hon. Member for Camberwell—who sit on the Liberal side of the House, who have given notice of their intention to bring forward certain matters under the Foreign Office Vote, have left the House under the impression that there will certainly be no opportunity of discussing them after 1 o'clock in the morning. One question to be raised of which I know something myself has to do with the Bahamas. I think that out of courtesy to hon. Gentlemen who have put down these notices we should not attempt to proceed with the Votes at this hour. When we were discussing the conduct of business, the Prime Minister, in answer to a statement of mine, which was to the effect that under the new Rule it was intended by the Government that we should sit up every night until 1 o'clock in the morning, distinctly repu-
      552
      diated any such idsa. My right hon. Friend has spoken as though we were only going at the rate of one Vote a day. I would point out that on Tuesday the Government obtained no fewer than five Votes, in addition to which they have since obtained the whole of the Home Office Vote, the Foreign Office Vote, and have now pretty well got through the Colonial Vote. Most important questions have been discussed, including Siam, Madagascar, and the raids of the Matabele. Any one of these subjects at an earlier period of the Session would have been good enough for two days at least, whereas we have got rid of half-a-dozen in a few hours. Any reasonable person who takes note of the number of important subjects which have been discussed during the past two days will at once be ready to admit that no time has been wasted. The Government may do what they please, but they cannot get this Vote. In view of the Opposition, it will only be putting the House to unnecessary trouble if the Government force us to go to a Division.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Member for West Birmingham a short time ago expressed his desire to bring forward the question of the Bahamas. All that the Government desires is that the right hon. Gentleman will bring that question forward now.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Not at 1 o'clock in the morning.
      COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was aware of the fact that the hon. Member who intended to raise the question of the Bahamas was not present. He had gone away, believing that the Vote now under discussion would not be passed to-night. He (Commander Bethell) and other Members had understood that after the question of Newfoundland had been dealt with Progress would be reported. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to that course.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Do the Government propose to take the postponed Resolution relating to the House of Lords to-night?
      SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: That will occupy some time.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 133.—(Division List, No. 297.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the Motion with reference to which notice had been given should be brought on tonight. I have already pointed out that, as regards the Motion in which one of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters are interested, it is impossible for that gentleman to bring it forward, because he has gone home. As regards the matter that I am concerned with, no doubt its discussion will not occupy much time, but it is a subject when there could by no possibility be any reference to it in the public Press. The matter concerns the administration of justice in the Bahamas, and it is a subject that is of intense interest to the Colony, at all events, and which cannot be reported in the Press at such an hour. At all events, I do not choose to let it come forward without the possibility of its being reported. It is now 25 minutes past 1, and the Government have still, by the necessities of the case, to deal with the Report of Supply, including the matter on which they sustained a defeat the other night. I think it is asking too much that we should proceed with the ordinary work of Supply. Understandings entered into with the Prime Minister appear to me not to be worth anything at all. He goes away—["Oh, oh!"]—and his Lieutenants will not keep his engagements. ["Oh, oh!"] But I will not press that point. I quite understand that the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer are part of the policy of bullying the House of Commons. Well, we have resisted that before, and I shall continue to resist it to the end. Under any circumstances I beg to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I will not discuss the question in the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, who says he does not choose to let the Committee discuss a certain subject. Whose language, I should like to ask, is the language of "bullying?" The right hon. Gentleman's is not the tone that I hope any gentleman uses on these Benches. I only ask, in the interests of all parts of the House, and in view of the late period of the Session, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should do what they can to facilitate the despatch of Public Business. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the question on which he desires to speak will only occupy a short time, and it seems to me, therefore, that his only fear is lest posterity should lose the benefit of the speech he is prepared to make. That is, no doubt, a very important matter. I should be very sorry that future generations should not be able to study that oration. Informer times we used to consider 1 o'clock an early hour, and I am told that in another place, where they are not so anxious about the preservation of their orations, they are still debating. If the House of Commons considers itself physically weaker than the House of Lords, and is so much more solicitous about the reporting of its speeches, it will be useless to protract this struggle, and I do not propose to do so. I would, however, express a hope that on other occasions these questions will be approached in a different spirit from that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I entirely share the wish of the right hon. Gentleman that questions of this kind will hereafter be treated in a different spirit. As the right hon. Gentleman has given way I will not follow him in his extremely insolent remarks. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in describing the observations made by a Member as "insolent remarks?"
      THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear, the words. If the right hon. Gentleman did use them they are not Parliamentary, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of withdrawing them.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have great pleasure in withdrawing the expression, in accordance with your ruling, and I will substitute another word which has been admitted to be in Order, and say, instead of insolent remarks, venomous observations. I must protest—[Cries of "Divide!"]—against the misrepresentation of my language; and again I say that to treat a question which is of the greatest importance and interest to one of our Colonies—[Cries of "Divide!"]—at half-past 1—["Divide!"]—when there can be—["Divide!"]—I say to treat the affairs of an important Colony—["Divide!"]—I say to allow—["Divide!"]—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. J. CHAMBEBLAIN: To allow a matter which interests an important Colony—["Divide!"]—to be discussed at half-past I in the morning, is to show great want of respect to that Colony.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—put, and agreed to.
      Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—.REPORT.
  Resolution [6th September] reported.
  SUPPLY—.REPORT.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS II.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £56,697, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
      Resolution agreed to.

    SUPPLY [5th September]—REPORT.
    Order read, for resuming Consideration of Postponed Resolution,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £22,595, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had intended to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could not see his way to postpone the consideration of this Order to next Monday. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to do so he would have complied with the wish of a large number of his supporters in the House. There was a feeling abroad that the subject of this Vote required a great deal of discussion, and that it was ridiculous for this popular Assembly to supply the means to "another place" to enable it to defy and impede their legislation. He believed that though they might not be able to do it this Session, the time was not far distant when the feeling to which he referred would assert itself by Constitutional methods, and the infringement of the liberty of the people would be resented by cutting off the Supplies. In view of the late hour and the late period of the Session, and of the other business the Government had to do before they broke up for the short vacation, he did not propose to enter at length into the subject to-night. At the same time, he did not think he would be doing his duty if he allowed the Vote to pass without attempting further to reduce it. Though they carried a reduction in the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments by £500 the other evening, there was a strong feeling that this official was not the worst feature in the long list of sinecurists in the House of Lords, and that the case of "Black Rod" was even worse. In addition to the salary he received as Black Rod, this gentleman was on the Pension List as a retired Admiral, and was furnished with an official residence.
    SIR W. HARCOURT SIR W. HARCOURT rose to Order. It was not at this stage possible to move a further reduction of the Vote without re-committing the Vote.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." That Question having been proposed, no further reduction can be moved.
    MR. SEXTON: In view of that, Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon. Friend would effect the purpose he had in

    557
    view by dividing against the whole Vote.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had consulted what he had thought was a considerable authority on the subject, and had been told that he would be in Order in moving a reduction; but as Mr. Speaker had ruled him out of Order—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: He has not ruled that.
    MR. SPEAKER: A reduction can be moved to a Vote on Report; but in this case no Notice of Motion had been given, and no hon. Member rose to move; therefore I put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry he had not announced his intention to the Speaker. He, however, was willing to accept the situation as it stood. He would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Friend, and signify his protest by opposing the entire Vote.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid, he thought it was understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a statement as to the course it was intended to take with regard to the reduction carried upon this Vote in Committee.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think there is any course to take except to agree to the Report on the Vote as it was passed the other night. I have been in communication with the House of Lords to see what can be done in reference to the Vote. I hope that some arrangement may be made; but I am not able at present to say whether it will be possible. All that I am at present able to say is that we must take the Vote as passed in Committee.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had great pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor.) They had stood a great deal during the past few months in the shape of threats from the House of Lords, and now he thought was the time when they must do something more than merely remonstrate. It would be understood that the Division would be taken as a protest against interference with the rights of
    558
    the people on the part of the House of Lords, and not that it was intended to deprive the officers of that House of any salaries or wages that might be their due.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government must support the Vote. It may or may not be that this House will ever come into conflict with the other House of Parliament. If it does, this is not the way in which the battle will be fought. If we have differences to settle with the House of Lords, they must be settled in a very different manner to reducing the Votes for Clerks. The Vote was reduced the other night on the ground that the salaries of the Clerks in the House of Lords were too heavy, a view that hon. Members may hold very fairly. But I must protest against the notion that if we have a Constitutional issue between the House of Commons and the House of Lords it can be fought on such a battle-field as a Vote for the salaries of Clerks.
    MR. SEXTON: We who are Irish Members consider first our duty to the people of Ireland. I cannot forget that before the Home Rule Bill was drawn and introduced into this House the Leader of the House had the audacity to declare in public that the Bill, whatever it might be, would be rejected by the House of Lords. In face of that declaration, I consider that any opportunity for attacking that institution in any form is most opportune.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Peterborough, who had said that he had no wish to deprive any officers of the House of Lords of the salaries due to them, that if he supported the Motion the hon. Member would refuse payment of all salaries whatever.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: No; we have given a large amount on account.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSwished to say that when the proper time arrived he would be prepared to take his share in any conflict with the other House if the necessity arose, but he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that conflict should be fought out in some different fashion than that now proposed.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is useless to argue with hon. Gentlemen who take the line that on account of political differences with the House of Lords they would refuse to vote money towards its establishment. But I would ask the House generally to consider the somewhat undignified position the House would place itself in if it adopts this Motion. Some time ago objections were raised to the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, and a Committee of the Lords was appointed by the late Government to consider the matter. The House of Lords freely entered into the feelings of this House and proceeded to reduce the salaries to the scale of the salaries of this House—[Cries of "No!"]—I think it will be found that reductions amounting to £7,000 have been made in the House of Lords, and on the expiry of the tenure of the present holders of the office the salaries will be reduced to the same scale as the salaries of corresponding officers in this House. I think that every Member who desires to maintain the honour and dignity of the House will vote against the Motion now before us.
    MR. PAUL: As I object to voting a single sixpence to the House of Lords for any purpose or under any conditions, I will most cheerfully support my hon. Friend opposite if he goes to a Division.
    MR. LOGANsaid, that as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, if the Motion went to a Division he would consider it his duty in the interests of his constituents to protest against the House of Lords by voting for the Motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 63.—(Division List, No. 298.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Education (Scotland) Acts with respect to the age for attendance at School." [Education (School Attendance) (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend Section 10 of 'The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890.'" [Companies (Winding-up) Bill [Lords.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN) BILL.
  That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Bill, to which this House has disagreed.

  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 447.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.—(No. 199.)
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [21st March] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  NAVAL DEFENCE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 450.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) BILL.—(No. 332.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords.]—(No. 453.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [Lords.] (No. 457.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at five minutes after Two o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
SAT FIRST.
The Marquess of Normanby, after the death of his father.
GOVERNORSHIP OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWasked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for the Colonies (having given him private notice of the question) whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to agree to the proposition which it was understood had been made by the Colony of South Australia, to the effect that no successor to the present Governor, the Earl of Kintore, should be appointed, but that the functions should be discharged by the Chief Justice of the Colony?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON): My noble Friend the Earl of Kintore, has, I am glad to say, consented to prolong his stay in South Australia. Some time ago I heard, to my surprise, that the Earl of Kintore thought his term of office was only five years, whereas, as the noble Earl knows, the office of Colonial Governor is held for six years. When I heard that I have communicated with my noble Friend, representing to him the strong desire of myself and the Government that he should remain the full term of six years, and assuring him of the confidence of Her Majesty's Government and of their recognition of the ability with which he has discharged his duties. I am happy to say that at considerable personal inconvenience the Earl of Kintore has consented to remain until the expiration of his full period of six years, and, in these circumstances, therefore, the proposition of the Government of the Colony falls to the ground.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 265.)
Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, read.
Debate resumed accordingly.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in the observations which I mean to address to your Lordships on this occasion I shall endeavour to keep in mind that we are now concerned with the principles, and not with what may properly be called the details of this measure. But in this case the principles are very large and very far-reaching, and it might be possible sometimes in dealing with such a Bill as this to make a confusion between matters of principle and matters of detail. All I can say is that I will try to avoid this. The first observation which I think it right to make is that the title and the Preamble of this Bill are essentially misleading. The title is "An Act to Amend the Provision for the Government of Ireland." The Preamble is that
"It is expedient that, without impairing or restricting the supreme authority of Parliament, an Irish Legislature should be created for such purposes in Ireland as in this Act mentioned."
It might be thought that we were dealing with a question of which the purview was confined to Ireland. That is very far from the case. The real nature of this Bill is to establish a brand-new Constitution of a kind for which no precedent is to be found in the history of this country, in the history of any of its Colonies, or, I believe, in the history of the world, not for Ireland only, but for both branches of the United Kingdom, on this side of St. George's Channel as well as upon the other. Nothing can be more puerile or more futile than to speak as if anyone could reasonably vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, as simply affirming some abstract notion or principle of giving some form or other of Local Government to Ireland, whether to a greater or less extent. When you have a new Constitution put before you, you should look round it and ascertain the true character and bearings of that Constitution, and examine everything which throws light on that question. I will first address myself

363
to the question, what would be the effect of this Bill upon the Union between Great Britain and Ireland? Your Lordships will see delicate phrases employed, and the words "United Kingdom" occur not infrequently; but what is the United Kingdom which would be left if this Bill were passed? Let us look at both sides. In Ireland there will be, I will not say a new Queen, but our Queen in a new position and new capacity, as the head of a new and different system of Government from that of which she has been the head before—and a new Parliament—not, indeed, called by that name in the Bill. That is one of the disguises which we may perceive here; but if I may venture to prophesy—I will prophesy as little as I can—but I do prophesy, that when this scheme comes into operation, if ever it does, the form and style of the Acts of the new Legislature will run in this fashion—"Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, with the assent and consent of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ireland in Parliament assembled." There is not a word in the Bill to prevent it—there is every possible motive for doing it, and I am so bold as to prophesy that it would certainly be done. Well, after all, that may be matter of name and of form; but it would correctly represent the substance, and the distinctions of phraseology affected by the Bill make no difference in the substance of that which this Bill creates—a new Parliament of Ireland consisting of two Legislative Chambers, an imitation in form of this Legislature, of which your Lordships are part. Then there is to be an Irish Ministry, and all the Executive government in Ireland is to be handed over to that Ministry. What is left of the existing Union after that arrangement, except rags and tatters, to cloak the wrong which the provisions of the Bill would inflict on Great Britain? Well, my Lords, I will take first the effect of the provisions of this Bill, if it should be passed into law, upon Great Britain. In the new scheme there are to be 80 Irish Members in the British Parliament. That scheme in its working form in the Bill was, if, I am rightly informed, never discussed or considered, never resolved upon by any deliberate vote in the other House of Parliament. The Schedule which contains it is
364
among those parts of the Bill which were excluded from all debate and all consideration. What is the scheme? There are to be 80 Irish Members sent to the British Parliament, one or more of them from every Irish county or borough, even, as was noticed by my noble Friend Lord Camperdown last night, from Galway, Kilkenny, and Newry, not one of which three boroughs has as many as 2,000 electors. But the University of Dublin is struck out, I may safely say the most intelligent of all the Irish constituencies, and the best qualified to contribute wisdom and instruction to the deliberations of the British Parliament. Why is it left out? Is it from a preconceived opinion that Universities ought not to be represented in Parliament, and that an opportunity may be found in this Bill to put in the thin end of the wedge for that purpose? I should have suspected that, but for the fact that the University of Dublin is to have a place in the new Irish Legislative Assembly, where its wisdom perhaps may not be as fully appreciated as it has usually been in this country. Well, but I have not done with the scheme; because, though I do not attribute great importance to any details of the Bill in comparison with its principles, yet they throw some degree of light on the animus with which this part of the Bill has been conceived. What is the manner in which these 80 Representatives are to be chosen? At present every county in Ireland is so divided, that each elector has only one vote for one division, however many Members the county in the aggregate may return. That system of distribution was deliberately established, both for this country and for Ireland, as recently as 1885, with the full consent of the present Prime Minister and many of his colleagues. But under this new scheme that system of distribution is entirely reversed, and under this Schedule all those divisions of counties are swept away and abolished. In all the 22 counties which are now to return some three, some two Members each, the matter is so arranged that the aggregate of the whole representation is thrown into a single focus, so that one man is to have three votes in some counties and two in others; and that proceeding comes from a Government which, in the same

365
Session and in the Queen's Speech, among other measures, recommended for the consideration of Parliament a Bill for establishing equality of the franchise by the limitation of each elector to a single vote. I come to the principle of the retention, under the circumstances which this measure would create, of 80 or any other number of Irish Members in the British Parliament. I attribute so much importance to this, that perhaps I may be pardoned if I deal with it in some detail. I regard this question as vital, and so does the Home Secretary; for upon the Second Reading of the Bill, on April 14, he said—
"For my part I regard the question of the retention of the Irish Members as vital to the Bill."
He added that he did not think it signified much how it was done. My view, on both points, is opposite to his; but we agree in regarding the principle as vital. I observe that last night the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon), addressing the Opposition, said—
"You objected to the removal of the Irish Members in 1886, and now you object to their retention."
That is all he thought it worth while to say upon this subject. Whoever objected to the removal of the Irish Members in 1886, I certainly was not one of them; for, feeling then as I do now the enormous magnitude of the Constitutional principle and the practical consequences involved in the retention of the Irish Members under such circumstances as would be created in Ireland by this Bill, I publicly protested against it in the strongest possible terms, using words which I will now venture to quote. I pointed out the manner in which I conceived such an arrangement must work, and how the upshot of it would be to afford a chance to the Irish of becoming our masters as well as their own; concluding thus—
"That any ordinary Englishman or Scotchman with ordinary spirit and intelligence, and without any unpatriotic purposes, should wish or consent to bring about such a state of things as this, seems to me nothing short of political madness."
Those were my words addressed to the British public in May, 1886, and I repeal them now. Did I stand alone in that view? The Duke of Devonshire in more that one speech referred to those words, and
366
said he saw no answer to them. What is the effect of this arrangement? Your Lordships all know it, but no harm can be done by bringing into prominence, over and over again, the importance of so vital a matter. I distinguish for the moment Imperial or quasi-Imperial from domestic affairs. As to Imperial or quasi-Imperial matters, this arrangement enables these 80 Irish Members, or a majority of them, in any case of political difficulty where Party feeling in England runs high, and in which the numbers which divide a majority from a minority are not overwhelming—in every such case it will give them a casting vote, and enable them to turn the scale and the balance, whether as to peace or war, as to foreign relations, as to naval or military establishments, or as to the constitution of the Administration which is to govern the affairs of this country. Have you given any such power over Imperial affairs to your great Colonies of Canada or Australia—Colonies which, without disrespect to Ireland, may be well excused if they think themselves not less important parts of the British Empire? If such a thing ought to be done on principle, how could it be refused to them? But neither they nor anyone else has ever supposed that any principle required it, and reasons of Constitutional importance have prevented it, with their full consent. Then with regard to domestic affairs, what is to become of the principle that taxation and representation go together? Under this Bill, as it stands, these 80 Irish Members—as to whom you will have renounced practically and for all purposes, except such as might occur in case of civil war or insurrection, the power of domestic government, the power of legislating for Ireland, and the power of taxing Ireland—are to come here and to tax the inhabitants of Great Britain with burdens in which they will have no share. They are to be brought in to turn minorities into majorities, for the overthrow or change of British Institutions from the greatest to the least, for the disestablishment of Churches, for changing the constitution of the British Parliament, for anything else which a party in this country, not being otherwise in a majority, may desire and demand, without having themselves any stake or direct interest in what is

367
done. That is to establish a despotism and a tyranny in favour of British minorities over British majorities. Am I putting a case which could not occur? Do not the circumstances of the present moment furnish the best possible example of it? What is the majority upon which the Government are now living from day to day except an Irish majority? If the Irish Members were taken away would they be in a majority? I have tried to imagine either a practical reason or a reason of principle for this arrangement, but I can only think of one, which, if it be the true one, it would have been better candidly to avow. It is this—We cannot afford to do away with our majority, and we should be in a minority if the Irish Members were not here. It is no exaggeration to call such a scheme as that—in its effect, whether or not in its intention—a scheme for establishing the domination in Great Britain of a minority over a majority. Have you in the past done anything like it? Certainly not in Canada, not in Australia. And it seems to me that the thing has been done in a manner as remarkable as the thing is in itself. A sort of cynical humour seems to have dictated the phraseology of those who have been parties to it. They have talked of this measure as omnes omnia. Who are the omnes? The Irish; they are to have the omnia. But the Representatives of Great Britain are not to have in Ireland the powers which the Irish have, although the Irish here are to have the same powers that they have. This is as strange a form of omnes omnia as can be imagined. In 1886 the principle of the Irish Members ceasing to sit in the British Parliament for all ordinary purposes was effectually recognised; it was only to be an extraordinary and exceptional purpose, for some revision of the provisions of the Act itself, that they were to be called in and admitted to a share in the deliberations of this Parliament. That might, without difficulty, have been extended to any case of British legislation for altering or increasing the incidence of taxation in Ireland. Nothing could be easier to understand in principle than making an exception for such a Constitutional purpose. That was the proposition of 1886; but we are told that the country decided against it. I
368
deny the fact; but for the present I reserve that point. On February 13 of the present year this Bill was introduced in its original form, and it must have been the subject of careful consideration in the six or seven years during which it was not thought expedient to admit the public to a confidential knowledge of the things that were intended to be done. It must have been long considered. At all events, when the present Cabinet was formed, they at once proceeded to deliberate upon it, and the result of their wisdom was the plan of turning the British House of Commons into an Assembly for two distinct purposes, endeavouring to separate and define Imperial as distinct from local questions, and giving the Irish Members a place there to vote for Imperial purposes, and for those alone. I could never conceive why they, any more than Canada or Australia, should sit in the House of Commons for Imperial purposes, and I could see plainly the extraordinary deadlock to which such a mode of constituting a single Legislative Assembly might in some circumstances bring the affairs of this country. I cannot feel any surprise that that scheme should have been publicly condemned. But the scheme we have before us now is very much worse; and if it be proved that you cannot settle this matter upon any reasonable and Constitutional principle as long as the lines of the new Irish Constitution are such as they are in this Bill, then you must give up the attempt to give a new Constitution to Ireland on those lines, and not ruin our Constitution for the sake of dealing in that way with Ire-laud. What was done? The Bill went through several stages in another place. Early in July the Prime Minister was understood to state, in answer to a question, that the Government adhered to their plan, and would propose it for the acceptance or rejection of the House as it then stood in the 9th clause of the Bill. He may or he may not have been rightly understood. Later in the month, when that clause was reached and came under discussion, the Prime Minister suddenly sprung upon the House and the country by surprise the naked announcement that the arrangement which was called "in and out" was to be abandoned, and that the Irish Members were

369
to sit in the House for all purposes whatever. Was it the deliberate conviction of the Government to whom the destinies of the country were committed that it was right or wise to make that change, or was it by some hole-and-corner process which no one knows that some people whom no one can name persuaded the Prime Minister that it was necessary so to alter the Bill without debate in the House, without explanation or reason, without anything to enlighten the mind of Parliament or the country? Was the Prime Minister himself convinced? He had on more than one occasion in 1886 nailed his colours to the mast: at one time he said he would never be a party to such a plan as that which is in the present Bill, and at another time, in a passage quoted last night by Lord Cross, he said it was "perfectly clear that such a plan as this could not be thought of." Does it appear that upon these points the Prime Minister has really changed his mind? I know that is a process of which he is not incapable; but on this particular subject I see no reason whatever for suspecting that it has taken place. Well, he made that sudden announcement, at a time when it could not be debated; for the Closure was applied to the whole discussion on that clause the very next day. And this change was effected by Irish votes. Now I should be the last person to deny that an Irish majority upon a merely Irish question is to be regarded with respect and is perfectly legitimate; but that our Constitution also should be altered by Irish votes against the sense of the British majority is a thing which seems to me, in the circumstances, and having regard to the nature of such a Bill as this, in the highest degree illegitimate and intolerable, and I hope the country thinks so too, and will show it. That they should not only obtain for themselves a Constitution separating their Government practically from ours, but also by their preponderating voices impose a new Constitution on us giving them a very large share of power here—one-ninth as near as possible, of the whole power of the House of Commons, seems to me to be a thing unprecedented, and nothing less than prodigious. A good many Liberal Members thought so too, probably more than we know. Mr. Labouchere was against it; so
370
were Sir C. Dilke, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. R. T. Reid, Sir E. Reed, Dr. Clark, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Rathbone—the last named as honourable, fair-minded, and reasonable a man, and as loyal a Member of his Party as anyone that exists—and how many more I do not know. But the majority of these dissentients, for the sake of Party allegiance, or for the sake of whatever value they attached to other provisions of the Bill, voted for the Third Reading; though Mr. Wallace and Mr. Rathbone maintained the courage of their convictions and did not. I say there has not been any opportunity of taking the real sense of the House of Commons, under these circumstances, on that proposal. Before leaving that branch of the subject, I must ask your Lordships to allow me to read what, on the 31st of the same month, after the thing was done, Mr. Gladstone wrote to a gentleman in Edinburgh, Mr. Cowan. He said in that letter that the country was in favour of the retention of the Irish Members; and that assumption seems to be the reason which led him to act as he did; but I want your Lordships to note his testimony, which he gave after the thing had been done, as to the principle involved—
"It was impossible to regard Ireland as having a claim to vote upon questions of an exclusively British character while she was to be provided with a Legislature in Dublin to deal in an exclusive manner with Ireland's ordinary domestic affairs, subject only to the supremacy of Parliament. … The Cabinet made their proposal because they were unwilling to admit even the semblance of a right or claim on the part of Ireland to share in the management of English affairs while charged with the separate management of her own."
I must take it, therefore, from Mr. Gladstone himself, that Ireland not only had no claim, but not even the semblance of a right, to the power which the Bill, as it now stands, gives them; and yet this change has been made by Irish votes, by the votes of those who have not "even the semblance of a right or claim" to do it. What ground is there for the assertion that the country was against the exclusion of the Irish Members from the British Parliament? None whatever, except criticisms of the Bill of 1886, founded entirely on the feeling that the Act of Union should not be abrogated; and there is not the smallest justification for asserting that the country has declared itself in favour

371
of the retention of the Irish Members in any form whatever consistent with a Bill upon the lines of the present Bill. It has been said that the Irish Members are in Parliament at the present time, and that, therefore, the Bill does not make any substantial change. But upon what grounds and what conditions are they there? As an integral constituent of a Body having universal authority, as much in Ireland as throughout Great Britain, in which every Member has equal power, equal duties, and equal rights, and, if they would but see the matter as it stands, in which every Member has an interest and a stake in all that is done for every part of the country. If taxes are to be borne, each has to bear his share; if anything else is done which is capable of being dealt with on the same principle throughout the United Kingdom, it is applicable to Ireland as well as here. It is an equal Parliament for all purposes all round, and for every part of the United Kingdom; and to say that it is the same thing to retain the Irish Members when you cut off Ireland and give her a separate autonomy, because the Irish Members are here already, is to contradict reason and common sense. The Constitutional principle involved is altogether different. A more absurd, a more ridiculous argument was never adduced than that of its being the same thing as is going on now. Then we are told by the Home Secretary that the change which has been made in the Bill is unimportant, because under its original form an Irish majority could have decided the fate of Ministries. I can only say that those who do not wish to see Churches disestablished and everything done which a British minority may happen to desire see a great deal of difference. It is bad enough to give Irish Members a voice in Imperial affairs; but why in the world you should also put us under their heel and enable them to govern, to rule us, and to domineer over us I cannot understand. Having no interest in British domestic affairs, when the Irish Members have any objects of their own to secure, that will determine their political alliances and political action with the view of gaining what they can in the direction they think desirable. The Attorney General tells us, that in British affairs British opinion Trill always prevail. That may be true
372
when there is a great preponderance of British opinion on one side, but there will not always be such a preponderance. In the case of not very overpowering majorities on either side, the effect of the Bill as it stands would be to throw the balance of power into the hands of those who had become strangers to the interests of this country. Then there is another argument. When it is said that it is proposed to do these things against the will of the majority of the Representatives of Great Britain, and of a still greater majority of the Representatives of England, we are told that we ought not to dissect majorities. Well, if it were intended to go on as a Parliament of the United Kingdom on the footing of the contract and arrangement prevailing since the Act of Union, I could understand it. But to apply that argument to a Bill by which it is proposed to dissolve that contract and arrangement, and to separate Ireland for all the practical purposes of the Legislative Union from Great Britain—to say that you are not then to look at the sense of representatives of each of the parties to the contract seems to me perfectly ridiculous. When you are giving to the Irish Members, who are to have their own new Constitution, one-ninth of the power of the British House of Commons, to say that you are not then to look to the opinion of Great Britain as expressed by her Representatives is not an argument which can be seriously used by anyone, least of all by those who are continually telling us of questions upon which the majority of the Scotch or Welsh Representatives ought not to be overruled by the majority of the Representatives of Great Britain;—least of all when the whole argument for the Bill itself is founded on separating the opinion of Ireland as expressed by its Representatives from the aggregate opinion of the whole United Kingdom as expressed by its Representatives. If it is alleged, as an excuse for keeping 80 Irish Members for all purposes, that some of the arrangements of the Bill are provisional, the answer is, that the provisional character of those arrangements is the fault of the authors of the Bill, and is, in itself, a very grave objection to it. And the words "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines," at the be-

373
ginning of the 10th clause, do not in the same way make that clause temporary. I think it very likely indeed that if this Bill were passed by your Lordships it would be only the beginning of the destruction of the British Constitution, and that other claims would spring up in consequence. Should we not hear more about Scotch Home Rule and Welsh Home Rule? Could it lead to anything but attempts to substitute for our present system a Federal system, and further to disintegrate the Empire? The importance of this subject is in my eyes so vital, so extreme, that I will not apologise for the time which I may have occupied. But I should not discharge my duty if I said nothing about the effect this measure would have in Ireland. I take first the Land Question, and looking at what I find in the Bill, and to what has happened before, I must say I was much surprised at the speech which we heard from Lord Spencer. We know that for years the Laud League and the National League have been agitating against landlords, and for the abolition of what they call landlordism in Ireland against the payment of rents, and against any settlement except by themselves of the rents to be paid by the tenants. In 1886 a Bill was introduced on the subject of the land, as well as for the government of Ireland. There were reasons which made that scheme practically impossible, and I cannot help thinking that they were from the beginning more or less understood, if not by all the Members of the Government, at least by the Prime Minister. That scheme fell to the ground, and what has happened since? Lord Spencer referred to the Land Purchase Acts, since passed, and now in force. But those Acts depend entirely upon voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants. They give no security. What guarantees are there in this Bill? I find none except the delay contemplated by Clause 34. For some reason not explained the powers of the new Irish Legislature to deal with Irish land and with the relations between landlord and tenant are to be held for three years in suspense; but at the end of those three years uncontrolled power to deal with the property of the landlords will belong to the Irish Legislature. It is true that in the 8th sub-section of
374
the 4th clause the Irish Legislature is restrained from doing anything which might deny to any person the equal protection of the law, or by which private property might be taken away without just compensation. But new legislation makes new laws; and who is to decide the question of just compensation? It is certainly not a thing that the Privy Council or the Exchequer Judges could possibly decide; it is obviously meant to be left to the Irish Legislature; and exceptional taxation would also be completely in their power. What indications have you of the ideas of justice on this subject which would prevail among those who would have power in Ireland, or even with Her Majesty's Government? The only light derivable on that point is that which we have obtained from the Evicted Tenants Commission, and from the support given by the Government to a Bill to carry out the objects of that Commission. The expectations thus excited can only whet the appetite for the plunder of land wherever it exists in Ireland. It is a vital and a cardinal principle that the power of the British Parliament to protect minorities should never be parted with; and if there be any Party on whom that obligation is more incumbent than another, with reference to that loyal minority in Ireland whose rights of property are at stake, it is the Party which passed the Irish Land Acts, which in each successive stage professed, and were, in my belief, really intended to do justice to landlords as well as to tenants, and to create a tenure under which the rights of both should be vindicated and preserved. It would be the lowest depth of dishonour for any British Parliament not to fulfil that obligation, and yet it seems to me that under this Bill it would not and could not be fulfilled. So much for the Land Question. Now, my Lords, much has been said about the cardinal principle of Imperial supremacy; but the words on that subject of the Preamble and the 2nd clause are in themselves no more than chaff for birds willing to be caught by it; the question is, how is that supremacy to be maintained practically? The answer which anyone who reads and studies this Bill must give to that question is that by this Bill, if it were passed into law, all practical power to enforce that supremacy except by war is abandoned, and all practical

375
power to resist it is conferred on the new Irish Legislature. What is the value of your exceptions and restrictions? Are they likely to conduce to a permanent and peaceful settlement? Are they sound in themselves? Have you anything like them in your self-governing Colonies? Some of the powers which are excepted in this Bill are expressly given by the Canadian and Australian Acts to the Canadian and Australian Legislatures. Are they really consistent with the professed principles of the Bill? Take the subjects of religion, education, and trade. How often have we been told that Ireland ought to be governed according to Irish and not according to English ideas? I ask, are the ideas contained in these exceptions and restrictions English or Irish? Beyond all question, English. It has often been argued that it is one of the greatest blots on the British administration of Ireland that there should have been no fulfilment of Mr. Pitt's intention to do something for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. Yet this Bill expressly prohibits everything of that kind, and the restriction cannot be said to be in accordance with Irish ideas. No; it is done to suit English ideas, and the very same persons who are responsible for this restriction are continually telling us that in Scotland and Wales there ought to be local option on the subject of religious establishments and endowments. In Ireland, however, there is to be no local option on that subject. Then it has been constantly said that we have not duly considered the wishes of the great majority of the Irish people as to University education; and one might have thought that the power of establishing or supporting out of public funds Roman Catholic Colleges, or a denominational Roman Catholic University, would be given to the Irish Parliament; but the power is withheld from them. There is also the question of trade and commercial relations. All the Colonies have the right to deal with that subject as they like, and is it not quite certain that according to Irish ideas Ireland ought to have the same power? Do you think that restrictions of this sort, which are contrary to colonial precedent and at variance with the fundamental principle upon which this measure is
376
based, are likely to be maintained? But those who have thought it right to impose these restrictions have done a very curious thing; for these exceptions and restrictions relate only to legislation, and do not apply to Resolutions. Considering what might be done by way of Resolutions in critical and dangerous times, the reason of the limitation is not easy to find. Regency is among the subjects mentioned; but that is the very subject on which Grattan's Parliament proceeded, not by Bill, but by Resolution, in a manner involving conflict with the British Parliament—Volunteers also are mentioned. In the time of Grattan we know that there was a great body of Volunteers in Ireland, self-paid and self-equipped. What is there to prevent the Irish Legislature from passing a Resolution in encouragement of a similar body of Volunteers? What is there to prevent them from standing by while these Volunteers may be raised, and extending approval to their enrolment? As to the veto, I wish to ask, is it to be used, or is it not? Are you going to abide by, or depart from, the precedents afforded by the Colonies? I say deliberately that in our self-governing Colonies the veto is not used except for temporary and suspensory purposes, and that if a Colonial Legislature should persevere, even with a Bill to which grave objections might be made, and which would introduce anomalies which it would be very desirable to prevent, the veto after a time would be withdrawn and the Colonial Legislature would have its way. What reason is there to suppose that it will be otherwise in Ireland? And if it should be, what would be the consequences? Perpetual Motions in the House of Commons that the veto should be used, or that it should not be used, and intolerable friction between the Imperial and the Irish Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant would be the vehicle for conveying the opinion of British Ministers to his own Ministers; but I doubt greatly whether he would be able to do anything whatever proprio vigore in matters affected by the restrictions and limitations in this measure. Then as to the Exchequer Judges. In the United States the authority of the Federal Court is not merely a judicial authority, but it is armed with Executive powers, and the President has

377
further Executive powers behind to support the Court and its officers. Here you have two Judges taken out of the general body of the Irish Bench, and appointed by the Ministers in England. What are they to do? They are only to have cognisance of and to regulate certain proceedings in the ordinary course of law, and if they make decrees in any of those proceedings which are not obeyed, they may appoint some person to carry them out; but, against popular opposition, and with support from the Executive Government, what could any person, who might be so appointed, do? What power will this country have, short of war, to compel the Irish Government to execute the Exchequer Judges' decrees? Resistance to judicial decrees is not an unheard-of thing. There was the case of the successful resistance of Georgia to the Supreme Court of the United States, and there is the recent case of the Corporation of Limerick, which has hitherto defied successfully the order of the Irish Courts that it should raise and pay certain sums for services rendered by the Constabulary. You may say that none of these things will occur. I should be equally entitled to say that they all will. It is not necessary, however, to go as far as that. We must remember that we are not legislating for to-day or to-morrow; we must consider what may happen in the course of time and in various contingencies—what might happen, for example, if we were embroiled with the United States, or with France, and engaged in controversies that might lead to war. In this Bill the dragon's teeth are sown in every clause. It is not a measure of finality, in the' sense of a settlement, likely, in its general substance, not to be disturbed. The temporary and provisional character of its financial and other arrangements even invites disturbance. What are the means by which it has been obtained? They are written at large in the Report of the Special Commission of 1888–90. It has been practically a capitulation by the Government to a certain organisation in Ireland. We are told that when the wishes of Ireland are strongly expressed they ought to be considered, upon the principle of conciliation as against what is called coercion. Why that principle should be good for the purpose of forcing
378
this Bill upon the country, and have no application to the natural consequences of the Bill, it is very difficult to see. If an Irish Legislature were set up, it would be filled by ambitious men seeking to gain power and-popularity in the country, each Party by bidding the highest, and it is impossible to set bounds to their ambition. Mr. Parnell said, in 1885, that neither he nor his friends ever could or would attempt to set bounds to the national aspirations of Ireland; and nobody can pretend that this Bill fulfils, or nearly fulfils, those aspirations. It is said that the administration of the country by an Irish Parliament would add to the material comforts of Ireland; but I have never heard any man make an intelligible suggestion as to the way in which it would add to the material comforts of Ireland. But, my Lords, even if it did, the Nationalists would be encouraged by that very fact to demand that they should have freer play. On the other hand, if it should fail in producing that effect, discontent would be aroused, which would give an immediate impulse to the disposition to ask for larger powers. What has been the action of the Nationalist Party in the past? Have they ever contented themselves, in what they have said in past times, with asking for such a mongrel Constitution as this? The question with them has always been not how far they should go, but how far they could go, and now Mr. Redmond says expressly that this Bill is provisional, and can be accepted only as an instalment. There are, no doubt, others who now roar like sucking "doves": they may be sincere; but were they not equally sincere when they formerly spoke as Mr. Redmond does now? And what is to prevent their returning to their former state of mind? What does the National League say now? What do their American sympathisers say now? And in what direction do the voices of past Irish history, the voices and the examples of the great men of the past—of O'Connell and Mr. Grattan, and Mr. Gladstone's own denunciations of the Union lead them? Grattan used language as strong as language could be about the absolute right of equality, about going on to get more, about the folly of speaking of gratitude or ingratitude in these national matters, about making use of the opportunities arising out of foreign complica-

379
tions. And Grattan would take nothing less than the exclusive power of an Irish' Legislature to make laws for Ireland on all subjects; and he got from the British Parliament what he demanded. All these examples only point in one direction, the direction of going on and not being contented. Nor is there in this any reproach to anybody. In the circumstances in which Members of the Irish Legislature would be placed they would have a perfect right to pursue their ambition. We are asked to pass this Bill as an act of faith, but I prefer reason. And now, my Lords, I have only one other subject to touch upon, and that is the question, Has there been a mandate for this Bill from the country such as your Lordships ought to recognise? Looking to Ireland, you find that the great majority of Ulster, by no means the least important and powerful among the constituent parts of Ireland, is entirely against it, so that it cannot be said that there is anything like a desire or mandate from a united Ireland; and the majority in Great Britain shows that there is no mandate from that part of the United Kingdom. How has the question been brought to its present position? Suddenly in 1885 the idea was taken up. In 1886 the Bills of that year were introduced. Parliament decided against them, and the country decided against them on a Dissolution. During the years of political agitation which followed nothing was more assiduously instilled into the minds of the people than the fact that that Bill was dead. Still, the agitation went on for two or three years, founded chiefly upon attempts to discredit all that was being done for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. Then came a change. Mr. Atherley Jones, a Liberal Member of advanced opinions, and beyond doubt an honest man, wrote a paper in a certain periodical, in which he frankly stated that the English Liberals generally did not care about Home Rule for Ireland but wanted other things; and that the only way towards success was to urge those other things forward. It was not long before his advice was taken. From about that time the Home Rule Question was presented, like Richard the Third, between the two Bishops; but its sponsors were many more than two, and some of them, perhaps, not so good as they were repre-
380
sented to be. And when this Bill was announced in the Speech from the Throne it was with a bodyguard of 10 or more other measures, in defiance of the rule established by authority and experience, that many great things cannot be done in the same Session; and obviously with a view to obtain sectional support for a Bill which could not otherwise be carried. And now that Bill is before your Lordships, passed in the House of Commons by a majority of the Irish Members against a majority of the Representatives of Great Britain; and if there be any duty, the shrinking or retreating from which would be an act of the most abject meanness and cowardice, it is the duty of giving to the British people an opportunity of saying whether, upon this subject, they agree with the majority of their own Representatives or not.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): My Lords, I am quite sure I speak the feeling of everybody in this House when I say that we have heard the speech of the noble and illustrious Earl—an effort remarkable at any age, but much more remarkable when we consider the advanced age at which he has arrived—with the greatest satisfaction and admiration. I do not deny that on this side of the House at any rate that satisfaction is somewhat of a mingled kind. It has been our fate in the past to hear the noble and learned Earl speaking on the side of the House and on the side of the question which we ourselves espoused, but I can assure him that we take his rebukes patiently. They are not mingled with any of the venom of those which we sometimes receive, and we give him all the credit that we demand ourselves for conscientious opinion. The speech of the noble Earl, as I heard it, divided itself into two distinct parts. The last part was of a kind with which all readers of history are familiar, in which the word "capitulation" frequently occurred, and from which the phrase "unknown and rash experiments" was not absent; exactly the type of speech, in fact, which has been made against every great reform of the century—Catholic Emancipation, the first Reform Bill, and the Repeal of the Corn Laws. The first part of the speech was of a more detailed character. I do not propose, and, indeed, I should not be

381
competent, to follow the noble and learned Earl in that critical and legal examination of the Bill to which he subjected it with the arts of a great lawyer, the arts of a great Chancellor, but I hope he will not think me disrespectful if I say that that argument, elaborate and interesting as it was, only added to the unreality of the Debate in which we have been taking part. He supplied in one of his closing sentences the reason why it is unnecessary to discuss the criticisms which he has submitted to your Lordships, because, he said, "you are not legislating for to-day or for to-morrow." He was right. We are legislating for this day six months. This is not a dissecting room; it is the chamber of death itself. Somewhere in the passage, in that short Lobby that leads from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, this Bill caught its death of some passing chill; and it is, if I may say so humbly, an interesting but an academic discussion, unreal in every part and particle of it to which we have been listening for the last three days. If any Peer will say that he came here with his mind open to argument, prepared to consider the Bill on its merits, prepared, if necessary, listening either to the accents of noble Lords below the Gangway or to the accents of the noble Lords above, either to accept or to reject this Bill according to the arguments that were offered, I confess he will have made a very considerable breach in the opinion that I have formed of this Debate. Your Lordships observe that I have waited a moment for any noble Lord to rise and state that his mind was in that state of angelic candour, but as none has chosen to place himself in that position I may take it for granted that my opinion is correct, and that none of your Lordships has entered this House except with a preconceived resolution for or against the Bill. I think that from one or two noble Peers I did hear with a sort of blushing diffidence that they were of opinion that this Bill would ultimately be rejected. The other reason for which this discussion has been unreal and academical is that there is no equal division of Parties in this House. There is only one Party in this House and a percentage of another. I do not know what is the exact number of the legion which my noble Friend who leads this
382
House with consummate ability professes to muster under his standard; but I venture to think it would be most fitly described by the couplet that Sidney Smith put into his description of the salad—
"Let onion atoms lurk within the bowl
And, half suspected, animate the whole."
Under the circumstances of this Debate it is scarcely remarkable that the speeches have divided themselves mainly into two categories and classes. There are the speeches of denunciation, and among these I will give a high and honoured rank to the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), whom I do not see in his place, who told us with an engaging candour that he could not treat this subject with rosewater. I have nothing to say except in a spirit of gratitude of the noble Duke. He treated me in a spirit to which I am entirely unaccustomed from him, and, if I may reverse an expression in Scripture, I expected a stone and he gave me bread. He was good enough to praise a little book which I not long ago published. He read extracts from that little book, as if they were in any respect damaging to the position of the Government regarding Home Rule. From not one of the statements he read out, or from any of the statements in that little book, have I seen the slightest cause to recede; but at the same time, it does not in any degree impair my general loyalty to the course which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. One of the great specialities of the noble Duke is this—that he is always going to make a speech about Home Rule on every subject which may present itself to your Lordships, but that he never gets to Home Rule. Just as he is approaching it, just as we think we are on the clue to the argument for which we have so long sought, he is seized by that fatal and malignant disease to which he is more subject, perhaps, than any other of the many invalids who suffer under it in both Houses of Parliament—lues Gladstoniana. He is led away by some morbid spirit to discuss and analyze the views and the speeches of the statesman whom he is proud and pleased to call, in every term of affection, his "right hon. Friend." I do not see why candour should not reign among friends, but I do think the noble Duke reads

383
more into the character of my right hon. Friend than even his greatest admirers have been able to perceive. He reminds me of the lines in The Rejected Addresses—
"Who makes the quartern loaf and Luddites rise?
Who fills the butchers' shops with large blue flies?"
I cannot help thinking that as my right hon. Friend and the noble Duke advanced along the vale of years, the flies perceived by the noble Duke get larger and bluer on every occasion. I know that we on this Bench are below his notice. We are merely Gladstonian items, blind tools of an imperious and, if I rightly understood him, a partially insane Prime Minister. It is some little comfort, under these circumstances, to find out that he had once been one of these Gladstonian items himself. I had almost forgotten the lapse of; time since he left the Liberal Party, but he reminded us last night, with a good deal of expression and force, that he had been a Member of a Cabinet that had proposed a Bill which he considered eminently absurd—a confession which I do not suppose that any one of my colleagues on that Bench, who have been longer in Gladstonian Cabinets than I have been myself, has been able to make on this or any other occasion. I pass from the choice specimen of invective provided by the noble Duke to the more full-favoured, and perhaps from my point of view equally interesting, specimen provided by the noble Marquess last night. It was one of the most interesting speeches I ever heard in my life. It was like a dictionary of animated quotations. He had an enormous mass of elegant extracts in his hand, and he read them out sometimes from Irish sources and sometimes from Ministerial sources. He is bitten by a disease parallel, but not exactly similar, to that under which the Duke of Argyll is suffering. His disease is the morbus Spenceranus. As I heard him, I began faintly to imagine the course of debate in an Irish Second Chamber when that Irish Second Chamber should come into being, because it was like a Cicero of Ulster denouncing a Cataline of Cork with outstretched fingers, piercing eyes, and quivering at every interruption; and I am glad to find that my noble Friend is able to be present on the Ministerial Bench this evening without any material
384
deterioration of his health. I said there were two classes into which the speeches of this Debate divided themselves. One is mainly the speech of invective. That, I confess, is the speech I myself prefer, as being more lively. The other is the speech of detailed examination of the measure that you have determined to destroy. I do not know why noble Lords think it right to fire this sort of military salute over the grave of this Bill. Every one of their speeches is couched in the spirit of Marc Antony's speech in the Senate House—"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." We do not expect praise of the Bill from noble Lords below the Gangway or from noble Lords opposite; but I think they might, under the very delicate circumstances of the case, spare us any detailed criticism, or, in fact, any detailed reasons founded on the Bill, when they have already made up their minds so completely upon what they are resolved to do with it. May I take three instances of what I mean? I will take the instance of the noble and learned Earl who has just sat down. He discussed at great length, and with every variety of treatment, the question of the retention of the Irish Members in Parliament. Now, I say that the retention of the Irish Members in Parliament, though a very important detail, though an organic detail, is only a detail still; and that if the noble and learned Earl had any genuine and sincere wish to discuss this Bill on its merits, he might perfectly well have voted for the Second Reading, reserving this point of the retention of the 80 Irish Members for a subsequent discussion in Committee. I think he might give us some credit for the fact that the retention or exclusion of the Irish Members is not a point unattended altogether by difficulty. In 1886 we proposed their entire exclusion. From what I understand to-night the noble and learned Earl has a preference for that course. I wish he had told us so in 1886.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I did.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Earl; the circumstances escaped my recollection. What we did hear were much louder voices demanding the retention of the Irish Members as essential to the integrity and supremacy of the Im-

385
perial Parliament. If the noble and learned Earl prefers that course, I can tell him that, as far as I can gather from his public speeches, he has a very illustrious Colleague in that preference—no less than the Prime Minister himself. No one who read the speech of the Prime Minister on the Second Reading—no one who has read his speeches in the country, will doubt that it was owing to the overwhelming pressure of public opinion, both within and without his Party, that he gave way on that particular point to the wishes of those around him. And I must say this about the rather jaunty manner in which noble Lords opposite bestow their criticism on this Bill: They seem to think that any criticism is fatal to any clause; as if the Bills which they are in the habit of introducing are essentially perfect and unamendable; and that the subject with which we have had to deal, if properly dealt with, presented no difficulty at all. To-night I would ask to waive all discussion of the Bill, for the reason that in my opinion, first, that discussion is an unreal discussion; and, secondly, the point on which we are at issue to-night is much larger than this Bill, or than any Bill. It is the vast question of the policy which we propose for Ireland—a policy which, on the one side, is founded on the experience of the past, and which, on the other side, is in the womb of the future. I cannot help thinking that in taking this view of this discussion, and in making it a question of a policy and not of a Bill, we might do something to raise both the Debate and ourselves. We might do something better than chew the dry bones of the Bill, or what has been left of them, by the keen and unwearied teeth of the House of Commons, and we might at least desist from the petty and pitiful personal recrimination which has been too often indulged in. There is not one of you, my Lords, who in his heart believes that we are Separatist and traitors and place-hunters. There is not one sane Member of your Lordships' House who believes in the imputations which are made freely outside though not inside this House on the honesty of our motives. And we, on our side, do not believe that you are statesmen anxious to tyrannise and ride roughshod over the Irish people, and imbrue
386
your hands in Irish gore. The truth is very simple: and if we were to open our eyes to and recognise that truth we should greatly facilitate discussion. We are two political Parties disagreeing as to the best practical method of governing and conciliating Ireland. That is a very great question in itself. No much greater question could occupy us. It is a question which has puzzled the wisest minds of ages past; and I do not believe that we, in attempting to arrive at an honest conclusion on this subject, will much further our purpose by blackening the political morality of a political Party. You may be certain, in regard to this controversy, of the infallibility of the course you have pursued or propose to pursue. I may frankly say that I am by no means sure of mine. I am not certain about anything with regard to Ireland. [Opposition cheers.] I was never more gratified than by those cheers. They show that there are some points, at least, on which noble Lords opposite have not yet made up their minds definitely. They are not quite certain about Ireland. That is, at least, a ray of hope. I say that I am not certain about Ireland; but I can at least say this—that I have come to the conclusion at which I have arrived after a long and painful study—that I have arrived at the convictions which I hold in the teeth of all, or almost all, that would tend to make me take the other side. We here have known the bitterest pang that can fall to public men to suffer. We have known the separation from colleagues and friends. We have known not merely separation from colleagues, but the bitterness of their denunciations of us; and I venture to say that if we had been anxious to lead a quiet life or a pleasant life, if we had been willing to sacrifice our convictions, as you think or assert that we have sacrificed them, it would not have been in the direction which we are pursuing that we should have gone. My Lords, I say, then, to-night that it is not the Bill but the policy which is at issue, and nobody knows that better than your Lordships who sit over against me. Your treatment of the Bill shows it both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. It seems to me that there were in the House of Commons two logical courses to pursue, and only two, with regard to the Bill. The first was to say that you could not

387
touch it in any shape or form; that you would have no dealings with the accursed thing; that you would vote for its rejection on the Second Reading; and that nothing would induce you to incur any responsibility for any detail of the Bill, of which you have so great a horror. The other course was this. Having accepted the Second Reading as the expression of the voice of Ireland on its own destiny, and the voice of the House of Commons as to what it thought best for Ireland, that you should endeavour at any rate to manipulate it in order to get it as much to your minds as possible. And I am perfectly certain of this—and I am speaking without consultation with, but in the hearing of, many of my colleagues—that if you had taken that second course, and frankly accepted the principle of some large measure of local legislation in Ireland, and had offered bonâ fide suggestions with a view of bringing that to pass in a manner consonant, as you believed, with the safety and the integrity of the Empire, we should have held out not one, but both, hands to welcome your assistance. My Lords, the Opposition in the House of Commons did not care to take either course. The course pursued reminded me of a very interesting national sport to which, perhaps, none of your Lordships are addicted—I mean the Spanish bull-fight. The bull-fight in Spain is a national and almost sacred institution. They have to kill the bull—that is the primary purpose. You had to kill the Bill—that was your primary purpose; and you went about it very much in the sane way. The first act of the drama is when the toreadors, or lance-bearers, attack the bull openly. The bull generally gets the better of them, and they are hurried from the scene. That stage is analogous to the Second Reading of our Bill. Then comes the stage when the light infantry of the bull-ring—I never can pronounce their name, but I could write it on paper—attempt to fix light darts into the bull, to prick it all over, and to annoy and exasperate it in every way, not for the purpose of killing it or wounding it seriously, but apparently out of general "cussedness." That, I think, reflects not unfaithfully the Committee stage of the Bill. Then comes the last and most solemn process of all, when the matador comes into the ring. In one hand he holds the sward for the
388
purpose of killing the bull, and in the other a cloak with which to mislead the bull as to his intentions. And I think I recognise in the noble Marquess opposite the features of the matador. The contrast in the treatment of the Bill by the two Houses is very remarkable. The House of Commons lingered over it with a sort of affectionate solicitude. If they saw the slightest danger of its departure they hastily pinned new sheets of Amendments to its wings, and it might be said almost that they viewed its appearance and disappearance with equal regret. I do not know of anything like it since the occasion when the well-known traveller, Herman Melville, was surrounded by almost every luxury and attention on the Island of Tahiti, when nothing was too good for him, and he enjoyed it all, till he found out that it was only preparing him for a meal that was subsequently to take place on his own fattened carcase. But the House of Lords treats this Bill in a very different spirit. It gives it a very short shrift indeed. Less than a week is sufficient from the time of its leaving the House of Commons for its destruction in the House of Lords. Here there are none of those little attentions which distinguished it in the House of Commons. There are no Amendments, no Instructions to the Committee, and no Committee to instruct. I do not know that there is anything which this Bill in its treatment so much resembles as the old recipe for cooking a pike. You fill the pike with everything that is most rich, rare, and toothsome in quality, and having done that you fling the pike out of the window as being of no value at all. This was very humorous behaviour of the Tory Party in the House of Commons, and it is not altogether without humour in the House of Lords. But surely your conduct is hardly respectful to your colleagues in the House of Commons. At what price do you value all their ability, their energy, and their time? I know that they did not attempt obstruction; such a course as that they would indignantly repudiate. But they did attempt legislation. They did succeed in introducing some clauses into the Bill; and the result of all their efforts, of all their quips and cranks, of all their philippics, of all their physical and even pugilistic encounters is that at the moment the Bill arrives at

389
the House of Lords you have nothing to say to it except to tell it to begone. I do not know whether we are to consider that the course of the House of Commons was entirely a matter of blowing soap bubbles; that it was merely a sham fight; that it was merely the playing of a big fish, while confident in the knowledge that the noble Duke was on the bank ready with the gaff for it. There was one very instructive illustration of the way in which this Bill was treated by the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. And when I say the Conservative Party, I do not mean the free and uncontrollable free-lances of the Conservative Party, but the solid and respectable and almost venerable occupants of the Front Bench. I will take the clause on which the noble and learned Earl has spent so much time to-night, the 9th clause—now, I think, the 10th. Let us apply to that the test of either not touching "the accursed thing," or only touching the "accursed thing" in order to amend it in some given and fruitful direction. On July 10 the Front Conservative Bench voted in Committee for retaining the whole of the 103 Members instead of 80 to vote for Imperial purposes. That was a large and liberal allowance, even larger and more liberal than the noble and learned Earl would be inclined to concede. This was the way in which the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons endeavoured to avoid the evil of too large an Irish mixture in the Imperial Parliament. The same day they voted on an Amendment by Mr. Heneage for the total exclusion of all the Irish Members. On July 11 an Amendment was proposed by Mr. Seton-Karr to reduce the number to 48; on July 13 they voted in favour of the "in-and-out" arrangement against Mr. Gladstone's final proposal of 80 Members for all purposes; and, last, they voted to omit the clause together. ["Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear," says the noble Viscount opposite. Will the noble Viscount tell me the object of these tactics? Was it to bring Parliamentary Institutions into contempt? I do not credit the noble Viscount, one of the pillars of the Constitution, with any such nefarious design; but to the rank outsider, the arm-chair critic, it appears as if the real design was to bring Parliamentary Institutions into disrepute. It has had that
390
effect; I do not know whether it was meant to bring them into disrepute and invite some Cromwell to put an end to them both for Imperial and Irish purposes. I say that, great as has been the responsibility of the House of Commons in this matter, your responsibility is tenfold greater. You have undertaken a tremendous responsibility. I will not ask what means you have taken to fortify yourselves for the contest in which you are preparing to enter. I will say nothing as to the general position of this House. I have never concealed my opinion as to the unfortunate position of an unreformed House of Lords. On two occasions I have brought that subject before your Lordships. For any Peer holding the opinions that I do to bring any subject in any circumstances before this House is merely waste of time and breath. But I will say this, and I say it in sober seriousness, without any wish to say anything that could be disagreeable to the noble Marquess opposite, for whose abilities I entertain a sincere admiration. I do believe that perhaps the gravest reproach that posterity and history will bring against his six years of government is this—that he made no serious attempt to reform the Second Chamber, which, after all, is the pillar of the Conservative Party. I am sure that he himself will be the last to disclaim any such description for the little Bill which was being withdrawn by the late Mr. Smith in the House of Commons at the time he was about to explain it to us in the House of Lords. But, my Lords, I venture to think, with regard to this contest in which you are about to engage, there is a particular consideration which should have not much less weight with you than the general consideration which I have submitted to you. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Zetland) alluded the other night, in terms of some disparagement, to the fact that the Benches behind the Government were not swarming with Irish Peers. Well, they do not usually swarm with Peers of any kind, and I do not particularly know why on this occasion they should swarm with Irish Peers. There are, as I see from a Return recently issued, 113 Irish Peers who have seats, I think, in this House. I want to know—because it is an important fact, at least an important factor in fighting five-sixths of the

391
popular representation of Ireland—how many of those Irish Peers can be said in any sense whatever to represent any part of Ireland, except that fraction of a Province which you choose for your own purposes to call the loyal Province of Ulster? I say it without the slightest desire to say anything that may be offensive to Irish Peers opposite; but, at the same time, it is true. The noble Lord (Lord Muskerry), who spoke with great vehemence from behind the Opposition Bench the other night, told us two or three times in the course of his speech that he knew all about Ireland. That is not the question. The question on this occasion is—I do not wish to put it offensively—what does Ireland know about him? Does he represent Ireland in any shape or form? Because, if this House is going with 113 Irish Peers—who, I venture to say, can only represent one class in Ireland—to enter into a contest with the House of Commons on a subject in which they are face to face with five-sixths of the Irish representation, on a subject which concerns all and every class in Ireland, then I say they are very insufficiently equipped for the battle. My Lords, that was a digression about the House of Lords. But, with regard to your responsibility, I repeat that, in my opinion, your responsibility with regard to this Bill is infinitely greater than that of the House of Commons. I will tell you why. It is because you are masters of the situation, and you have the power absolutely in your hands. The noble Duke who moved the rejection of this Bill, and whose speech I had the misfortune not to hear, at Ilkley recently spoke of the reasons which made him desirous to move the rejection of this Bill. One of the reasons he gave was that the Bill has not had adequate opportunity of discussion. Now, I say, you are in the position of being able to give it the fullest and freest opportunities of discussion. If your objection to this Bill was really on the ground that it had not had sufficient discussion, you could in a moment put an end to that complaint, and give it more discussion than any Bill ever received. You could, if you have any wish to settle this Irish Question in a way in which I have sometimes felt it will be settled—by an agreement between both the political Parties—you have an opportunity on this
392
occasion, which I suppose you are going to throw away, of obtaining adequate discussion, and of having a Conference which should settle the terms on which Ireland should have self-government in the future—a Conference not less elaborate, not less important, and not less representative than that which met in May, 1787, to settle the matchless Constitution of the United States. You may say that you do not wish to have anything to do with any form of Home Rule. But that is not the case. I do not know what it may be with noble Lords opposite; but, after all, noble Lords must remember that many of the reforms they have opposed with the greatest ferocity they have come to propose themselves in course of time; and, therefore, they must not be too absolutely certain that this is the course they are always likely to pursue on this question. But with regard to the Liberal Unionist Leaders the case is very different indeed. We have the election addresses of Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington in 1886, in which they plainly state and lay down the fact that after all Home Rule is mainly a question of degree, and they state the limitations succinctly and definitely within which they may be prepared to grant Home Rule. Are they of that opinion now? If so, the noble Duke was singularly ill-advised in moving the rejection of this Bill, because what might you have done? You might have allowed the Second Reading to pass sub silentio, or have carried it with any form of protest which your Lordships chose; but when you got into Committee you might have modelled the Bill to your liking. You might have struck out every clause you disliked—perhaps you will say that would be every clause—then it would have been open to you to substitute what clauses you preferred. You might have had an opportunity—which, of course, you are not going to take—of declaring and defining your policy with regard to this great question of Ireland. Your Bill might then have gone down to the House of Commons, where it would have met, no doubt, with a stout resistance. But what would ultimately have come about, what would have happened if you and they had both insisted on the mass of your Amendments? A Conference would have taken place between

393
the two Houses which might have led to a fruitful result; and I say that the patriotic course for your Lordships to have taken, unless you have determined never to devolve any local business to Ireland, was to give this Bill a Second Reading, and take an opportunity of settling with the other House. I find that suggestion receives very little favour from noble Lords opposite. I can quite understand the prospect of spending laborious days and nights in Committee right through September, far into October, with, perhaps, a Conference in November, is not particularly inviting; but I am not sure, according to the precedent we have before us, that we are not likely to spend a great deal more time in other ways if some such course as this is not adopted. We have been constantly taunted by noble Lords opposite with changing our minds in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the bidding of a scarcely responsible politician. For us, after all, knowing what our fate in the Division is likely to be, this is the main question:—"How did it come about that in the year 1886 a great English Party, comprising responsible men—an ex-Viceroy of Ireland and an ex-Chief Secretary—deliberately proposed a measure of Home Rule, a measure which they resisted for 80 years?" The noble Earl has given his history; and I should like, on the other hand, to be allowed to give mine, because, after all, it is a point on which our characters are at stake, and I think we ought to be heard. I speak as a witness, but not as an enthusiastic witness, in favour of Home Rule. With me, at any rate, if I may speak for one moment of myself, Home Rule is not a fanaticism; it is not a question of sentiment; it is scarcely even a question of history. It is not a counsel of perfection; but it is, on the whole, the best of our courses to be pursued in dealing with a highly critical and complex subject. With me, at any rate, it is merely a question of policy politic, and as such alone I argue it. I argue it simply as a question of policy, and I take it no higher and no lower than that. It seems to me that the function of any one who pretends to be a statesman is to attempt to sever what is really wheat from what is really chaff. It is a long and laborious process,
394
and it is attempting to do that with regard to the Irish Question that I have become a supporter of Home Rule. I will go one step further. I say that I am not an enthusiastic witness on this subject, and I will make one or two other admissions. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) spoke strongly last night about the Union; he said it was a matter of necessity, and I entirely agree with the noble Duke. I believe that there is scarcely any statesman who, if he had been in Mr. Pitt's place, confronted with such a war as that which he had to face, confronted with the Rebellion of 1798, would not have sought in that remedy a refuge and a guarantee against Irish disaffection. But I must also add this—the Union was only a portion of Mr. Pitt's policy. I believe that if the whole of his policy has been adopted; if the payment of the Catholic clergy, if Catholic Emancipation, if the abolition of tithes had all been carried concurrently with the Act of Union, we should not now be discussing a Home Rule Bill. So far we seem to be in some measure of accord. But, unfortunately, much has happened since the Union. The Duke of Argyll said that the last utterance of Grattan was in favour of the Union. Well, I think the most striking sentence in all Grattan's speeches occurs in the last of those speeches; and it is not favourable to the Union. It is this—"The ocean protests against separation, and the sea against the Union." What he meant, I take it, was this—that while separation from the Imperial control of Great Britain was impossible because of the ocean which surrounds these islands, it was equally impossible, because of the sea that separated them, to attempt to administer Irish local affairs at Westminster. That is all the admission I have to make with regard to the history of the question. I had some other quotations from Mr. Barton and Mr. Lecky with regard to it, but it is not necessary to labour it further. Our views of Home Rule are founded upon history; but they are founded on a history somewhat more recent than that of the Union—on very recent history indeed. The noble and learned Earl said, very truly, that the departure in favour of Home Rule was taken in 1885. Now,

395
I am going to approach a subject on which the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is extremely sensitive, and I shall be greatly surprised if I get to the end of my few sentences without an interruption or interpellation from him. What occurred in 1885 to make this charge in our course? It was simply this. We left Office upon a side issue; I think it was a vote with regard to the Beer Duties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Budget.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It is a matter of perfect indifference. We went out prepared to renew certain clauses of the Coercion Act, certain clauses which we thought necessary with our detailed knowledge of Irish administration and affairs. The noble Marquess came in. Last night the noble Marquess said he was most unwilling to come in—that he was forced to come in. That is very much at variance with my recollection. I do not, of course, know what the internal feelings of the noble Marquess were; that no one can judge but himself. If he means that he was obliged to come in because his followers wished him to come in, I believe that what he says is strictly and accurately true. But if he says he was in any sense forced to come in by our Government his memory is playing him a trick. What occurred was this: I remember perfectly well. The noble Marquess entered into some negotiations with the outgoing Government as to the measure of support he would receive if he was prepared to take Office.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only between and during the interval that was to elapse before the General Election.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Of course. The noble Lord did not ask for a blind support for his policy for ever. He would have asked for too much if he had. What he did ask for was the support of the Government until the General Elec-
396
tion took place, and he said that without that support he would not take Office. We were unable to give him that support; we told him so; and yet he took Office. Therefore I am under the impression that if there was any compulsion on the noble Marquess to take Office it was not, as he implied, from this side of the House, but it was from his own side. What happened? The noble Marquess without the slightest examination into the facts of the case, without even the 24 hours he thought necessary in 1886 to examine the state of Ireland, without any possible examination of the state of the case, said he was determined to try the experiment of governing Ireland without what was called coercion. That was a very grave announcement, because it cut altogether the ground from beneath the feet of the Liberal Party. Coercion is a valuable instrument, but coercion demands continuity. If either Party is prepared, as a matter of Party politics, to abandon any idea of administering coercion without regard to the circumstances of the case, from that time coercion becomes impossible. I will give an illustration, but I will not give it as from myself; it would not be proper to do so, because of the office I have the honour to hold. I remember that Mr. Chamberlain, in a famous and much-quoted speech, said that the rule of England in Ireland was parallel to that of Russia in Poland or of Austria in Venice. I do not know what takes place in Poland now. Therefore I would rather take the case of Austria in Venice, which is now merely matter of history. Austria held Venice entirely by coercion. Would Austria have been able to hold Venice if every four or five years a Party was to come in and announce that it had not examined the case, but was prepared to drop coercion? Does it stand to common sense? The Venetians might have been better off, but the rule of Austria as described by Mr. Chamberlain would have come to an end, and that is important. The Liberal Party, forced, and I think happily forced, from coercion, was obliged to try a new experiment and a new departure. We were face to face not merely with the abandonment of coercion by the Party opposite, but we were also face to face with the moral and material failure of

397
the Act of Union to secure prosperity to Ireland. What was the proof of the moral failure? It was that 80 or 90 Members out of 100 came back from Ireland prepared to strike a mortal blow at that Union. The proof of the material failure was given last night, copiously and with much wealth of statistics, by Lord Play fair in his extremely interesting speech. The late Lord Chancellor of Ireland cast a good deal of ridicule upon statistics of potatoes grown to the acre now as compared with former days, and seemed to think these details were beneath the notice of a statesman; but I venture to think that, if the proverb correctly describes as the greatest benefactor of his species the man who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before, it is not unnatural to take the correlative view, and say that that Government is not the greatest benefactor of its species that makes one blade grow where two grew before. We then were driven, and not unwillingly driven, to the policy of Home Rule; all other policies we had tried and failed; this alone remained, and we tried it. The Bill of 1886 was introduced with a burst of enthusiasm, and rejected by a considerable majority in the House of Commons, and at the polls by an overwhelming majority. I do not regret that defeat, and I am sure noble Lords opposite will not regret it either. I do not regret it, because it was good for the Liberal Party to have a full experience in opposition of the advantage of the measure they had proposed in 1886 by contrast with the policy proposed by their successors. It was good also, because it made the Irish Party more known to the Liberal Party; and, in the third place, because it tested the professions of the Government and of their Liberal Unionist supporters. The professions of the Liberal Unionists were to have no coercion and no land purchase. Since that time circumstances have widely changed. There has been a Land Purchase Bill involving an expenditure of £10,000,000, and there has been a Coercion Bill accompanied by the curt instruction—"Do not hesitate, if necessary, to shoot." And this confirms our view, that the course we had chosen was the one and only alternative to coercion. After that
398
experience we came to this Bill. But we have also other motives besides history for coming to this conclusion. We have, in the first place, an Irish representation which is almost unanimously in favour of it. We have also the difficulty of understanding Ireland in England, which seems to me to be as great now as it was when we first began to govern her. I do not suppose that all wedded unions of over the year old are in the precise position to gain the historic flitch of bacon at the end of 12 months, but even then they are not always considered a failure. But what is to be held of a couple who, after a silver or a golden wedding, come to the Divorce Court on the ground of incompatibility of temper? That is the case with regard to Ireland. We had, besides that, the necessity of devolution on both Imperial and local considerations. We were sick of always voting Bills that the Irish always opposed, and we were sick of voting money that the Irish always disregarded. I myself would have preferred some scheme of devolution which would have been applicable to all countries alike in the United Kingdom, such as that I indicated in that speech at Paisley, which has formed so favourite a theme with the Opposition. But you cannot get all you want. There is a fatal objection to an equal scheme of devolution. The maximum you want for England would not be the minimum you want for Ireland, and so you would cause discontent to both parties without achieving your object. And we had, further, this object, that we wanted to get Ireland out of the way. We want to get Ireland out of the way in order that the time and energy that it engrossed in our Parliament might be better given to other purposes. There is another motive that I would wish to give for this Home Rule policy, and it is perhaps a more homely one. It is to some extent a feeling of mortified pride that makes the Liberal Party take up Home Rule. No one can doubt that if you could set Ireland afloat at this moment and float her across the ocean till she reached the shores of America, within 10 years, as a State of the Union, she would be as prosperous and contented as any other State of the Union. I say it is a reproach to our Empire, to our Government, and to our Parliament

399
that, while we covet every square inch of unoccupied ground that we can administer of the world, right at the core of our Empire there is, and there has been for seven of eight centuries, a difficulty, we openly confess, but with which we are hopelessly unable to deal. May I give two other reasons—reasons which are usually given as arguments against Home Rule, but which make me a Home Ruler at this time? The first is the phrase that is constantly used—the "dismemberment of the Empire." A more meaningless phrase was never invented. It is because I wish to avert a practical dismemberment of the Empire that I stand before your Lordships as a supporter of Home Rule to-night. There has only been one great dismemberment of the Empire. That occurred about a century ago. It was when the United States broke off from their allegiance and set up as a separate State across the Atlantic. What was the cause of that dismemberment? Was it because of too great a respect for their local aspirations? No, it was your insisting on establishing your own views of law and order in that country, in disregard of the wishes of the colonists. And what I fear is this—that if we do not arrive at some such scheme as we propose, and I do not pledge myself to the details of the scheme, we shall have that practical dismemberment, which is implied by Ireland sullen, discontented, and rebellious, always at our side. There is another ground on which I am a supporter of Home Rule. It is constantly urged as an objection to any such Bill. It is on the ground of foreign policy. I am not at all sure that the Opposition are not right in saying that foreign Governments distrust the proposals for establishing a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. But I put that down, with all respect to any distinguished Representatives of Foreign Powers who may be here, rather to that ignorance which all nations have of other nations than as a deadly argument against our proposal. But what is the case? At present we have from 25,000 to 30,000 troops in Ireland in times of peace. What force would you want in time of war? I would ask one more question. If you were engaged in a European war, what would be the first point at which your enemy would attempt to reach
400
you? What would be your most vulnerable point? It would, of course, be Ireland. I do not know whether they would be successful in establishing themselves there—they have made many attempts; but if, with the gigantic Armies of the Continent, anything were to happen to your Fleet, not 25,000, nor 30,000, nor 100,000 men would prevent the invasion of Ireland, and the invasion by a foreign force would find many friends on its shores. The true defence of Ireland from the point of view of foreign policy is to give Ireland something worth defending, to give her something that no liberating nation could offer, to give her institutions which she would value as much as we value ours, and, in fine, to set up that spirit of contentment which is so sadly lacking at the present moment. I pass by the question of Ulster, because I have too long trespassed upon your time. But I would venture to say that while these are positive arguments in favour of the proposal, there is an overwhelming negative argument. What do you propose? Have you any scheme—any such scheme as the noble Duke adumbrated in his election address of 1886, any such scheme as Mr. Chamberlain suggested in his election address of the same year? It' you had such a scheme I venture to say it would find no unfriendly reception on these Benches. We are only too anxious to get the Irish question out of the way in order to make way for English, Scotch, and Welsh reforms. Have you any such policy? You must have. But we know enough of what has occurred in the past to feel no great hopes of the future. You must have a scheme. When we go out the 80 Irish Members will not go out too. They will remain with yon. You may reduce them by a small percentage, and I believe that is part of your scheme, but that will not alter five-sixths of the representation of Ireland. You will not get rid of the 80 Irish Members; they will remain as a clot, a calculus, and an aneurism in the middle of your body politic, which you will have to take some drastic measure to remove. I remember what was the former policy of the noble Marquess—I do not know whether it remains the same—20 years of resolute government and free emigration. How

401
are you to get your 20 years of resolute government? Twenty years means three Parliaments. Will you get three Parliaments to give you carte blanche to administer resolute government in Ireland? You have not so far been able to get more than one. I do not think we are prepared to give a perpetual dictatorship; but, on the other hand, there is a difficulty in any 20 years of resolute government. The democracy cannot govern, and will not govern, in the way you wish them to govern. You may have your Coercion Bills; you may have your "Do not hesitate to shoot" policy if you will, but you will also have incidents inseparable from coercion; you will have regrettable incidents which will inspire the whole country with a horror and hatred of your policy such as existed three or four years before the General Election. Is emigration any better remedy or more practicable than 20 years of resolute government? Emigration greatly increases the difficulty with which you have to deal, if you send out discontented instead of contented emigrants. If you are merely going to pour into the United States or Australia Irish peasants torn from their homes by the impossibility of living there, going with a burning hatred of your institutions and your Monarchy, you will raise up ten evils for one you are laying. Who were the best emigrants who were ever sent out? They were the Pilgrim Fathers who went out in the May Flower. And you will find there was difficulty with them, and in their distant New England home, the Government said that they were a peevish and discontented people. You have tried your policy and failed. It has already reduced your British majority, and it has produced no effect on the Irish Members in the House of Commons against you. I think that you have but three choices left, and they are all of considerable complexity. The first is the disfranchisement of Ireland and the conversion of it into a Crown Colony; the second is your former policy, which is, if I may so, both expensive and ineffective; and the third is some form of Home Rule. The first is impossible, and the third you have not come to yet, but you may not be long in coming. But what will happen if you pursue the policy you adopted in the last Parliament? We shall have Ireland always on our back,
402
that incubus that we have been so anxious to shake off by Home Rule. The noble Marquess, in 1887, said, "The politics of the present are all summed up in the word 'Ireland,'" and he was perfectly right, but we should be entitled to expect, from his utterances as to resolute government and emigration, that we should have had some time for English and Scotch legislation. But how was the time occupied in the House of Commons? In 1887 there were 39 private Irish Bills and eight Government Bills, occupying 96 days. In 1888 there were 43 Private Bills and 13 Government Bills, taking 63 days. In 1889 there were 32 Private Bills and nine Government Bills—total, 41—occupying 52 days; and so we go on with an equal story all through those six years, though you promised us that we should discharge that burden of English legislation and Irish business by your resolute government; but it was found equally as heavy, as obnoxious, and as encumbering as it had ever been in any previous Parliament. I put aside the expense with which this policy is accompanied, the £1,000,000 or so spent on light railways and sops to feed the Cerberus of Irish discontent, which you are unable by any means to allay. But in pursuing the policy of Irish Home Rule we are guided quite as much by discontent and dread of what you propose as by any special content with what we have proposed ourselves. We see in the future that if your policy be pursued we shall have all those secret societies of assassination and outrage once more brought to work their way in Ireland, because the one hope which inspires the Irish people to withstand the incentives to rebellion and outrage will then disappear. We see Parliament encumbered, we see great expense, we see great waste of time; and we know that, whether you plaster Ireland with your garrisons or with your gold, the end of it by some devious path or other will be only some form of Home Rule. It is animated by these considerations, both positive and negative, that we have adopted the course which has brought so much obloquy upon us both from our open foes opposite and our open friends on my right. We propose this Bill in the sense so much decried by the noble Earl as an experiment. I grant that it is an experiment. All legisla-

403
tion is experimental, and all Irish legislation is necessarily experimental. But it is at least a large and a generous experiment. I remember only two experiments of equal magnitude—I think they were of greater magnitude—that have ever been proposed to Parliament in my time. They both struck deep at the Conservative institutions of this country, and they both menaced all that I conceive that the Party opposite holds dear, and they were both, I need hardly say, proposed by a Tory Government. One was the establishment of the London County Council—an infinitely more perilous experiment than the establishment of an Irish Parliament could ever be, where you focussed into one small body all the social, all the revolutionary elements, all the discontent, and all the poverty of an unprecedented aggregation of 5,000,000 people. The second was the Reform Bill of 1867. I well remember the introduction of that Bill, which was brought in by the noble and brilliant Prime Minister of that time—Lord Derby—who tossed it on the Table with the exclamation, "My Lords, I bring you this. This is, after all, but a leap in the dark." We claim that this Bill is not a leap in the dark. We claim that it is a leap towards the light, a leap and a long stride towards a more generous Irish policy, towards the reconcilement of two great nations, too long connected and too long divided, and, furthermore, a considerable stride towards that adjustment and devolution of local business which will alone enable the British people to support the vast and various burdens of their Empire.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he must ask for the sympathy and the indulgence of their Lordships when he rose to follow two such speakers as those whom it had just been the privilege of their Lordships to listen to. He would merely say the first speech was full of argument and full of detail, and was a most clear and incisive declaration of the legislative proposals that were before them. The second also was an able and eloquent speech, and he would hesitate to say that it was not full of argument; but at first it appeared to him to be full of chaff, but not of the chaff
404
which had been referred to by the noble Lord. From first to last he (the Earl of Rosebery) did not adduce a single argument for a Second Reading of the Bill. He had listened to a sick child who had caught a cold coming through the Lobbies, but a chill was not always fatal. But the noble Earl had stated that he would waive all discussion about the Bill. Until he said that, he (Lord Burleigh) was under the impression that they were there only for the purpose for learning what was for and against the measure. He would call their attention to the position in which they were placed. They had entered into a phase of a long controversy. How could they deal with it effectually, when they could not attach any distinct understanding to it? He had hoped that they would have had no more speculations about the principles of Home Rule. He thought they bad got it in the Bill, and that they were in a different position to what they had been before, because they would be able to discuss it in a concrete form, and see whether it would be accepted by the country. In the case of the Bill of 1886 all sorts of excuses were made by its framers for its defects. They were told that it had been got up in a hurry, and therefore it was not perfect, but that if its authors were put back into Office again it would be seen what they would do. Well, they had been seven years about it, and there was some right to assume that the great abilities of the 17 cleverest men of the Liberal Party had been applied to shape the form in which the Bill was presented. But now, on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill in their Lordships' House, they were told that they were to have no argument about it, and no assistance from noble Lords opposite in discussing it. It seemed to him that, whether they had made up their minds or 'not upon that subject, the promoters of the Bill ought to have advanced some argument in its favour, in order that they might have had the opportunity of discussing the principles of that Bill on intelligible lines, but the noble Earl had given them no such assistance. The noble Earl would admit that the Bill would make the greatest change ever proposed in our Constitution. It was practically a new Constitution, not only for Ireland, but still more for the United Kingdom. He

405
accepted the fact that the Government had changed their policy with regard to Ireland, but he might be permitted to say that if the reasons they had given satisfied themselves, to those who differed from the Government they were ridiculously inadequate. The Government were bound to show not only that some change in the policy of this country with regard to Ireland was necessary, but that this particular change was the best that could, in the circumstances, be proposed. If they suggested that the speeches made to the country did not represent the real opinions of those who represented them he would give up his point at once. But he must assume that when a public man went on to a public platform—he must assume that he did mean what he said to the people before him. He could not see one trace in the measure proposed bearing out the promises and professions which Her Majesty's Government had made to the country. The Prime Minister, in moving the First Reading of the Bill in another place, said there were five conditions which must be observed; but, in order to make those conditions square with the Bill, they ought to put the word "not" before each of them. He would venture to say that in this measure there was no special provision made for the protection of minorities, such as there should have been, and there was no finality, and no promise whatever of its being a real and perpetual settlement. The noble Lord who spoke to-night has disposed once and for all of Imperial unity and Imperial supremacy. If you attempted to enforce the veto the Irish Ministers would resign, and you would find no other Member of the Irish Party to take up the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and Constitutional methods would be brought to an end. There is no equality in a Bill which provides that the Irish Party shall be dominant in the affairs of this country, while they would have nothing to do with Irish affairs. In 1886 the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) attempted to fix a charge of inconsistency upon the Opposition with regard to the exclusion or retention of the Irish Members. He denied that there had been any inconsistency in the attitude of the Opposition on the subject of the exclusion or retention of the Irish Members. Under the Bill of 1886 the
406
larger Island was put into a position of supremacy over the smaller one; but the position was now changed, and under the present Bill the smaller Island was put into the position of supremacy. That, in itself, would make a great difference. He would venture to say he did not think that noble Lords opposite could know how great the difference was; he did not think that they could realise the objection that could be taken by the Irish Members. It was all very well to say that they made it no worse than it was before. But they did. They prevented the representation of Great Britain having any control whatever; and, if he might borrow a not very elegant but very expressive phrase, they had a right to object to be under the hoof of Ireland. He did not think he was going too far when he said that in this matter there had been deliberate, organised, long-maintained concealment of the intentions of the Government. The original proposals of the Bill were never seriously meant; and, in his opinion, the Government had deliberately abstained from giving any information to the Representatives of the country. In another place Mr. Chamberlain complained of the Prime Minister's intentions to the House, and said that Government had always avoided the questions put to them, or refused to answer them, and Mr. Gladstone confessed it. He promptly replied that he quite understood the object of the questions, and was determined to defeat it. If there was nothing else, that fact alone would justify their Lordships in refusing its consent to the Bill. He was not surprised, under the circumstances, Lord Rosebery had declined to be drawn into a discussion of the provisions of the Bill, because if he had defended them out and out he would have given his influence in Scotland such a blow that it would take a very long time to recover. The real object of the retention of the Irish Members had been disclosed in the other House by the hon. Member for Govan, when he said he wanted to retain the Irish Members in order to use their votes for English reforms. That candid avowal went far to show the danger and the immorality of the policy which was being pressed upon the House for acceptance. He now turned to the financial aspect of the

407
question as affecting Scotland. At present Scotland contributed to Imperial purposes £6,526,000, and Ireland £2,103,000. But when the sums which this Bill proposed should be spent by the country on the Irish Constabulary and in defraying the cost of Revenue collection in Ireland were deducted from the gross amount of Ireland's contribution, the net amount which would come into the Imperial Exchequer from that country would be only £1,552,000. Was this a fair payment from the Scotch point of view? Adopting the tests of the Prime Minister, he found that if Ireland were to be assessed, for the purpose of Imperial contribution, in proportion to the Income Tax paid in that country, she would contribute £2,500,000 instead of £1,550,000, and that if the assessment were made in proportion to the amount paid in Death Duties, the sum which Ireland would have to pay would be £2,816,000. He would take another criterion. Ireland at present paid 13·35 per cent. of the taxation raised in the United Kingdom on tea, tobacco, and wine. If she were to contribute to Imperial purposes in proportion she would pay £8,086,000. If the financial provisions of this Bill were agreed to an Irishman would only contribute for Imperial purposes the sum of 6s. 7d., whereas the amount taken from every Scotchman would be £1 12s. l0d. But the point which influenced him chiefly in his opposition to this Bill was the inadequate protection of the minority in Ireland. In the working of legislation of this kind everything depended upon the character of the men who would govern Ireland under it. Noble Lords opposite tried to get out of the difficulty by saying that they were not selecting the men who would govern, and that they hoped that the Irish people would select the right men. But that would not avail as an argument, for it was certain, as far as anything in human affairs could be certain, that the men who would form the new Irish Executive, if this Bill were to pass, would be the present Leaders of the Nationalist Party in the House of Commons. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had asked them to pass the measure as an experiment. What an experiment! It involved the lives, liberty, and property of those who had been most
408
loyal to the British connection. It was an experiment which would be made at the expense of men who said plainly that they dreaded nothing on earth so much as this legislation; and, in order that this experiment might be made, they were asked to trust the men who, the noble Earl opposite had told them, might in case of war take the side of our foes.
EARL SPENCER: Under present conditions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But those conditions, he believed, had had a great effect in Scotland, where the Prime Minister would do wisely not to rely on the support which he had hitherto received. That the views of large numbers of Scotch influential electors had undergone a change since the introduction of this Bill was shown by the great meeting held in Edinburgh in April. The minority in Ireland were one-third of the population; they represented the greater part of the education and industrial energy of the country; and yet their Lordships were solemnly asked to hand them over to the tender mercies of those whom they so much distrusted. He would not say anything against the Roman Catholic Church generally. In this country it commanded respect; but they had had glimpses of the priesthood in Ireland in magisterial inquiries and political battles and in the revelations of the Meath Election Petitions. Their Lordships were asked to hand over the minority to those who had been advocates of deliberate robbery and breach of contract, and had preached the gospel of revenge; but before they passed a Bill of this kind they would ask for a check, not only on rash and Party legislation, but for a real check, on those men who had started and worked the Land League and the Plan of Campaign. Noble Lords opposite hoped that the Irish Members would keep within the Bill, but there was only too much evidence that the sham safeguards imposed by the Bill were not loyally accepted by those who would have to

409
work it. They were told that to enforce the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament would lead to nothing but irritation. There could be no hope of a continuing settlement. The Government had either done too much or not enough. They had taken a most dangerous step in attempting to set up a Federal Constitution. They had weakened the United Kingdom for defence in a way most dangerous to the smaller countries embraced in it. He was convinced that, in any breaking up of the Imperial Parliament, Scotland and Ireland would lose more than they would gain. It was said that Parliament was overburdened, but, in his humble opinion, much that was said on that subject was grossly exaggerated. There was, he admitted, a substratum of truth in the saying; but surely a remedy could be found for it without separating the Executive Authority, and without taking the Constitution to pieces. Such a remedy could easily have been found if the market had not been spoiled by the hasty way in which. Home Rule was swallowed by the Party opposite. Speaking as a pure Scotchman, he could say that they were proud of their history, proud of their struggle for independence, proud of their former separate existence. Their union with England was not popular for something like three-quarters of a century, but now they entertained a loyalty, not only to Scotland, but to the Empire, and he believed the enormous majority of his fellow-countrymen would now feel that it was as great a lapse in their patriotism to be disloyal to the Empire as to be disloyal to Scotland. He honestly believed that Ireland at no long distance of time would have been brought to the same feeling had not her hopes been excited by the Party opposite. Until the deliberate judgment of the country in the light of clear and unmistakable knowledge had been obtained on this question he maintained that their Lordships had no right to accept the Bill. Before they were asked to violate their consciences and to stultify their reason they had a right to know that the mass of the people unmistakably desired this measure, and he should certainly vote against it, because he believed it involved considerations not only of national safety, but of national honour and probably of national life; and he
410
supported the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
LORD THRINGsaid, he was under the impression that a mist of exaggeration pervaded everything Irish. Facts had been misrepresented and distorted, and impossible conclusions had been drawn from improbable premises. In the few words he would address to their Lordships' House he would endeavour to show that the Bill was founded on well-established precedents, and that the fears of its opponents were either simulated or based on imperfect knowledge. It was said that the measure would lead to the dismemberment of the Empire. What was the Empire? It covered a fifth of the habitable globe, and it contained men of every creed and language, living under diverse local Governments. The common tie that bound these people together was Her Majesty and the prerogatives of the Crown. These prerogatives were the power to make peace and war, the control of the Army and Navy, and the right to make Treaties with foreign nations. How did the Bill affect any one of these privileges? How could it possibly disturb the Empire. The Bill was really a Colonial Bill, and could not disturb the unity of the Empire in the slightest degree. If the Empire was to be shaken in such a manner it would have long since been shattered. It was contrary to their common intelligence to say that this measure would in any way affect the unity of the Empire. The Duke of Devonshire had drawn a great distinction between the unity of the Empire and the unity of the Kingdom. Since Irish Members were retained in the Imperial Parliament in reduced numbers, but with the same rights as they possessed now, it would be quite as sensible to say that if they altered the franchise in Ireland or the number of its Members that they affected the unity of the Kingdom. Some noble Lords were greatly exercised about the supremacy of Parliament. But Parliament remained as before. Not one single Parliamentary power had

411
been affected. Indeed, over-precautions had been taken to secure the supremacy of Parliament. It was a doctrine of the Common Law that Parliament could not if it would abrogate its supremacy. And in the Colonial Acts nothing was said about the supremacy of Parliament, it was assumed. But in this Bill there was a declaration of it in the Preamble, and an enactment in the body of the measure. Then there was the Imperial veto, which had always been applied in Colonial Constitutions to prevent gross injustice. He did not see how any injustice could be done or the minority be injured in any way when they had 80 Irish Members sitting in the Imperial Parliament who could be called to account for their misdeeds. The unity of the Empire, the unity of the Kingdom, and the supremacy of Parliament would be as safe after this Bill as they were now. The Bill was an ordinary Colonial Bill, adapted to the peculiar circumstances which existed between Great Britain and Ireland. There were two forms of a Bill of this kind. The old Colonial Bill was always in this form, it delegated powers to the subordinate Government to make laws for the peace, good order, and good government of the country; it dispensed with all restrictions, and left the Colony to do the best thing they could. They had been told the Bill was crude, and crazy, and revolutionary, and all sorts of bad things. He was bound to admit that during his 25 years of office; he never knew of a Bill which was not crude and crazy in the opinion of the Opposition. He challenged any noble Lord who understood Colonial legislation to point out any single clause which went beyond the ordinary Colonial limit. On the contrary, this was a more restricted Bill. When they were told that great wrong would be done under it he asked whether great wrong had been done in any of the 15 self-governing Colonies. Why was it supposed that under a Constitution more restricted than those of the Colonies the unfortunate Irish were to commit wrongs which the Colonies had not committed? It was said that the Irish Parliament would be composed of rebels and murderers, but precisely the same thing was said when a Constitution was granted to Canada. But the experience of history showed that the weight of re-
412
sponsibility made men abandon their former methods and settle down to the work of government. Then as to the everlasting accusation of a conspiracy of secrecy, everyone had known for the last eight years that when the present Government came into Office they would bring in a Bill to give local government to Ireland, and a Local Government Bill could only contain certain definite proposals contained in every Colonial Bill. The employment of the Closure in the Commons could not be avoided in the face of the tactics of the Opposition. He did not blame them, but the Government could not do otherwise than apply the Closure. Everybody knew that the Colonial Bills and the Irish Bill involved great changes in the administration of the country, but that was the object for which the power was given that they might manage their own affairs. If Amendments had been moved to every delegated power in the Canadian Bill, for example, the end would not have been reached till the Judgment Day. The real question was whether Parliament did or did not intend to give local government to Ireland. It mattered little what the details were, but it mattered very much if they were prepared to give local government to Ireland or not. It was said that there was no argument in its favour. All history and experience taught that where countries or communities with peculiarities of race or creed or language were united by an incorporating union the result was not successful, but where they were united by a federal union national feeling was satisfied. He would only quote the one case of Austria-Hungary as that was the most apposite instance. Hungary had been discontented for centuries. Then within our own time it broke into rebellion, which was crushed with the assistance of Russia, and Hungary was incorporated with Austria. After the battle of Sadowa, Hungary's opportunity came Austria was prostrate, and Count Beust, to restore the Empire, dissolved the Incorporating Union and substituted a Federal Union. He was perfectly aware there had been differences, but on the whole Hungary became contented. If they looked at Canada they found that rebellion had been quelled by the grant of self-government, a Federal Union had since been established,

413
and that Canada was now one of the most loyal portions of the British Empire. He did not say that those instances were necessarily conclusive, but still they demonstrated the general principle that to give self-government to a discontented community was the easiest way of conciliation. One-fifth of the habitable globe rested content under the rule of Great Britain, with only one exception. That exception was one of the smallest of our dependencies—Ireland—and it possessed no local government. The Marquess of Salisbury has said that the term "national aspirations," as applied to Ireland, was merely "modern jargon." It might be jargon, but it was the jargon of Swift, of Flood, of Grattan, of O'Connell, of Burke, and of Lord John Russell. He was not ashamed to think that National sentiment and National aspirations were very good grounds for giving local government to Ireland; and he thought that our Colonial Institutions proved that the risk was almost infinitesimal. Above all these pleas there was a greater and nobler plea for giving Home Rule to Ireland. The honour of the Empire and of England demanded that justice and self-government should be given to Ireland. It was time to put an end to the taunts thrown in our teeth by every foreign nation that while we preached the gospel of liberty throughout the world Ireland was oppressed and denied even a small part of the privileges which we granted so liberally and freely, and almost without solicitation, to our most distant dependencies. That, he thought, was a very clear reason for giving self-government to Ireland. He knew that the opinion of an old and feeble man would avail nothing; but he was unwilling to remain silent in the Debate, because for 15 years he had been behind the scenes of Irish Government; and they were dark and dreary and ghastly scenes. He had also closely studied the Colonial Empire; and, before the Government of which he was a subordinate, he came to the conclusion that Home Rule was the only remedy which offered any chance of success in Ireland. He held that opinion strongly then, and he held it strongly now.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, with regard to the reasons given for introducing the Bill, he traversed the statement
414
most distinctly that there was any ground for urging that Ireland, in the period since the Union, had not steadily prospered to a greater degree probably than any other civilised country, America alone excepted. Showing the state of Ireland immediately preceding the Union, quotations had been given from the speech of Lord Clare bearing on the question. A steady improvement took place down to the time of the great famine of 1846. On that point he could speak from experience. He remembered that terrible visitation, having traversed at the time the districts in the South and West of Ireland. At that time artisans were employed at 2s. a day wages, and labourers could be obtained in any numbers for 6d. a day; whereas now men could not be got for less than four times than that sum. So much for labour. The deposits in the Bank, which in 1850 were certainly below £8,000,000, were now £32,000,000. Large sums were now invested by the tenant farmers and small traders in securities. The whole railroad system of Ireland, for which England had contributed largely at the beginning, had passed gradually and imperceptibly into the hands of Irish proprietors; and the same might be said of the shipping and other great industries. Originally established with English capital, the shares in those undertakings had now very properly drifted across the Channel, and were now held almost exclusively in Ireland. Within his own knowledge some years ago a project was started which required a 10 per cent. deposit of £120,000. Applications were received in three days to the amount of nearly £130,000, so that the capital was subscribed more than ten times over. Those were not signs of decaying trade, or that the country was not prospering; and those results had been achieved in the face of agitation, of occasional failures of harvest, and of various other disturbing causes well known to those interested in Ireland. The only class in the community which could not be said to have prospered were the landlords—there was no mistake at all about that. No landlord in Ireland was now getting the rent he received 40 or 50 years ago; and although rents had rarely on the old estates been raised since the commencement of the century, they had, in most instances, been considerably cut down by

415
the operation of successive enactments which had passed through their Lordships' House. Ireland, no doubt, was not as prosperous as she might be; but it was the merest moonshine to put a lack of prosperity forward as the reason for introducing this measure. Ireland had not been stagnant in commerce and industry. She had, in fact, progressed steadily; and in those parts of the country where free scope had been given to the development of native industry, as in Ulster, the progress had been more remarkable, perhaps, than in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. He would proceed to state the objections to the principle—not to the details of the Bill, which would induce him unhesitatingly to vote against the measure. In the first place, the safeguard of the veto was worth nothing. It was a mere nominal veto which the experience of the Colonies showed to be worth precisely the paper on which it was written. When any Constitutional strain occurred he did not envy the post of the first Viceroy of Ireland, should that Bill, unhappily, pass into law. He would have three masters to deal with, and it would be very difficult for him to determine to which of them he should turn for advice and guidance as each emergency arose—or, as might be the case, two or three emergencies together, which often happened in Ireland. So long as that remained undefined that was not a Bill, which, in principle, their Lordships would be justified in passing. Coming to the well-known 9th clause, the proposition in 1885 was that no Irish Member should appear at Westminster; and in this Bill, as originally introduced, they were to appear and disappear upon "the in-and-out system," as it was called—they were to appear on certain occasions, and then disappear into space when the occasion had passed away, and re-appear when necessity arose. That proposal was abandoned. A third proposal was now made. The Irish Members were not only to pass laws in their own country, but to assist in the legislation on this side of the Channel. The latter arrangement was a serious inconvenience at present, for English, Scotch, and Welsh measures were opposed, apparently, out of spite by different Irish Members who were not concerned in them in the slightest degree. Of course, that was a serious obstacle to all useful
416
legislation. It was a problem which he believed to be utterly insoluble, and the objection to each of the three methods of dealing with the question seemed to be about equally strong. Then, coming to the financial part of the Bill, that was not a part of it with which their Lordships' House was specially entitled to deal; but, having given some attention to the matter, all he could say was that in the crude and immature financial proposals, which had been altered two or three times, he could see no ground for satisfaction. Great Britain was to be taxed for Ireland; but not only that—Ireland would probably soon have to face bankruptcy. In the absence of Imperial credit, through which so much good work had been done in the country, a far higher rate of interest would have to be made for money required for public works. The country would then suffer from chronic impecuniosity. Unless some wiser measure of finance could be proposed, their Lordships would certainly be justified in rejecting the Bill. This was not merely a matter of detail, but was essentially a question of principle. The provisions of the Bill were only to stand for six years, and then the whole controversy would have to be gone through afresh. As to the question of security to the minority, more than one noble Lord in the Government stood pledged by his own promise; and it had been distinctly stated that such securities should be inserted in the Bill as would reasonably satisfy the minority, especially in Ulster. Not for a moment could it be said that Ulster had been in any way satisfied. He did not wonder that Ulster felt aggrieved that Wales should be about to receive consideration at the hands of the Government; while that Province, with a larger population, larger area, and far more wealth, was not to receive any separate consideration from the rest of Ireland. That, again, was a question of principle. As to the Land Question, their Lordships, undoubtedly, stood in a somewhat delicate position. He could honestly say for himself, and for noble Lords connected with Ireland, that if he could see in that measure any hope of permanent benefit to Ireland, no personal interests would prevent him crossing the House to support it. But he could not understand what the Government proposed to do. The noble Earl (Earl

417
Spencer) said he had always been in favour of dealing with the Land Question; and it was not easy to see how the latest measure that had been passed absolved the Members of the Government from the pledges they had given. Some Member of the Government ought to give the House an indication of what their policy was to be in reference to the land if that Bill was passed. The condition of such a measure should be that it would settle the question for at least a generation; but there was no prospect of this Bill doing that. The Leaders of the Nationalist Party were not agreed upon the point. Mr. Justin M'Carthy might accept it in good faith; but what authority had he behind him? The Parnellite Leader, Mr. J. Redmond, declared that the word "provisional" was stamped on every line of the measure. Mr. Parnell, who, with all his faults was head and shoulders above the Leaders who had succeeded him, could probably have enforced discipline in the Party; but it was doubtful whether he ever intended to fulfil the pledges he had given. According to his own last speech in Committee Room No. 15, he accepted the Bill only pro tanto; but with whom was Parliament now dealing? Who were these Leaders? Where were the worthy successors of the galaxy of talent which made the closing days of the last Irish Parliament so memorable and so glorious for that country? Where were the Floods, Grattans, Ponsonbys, and Plunkets? Upon whom had their mantle fallen? The present Leaders must be judged by their own acts as summed up on the finding of the Commission—that they had been guilty of criminal conspiracy upon this Land Question. That finding applied to 36 of them—the exact majority by which the Bill was carried in the other House. The Irish Leaders had achieved no success in any other walk of life; and, looking to their own utterances, it was doubtful whether any bargain entered into with them would be honestly kept. They were now at the parting of two ways—one the path of political expediency, which the Government invited them to follow, and along which a child might tread with ease, and the other the steep and uphill track of duty and principle, which it might tax all the energy and ability of full-grown statesmen to climb. On the choice which
418
they made, whether the evil be selected and good refused, was likely to turn the future not only of Ireland, but of this country for many a long year to come. He trusted their Lordships would pause before they sanctioned any such course—before they forgot that the nation had inherited that which was not to be manufactured in a day, and which ought not to be taken to pieces in a single Session. They had inherited a Constitution from their forefathers under which they had lived and flourished as no other nation in the world had ever done, and which, if possible, they ought to hand down unimpaired in all its brightness and lustre to their children and their children's children.
VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, that ever since the first faint rumours were put about that a measure of this kind was about to be introduced by a great political Party he had taken a share, both inside and outside the House, in organising resistance to it. The noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had alluded to the unreality of the Debate. He agreed that there was unreality in it, because to all the thrusts and cuts delivered by the opponents of the measure there had not been on the part of the Government an attempt to parry, or at a real defence. The noble Earl himself, even in his admirable and most amusing speech, had not gone into the details of the Bill, but likened the Debate to the bull-fighting of Spain. He did not; however, attempt to stir up the Bill; he did not stop one moment—to use a vulgar expression—to give the bull one twist of his tail. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Bill, was put in a position of great difficulty, which entitled him to the sincere sympathy of the House. He performed the task with admirable dignity and moderation; but he told their Lordships really nothing about the Bill. He gave a long catalogue of crimes and misdemeanours; but he did not, as he ought to have done, attempt to forestall, to some extent, the arguments which had been brought against the details of the Bill, for he must have known, from what had happened outside that House and in another place, what would certainly be advanced against the Bill in Debate. Lord Brassey, in his speech, gave some reasons why all other noble Lords in the

419
House save himself should vote in favour of the measure. Lord Ribblesdale also spoke in its favour with his accustomed ability, and gave most excellent reasons for the course he had taken; but he told their Lordships nothing about the Bill, and, having explained his own change of opinions, stood on the penitential stool with all his accustomed grace. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking in defence of the Bill last night, did not attempt to meet Viscount Cross's criticisms on the financial sections of the Bill. The notice he took of those criticisms was very cursory. He reproached the Conservative Party with having a share in granting the franchise to the Irish in 1884; he used it almost as a taunt against them that they had done so, and asked why the Conservatives had not continued that policy in the direction of Home Rule. It was not his duty to defend the Conservative Party; but he submitted that that argument really fell to the ground. The opposition to the Bill in that House must be mainly on its principles; and although it was difficult to avoid allusions to clauses and details, its provisions involved gross injustice in some cases, and in others were so imperfect in affording protection to the minority as to be merely a hollow mockery. There was no doubt whatever that noble Lords in that part of the House would vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) for the rejection of the Bill; and he submitted it was their duty to vote for its rejection, and it would be again their duty to do so should it be forced once more through the other House, until its supporters fulfilled their obvious obligation of submitting it, with all its details, to the verdict of the country. It had often been pointed out how studiously the electorate had been kept in ignorance by the present Government ever since the defeat of their Bill in 1886; and only at the last General Election was the name alone of Home Rule before the country, and only so far as it furthered the interests of other proposals, which were sufficiently important in themselves, but had not been sufficiently submitted to public consideration, to really come within the sphere of practical politics. It could not be denied that every detail of this Bill was in any way understood
420
by the people at the last General Election. In a speech delivered in Dublin on the 24th of August, after the election, Mr. Dillon, the Member for East Mayo, said—
"The Irish Party would Dot give Mr. Gladstone their support in the House of Commons unless he satisfied them on all the details of the Bill; had they been given before the election took place, the verdict of England would probably have been given not for, but against, Home Rule."
That was the opinion of Mr. Dillon. He went on—
"As far as my poor political knowledge carries me, the first thing to do is to secure your hare, and then you will see how you will cook it."
That was not a very civil way of talking about the Prime Minister. He went on to say—
"First get a great English Minister, and the House of Commons, and the electorate of Great Britain to pronounce in favour of Irish liberty, and we shall know how to deal with the details of the Home Rule Bill afterwards."
He would remind their Lordships that Mr. Dillon was a person of great eminence in the Irish Party, with a great knowledge of English affairs, and he most probably knew what was proposed. Who could pretend now that the electors of Great Britain voted with a full knowledge of what was proposed? Ever since the Bill of 1886 was defeated, it was announced that that measure was dead; and that the Prime Minister and his Irish colleagues and advisers were perfectly free to recast their scheme in every detail, but no one outside the inner circle knew anything about it. It was certain that the English electorate were kept purposely in ignorance of it. It was only charitable to suppose that what had been called "the conspiracy of silence" on the part of many supporters of the measure in that House, at all events, was due to absolute ignorance. Every appeal for details of the policy of noble Lords opposite had been met with an absolute refusal; and it was hard to believe they really knew what was proposed. The noble Marquess, in a speech he lately delivered outside the walls of Parliament, called attention to the critical state of political affairs, and expressed his opinion that it might be necessary if measures of such a far-reaching and revolutionary character were proposed to discuss some system of referendum. The noble Marquess did

421
not apparently expressly advocate a system of referendum, but only intended to convey a warning. Our present means of taking the opinion of the electorate were sufficient, provided always that the electors voted untrammelled by official interference or the intimidation of political agencies. One aspect of the 11th clause had not yet been touched upon. By that clause the Government had withdrawn the question of Irish representation from the consideration of Parliament. It was now proposed that on all questions of Imperial policy—on all questions, English, Scotch, and Welsh—the 80 Members should vote in the Imperial Parliament. The Schedule of the Bill had already been dealt with by noble Lords who had preceded him. An almost scandalous attempt had been made to manipulate the constituencies in Ireland; but as long as one portion of the United Kingdom was extravagantly over-represented and another equally under-represented, it was impossible to say that any measure of this kind which came before their Lordships was really backed by a majority of the electors of the United Kingdom. He wished that the question of redistribution were seriously taken up, and a Bill on the subject carried through Parliament; if that were done the result would be to remove all idea of competition between the different parts of the United Kingdom. It was proposed to pass this Bill irrespective of the opinions and feelings of that large minority which represented one-third of the population and two-thirds of the intelligence, industry, and commerce of Ireland. It was said that there was no demand for County Government in Ireland, but he believed that there was; and he was confident from his own experience that if rural Municipalities were once created in Ireland their administration would be conducted with the same regard to economy and efficiency as prevailed in English and Scotch counties. They would not be managed by the same class of men as would be sent to the Irish Legislature. Would it not be better, with the co-operation of all sides, to pass a measure of that kind, and to watch its operation before they attempted to pass a Home Rule Bill? His noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs alluded to the question of the possible invasion of Ireland. The
422
South-Western Coasts offered the same attractions to the foreign invader as they had done before. What would be the consequence if at such a time the Irish Legislature passed Resolutions professing neutrality, or even condemning the Imperial policy, and the Irish Executive set recruiting on foot to afford assistance to an invader who had once landed on Irish soil. The answer had been hitherto—"Oh, this is contrary to human nature," and people talked of the Union of Hearts; but there was no security that the Irish Legislature would give even a moderate support to Imperial policy. Then he wished to ask by what moral right the services of the Imperial Civil servants were to be transferred to another Executive? He would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he gave his cordial assent to the 34th clause, which included the moritorium of three years during which the Irish Parliament might not deal with the question. In conclusion, he contended that those who lived in Ulster and in other Provinces had a right to speak for all classes of the Irish people, and in their behalf he claimed justice. He was not speaking in the interests of one class solely, and certainly not in the interests of the Irish landlords alone. The noble Earl said there were 113 Irish Peers in that House who had little or no right to speak on behalf of any interest out of Ulster. Many of their Lordships did not live in that Province, but were connected with people of the other three Provinces whose interests were bound up with theirs, notwithstanding this miserable political struggle. He maintained that they had a right to speak for all classes. There were thousands in the West and South of Ireland who were anxious to perform their honest obligations. Who did not know what the life of those men had been? They were constantly exposed to insult and danger to themselves and families in the House of God and on the public roads. Who would be in the position of such a man sitting in his cabin at night when every sound—the wind in the chimney, or the rattle of a latch—might be the harbinger of death? The existence of these men was one long agony. They were adscripti glebœ in the fullest sense of the term. Others whose horizon of life was wider could leave the country, and they did leave it for ever. They

423
were the kind of men who were the Pilgrim Fathers of the Mayflower. They left Ireland with a burning sentiment of passionate resentment in their breast, and that sentiment would go far to alienate the minds of men in our Colonies and in the United States against the Empire of Great Britain. On behalf of those men who were anxious to perform their honest obligations he claimed everything that was embraced under the name of justice.
LORD SWANSEAsaid, that, although he addressed their Lordships practically for the first time, he was an old Parliamentary hand, having had a seat in the other House for 41 years. Approaching this question in a judicial and unimpassioned manner, he had arrived at the conclusion that the time had come when this momentous question must be dealt with, in order that they might remove the chronic discontent from which Ireland suffered. Everybody, he thought, would admit that something must be done. What did the terrible condition of things in Ireland arise from? They had only to look to the history of that unhappy country. In 1800 the population of Ireland was 33 per cent. of the whole United Kingdom; the population of England being 9,000,000, of Ireland over 5,000,000, and of Scotland 1,600,000. Now, Ireland's proportion was only 12½ per cent. There were some 25,000 troops in Ireland, besides an armed police, to control the population; while, in contrast, Scotland had but 5,000 troops. Many measures had been introduced in times past for the pacification of Ireland, but they had been absolutely useless. What was the alternative to this policy? None had yet been proposed. The only proposal was another 20 years of resolute government and coercion. But that policy had recently been tried for seven years, and was Ireland any nearer to pacification and contentment at the end of those seven years than at the beginning? The people, no doubt, were kept down with a strong hand, and there was less agrarian crime. But that was not enough. What a Government should aim at was the contentment of the people, and that Ireland was not contented with the present state of things was proved by the fact that at the last General Election four-fifths of the Irish Members returned to
424
Parliament were Home Rulers. The Duke of Devonshire the other night had hinted feebly at some extension of the County Council system as an alternative. The noble Duke appeared to think that County Councils possessed extensive executive powers, but, as the Chairman of a very large County Council, he could inform the noble Duke that they possessed no executive powers. They could not even originate a Bill in Parliament. The smallest borough in the country had more extensive powers than they. To attempt to satisfy Ireland by the creation of a glorified County Council would be foolish and puerile, for Ireland would never be contented until she had a National Council. The Irish claimed to be a nation. ["Hear, hear!"] They were a nation, and he hardly knew how to interpret those cheers. Were they, or were they not, a nation? [The Marquess of SALISBURY: No.] Then what were they? Would the noble marques, define what the Irish people were, if they were not a nation. [The Marquess of SALISBURY: Two nations.] For his part, he thought it must be admitted that they were a nation, and certainly until they were accorded the rights of a nation they would not be contented. This measure, he believed, would content them. It was the 80 Nationalist Representatives in the House of Commons who had a right to express the views of Ireland, and not noble Lords in that House who represented their own interests, but not those of the Irish people. He had had a long experience of the Irish Members in the House of Commons, and he declared that a more able body of men did not exist. At first he felt strong prejudice against, them, because they interfered so largely with the business of the House. He felt intense resentment, hardly realising that it was the beginning of a civil war, as it were, in the House of Commons. But gradually the enormous power of the Irish Representatives forced itself upon him. They were men of great intellect and determination and were true patriots. No doubt the course they took in the House of Commons was most disagreeable to English, Scotch, and Welsh Members, but it was the only course they could take to bring home to the House and the country the strong National desire for self-government. It was very easy to discredit and disbelieve the Irish

425
Members, but he had faith in them, and believed that when they had accepted this measure they had accepted it loyally and honestly. [Laughter.] It was easy for noble Lords to laugh, but they did not know these men as he did. [A noble LORD: We know Mr. Redmond.] Let them take the lowest view. These men would hold high Office, and the Opposition imputed to them the folly of lightly throwing away that position for which they had struggled for so many years. Their Lordships might depend upon it that they knew too well where their interests lay, and when responsibility was thrown upon them they would be found as able to conduct the affairs of their country as any men who ever sat in the House of Commons. They knew they were weak and that Great Britain was strong, and they were aware that if they abused their power they would have the power of this country against them. Was it not unworthy that a nation of 33,000,000 people should fear a nation of, deducting 1,500,000 "Loyalists," 3,000,000? Did not this Bill enact the absolute supremacy of the Imperial Parliament? ["No, no!"] It did so distinctly, not only in the Preamble, but in distinct words. But no such enactment was really wanted, because the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was not touched. If the Irish Parliament enacted any unjust law their Lordships might be sure that the Imperial Parliament would immediately override it. He, for one, would never assent to any Act of the Irish Parliament which caused spoliation. The Irish leaders knew full well how far they could go. They knew that the English people were essentially a just people, and that any action of theirs which might be unjust to the landlords or anyone else would not pass muster in this country. He had never supported the Bills which had been introduced for the purchase of laud, but so far as defending the property of the Irish landlords was concerned there was no man in the House who would go further than he. He believed that the veto of the Lord Lieutenant would be actively employed should occasion arise; but he would strongly deprecate any peddling interference with the affairs of Ireland. He had always favoured the retention of the Irish Members as a sign and symbol of the unity of
426
the Empire; but he rather regretted that the Government had departed from the in-and-out method. One of the strongest reasons for the Bill was that it would remove Irish questions from the House of Commons, where they had been a curse and an impediment to the effective discharge of the duties of that Assembly. He recognised that there must ultimately be an appeal to the country. He did not, however, admit that the Liberal Party had no mandate. Home Rule was the primary, though not the only, question at the last Election. At the next Election the details of the Bill would be before the country, and he believed they would be accepted by the electors, and that all the visionary Unionist bugbears would be blown to the four winds of heaven by the knowledge which the country would have of the exact provisions of the scheme. The country would see that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was guarded in the strictest manner, and that none of the evils prophesied could possibly arise. His firm conviction was that when another appeal was made to the country an enormous majority would declare in favour of Home Rule. That Members of the House of Commons had voted for the Bill because they knew it would be rejected by the House of Lords, he did not believe, and the suggestion contained a grave imputation. The Liberal Party had created our Constitution, and desired by every means in their power to uphold it; but the course taken lately in the House of Commons had shaken our Constitution more, perhaps, than anything that had taken place for many long years. If the Closure were not applied a Bill of this kind would never be passed. Their Lordships were going on very dangerous lines. It would be very much wiser to deal with this great question in a different manner from that which their Lordships had adopted. His prophecy in regard to the result of any future appeal to the country would undoubtedly come true, and then their Lordships would not be able to deal with the Bill so calmly, or be so able to modify its conditions as they might now if they chose.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that none of the noble Lords who had supported the measure had said a single word about the Bill. As far as he could understand, Lord Swansea had been

427
brought over to Home Rule because he discovered that Ireland was declining in population, and therefore in prosperity. But the noble Lord compared the time before the famine with the time after the famine. Ireland, as a matter of fact, had increased in prosperity by leaps and bounds since the Union, and, as the country had been over-populated, the decline in the population had been one of the reasons of the increased prosperity. Lord Rosebery had made a very witty and clever speech. The early part of it was full of jokes and chaff; but this Bill was not a matter to joke about. The noble Earl joked about a policy which, if it were made effective, would indubitably produce a terrible tragedy in Ireland. It would bring ruin, despair, and possible death to hundreds of thousands of strong men, weak women, and little children in Ireland, and yet the noble Earl thought it was a good thing to joke about. He, on the contrary, did not think it was a subject for joking; neither did the Loyalists of Ireland. It was most unseemly of the noble Earl to make a joke out of the prospective misery of thousands of his fellow-subjects. The noble Earl refused to answer the criticisms of the noble and learned Earl who opened the Debate that evening. Why? Because they were unanswerable. The noble Earl made an uncalled-for and wholly unjustifiable attack on his noble Friend (Lord Muskerry), who was asked by the noble Earl whom he represented in Ireland. He would tell the noble Earl whom his noble Friend represented. His noble Friend was one of those who represented the loyal minority in the South and West of Ireland, a constituency which was increasing in volume in opposition to this measure in a different manner from another constituency with which the noble Earl was acquainted, and which was not far from his own doors in Scotland. He maintained that the noble Earl gave a very lukewarm support to Home Rule in the speech which he delivered earlier in the evening. Up to the present time the Foreign Secretary had been very reticent on the subject of Home Rule; he had never thoroughly explained himself, and he was sure that their Lordships were very anxious to hear the explanation of his attitude that evening; but, strange to say, he was again equally reticent. The noble Earl had every
428
reason not to commit himself in favour of this policy, because there were certain remarks of his which needed elucidation, which showed that the noble Earl must have found great difficulty in changing his opinions. In 1885, referring to a supposed alliance between Mr. Parnell and the Conservatives—an alliance which only existed in Gladstonian brains—the noble Earl described identically the present position of affairs, and described the consequences, the only difference being that it was a different company that was on the stage. He said on October 15, 1885—
"Now if the Tory Government remains able, with the 80 or 90 followers of Mr. Parnell, to hold its own, the future of the next House of Commons will rest, not with Lord Salisbury or Lord Randolph Churchill, but with Mr. Parnell. He, and not Lord Salisbury, will be the master of the situation; he, and not Sir M. Hicks-Beach, will be the Leader of the House of Commons. He will sit enthroned with Lord Randolph Churchill on his right and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach on his left, like Chiefs in Israel, with 80 Parnellite Members behind them who have signed the blind pledge of his followers."
That was a pretty strong statement, but he had even a stronger one. The noble Earl went on to say—
"Though it has its comic side, I think this prospect is a tragic one."
Possibly the noble Earl little thought that he would be turned himself into an actor of tragedy and comedy combined. Again, he said—
"But I go further, and I say that this alliance of the Tory and the Irish vote is a new and very dangerous feature in our politics";
and again—
"because it is an alliance which has not merely struck a mortal stab at political principles, but it involves a danger to the Empire itself."
The noble Earl had never explained one word of that speech. He was for a long time entirely silent, but in 1892 he did make a speech adopting Home Rule. He would ask the noble Lord whether a mortal stab had now been given to the political principles of himself and the Party he belonged to; and whether his prophecy had proved correct, and the Empire was involved in serious danger?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It was explained at some length in my speech at Leeds, and I shall be happy to send a copy of it to the noble Marquess to-morrow morning.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDproceeded to say that the noble Earl (Earl Spencer) who moved the Second Beading of the Bill had enumerated all the Land Acts passed since the famine, though he failed to understand how they applied to this Bill except as an argument against it, and he did not explain one of the safeguards of the measure. All the explanation vouchsafed was an expression of belief on the part of the noble Earl as to what those safeguards would effect, and that he believed they would have the effect of protecting the minority. Their Lordships remembered, however, when the noble Earl was Viceroy of Ireland, and that at that time he acted as if he believed the reverse of what he told their Lordships the other evening. Was it possible the noble Earl's views had changed in consequence of the necessity for obtaining votes? In his able speech Lord Ribblesdale explained how he had come to change his opinions in consequence of an Irish majority having been returned twice or thrice in support of Home Rule. The same argument would apply to a Separatist majority returned for Yorkshire or Northumberland. But the noble Lord did not stop to ascertain how that majority was obtained or what it represented. Would the noble Lord be astonished if he heard that a very large number of people who voted for Home Rule in Ireland did so for the same reason that a number of the majority voted for this Bill in the House of Commons—namely, that they knew it would not pass? But in the South and West of Ireland he heard that farmers were terribly frightened at the prospect of the Bill passing, and many of them earnestly hoped this House would throw it out. A Roman Catholic tenant farmer had said to him that he did not believe there were many men in Ireland who had £20 to lose who were in favour of the Bill. The Earl of Rosebery stated his views of what Home Rule should be at Glasgow, on June 17, 1886, and he laid down certain conditions, but were they carried out by this Bill? He said, first, that Home Rule should be based on Imperial unity; second, political equality of the three nations; third, there should be an equal distri-
430
bution of burdens; fourth, that there should be safeguards for the minority; and, fifth, that it should be in the nature of a settlement, not a mere provocation for fresh demands. He would like to know whether the noble Earl thought those conditions had been carried out in this Bill? It was said that it did not destroy Imperial unity, but it certainly threatened the unity of the United Kingdom by involving the risk of separation or civil war. There could not be equality or equal distribution of burdens when Ireland governed herself and England as well, and Ireland gained £500,000 a year, which was offered on the Second Reading of the Bill by Mr. Gladstone, and which was certain to be a very great deal more. Then Lord Selborne had shown there was no machinery to enable this Parliament to exercise its supremacy. The only machinery that had been named were the armed forces of the Crown, and the employment of those meant nothing short of civil war. All safeguards for the minority would be evaded by men who, as Mr. Gladstone said, were wading through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire. They had evaded the law under the British Government, and would do so very much more easily with the Executive power in their own hands. The Irish Members might well have accepted many of the Amendments that had been proposed to the Bill, because they well understood how to evade every safeguard intended to have been provided by those Amendments. What were the safeguards in the Bill? He could only make out nine, and some of them were an insult in their absurdity to the loyal minority, and, more than that, they were an insult to the understanding of the British people, and he hoped that the British people would appreciate the insult. They consisted—two of the supremacy of Parliament, two to prevent the endowment of Religious Bodies and interference with education, two for the protection of the property of Religious Bodies and Corporations, the Lord Lieutenant's veto, the Legislative Council, and the Land Question not to be legislated on for three years. With regard to the veto, Earl Spencer rather took credit for this being a great safeguard. It had, however, been shown that if the Lord Lieutenant attempted to veto Bills they had only to be tacked on to the Appro-

431
priation Bill, and Mr. Gladstone had himself admitted that the Lord Lieutenant would not then be able to exercise his veto. What, then, was the value of this veto? Suppose the Irish Government was to pass some Bill which confiscated the property of the landlords or of some other unpopular class, which Bill was supported in the country, and the Lord Lieutenant was able to exercise the veto. The Government, of course, would resign; a Dissolution would follow, and a larger majority would be returned in favour of the measure. What could the Lord Lieutenant do? He must either withdraw his veto or allow the whole Government of Ireland to remain in abeyance. The noble Lord had alluded to the safeguards of the Upper House. That House was to be elected on a franchise of £20, a franchise the noble Lord who spoke last night had shown that it was impossible to get a respectable jury in Ireland under. He wished to know what safeguard there would be if the Upper House consisted of identically the same class us the Lower House—almost all of the same religion—and with the same deadly antagonism to the loyal minority, and the same intense desire to plunder them, and drive them naked and penniless from the country? and yet this House was put forward as a protection of the minority. With that he need not deal further. The Opposition were told they showed a want of trust in the Irish people. He should like to know why the whole nature of the Irish was to be changed? They had declared what they were going to do with landlords, land-grabbers, and the police. Even if these declarations were mere vapourings, every temptation was held out under this Bill to the Irish people to prove their patriotism by fighting the safeguards of what would virtually be a Foreign State. Her Majesty's Government had shown that they did not trust the Irish Parliament a bit more than the Opposition, because they had deprived them of many rights that every civilised nation in the world possesses. Why should the Government do this if the whole nature of the Irish is changed? The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had laid down as necessary that this measure should be permanent. The Prime Minister concurred in that. Mr. Gladstone
432
said that this Bill was to be a permanent and continuous settlement; but Mr. Gladstone, whenever he came to a difficulty, either declared it was not vital to the Bill or left it to posterity to settle, and the settlement might come at a time when England was least capable of dealing with the difficulty. Mr. Gladstone owed nothing to posterity, at present; but was it possible that he looked forward and already owed a grudge to posterity for what they would think and say of his outrageous attempt to produce anarchy in Ireland, to destroy the British Parliament, and endanger the British Empire, and was prepared to throw every difficulty on its shoulders in consequence? There was one question upon which the whole of this proposed legislation depended, and that was the agrarian question. He did not know whether their Lordships had heard of a very clever man—Finton Lalor—who in 1848 wrote very able articles in The Irish Felon newspaper. He said that it was impossible to carry Repeal unless they linked it to the question of the land, as you would a railway carriage to an engine. Mr. Davitt, Mr. Paruell, and the Nationalists generally had acted on that advice, and if it were not for that advice their Lordships would never have seen the disgraceful surrender of 1886, nor would this outrageous and absurd Bill have been ever brought before their Lordships' House. The noble Duke quoted a passage from a speech of Mr. Gladstone's in which he said that it was an obligation of honour, duty, and prudence not to leave the Irish Land Question to the Irish Legislature. But was that obligation satisfied by putting off its solution for three years? Another quotation had been made from a speech of Lord Spencer's, in which he spoke of a certain action as "mean and treacherous." That was referred to by the noble Duke, and again by Lord Ashbourne. The point of the remark was that it was made by the noble Earl about himself and the Government of which he was a Member. But if it were mean and treacherous in 1886 to leave the Irish landlords to the mercies of the Irish Parliament, what had rendered it less mean and treacherous now? For the first time he agreed with the noble Earl it was the height of meanness and treachery to leave the landlords to the mercy of an

433
Irish Parliament, knowing with certainty that they would be ruined. Their Lordships had heard the noble Lord explaining his reasons for changing his mind—namely, that the Land Purchase Acts had already settled the Land Question. Could a more miserable excuse be made? He did not believe that Lord Spencer could convince his own conscience any more than their Lordships' House that this was a sufficient excuse for such conduct. The noble Earl knew that the Act of 1891 was not a success; very few sales had taken place under it, and those few would be stopped at once if this Bill passed, because the tenants would not buy their land if they thought they could get it for nothing. Between the Acts of 1891 and the Bill of 1886 there was a marked difference. Under the Bill of 1886 it was compulsory on the State to buy, while under the Act of 1891 it was rightly left between the parties whether they would do so or not. Many Members of the Government, from their intense ignorance of Ireland and everything Irish, had no idea of the enormity they were supporting; but Lord Spencer knew Ireland as well as, or better than, himself. The noble Earl knew the cruelty, misery, and destruction this Bill would produce. Now, could he be prepared to hand over the many friends he had made in Ireland—men who supported and assisted him in the government of the country, and from whom he had accepted hospitality—to ruin and despair? It was impossible to understand how the noble Earl could introduce such a Bill—a Bill in which the Land Question had been entirely shirked. Their Lordships had seen the "No Rent" Manifesto and the Plan of Campaign. They had read the Report of the Special Commission, in which it was pointed out that the very men who would form the Executive Government in Ireland were those who
"Had combined together to carry out a system of intimidation to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of agricultural rents, for the purpose of impoverishing and expelling from the country Irish landlords,"
Mr. Gladstone stated on the Report stage that the Irish people could not confiscate the landlords' property without the fact being noticed by the House of Commons; but what could the House of Commons
434
do—what power bad it left itself under this Bill? Absolutely none, except the power of re-conquest. The noble Lord predicted the difficulties which the Irish landlords would have to face at the hands of the new Irish Legislature when they sought to enforce the payment of rent, and said, suppose the bulk of the tenants refused to pay rent and the landlords issued ejectments, the Judges had power under the Act of 1887 to stay execution as long as the Court thought reasonable. How long would a Judge appointed, and removable by both Houses of the Irish Legislature, think it reasonable to stay execution? But supposing the landlord was able to get possession of the farm, what was to prevent the ex-tenant re-taking possession? It had been done often under the British Government. What would the Irish Government do? Would it be prepared to punish a man who could prove, as every evicted tenant has been able to prove to the satisfaction of the National League, that he had been unjustly evicted? If the landlord got a new tenant he would be what is called a land-grabber. Would the parents of the Evicted Tenants Bill grant much protection to the life and property of a land-grabber? He declared that not one farmer in the world would be mad enough to take a position which would certainly lead to a cruel death. And it would be absolutely impossible that the landlord could work the land himself. There was another great danger he wished to refer to, and that was the Sub-Commissioners. They had seen tenants' valuers giving evidence as to the value they placed on the land, often less than a third of the judicial rent afterwards fixed. Well, he believed these valuations would be enormously high compared to the rents which would be fixed by the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the Irish Executive. Then after three years there would be nothing to prevent the Irish Executive from passing an Act reducing the judicial rents which were in existence. What was the use of the clause in the Bill which said that no one was to be deprived of life and property except by due process of law when no process of law was required to take away every particle of property in Ireland from its present possessors if the Executive Government were banded over to

435
their deadliest enemies? What had the landlords of Ireland done? Their only crime appeared to be that they had been loyal and true to England, and had assisted, as the English garrison, in preserving Ireland to the British Crown. What would be the position of the landlords who sold under the Ashbourne Acts and had left large sums amounting to £2,000,000 out as guarantee deposits, trusting to the honour of the Imperial Government? As far as he could understand, the Irish Executive were to pay to the English Exchequer the interest and principal by a Sinking Fund of 4 per cent. upon the £10,000,000 advanced under the Ashbourne Acts. But only £8,000,000 had been actually paid; £2,000,000 were still retained by the National Debt Commissioners for the guarantee deposits. What was to happen to these £2,000,000? The Irish Government were to pay the principal and interest on the whole £10,000,000, and, therefore, he supposed that these £2,000,000, which belonged of right to the vendors, would be paid over to the Irish Government, who would be responsible for collecting the instalments. He feared that if the Irish Government obtained control over these £2,000,000 the money would probably be made use of to pay the first debts that would be due by the Irish to the English Exchequer. It was an outrageous thing, money having been lent, as this had been, on certain conditions upon Imperial security, that the security should be transferred to what would be a bankrupt State, and one which would have every inducement to withhold both interest and principal from its owners. Was it likely that the purchasers would continue to pay those instalments to the very men who had all along been telling them that they were paying too much for the purchase of their land? He had only dealt with one point in this awful Bill, and had limited his remarks to the effect of it upon holders of land in Ireland. He had not dealt with the expressed intention to tax absentees, of which Mr. Gladstone approved, because he thought it a perfectly immaterial matter, as there would be no property to tax. He thought he had shown their Lordships that it was an absolute certainty that every particle of property in land might be confiscated in four or five different ways, and he had
436
only taken the most prominent ones; but there were many other provisions in the Bill which might be almost as effective for the purpose. He had not dealt with the thousand and one other terrible effects which this Bill would have if it became law. He had not mentioned its effects upon England and the British Empire. He had not mentioned its effect upon Ulster or upon various other classes in Ireland who would be almost equally betrayed and destroyed. He had. not dealt with the Exchequer Judges, who were to enforce their decrees against a hostile State without any machinery whatever, nor with the other untold absurdities with which the Bill teemed. Not one argument had been brought forward in favour of such a frightful measure, and not one argument had been produced to prove the necessity of it. It would cause the ruin of thousands upon thousands of almost every class in Ireland. It would steep the country from end to end in ruin, bloodshed, anarchy, and despair, and would undoubtedly cause the most terrible civil war. The Irish Question had always been a difficulty to England, but if this Bill passed it would become ten times the difficulty that it ever was before. But, what was a thousandfold worse than that, Ireland would for the first time become a terrible danger to the Empire. He did not believe for a moment that the right-thinking British people would ever consent to such a frightful iniquity being perpetrated, and he hoped and believed that their Lordships would throw this Bill out by the largest majority that had ever voted against a measure in their Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asked their Lordships—he was not quite sure whether he asked it seriously, or as a riddle or conundrum to amuse their Lordships—whether the Irish Peers represented in any way that part of the United Kingdom. If the question were asked as a riddle he would give it up at once; but if it were asked seriously, he confessed that it was difficult to give a distinct answer. It was impossible to prove that Irish Peers represented Ireland any more than that the noble Earl the Leader of the House or the

437
noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, or even Lord Rosebery himself, represented that portion of the United Kingdom in which they lived. If, however, he was asked his opinion, he should say distinctly that the Irish Peers did represent a considerable portion of opinion in Ireland. Lord Rosebery, remarking that Lord Muskerry had said that he knew Ireland, asked whether Ireland knew Lord Muskerry. He could not see that the question had any relevance to the subject, but it seemed to him that if Lord Muskerry knew Ireland he was perfectly entitled to give an opinion of a proposal affecting the government of Ireland. He thought that if the noble Earl had reflected a little more he would not have spoken as he did. He was inclined to think that the Duke of Abercorn and the Marquess of Waterford represented a large body of people in Ireland, and his own views coincided with those of the Protestant farmers and labourers, the great bulk of the well-to-do Catholics, and the entire gentry in that part of Ireland in which he lived. The noble Earl said the Debate was useless, because the result was a foregone conclusion. Their Lordships would remember that, so far as the Irish Peers were concerned, the question had been before them for many years. He had not considered this question for 8, 18, or 28 years, but as long as he had been able to consider anything. It was a great mistake to suppose that the owners of lauded property in Ireland objected to Home Rule from interested motives or because of racial or religious prejudices. So far as he was concerned, his sympathies were entirely with the people of Ireland. He was inclined, if anything, to be too much attached to the romantic side of the past of Ireland, and he could assure their Lordships that, if with a clear conscience he could identify himself with anything that was a popular movement in Ireland, he should be only too glad to do so. But he objected to Home Rule from conscientious motives, because they knew and understood the country, and knew the ruin it would bring about. Lord Rosebery made a most instructive speech, but it was rather disappointing, for in it he said not a single word about the Bill. He had looked forward to that speech to explain the Bill, and possibly to convert
438
him to the noble Earl's views. The noble Earl said the Bill was of no importance; and what was of importance was the policy, but he forgot to explain the policy. He knew what was the noble Earl's policy with respect to Ireland in 1885, for he then said—
"We ought to govern Ireland and to legislate for Ireland without reference to the Irish vote. To my mind, there is only one policy to be pursued towards Ireland, and it is to treat her exactly, as far as may be, as you would treat any other portion of the United Kingdom."
He gathered nothing from the speech of the noble Earl, except that he told them it was the duty of a statesman to shift the weight and responsibility from his Chief, and to sift the wheat from the chaff. He gave up all hopes of being a statesman if that were so, because it was absolutely impossible to sift the wheat from the chaff in Lord Rosebery's speech. That was an excellent policy, but it was not the policy of the Bill. He dared say the rejection of the Bill in that House was as much a foregone conclusion for certain reasons as the passing of the Bill by the other House was a foregone conclusion for certain other and totally different reasons. But if the House of Lords did reject the Bill that decision would be the collective result of the well-thought-out and perfectly matured, totally independent, and individual opinion of the Members of the House. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, he did not propose to go into that, but he wished to address himself in trying to discover what were the reasonable grounds for the rosy view of the situation taken by Lord Spencer in introducing the Bill. It was difficult to consider the Bill for this reason, in his opinion: Because they had postponed the Financial Clauses, the Land Question, and the right of Ireland over their own taxes, but he would take the Bill as well as he could. There was one thing that they had all agreed on, and that was the transient nature of the measure. No Representative of the Government had yet answered the very pertinent question put by the Duke of Devonshire—whether, in speaking of supremacy and unity, the Government used the words in the sense in which they were applied to the Empire, or in the sense in which they were applied to the United Kingdom. But, at any rate, the Bill contained pro-

439
visions by which Ireland would soon make the terms applicable only as they were applicable to the self-governing Colonies. When it was proposed to set up a practically independent State the first thing should be to form an estimate of the feelings of the population towards the measure. Of course, the Bill would be received with acclamation by the professional agitator, who would see a long vista of place and emolument before him. It would also please the mistaken enthusiasts, who believed in the reality of what was only a dream—the prosperity of an independent Ireland. The Bill would also raise immense expectations and hopes doomed to bitter disappointment in the minds of the great bulk of the people, chiefly the more uneducated and ignorant part of the population, who knew nothing of Home Rule or repeal, but who only knew what they were told—that Home Rule would by some mysterious process of political alchemy change the whole condition of Ireland, and with that view they would be temporarily satisfied. And he admitted that the Bill would be popular with those classes—the agitator, the enthusiast, and the ignorant people. On the other side, the Bill broke faith with the highly educated and intelligent classes—the Imperial Civil servants, to whom it would mean ruin, and it also broke faith with that highly educated and highly trained body of men, the Irish Constabulary. Then the class of landowners, though not large and important, must be counted in. For many years the landlords had been subjected to a process of vivisection, and before each operation they had been assured that they were compensated by the additional security given to their body. In 1886 Land Purchase was declared an essential condition of Home Rule, and £115,000,000 was allocated for the purchase of land. Every Party in the State had admitted that the Land Question should be fairly settled; but now, after a respite of three years, the Irish landlords were to be handed over to the tender mercies of the Irish Legislature, to men who had waged war against them, to politicians who over and over again had declared that the value of the landlords' interest in the land in Ireland was the value before a tree was felled, a swamp drained,
440
or before a sod was turned. The land-lord was to be taxed to death if he remained in Ireland, and out of existence if he remained out of the country. He did not suppose that this treatment was one likely to cause this class in Ireland to look with favour on the Bill. The noble Earl (Lord Spencer) said that they were secured by the veto; but he did not think it was a very valuable security. Again, the whole of the population in the North of Ireland had demonstrated in the clearest way their utter abhorrence of the measure; so had the great bulk of the more educated Roman Catholics. Nearly the whole of the wealth and practically the whole of the manufacturing industry of the country had all opposed the Bill. In all seriousness he asked noble Lords opposite whether it was wise, politic, or safe, whether it was not an act almost of insanity to start a community on practically a separate and independent career with all the wealth, nearly all the manufacturing industry, and the greater part of the intelligence of the country all bitterly opposed to the new order of things? It might be difficult for their Lordships to realise the state of things in the same way as he understood them; he thought they would change their opinions if they did. He supposed it was no use trying to change the opinion of any noble Lord; but he would appeal to their Lordships, for the sake of the country he was born in and loved, not to inflict this cruel blow upon it. Under just and impartial laws and Executive Ireland was perfectly free. There was no privilege; there was no ascendency of any person, class, or creed; but, if you removed the balance that was kept by a just and impartial Imperial Parliament, there were forces of disorder—old race animosities, old religious jealousies in the process of becoming extinct—that were still ready to be fanned into flame. If you withdrew the protection enjoyed for nearly 100 years the country must become a prey to social disorder of the worst kind, the battlefield of the rivalry between socialists and priests. It did not matter who was to blame—Catholic or Protestant, Celts or English—we had to look at things as they were. Earl Spencer did not apprehend anything like religious intolerance, and said that it did not initiate popular movements, but glided on

441
the stream; but the earthen vessel suffered if it came in contact with the iron pot; and the small farmers of the North would get the worst of it if they came into collision with Archbishop Walsh. He objected to the whole position assumed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It was shown in connection with the Meath Election Petitions that it was allowable and even the duty of the priesthood to influence by spiritual means the electors of the country in the way they should vote. On principle he objected to the ministers of any religion interfering in that way in a purely secular duty of the people. He ridiculed the angelic theory in relation to the Irish Nationalist Representatives, whose sudden conversion, by a curious coincidence, occurred, like that of the present Government, precisely at the moment when conversion was necessary in order to attain their ends. Even if the theory were true, it would be impossible for the Irish Legislature, even with the best intentions, to evolve order out of the chaos that must inevitably ensue in Ireland on the withdrawal of the even balance maintained by the active supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. What had been the value of the Union to Ireland? The Union had converted the Northern Protestant population from being the most disloyal in the two Islands to being probably the most loyal. If the Union had done nothing but that, it would have done a great and useful work. What had it not done for the South and West of Ireland? If Ireland had been in the position in which she would be placed by this Bill she would have been absolutely ruined in times of famine and agricultural depression, and it was only by the great assistance and the active co-partnership with the United Kingdom and her liberality that she was. There were portions of the country still who looked in bad times to the richer country for support, and they would get it so long as they formed part of the United Kingdom, but what would become of those portions of the country when they were no longer a part of it. Nothing could compensate Ireland for the loss of the Union. There was not an industry in the country which would not suffer from the withdrawal of English capital and credit. Ireland herself had got no capital and no credit; she had not
442
natural resources to enable her to obtain a loan, unless it was, as it was said in another place, under the altered circumstances she would have a plethora of wealth. They would do the greatest injury that mortal man could devise to Ireland if they passed this Bill, and Ireland had done nothing to deserve it. It had been said that the other House had received a mandate to pass this Bill. He utterly and entirely denied that this Bill was before the country at the last General Election. They had been told that the Labour Members had voted for Home Rule, but they had not been told that the Prime Minister had received a deputation of the Labour Members, and they had pressed him for an answer to certain categorical questions and had got an answer from him. They asked him, if they could show him that the Eight Hours Bill was more important than Home Rule, whether he could modify his views upon it. And Mr. Gladstone for some time said that he could not change his opinion, and he could not do anything to help them until Home Rule was satisfied. Of course, under the circumstances, Labour was content to put Home Rule on its programme. If they looked at the speeches and addresses of many of the Gladstonian candidates at the last General Election, a considerable number contained no allusion whatever to Home Rule, others mentioned it vaguely, and some supported it on three grounds—that it would relieve taxation, that it would be a final and permanent settlement of the Irish Question, and that it would enable Parliament to attend to legislation for England and Scotland. Not one of those conditions were fulfilled in this Bill. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) had admitted it himself in his speech that the only way that the provisions of a Bill like this could be forced was by military force superseding the statutory government by Martial Law.
EARL SPENCER: I did not say Martial Law; I said military force.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked how he was going to draw a distinction between military force and Martial Law? It should not be forgotten that England's weakness was Ireland's opportunity, and he would be a bold man who should prophesy that this country would never be at war again. But if she were to, what would be the position of Ireland

443
then. They would not have a friend in Ireland. In five years they would have estranged all the educated people in the country, and have made enemies of those classes who had been disappointed and found their hopes blighted. They would have found an Executive Government hostile to them, Parliament hostile to them, and a people hostile to them. If this nation surrendered a great strategical position like Ireland, it must safeguard itself against the possible consequences of making a large increase to the Army and Navy, and this would necessitate a great pecuniary sacrifice. What possible chance or sign was there that this measure would be a permanent settlement of the Irish Question? The Land Question was still unsettled, and the financial arrangement was unsettled. It was perfectly true that the other day Mr. J. M'Carthy was put up in the House of Commons to say grace for the Bill, and very nicely he said it; but little, it any, importance could be attached to that, for up to the present hour no recognised Leader of the Nationiist Party had declared that that Party would be satisfied with this measure. The postponed subjects must give rise to endless Debates in Parliament before they were settled, and did they think that there would be no more active obstruction on behalf of the Irish Members who were retained, and who were not satisfied with the Bill? Moreover, Ireland would be obliged in her own self - interest to obtain help from Great Britain in a variety of ways, and the obstruction of the Irish Members in Parliament must become more extensive. The Bill sacrificed British interests in every way. Nothing could be done to protect British labour against the dire effect of the influx of Irish labourers that must follow upon the destruction of Irish industries by the withdrawal of British capital. Differences of opinion on questions of war and neutrality, on questions of actual legislation in matters of divorce, the hours of work, and factory legislation generally, must create immense frictions between the two countries. It was proposed by this Bill to set up within sight of Britain a practically independent community—a State absolutely honeycombed with the germs of civil disorder; a State that must be bankrupt from the commencement of its
444
being, and which would be bound to look to some extraordinary source for the means of conducting its industries and commerce; and you would endow this State with innumerable means of harassing the trade and commerce of Great Britain and jeopardising her neutrality in case of war, and endangering her position in time of war. Not content to impose a measure fraught with such dangers to Great Britain, the Government had the effrontery to ask Great Britain to pay for it. From the very conduct of the Bill by the Government the absurdity of it was demonstrated. Let them look at the question of finance. First of all, the contribution of Ireland to Imperial taxation was to be l–15th. Then that was changed to l–26th, and that was changed to l–40th, and then it was given up in despair, and the whole question was relegated to a distant future. So with the Irish representation. The Government first proposed exclusion, then the in-and-out plan, and now they sought to perpetrate the greatest absurdity that ever emanated from the mind of man. The truth was the principle of Home Rule collapsed the moment they tried to put it into practice. It was well enough to take it as an ideal, and as in the main perfect, but they could not put it into practice. What was this change to do for them? They had heard that it was to give satisfaction to Ireland, but they must not forget that Ireland was not going to be satisfied as they wished it to be. It had been said that the Irish were contented in the United States and the Colonies. What difference was there between the Common Law of those countries and the Common Law of the United Kingdom? What greater share had Irishmen in America in the making of the laws than Irishmen in the United Kingdom? Not one word of proof had been given that the Bill would do any good to Ireland. The Bill would not satisfy the aspirations of the Nationalist Party, and it would dissatisfy everyone else. The only thing the Irish people cared for was to get their land cheaply, and for nothing if possible. The Bill was not an advance. It was not the result of any natural growth or demand. It was not a matter of federation. It was not the relaxation of tutelage, the granting of the rights of manhood to

445
growing and expanding communities, as in the case of self-governing colonies. It was not the result of a natural, national demand in Ireland constitutionally expressed for local self-government as could be given with real and effective security for the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and the unity of the Kingdoms. The Government were acting in compliance with the demand of men whose real objects, they must know, were the absolute independence of Ireland and the encompassing of the ruin of Great Britain. They had told the electors that the Union had been accomplished by fraud and force, and that it had been detrimental to Ireland. That was a delusion. They had been told also that a measure of this kind would satisfy to the full the aspirations and the demands of the Nationalist Party. That was a gross delusion. For the civil and religions liberties of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, for the effective supremacy of the British Parliament, for the maintenance of the unity of the Kingdom and of the Empire, the Government relied entirely on the most precarious security—the power and the goodwill and intention of men whose public career was perfectly well known to all. This House would only be doing its Constitutional duty in rejecting the Bill, while it was also its duty to stand up in such a case for free speech, and to stand between the people and tyranny. He had given as shortly as possible the reasons why he should go into the Lobby and vote for the Amendment of the Duke of Devonshire, acting under his sense of duty, and believing the course which he adopted was the true course towards his beloved country.
LORD SANDHURSTsaid, that he would put before their Lordships the reasons which induced him to support this Bill. He must crave their indulgence for the few remarks he was about to make. The Bill had been debated by a large number of speakers—noble Lords who had held high administrative Offices in the service of the Crown. Now, the noble Marquess of Londonderry had wondered what the effect would be in the Colonies if this Bill were passed. Well, he was in the Australian Colonies after the rejection of the Bill of 1886, and on all sides he was met with this question—Why on earth
446
has Home Rule been refused? The supporters of the Government were taunted with following their Leader. Well, they had a Leader they were proud to follow; and the noble Marquess had a Leader, or, perhaps, two, for he spoke about the noble Duke as one to whom he owed allegiance. In Ulster did they have leaders, or was every man his own leader, on the principle of every man his own lawyer, with the same distinction as the clients? It was said there were thousands of Protestants and tens of thousands of Catholics opposed to Home Rule; but the assertion could not be accepted whilst four-fifths of the Irish people were represented by Home Rulers in the House of Commons. The noble Marquess uttered a threat last night in describing the action of his Ulster friends in view of Home Rule.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I uttered no threat whatever.
LORD SANDHURSTretorted that of course the noble Marquess could put his own construction on his own words, but his opponents were at liberty to place their own construction upon them, and in his opinion the words conveyed a threat of a most distinct character. In regard to threats, and in regard to some of those itinerant orators who had been to the North of Ireland using language which certainly would not have the effect of quelling but rather of promoting disturbance, he would quote a passage from a speech delivered by a learned lawyer in this country after a statement had been made by Lord R. Churchill—
"We ought all of us to condemn these foolish, these wicked rumours that are made about Ulster—that the minority in Ireland will find resort to arms, and that they will be right in doing so. Unreservedly I declare that any man who by word or act encourages such an idea is at heart a traitor."
These were the words of Sir H. James, a close colleague of the noble Duke. For noble Lords to say that there was no mandate from the country and that the question of Home Rule was not before it at the General Election was playing with words. Had there been a single meeting of the Conservative Party where it had not been put before the labourers that if Home Rule were passed England would be flooded with Irish, who would take away their work? The first and foremost

447
part of every speech had been this question of Home Rule. It had been said by the noble Duke that this Bill had been forced through the House of Commons, and that if it had not been for the knowledge that it would be thrown out in their Lordships' House a great many Members would not have voted for it. He would like to know whether in the ranks of the Liberal Party or the Nationalist Party the noble Duke had a confidant? But if he hid not it was unworthy of the noble Duke to speak thus of a Party of which he was once a Member. It had been said that capital was leaving Ireland in consequence of the introduction of this Bill, but the Stock of the Bank of Ireland stood to-day very nearly as high as it did last year, and there was hardly an Irish Railway Company whose dividend had fallen, while in some cases their dividends had increased, and he had been told there were large operations on the Stock Exchange and speculations. Had the old system of coercion and occasional conciliatory measures promoted harmony between the British Government and the Irish people? Everyone, he thought, must agree that it had not. The impoverished condition of the people in many parts of Ireland surely proved that something was amiss with the system of administration. For 93 years the plan of governing Ireland from England had been tried, and there were clear indications that it had failed. The Government had endeavoured to put before Parliament a Home Rule Bill which satisfied the aspirations of the Nationalists, by whom it had been accepted. It was said that there had been no discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons, but he maintained that its main points had been discussed in another place, and the retention of the Irish Members had been fully discussed. With regard to safeguards he would suggest that they should all be considered together. He looked at them, not only from an Imperial point of view, but from the point of view of common sense, and he could not believe that the Irish Council would engage at once in an internecine struggle to gain a separation which they had affirmed that they did not require, and which they knew perfectly well it would be impossible for them to get. Nor did he believe that on the morrow of their emancipation they would prove them-
448
selves so unpractical, intolerant, and unjust as to stamp their proceedings with the verdict that they were incapable and ought not to be trusted of themselves and their country. He thought it would be found to be the ambition of the Irish Leaders to prove themselves capable men, and that their policy would be actuated, not by greed or religious oppression, but by a singleness of purpose and a love of their country. Lord Cadogan had put a question to him with regard to the troops in Ireland, and had expressed the opinion that it would be extremely undesirable that the troops should be under the new Irish Cabinet. The Home Rule Cabinet would have no control over the Military Forces for the purpose of obtaining their aid to repress disturbances. If for that purpose they required the assistance of the troops they must apply to the Lord Lieutenant, who would either apply to the Secretary for War or, as an officer of the Crown, himself request the commander of the troops to send the necessary force. The local Magistrates would have the same power to call upon the troops to aid in suppressing, neither more nor less than they possessed now. This power was dependent on the obligation of every citizen to aid the Magistrate in suppressing riot. It was, therefore, quite independent of the Irish Cabinet. The demand for Home Rule arose from a deeply-rooted national sentiment. Those who had doubts as to the Home Rule policy need only study Mr. Lecky's history—second only to Mr. Chamberlain's speeches of seven years ago—to be at once converted. He quite agreed there were two Irelands. Reference had been made to America, and he quite agreed there was the Ireland that was beyond the sphere of that House in the various Colonies; but he believed this measure would turn every Irishman in America and the Colonies from hostile critics into active agents for Great Britain. Of course, the Bill would be rejected; but he should follow his noble Leader into the Lobby with the most sincere and absolute conviction that the Bill was not only politic, but right and just.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that he shared the regret which the Foreign Secretary had expressed on account of being separated from his

449
former Colleagues. But he admired the noble Earl's adroitness. Though he held the attention of the House for an hour and a half, in no part of his speech did he endeavour to meet the objections urged against the Bill. Nor did he in any part of his speech express his own approval of any portion of the Bill. The noble Earl attacked the Opposition because they were not prepared to read the Bill a second time, and go into Committee for the purpose of discussing the details of the Bill, and, indeed, of framing some new plan for settling the Irish Question. The responsibility of framing such a measure as this must rest with Her Majesty's Government, and not with the Opposition, however strong they might be. The speech of the noble Earl was obviously too late. It was a speech which might have been made with perfect propriety in support of an abstract Resolution in favour of Home Rule; but it was different in the present position of affairs, when the noble Earl was bound to give his reasons for supporting a measure which, after seven years' consideration, was introduced by a Government of which he was a Member, and, as far as could be seen, of which he did not express approval. The noble Earl said he was in favour of some measure of Home Rule, and it appeared to him that both the noble Earl and Lord Brassey would be glad to see this Bill defeated, or at least pulled to pieces if they saw the opportunity to do so. The last speaker referred to the measure of Local Government for Ireland introduced by the Opposition, but that reminded him of a remark made by the noble Earl which struck him as a very remarkable one. The noble Earl praised the London County Council Bill as one of the most revolutionary measures he recollected. The Unionist Government introduced a Bill for Ireland founded on precisely the same principles and dealing with similar affairs. But why was that measure denounced by the noble Earl and his friends? If the House of Lords considered it their duty to reject a Bill on the Second Reading it was their duty to give their reasons for doing so, particularly when, as in this case, the Bill had not been adequately discussed in the other House. Even if Home Rule were right, did the financial clauses meet the essential provisions of such a Bill as laid down by the Prime
450
Minister? These were equitable distribution of Imperial charges, some reasonable prospect of finality, and the assent of Ireland. Only one of the Financial Clauses had been discussed in the other House, and yet these clauses affected the interest of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. Their Lordships were unable to amend these clauses, but they had the right to discuss them. The Irish contribution to Imperial charges in 1892–93 was estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be £2,300,000, and under the Bill the contribution to be paid was £2,276,000, from which certain deductions had to be made, and the net result of the financial arrangement was that Great Britain would have to pay more than £500,000 a year during six years in order to carry Home Rule. The Prime Minister had said that the taxpayers of England and Scotland must contribute something towards the Irish surplus. His noble Friend, Lord Spencer, said that if England desired to carry this measure she would not wish to treat Ireland "in a niggardly manner." Now, generosity was a feeling congenial to Englishmen, but in a matter of business those representing the taxpayers of England must look ahead. Home Rule for Scotland loomed in the future; the English taxpayer would be asked to give a contribution in no niggardly manner" to provide a surplus for Scotland. The English and Welsh taxpayers would then suffer. Something had been heard about Home Rule for Wales. If that should come, and nothing was improbable after what they had seen with respect to the Irish Question, the English taxpayer would have to contribute "in no niggardly manner" a surplus to support the new Welsh Government. And then they came to Home Rule for poor England, and who was to make a contribution "in no niggardly manner" to England? It was necessary for the English taxpayer to take care he did not allow the first beginning of a principle of that kind to separate the finance of the United Kingdom, and at once to place this matter not upon generosity alone, but upon a fair and equitable distribution of the Imperial charges of the United Kingdom.
EARL SPENCER (interposing)explained that, while he spoke of dealing with Ireland in no niggardly spirit, he added arguments to show that the

451
arrangement would be a very good bargain for England.
THE EARL OP NORTHBROOKsaid, that his noble Friend stated that it was not a bad bargain for England, because we had from time to time to assist Ireland in public works, light railways, and so on. But in the calculation of £2,300,000 was included a large sum for those light railways and public works, and therefore the consideration which his noble Friend had brought forward had been discounted. The financial plan of the Government in this Bill was based upon the Estimates of one year, and what reliance could be placed on such a calculation? Notwithstanding the great ability and care of the officers of the Inland Revenue a mistake of some £350,000 had been made this very year, and that mistake had invalidated altogether the first calculations laid before Parliament by Mr. Gladstone. How did they know that as large a mistake might not have been made in the present calculations? Their Lordships were asked to pass this Bill before they had the least idea upon what basis this arrangement stood. Whether they looked at the plan with reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland or the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, it was open to the most serious objection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom would never be able to consider his Budget without at the same time considering what would he its effect upon the Revenue of the Irish Government. The proposed arrangement would remove all inducement to economy on the part of the new Irish Legislature, and the main part of the Irish Revenue would depend on the duties from alcoholic liquor. Mr. Parnell said the first action of an Irish Government would be to restrict the consumption of alcoholic liquor, but it would be impossible for them to do so, because if they did their Revenue would diminish and their finances would be disturbed. The proposal was, therefore, inequitable to Great Britain and embarrassing to both Exchequers. Mr. Gladstone told a deputation from the Belfast Chamber of Commerce that after the Bill passed there would be a plethora of wealth in Ireland; but the deputation had supplied information to the right hon. Gentleman which entirely
452
demolished his statistics, and no reply had since been given to the Chamber, although it seemed to have influenced some of the colleagues of the Prime Minister, for Mr. Fowler said that it would be impossible for the Irish Government to make any large reduction in expenditure. The Provost of Trinity College had said with truth that the proposed contribution was "a great deal too much for England to give and not half enough for Ireland to get." To establish a new Government must cost a considerable amount of money, and thus this new Legislature would find itself in great straits, even with the surplus, inequitable to England, which it was proposed to supply. The plan of the Government was on the face of it merely temporary. That was especially true now of the financial scheme, and thus one of the essential conditions laid down by Mr. Gladstone—namely, that the arrangement ought not to be "in the nature of a mere provocation to the revival of fresh demands," had been abandoned at the bidding of the Irish Party, by whom the Bill was viewed as a mere instalment. In conclusion, he hoped that he had proved to their Lordships, although he could have done it at greater length, that the Bill did not give "an equitable distribution for Imperial charges;" that it did not "promise to be a real settlement;" that it had not received the assent of Ireland; and that it must produce embarrassment in the future to both countries. He declared his belief that the country would support their Lordships in their rejection of this measure.
Further Debate adjourned till Tomorrow.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) ACT, 1891, AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing .Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at Two o'clock a.m. till Eleven o'clock a.m.