Sitting of 29 March 1897

COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went, and being returned,
MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to several Bills which had passed both Houses.—(For List, see proceedings of the House of Lords of this date.)

FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).—PETITION.
THE LORD MAYOR OF THE DUBLIN,accompanied by several of the members and officers of the Corporation of Dublin, attended at the Bar of the House to present the petition of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and the Burgesses of Dublin in favour of a revision of the financial relations between England and Ireland. On taking his place at the Bar of the House the Lord Major of Dublin was loudly cheered by the Irish Members.
MR. SPEAKER: My Lord Mayor of Dublin, what have you there?
THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN: A petition, Sir, to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled from the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and the Burgesses of Dublin, which showeth—
"That, under the Treaty of the Union between the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, a constitutional right is guaranteed to Ireland to have her circumstances specially considered in reference to the imposition of taxation by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to the incidence of such taxation; that this right has been constantly and continuously insisted upon in Parliament by the representatives of Ireland of all political parties since the Union; that the final Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners appointed by Royal Warrant of May 26 1894, to inquire into the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland establishes, nevertheless, the fact that, whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about 1–11th of that of Great Britain, the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of the Commissioners as exceeding 1–20th, and consequently Ireland is now taxed to an amount of between two-and-a-half and three million pounds per annum in excess of her proper proportion"—
["hear, hear!"]—
"that this grave injustice to Ireland, as further appears from the said Report, has been brought about not only by the imposition of a financial burden at the time of the Union which, as events showed, she was unable to bear, but, by a serious addition to that burden in 1853 and several succeeding years, which was not justified by the circumstances of Ireland, but which, nevertheless, has been continued and even increased since that time"—
["hear, hear!"]—
"that this burden of excessive taxation has seriously injured, and is seriously injuring, the material interests of Ireland, and has contributed in no small degree to retard her commercial progress and prevent her industrial development, and that, so long as it exists, it must continue to have that result and to constitute a grave national grievance affecting all classes of the Irish population; that your petitioners feel confident that ill laying these views before your honourable House they are giving expression to convictions firmly held, and well nigh universally entertained, by the citizens of Dublin. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will take into consideration the grievance disclosed by the said Report, and will, at an early date, adopt such measures as justice may dictate to redress that grievance and to alleviate its effects."

QUESTIONS.

  IRISH MODEL SCHOOLS DEPARTMENT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why, in the Estimates for 1897 for the Trish Model Schools Department, there is omitted the statement prefixed to this grant in former years that this department is designed to exhibit the best mode of conducting National Schools, and that it affords teachers in training an opportunity of practising the art of teaching daily under their several trainers; have these statements ceased to be correct; and, what is the present situation of the Trish Model School Department.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The condition of the Model Schools being under the consideration of a Committee of the Board of National Education, the Commissioners deemed it proper, when sending forward the Estimates for 1897–8, to omit the statement prefixed to the Estimates of previous years. The omission of the statement was not intended in any way to prejudge the Report of the Committee.

MANITOBA (EDUCATION QUESTION).
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the recent settlement of the education question in Manitoba, after having been approved of by the great majority of the Roman Catholics, and accepted as a satisfactory compromise by the Protestants, has been denounced by Archbishop Langevin and the Romish Hierarchy; and that those persons who vote against the commands of the Roman Catholic priests are to be refused burial in consecrated ground after their death; and, whether he can give any information concerning this matter, and will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the settlement arrived at by Mr. Laurier, the Canadian Premier, and Mr. Greenway, the Prime Minister of Manitoba?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no official information on this matter, which relates entirely to the domestic politics of Canada.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (AUDIT).
SIR ANDREW SCOBLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the accounts of the London County Council are audited by a district auditor appointed by the Local Government Board for that purpose; and whether the accounts of the Departmental Committees of the London County Council are audited separately from the general accounts of that Council; and, if so, whether the accounts of the Works Department of that Council, now forming the subject of an inquiry by a Special Committee of that Council, have been audited and certified by the auditor appointed by the Local Government Board?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The accounts of the London County Council are audited by a district auditor appointed by the Local Government Board, and the accounts of the several departmental committees of the Council are audited as part of the accounts of the Council. The accounts of the Council, including those of the Works Department, for the year ended 31 March 1896, the period which is, as I understand, that in respect of which the proceedings of the Works Department are the subject of inquiry, have been audited and certified by the auditor appointed by the Board. The accounts of the Works Department were altered so as to accord with the facts before those accounts were submitted to the auditor.

VOLUNTEER OFFICERS (CLASSES AT WELLINGTON BARRACKS).
MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War on what principle the classes of instruction for Volunteer Officers at Wellington Barracks are filled up; whether the class to be held in May next was filled up before the 20th March, when the official notices were sent out;

1539
whether he is aware that the application of the Officer commanding the 2nd V. B. (P.W.O.), Yorkshire Regiment, for permission to attend these classes has been three times refused; whether he can state the reason of such refusals; whether any preference is given to officers in London corps over officers in country corps; and, whether he can give the respective numbers of officers belonging to London and country corps that have received permission to attend the forthcoming class in May?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The classes at Wellington Barracks for the instruction of officers of the Volunteers are filled strictly in accordance with priority of application. The formation of the May class was notified in the Home District Orders of the 13th March, and on the 25th there were still two vacancies for subalterns. Two applications have been received from the Yorkshire battalion referred to; and they had to be refused as there were no vacancies for officers of their rank, and as the applications were for the May class only, instead of giving the choice of several months as recommended in Art. 298 of the Volunteer Regulations, No preference is given to officers in the London district. Out of the 30 officers accepted for the May class, 8 belong to the Home district and 22 to other districts.

ROXBOROUGH SCHOOLS, LIMERICK.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland under what Act are the premises of the Rexborough Schools, Limerick vested in the Commissioners of Education; and is there any statutable restriction on the Commissioners' power of selling, letting, or alienating them?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The lands upon which the present Diocesan School is built appear to have been acquired for the use of the school by the Commissioners of Education by purchase under the powers conferred upon them by the 27th Section of the Endowed Schools (Ireland) Act 1813 (53 Geo. 3, c. 107), and are in the words of that section "unalienable and not to be let or disposed of to any other use whatever."

LAND COMMISSION.
GENERAL, HUGH MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return which stands on the Paper this day with regard to the officers of the Land Commission?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Return moved for by my hon. and gallant Friend is a little vague. I presume it is intended to apply to the Department of the Land Commission only, and not to the Civil Bill Courts, or to the Land Judge and the officers of his Court, whose duties are also connected with the administration of the Land Law and Land Purchase Acts. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with me in reference to the form of the Return.
MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether any, and, if so, how many, of the Assistant Commissioners, charged with the duty of valuing the property, fixing the income, and defining the rights of Irish landowners, are hired by the year or for any lesser period; (2) whether, in the event of there being a diminution in the number of cases of rent reduction, and a consequent falling off in the number of cases listed in the Courts, the services of those gentlemen will cease to be required and their temporary salaries cease to be paid; and (3) whether, in that event, any provision will be made for them on their discharge from their present judicial office?
MR. J. C. FLYNN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is seemly that the word "hired" should appear in a Question, as it must be offensive to these persons? ["Hear, hear."]
MR. SPEAKER: I think it would have been better if a word less capable of an offensive meaning had been used. ["Hear, hear."]
MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it not have been better if the words "Catholic Bishops" had been used instead of "Romish hierarchy" in the Question of the hon. Member for Belfast?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With regard to the first paragraph, I would refer my hon. Friend to Return No. 107

1541
of this Session, which gives details as to the tenure, etc., of the lay Assistant Commissioners. The Return does not include the legal Assistant Commissioners, of whom, at present, four are permanently, and two temporarily, employed. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. On former occasions no provision was made, as suggested, on the termination of their duties by Assistant Commissioners temporarily employed; and I am not aware that it is proposed, or that there is power, to adopt a different arrangement in future.
MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any authority for the use of the words in the Question, "fixing the incomes of the Irish landowners"?
[No reply was given.]
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Confiscation.
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that very great delay has taken place and is taking place in dealing with applications made to the Irish Land Commission for the release of guarantee deposits under the 29th Section, Sub-sections (2) and (3), of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1896, and that a large number of applications have been for some months past left by the Land Commission without reply, thus causing great delay and inconvenience to the parties interested; and, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With regard to applications under the third Sub-section, I am informed that in every case in which a decade has expired since the making of the advance, the amount which could have been paid out under the provisions of this Sub-section has been so released. Applications have been received in respect of 151 estates under Sub-section 2, Section 29 of the Act of 1896; of these 77 have been dealt with and 74 are under consideration and will probably be ruled within the next month. There, has been no unnecessary delay in ruling these applications, and the deposits carry interest until they are released.
MR. EDWARD CARSON: is it not the fact that notwithstanding the legislation of last year the Land Commissioners refuse to
1542
sanction purchases in a majority of cases?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware that they refuse in a majority of cases, but they have refused in several cases.
MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, in view of the fact that both landlords and tenants were greatly dissatisfied with the working of the Purchase Acts, there had been any application to the Treasury for an increase in the staff of the Commissioners.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There has already been a large increase in the staff of Sub-Commissioners. It is impossible to increase the numbers indefinitely.
MR. T. M. HEALY: My question refers to the Purchase Department, not to the Department for fixing fair rents.

TELEGRAPH SERVICE ACCOUNTS.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he has observed that Parliamentary Papers, No. 5 and No. 16, of last Session, purporting to be accounts of the Telegraph Service, contain no hint that revenue to the amount of £1,241,774 has been actually invested in sites and buildings; that, on the other hand, the said sum so invested is treated as unremunerative expenditure, and employed to swell the so-called deficiency of Telegraph revenue; and that no allowance is made in the receipts, or revenue, side of the said accounts for the rent which would be payable by the Department but for the purchase of such sites and the erection of such buildings; if he can state who is responsible for the correctness and completeness of the accounts referred to; whether he can state the total amount expended on the sites and buildings appropriated at St. Martin's-le-Grand to the Telegraph Service, and the estimated value thereof at the present day; and whether the value of the sites and buildings acquired in the great towns throughout the United Kingdom for telegraph purposes increases largely from year to year, and now exceeds two million sterling?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): So far from Parliamentary Papers No. 5 and No. 16 of last Session conveying

1543
no hint that a large sum has been expended on sites and buildings, Paper No. 5 distinctly shows that £1,096,844 was expended in respect of the Telegraph Service by the Office of Works in England and £84,527 by the Board of Public Works in Ireland, a large portion of this expenditure being of course on buildings. The sum of £1,241,774, named in the Question is taken from the Parliamentary Return No. 37 of 1895, and from an answer which I gave myself in this House on the 4th July 1896. It exceeds the two sums I have named partly because the latter sum contains the amounts expended on sites, which are not paid for by the Office of Works but are included in the column showing the expenditure by the Post Office. With respect to the hon. Member's allegations that the sum so invested is treated as unremunerative expenditure and employed to swell the so-called deficiency of Telegraph revenue, and that no allowance is made in the receipts, or revenue, side of the said accounts for the rent which would be payable by the Department but fur the purchase of such sites and the erection of such buildings, I desire to add that the Returns referred to are prepared in accordance with Section 4 of the 29th Vic. C. 5, and (that) they are not detailed statements of assets and liabilities, and therefore the value of sites, buildings, plant, etc., is not shown in them. Account No. 16 is prepared by the Treasury and the Post Office jointly, and the responsible officers have signed it. No portion of the original cost of the G.P.O. East or G.P.O. west was charged to Telegraph account. The G.P.O. North cost about £526,000 and of this one-third was charged to Telegraph account. Without a special valuation no useful estimate could be given of the present value of these buildings. The value of the sites and buildings acquired in the great towns of the United Kingdom for Post Office purposes probably increases from year to year, but without a special valuation, there is no means of knowing their present value.

QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (IMPERIAL STAMPS).
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if
1544
he can explain to the House what are the particular difficulties in the way which prevent the issue of a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps to commemorate the great Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen?
MR. HANBURY: it was not suggested that any particular difficulties prevented the issue of a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps. in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the issue of a special Imperial stamp or postage stamps is not the proper way to commemorate the Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen, and, apart from the fact that it would now be too late to do so, the designs for coins and stamps do not seem to improve as time goes on.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked whether it was not the fact that a new series of postage stamps was now in course of preparation?
MR. HANBURY: That is a separate Question, which I am not at this moment prepared to answer.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether another outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia contagiosa has occurred recently in London; whether this further outbreak, and the result of investigations, have satisfied the authorities that the disease was local and not imported; and whether Ireland has had a clean bill of health for live stock (excepting swine fever) for a much longer period than Great Britain?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): It is, I regret to say, the case that another outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia has occurred in London. So far as our inquiries have as yet proceeded, we have no reason to think that the disease was imported. It is the case that no outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia has been reported in Ireland for a much longer period than in Great Britain.
DR. FARQUHARSON: if this disease is not imported, is it the opinion of the scientific advisers of the right hon. Gentleman that the disease can occasionally spring up spontaneously?
MR. LONG: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the opinion of our expert advisers is that the disease cannot have a spontaneous origin. But it may be lying dormant for a long time.

TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cases of Fitzharris, Mullett, and Hanlan, who have suffered long imprisonment, are under consideration; and whether they have been recently medically examined, and by whom; and whether Maryborough Gaol, in which they are confined, is regarded as the invalid prison of Ireland?
MR. M. MCCARTAN: In connection with this question may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that during the many years these prisoners were in Downpatrick Gaol by their exemplary conduct they won the sympathy and admiration even of the Tory doctor who attended the gaol; and whether he is also aware that there is a very strong feeling in favour of the amnesty of these men in the north of Ireland?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I did not quite catch the hon. Member's question, but I have no reason to think that the conduct of these men was otherwise than good. Memorials from Convicts Fitzharris and Mullett have been received, and are under consideration. NO memorial has been received from Hanlan. All three convicts are under the constant medical supervision of the resident medical officer of Maryborough Prison and of the visiting physician. They were also examined by the medical member of the Prisons Board on the 11th inst. Maryborough Prison is partly an invalid prison and partly an agricultural one for selected prisoners.

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CONGRESS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government received an invitation from the Royal Hungarian Minister of Agriculture to send representatives to the International Agricultural Congress,
1546
which was held at Budapest last autumn; and whether he can state the reason for the absence of Governmental Departmental Officials from, and the want of co-operation in, that important Conference with other nations?
MR. LONG: The Government were invited to send official representatives to the International Agricultural Congress held in Budapest last autumn, but in view of the nature and scope of the questions to be discussed, and of the difficulty of defining the position of such representatives, we did not feel our-selves able to accept the invitation. In arriving at this conclusion we had before us the fact that the Royal Agricultural Society, the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and the National Federation of Meat Traders had arranged to be represented at the Congress, and that, therefore, the interests of British agriculture would be efficiently kept in view.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that County Inspector Seymour, of County Down, is in the habit of requiring the policemen of Downpatrick to attend on his family and himself as if they were his private servants; and that these policemen when on duty have often been required to carry letters, parcels, and messages, although under the police regulations any constable carrying a message or parcel when on duty is liable to a fine of £3; (2) whether such conduct on the county inspector's part n contrary to these regulations; and, (3) will steps be taken to put an end to the practice complained of?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am assured that there is no foundation for the allegations contained in the first paragraphs of this Question.
MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Lester, of the County Leitrim force, was recently charged with obtaining goods under false pretences from a cycle firm in Dublin; that he purloined letters addressed by this firm to his sergeant who had retired on pension; and that he wrote and posted letters in the name

1547
of this sergeant to this firm with intent to defraud: and that the constable was adjudged guilty, and transferred to another station; and whether, in view of the gravity of the offences, he will recommend that the sentence be revised and increased?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The constable was not charged with obtaining goods under false pretences. An allegation was made that he had intercepted a letter addressed to the sergeant of his station and that he had replied to that letter in a communication purporting to have been written and signed by the sergeant, with the object, apparently, of evading a small debt stated to have been due to the cycle firm. The firm, however, subsequently, expressed a desire not to proceed with the case, and the inspector General dealt with the constable's failure to explain the allegations against him as an offence against discipline, for which he, was severely admonished and sent to another county at his own expense. Of course, if the cycle firm desire to prefer a criminal charge against the constable every assistance will be afforded to them to have it investigated by the magistrates.

POSTAL FACILITIES (QUEEN'S COUNTY).
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the important centre of Ballyfin, in the Queen's County, is now served from Mountrath as post town, and whether in consequence, letters and papers are delivered a day later than they need be at the former place, whether he is aware that Maryborough, a railway junction, is actually nearer to Ballyfin than Mountrath is; and whether some arrangement can be made to get rid of the present great delay?
MR. HANBURY: Ballyfin is now served from Mountrath, as post town, by a postman on foot working in connection with the night mail. The arrival is at 7.10 a.m. and the dispatch at 5.50 p.m. No earlier delivery of letters and papers than at present is practicable if the service is to remain in connection with the night mail. Maryborough railway station is nearer to Ballyfin
1548
than Mountrath station is, but Maryborough post office is not quite so near to Ballyfin as Mountrath post office is, A service from Maryborough to Ballyfin in connection with the night mail would have no advantage over the present service from Mountrath, but if the post to Ballyfin were kept back until the arrival of the day mail from Dublin, the delivery would include day mail letters which now have to wait until next morning. The delivery could not however then take place either from Maryborough or Mountrath until past 10 a.m. and the dispatch would have to be made soon after 3 p.m. These hours might not be generally acceptable to the inhabitants, but enquiry shall be made on the subject and the result communicated to the hon. Member.

PUBLIC LOANS (IRELAND).
MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the Grand Jury of County Galway, on Wednesday last, when they refused to pass 19 presentments to pay interest due to the Board of Works, thereby withholding a considerable sum from the Treasury, the foreman stating that they had refused to present as a protest against their excessive and unfair treatment by the Treasury in the matter of interest on public loans; and, whether seeing the low rate at which the Government can borrow, he will see his way to reduce the rate of interest due upon loans granted to public boards in Ireland?
MR. HANBURY: it is the fact that the Judge allowed the Grand Jury to refuse to pay certain debts to the Board of Works, on the ground that the Board had not sent them the proper certificates in each case; and the matter was sprung upon the Board of Works so unexpectedly that they had not time to advise the Crown Solicitor of the right answer—which is that the necessity for such certificates, although provided for in the original Loan Acts, is now dispensed with by Section 13 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1883. On the following day, the Judge having left Galway, the Board applied to the other Judge for an order for the raising of the amount, but as certain county documents were missing, he would not deal with the matter. Under the

1549
section quoted, however, the mistake can be corrected by the High Court, to which an application will accordingly be made. The statutory rates of interest under the various Loan Acts of which the Grand Jury complained, vary between one per cent. for Relief of Distress, three-and-a-quarter per cent. for Drainage, three-and-a-half per cent. for Industrial Schools and Lunatic Asylums, and five per cent. for Roads and Bridges. I have repeatedly explained that, as the Local Loans Fund is at present constituted, it only just pays its way, and any reduction in the present rate of interest would seriously endanger its solvency.

POLICE PROTECTION (DROMOD, COUNTY MONAGHAN).
MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state to the House the annual cost, if maintaining, the police hut at Dromod, County Monaghan; whether the total cost of maintaining this police hut is charged to Ireland; whether he is aware when any person was sent for trial to either Quarter Sessions or Assizes from the police district, of Dromod; that the Judge of Assizes at, Monaghan this month was presented with white, dives rowing to there being no criminal cases; and that the County Court Judge, in whose district the Dromod hut is situate has been several times during recent years presented with white gloves on account of its stainless character; and whether he will consider the advisability of removing the police hut, in question?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The annual cost of maintaining this hut, is about £287, the entire of which is defrayed out, of the Constabulary Vote. No person has been sent for trial from the sub-district attached to the hut since its establishment in 1894. The hut was originally he special protection of an individual, but since 1896, when it was removed to its present site, it has been maintained for the purpose of preventing crime and for the preservation of the public he surrounding district There is no intention to remove this hut station.

PRISON CLERKS.
MR. F. PLATT-HIGGINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any steps are in contemplation to secure to the first and second class prison clerks the prospects held out to them by the notices in The London Gazette, of 9th September 1879, under which they paid an examination fee of £3, to be charged only when the probable maximum salary is £400, or not exceeding £450 per annum; and (2) are the classification and annual increments such that it takes these gentlemen 25 years to attain a salary of £200 per annum, and that there are three classes senior to them, the maximum of the highest of which is but £300 per annum?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,: As regards the question of the examination fee, I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given last April on the subject, by the Secretary to the Treasury. That answer was to the effect that the fee was fixed at £3 because there were posts of the maximum value £400 and upwards to which the clerks could be promoted without further certificate from the Civil Service. Commission, but that the payment of the fee gave the clerks no claim to rise to a salary of that, amount before retirement. I may say, however, that, as the result of a recent, re-organisation, among other improvements that have been made, in the position of the clerks, the number of more highly-paid posts to which they are eligible for promotion has been increased, and promotions, in fact, have already been made. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, except that the maximum salary of the highest of the three classes referred to is £300, with a house, or an allowance of £26 in lieu.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH.
MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to paragraph 13 of the Report of the Board of Visitors of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, dated 29th December 1896, which states

1551
that the area for outdoor games available for the cadets is far too limited; that they consider it a matter of urgency that the cadets should be provided with more space for outdoor games than they have at present, the Common being now so crowded as to be of little use; that there is at the back of the Academy space enough of Government land; and that no time should be lost in levelling and draining this land for the use of the cadets; and whether any steps are being taken to carry out this recommendation?
MR. BRODRICK: The question of providing additional recreation ground for the Royal Military Academy will be considered when the Estimates for 1898–9 are under discussion.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)
MR. R. MCGHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many pupils in 1896 in the Irish Industrial Schools were examined, and how many passed in practical agriculture and in handicraft?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statistics for 1896 are not yet tabulated, but for the previous year it appears that none of the pupils of Industrial Schools, the pupils of which were enrolled in National Schools, were examined in either practical agriculture or handicraft at the annual examinations held by the inspector of the National Board of Education.

PARSONSTOWN AND PORTUMNA RAILWAY (IRELAND).
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the late Government proposed to re-equip the Parsonstown and Portumna derelict railway, and that the Great Southern and Western Company at that time agreed to carry out the necessary equipment, afterwards refusing to do so as their calculations were found to be erroneous; whether, seeing that it has been calculated that £24,000 will re-equip the line, that sum will be given out of the £50,000 granted last Session for promoting railways in Ireland; and whether the Great Southern and Western Company have made an offer to work the line and incorporate it with their own?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The late Government made no offer such as is alleged in the Question. It did, however, repeat the terms of an offer that had already been made by the previous Government, the effect of which was that if an agreement were come to with a responsible company such as the Great Southern and Western Railway to restore the line, and when restored to maintain it, the Treasury would be asked to contribute £12,000 towards the cost of re-construction, estimated at £24,000. The present Government has intimated its willingness to contribute towards the cost of re-construction if an arrangement be come to within a reasonable time; but further than this it cannot go until it has before it a definite scheme to which the Grand Jury and the Railway Company which proposes to work the line, are agreed. Under the Railways Act of last year, which provided £500,000, not £50,000, for the purposes referred to, it would not be possible for the Government, in any circumstances, to contribute more than one-half of the cost of construction and equipment.
MR. R. M. DANE: Arising out of that, may I ask whether as the Great Southern Railway Company are willing to construct this line, the present Government will give a larger sum than £12,000?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, it would not be possible under the Act.

QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE (COLONIAL PREMIERS).
MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received replies from the Premiers of all the self-governing Colonies; how many have intimated their acceptance of his invitation to be present at the official celebration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee; and whether he can give a general indication of the subjects of imperial interest on winch it is proposed to invite their opinions and co-operation?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answers from the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies are still incomplete. I have already stated that no formal conference is intended, although Her Majesty's Government will be glad to

1553
have the opinions and co-operation of the Premiers on any matters of common interest.

NEW HEBRIDES.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what results, if any, have accrued from the further remonstrances, addressed through the British Ambassador at Paris to the French Government, against the selling of spirits and firearms to the Natives of the New Hebrides by French traders?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): No answer has as yet been received from the French Government to the representations as to restriction that we recently addressed to them.

ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War (1) what steps he proposes to take in order to fill up the vacancies in, and complete the establishment of, the Army Medical Staff; and (2) whether, in case of mobilisation, the Army Medical Staff is now sufficient for the medical needs of Army corps?
MR. BRODRICK: It is intended to give an increase of pay in India and a shorter tour of service there, assistance in forming medical messes at large stations, quarters in barracks where possible, and better opportunities for study on return from foreign service. One or two other matters affecting the service are still under consideration. It is hoped that these additional advantages will increase the number of candidates for this service. My answer to the second part of the question (whether in case of mobilisation the Army Medical Staff is now sufficient for the medical needs of Army corps) is in time affirmative.

COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state how often meetings of the Committee are held; and whether any
1554
meetings of that body have been held since 1st January of this year; if so, how many, and upon what dates?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): No, Sir; I have made inquiries, and I find it would be contrary to all precedent to give any information as to the proceedings of a Committee of the Privy Council. [Laughter.]
MR. FLYNN: I did not ask what occurred at the meetings; I simply asked if any meeting had been held. Am I to understand that no meetings have been held?
SIR J. GORST: No; the hon. Gentleman can understand nothing except what I have stated in the answer which I have given him. [Laughter]

RURAL POSTMEN (WAGES).
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the scale of wages paid to rural postmen in Great Britain; and whether the same scale applies to Ireland?
MR. HANBURY: The scales of wages now paid to rural postmen are as follow:—17s. by 1s. to 24s. a week, 17s. by 1s. to 22s. a week, 17s. by 1s. to 21s. a week, 16s. by 1s. to 20s. a week, 15s. by 1s. to 19s. a week, 14s. by 1s. to 18s. a week, 13s. by 1s. to 17s. a week according to the districts in which the men are serving. Under the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee, rural postmen starting on their walks from a town head office will receive the same scale as the town postmen in that town, except that the maximum of the scale will be less by 2s. a week. The new scales for provincial town postmen are respectively—18s. by 1s. 6d. to 30s. a week, 18s. by 1s. 6d. to 28s. a week, 18s. by 1s. 6d. to 26s. a week, 17s. by 1s. 6d. to 24s. a week, 16s. by is. 6d. to 22s. a week. As regards rural postmen starting from sub-offices, the pay, which will vary according to the rates of wages in the locality, will in no case fall below 16s. a week in Great Britain and 15s. a week in Ireland.
SIR CHARLES DILKEwas understood to ask whether the majority of the postmen in

1555
rural districts were not members of the auxiliary classes?
MR. HANBURY: No, I think not.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Why is any difference made in the scale of pay in Great Britain and Ireland?
MR. HANBURY: Because everywhere the scale varies with the cost of living in the locality.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA (INSTRUCTIONS TO SIR A. MILNER).
MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the greater publicity which he has inaugurated and maintained in the administration of the affairs of the Colonial Office and the importance of pending issues involved, he will lay upon the Table of the House the instructions given to Sir Alfred Milner upon his appointment as Her Majesty's High Commissioner in British South Africa?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As I shall have been able to fully communicate the views and instructions of Her Majesty's Government to Sir Alfred Milner by word of mouth it will not be necessary to give him written instructions, but no verbal instructions will be given to him inconsistent with the statements that I have already made in this House with regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in South Africa. [Cheers.]
MR. STANHOPE: May I ask whether we can take it that they will not be inconsistent with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the night before last at the complimentary dinner—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

NORFOLK ISLAND.
MR. CHARLES BILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether under the new arrangements for the better government of Norfolk Island provision has been made for the appointment of a chaplain; and if so, whether one has been appointed, and with what salary?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no recent information on this subject, but I have reason to believe that the Governor of New South Wales does not contemplate the appointment of another chaplain
1556
for Norfolk Island, and that other arrangements will be made for the spiritual requirements of the community.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the rules regulating the new system of government in Norfolk Island, the chief magistrate is empowered to grant permits for the sale of beer, wine or spirituous liquor, to such persons as he may think fit, in place of the total prohibition of liquor selling which has hitherto prevailed in the island?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It will be seen from pages 40 and 41 of the Blue-hook that the regulations respecting beer, wine or spirituous liquor only apply to the keeping of these commodities, and I have no reason to suppose that it is in contemplation to issue permits for their sale.

TRANSVAAL (SUPPRESSION OF NEWSPAPER).
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the Transvaal Government has suppressed the Uitlander newspaper, the Star of Johannesburg, and, if so, on what ground this action has been taken; (2) whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps with regard to the suppression of the Johannesbury Critic in December 1896: and (3) whether the 60,000 Uitlanders of Johannesburg, who are denied both the right of voting and of public meeting, are, by the suppression of these papers, prevented from making public their grievances?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received through the High Commissioner a telegram from the British Agent at Pretoria, stating that the "Johannesburg Star newspaper has been suppressed for three months on the ground of being dangerous to public peace;" and a further telegram from the High Commissioner stating that the proprietors of the newspapers will bring the action of the Government of the South African Republic under the review of the High Court of judicature. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Government of the South African Republic with regard to the suppression of the Critic. In regard to the third

1557
question, I can only say that, by the suppression of these papers, the Uitlanders have been deprived of their two principal organs of the Press.

COURT OF CONSCIENCE (CORK).
MR. VESEY KNOX:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the committee appointed by the Cork Corporation to inquire into the procedure of the Court of Conscience in that city, at which it was proved that the Court was used almost exclusively by money lenders to recover money lent at exorbitant interest to the very poorest class of the community; that the president of the Court is not a lawyer and has had no legal or official training; that the Court has habitually exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on it by law, granting decrees where the original debt exceeded £2 without production of the promissory notes sued on, allowing fines not payable by law and a rate of interest warranted neither by the law nor the individual contract; that all this was done against the protests of the registrar, who happens at present to be a lawyer; that the decrees of the Court are executed by irresponsible persons, sometimes with violence; and that in a recent case the Recorder of Cork commented severely on the conduct of the bailiffs executing one of these decrees; (2) whether the statutory protections for poor debtors which exist in the Civil Bill Court and the Petty Sessions Court apply to decrees of the Court of Conscience; and (3) whether, in view of the fact that the small debt jurisdiction of the Petty Sessions Court is now the same as that of the Court of Conscience, that the Court fees in it are less, and that the Petty Sessions Court sits in Cork on every week day, the Lord Lieutenant will consider the advisability of exercising his statutory power of abolishing the Court of Conscience?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been directed to the proceedings of the special committee appointed by the Cork Corporation to inquire into certain allegations affecting the Court of Conscience. Before deciding what action it may be necessary to take in the matter, the Government
1558
will await the report of the Committee of Inquiry. I may add with regard to the Inquiry in the second paragraph, that statutory protection is given by the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Act 1840, to the execution of orders of the Court of Conscience.
MR. JOHNSTONasked the right hon. Gentleman if the late mayor of Cork, Sir John Scott, the first Unionist Member for 18 years, had not put an end to this grievance in respect of rates of interest?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

POSTAGE (NEWSPAPER AND BOOK PACKETS).
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, considering the inconvenience caused to and the dissatisfaction expressed by newspaper publishers and other senders of large quantities of newspaper and book post packets at halfpenny rates, he is prepared to rescind the Treasury Warrant, issued in November 1894, imposing a return fee of one halfpenny on papers and packets undeliverable reason of change of address or from other causes; and what becomes of the considerable number of newspapers and book packets undelivered by reason of change of address or other cause which do not bear a request on the wrapper, to be returned to the sender in case of non-delivery?
MR. HANBURY: The Treasury Warrant to which the hon. Member refers provided for the free re-direction of newspapers and other postal packets sent at the halfpenny rate, and as its effect has been very advantageous to the public, the Postmaster General is not prepared to recommend that it should be rescinded. The Warrant in making this alteration further provided for the payment of postage for the return of such packets as might be undeliverable and whose return seemed desirable or necessary either from their intrinsic importance or film the written request of the addressor that they should be so returned; but as the addressor has no right to such undeliverable articles, the Postmaster General does not consider that there is any reason why he should

1559
not be charged for the cost of returning them, when he desires their return. Packets which do not bear a request for return in case of non-delivery are treated as waste paper, unless the contents appear to be of some importance, in which case they are offered to the sender subject to the payment of the return postage.

SOUTH AFRICAN LEAGUE.
MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the telegram addressed to him on Friday last by Mr. Anderson, President of the so-called South African League, he has been apprised of the unrepresentative character of the League in question; whether he is aware that telegrams couched in ultra-patriotic language are persistently communicated to the London Press from South African sources for the purpose of furthering speculative operations upon the Stock Exchange; and whether he will consider the advisability of refusing to give publicity, and therefore authority, to telegrams addressed to the Colonial Office, which cannot but tend to intensify the irritation still existing amongst the Dutch population of South Africa as a result of the Jameson Raid?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There were two telegrams—one from Mr. Anderson and the other from the President of the South African League. I believe that that League represents the views of a large number of the inhabitants of South Africa. The answer is in the negative. I have no reason to believe that the telegrams in question were communicated with any such purpose. They were sent in reply to statements made by a witness before the Select Committee, who had given evidence in respect of the views of the people of Cape Colony, and it was necessary to give the witness an opportunity of answering them.
MR. STANHOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question in the terms of the question. I did not say these particular telegrams were sent for speculative purposes. I said telegrams are persistently sent for such purposes, and asked him whether, in the case of telegrams of that
1560
character, he would refuse to take notice of them.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The question which the hon. Gentleman asked me could only have had reference to these two telegrams; and it is only in connection with those two telegrams that he asked this question. Certainly I do not think there is the slightest ground for the insinuation conveyed in the question. With regard to the question as to whether any telegrams have been sent for such purposes, I do not know anything about it, and certainly I am not aware that any such telegrams have been sent to the Colonial Office.

AGRICULTURAL PRICES (IRELAND).
MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Return of Agricultural Prices, etc., in Ireland, recently granted on the Motion of the Member for Galway, has been yet furnished to the lay Sub-Commissioners now administering the Law in relation to fair rent applications in Ireland; and, if not so furnished, why these Sub-Commissioners are not provided with information so necessary in fixing fair rents?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The information contained in the Return forms portion of the Return of Prices of Irish Agricultural Produce for the year 1896, which is now being prepared in the office of the Land Commission and will be ready for publication in the course of about ten days. As soon as it is published, copies will be supplied to the Assistant Commissioners in the same manner as has been done in previous years.

POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been drawn to a telegram sent by Lord Tweedmouth to the mass meeting of postmen at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, explaining that the Committee's Report clearly indicates that effective prohibition of Christmas boxes must necessarily be accompanied by the granting of a higher scale of wages to postmen; and when the higher scale of wages in lieu of Christmas boxes will be granted to all postmen?
MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been called to that section of Lord Tweedmouth's Report which prohibits postmen asking for Christmas boxes; whether that recommendation will be acted on next Christmas; and, whether the whole of the Report will be brought under the consideration of the House; if so, when?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General's attention has been drawn to a statement in the newspapers to the effect that at a recent meeting of postmen a telegram from Lord Tweedmouth to the following effect was read:—
"That the Committee's Report clearly indicates that the effective prohibition of Christmas boxes must necessarily be accompanied by the granting of a higher scale of wages to postmen."
The Postmaster General has not seen the actual text of that telegram; but the recommendation of the Committee over which Lord Tweedmouth presided was the adoption of a general rule for all postmen against solicitation of Christmas boxes. A rule somewhat similar to that recommended by the Committee is already in force throughout the whole of the United Kingdom except time metropolis. The Committee go on to say:—
"Had we seen our way to recommend total prohibition, we might have suggested somewhat higher scales of wages for postmen; but the payment which we have proposed is, we believe, in itself, under the conditions contemplated in this Report, an adequate remuneration for a postman's labour."
The Postmaster General does not, therefore, intend to make any payment in lieu of Christmas boxes. The new rule will be acted upon next Christmas. The Committee's Report, as the hon. Member is aware, has already been laid upon the Table of the House.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the estimated value of Christmas boxes to the postmen of the city of Cork; whether it is proposed to deprive them of this benefit; and, if so, what equivalent in increased salary is proposed to be given them?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is unable to say what is the estimated value of Christmas boxes to the
1562
postmen of Cork. It is not, proposed to deprive them of this benefit, though it is proposed to prevent them soliciting the public for them verbally, as they are already forbidden to solicit the public for them by the use of printed cards or letters. The Committee expressly stated that the wages of postmen which they recommended constituted an adequate remuneration for a postman's labour, and it is not intended to increase it.
MR. KNOX:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) whether the Postmaster General will fill the existing vacancies in the Sorting Office, General Post Office, Dublin, on the classes of first class assistant superintendents, clerks, and first class sorting clerks, before the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Post Office Establishments are put into effect; and if, in view of the statement contained in the Report of that body that promotions should be made with as much celerity as possible, he intends to bring the strength of these classes to its full standard before the 1st April; and (2) whether he is aware that one vacancy has existed in the rank of first class assistant superintendents for the past nine months, and seven and six vacancies in that of the clerks' class and first class sorting clerks, respectively, for the past two years?
MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General proposes to fill the existing vacancies in the Sorting Office, General Post Office, Dublin, on the classes of first class assistant superintendents and clerks as soon as the authorities in Ireland are in a position to make the necessary recommendations on the qualifications of time officers eligible for promotion. Having regard to the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, that classification between first class and second class sorting clerks should be abolished, he is not in a position, without further inquiry, to say whether he will or will not till up the vacancies on the first class of sorting clerks. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as regards the dates mentioned in the second part of the Question. The vacancy for a first class superintendent occurred in September last, and none of time other vacancies have existed for one year—three of them having only occurred since the beginning of November.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES (CALLAN BOARD OF GUARDIANS).
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire upon what grounds the Callan Board of Guardians have failed to provide labourers' cottages for James Walsh and James Fitzgerald, of Kilmanagh; whether he is aware that Kilmanagh is badly provided with labourers' cottages; and will he cause another inquiry to be held by the Local Government Board into the matter?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Guardians proposed to build cottages for these men; but the Local Government Board, on consideration of the evidence taken at the Inquiry, were unable to sanction the proposal, and communicated to the Guardians the grounds of objection to the cottages. Four cottages are about to be sanctioned for the electoral Division of Kilmanagh, in addition to nine already authorised, and 58 in the whole Union in addition to 100 already sanctioned. There seems no reason for holding a further Inquiry in the matter.

MARYLEBONE COUNTY COURT.
Mr. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the case of a servant girl, named Roberts, who brought a case into the Marylebone County Court, on 3rd March 1897, for the recovery of £1 8s 4d., being one month's wages due to her from her employer; whether he is aware that this servant gave the customary notice at the end of the month; that the employer refused to pay her wages for the month worked; and that Judge stonor, who tried the case, gave a verdict to the employer with costs; and whether, seeing that this decision is in direct opposition to domestic servants, he can take any course of action that will give greater authority to the custom now recognised?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have seen a newspaper report of the case, but I am unable to say whether the
1564
facts are correctly stated in the Question. My jurisdiction does not extend to civil cases, and I have no power to take the action which I understand the hon. Member to suggest.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS' CHARACTERS.
MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Domestic Servants' Union presented a petition to the House of Commons on 26th March 1896, containing 10,000 signatures, praying for an alteration in the Law which enables an employer to refuse giving true character to a servant leaving his employment; and whether he can see his way on an early day to introduce an Amendment to the Master and Servants Act to obviate the present difficulty?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am aware that such a petition was presented last March; but, though there is doubtless much hardship, I fear it is not of a kind which, as far as I can see, can be remedied by legislation.

PENRHYN QUARRIES
MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to time fact that the negotiations between Lord Penrhyn and his employés have failed to effect a settlement; and whether the Department over which he presides has recently taken any steps, either by correspondence or by urging the combatants to avail themselves of the use of the Conciliation Act; and, if not, is he in a position to take any action whatever on behalf of the Government to bring the parties closer together?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,, in the absence of Mr. RITCHLE): The information of my right hon. Friend leads him to believe that the present negotiations between Lord Penrhyn and his employés are not closed, and he trusts they may have a successful issue. Throughout the dispute he has lost no opportunity of endeavouring to promote negotiations, but no further action on his part at present seems required.

SWINE FEVER (BISHOPS WALTHAM).
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a serious case of swine fever at Bishops Waltham, on the estate of General Elrington, in November last, where 66 pigs of considerable value were ordered to be slaughtered by the local committee in the presence of an inspector acting under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act; whether he is aware that 15 of the carcasses were subsequently dressed with a view to being consigned to the Central Meat Market in London; that five of the number were found to be affected with the fever spots and were subsequently buried; and that the remaining ten were nevertheless sent off to London for sale, although they came from the very same pen or stye as those diseased; and whether such action by inspectors is in accordance with the regulations of the Department, after the owner had received an official notice that all the pigs in the styes affected were to be slaughtered and buried?
MR. LONG: Yes; I am aware of the case of swine-fever to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I have caused full inquiry to be made respecting it. The 67 pigs which were slaughtered by order of one of the Board's Inspectors were killed, not because they were diseased but because they had been exposed to infection, and as a matter of fact none of them showed any signs of illness. Fifteen of the pigs were found to be fit for the butcher and were dressed accordingly, but on a further examination prior to the consignment of the carcasses for sale, six of them were found to be somewhat discoloured and these were accordingly withdrawn and subsequently buried. Discolouration frequently arises from ordinary causes, and there is no evidence whatever that in this case it was due to the presence of swine fever. Under the Board's regulations the most stringent precautions are taken with a view to prevent meat unfit for human food from being consigned for sale, and in the case in question the carcasses sold were examined by a butcher on two successive days, and were subsequently passed as sound by the sanitary inspector and the meat salesman on arrival at their destination.

POLICE SUPERVISION.
CAPTAIN PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with regard to his statement that the punishment of police supervision is mainly given by Courts of Quarter Sessions, owing to offences against property, to which this sentence is specially suited, being tried chiefly before such Courts, it is the case that of 1,626 prisoners convicted at Assizes of those particular offences in 1895, only 13, or less than 0.80 per cent., were sentenced to this form of punishment, while of 5,032 such convictions at Quarter Sessions no less than 343, or 6·77 per cent., were so punished; and if this is the case, seeing that the explanation of these figures given in the Report on Judicial statistics does not attempt to explain away this difference but merely to render it less surprising, he can take some steps to diminish in the future the large proportion of these sentences passed by Courts of Quarter Sessions.
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The hon. Member's figures are accurate, but I cannot accept the conclusion that he appears to draw from them. The sentence of police supervision is passed only on habitual criminals, and if passed in proper cases, where it is effective, in restraining from crime, it is a more lenient method of dealing with the offender than a long term of penal servitude. The matter is one in which must decline to interfere with the discretion either of the Judges or of the Courts of Quarter Sessions.

BUILDING GRANTS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether all schools with building grants are required to be held in trust for elementary education; whether the Education Department permits managers of schools which have received a building grant to repay that grant, and thereupon to have a right to dispose of the premises; and, if so, under what conditions; what steps are taken to secure that after the building grant is repaid the managers shall still give effect to the trusts under which the school is held; and whether the Education Department or the Charity

1567
Commission have any means of securing, that all the money derived from these buildings, whether as rent or purchase money, shall be applied in accordance with the trusts of the school?
SIR J. GORST: All schools with building grants are required to be held in trust for elementary education. Building grants can be repaid; but unless special provision be made in the first deed, any disposal of the premises is governed by Section 14 of the Schools Sites Act, 1841. Trustees cannot vary the trusts without obtaining a scheme from the Charity Commissioners.

VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS AT ALDERSHOT.
COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if it has been decided to send provisional battalions of Volunteers from the metropolitan brigades to Aldershot in August next?
MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of any proposal to send provisional battalions of Volunteers to Aldershot.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is it intended not to have any provisional battalion at Aldershot at all?
MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of any Order.

ELECTRIC TRAM SPEED ((BALL'S BRIDGE TO DALKEY, COUNTY DUBLIN).
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received memorials asking for an acceleration of the speed of the electric trains running from Ball's Bridge to Dalkey; and whether the Board of Trade will permit the same rate of speed as is allowed on other electric traction lines in Great Britain and Ireland?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (for Mr. RITCHIE): Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade have received memorials on the subject, and are considering them. There is no uniform rate of speed for electric tramays, each case must be dealt with on its merits.

REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA.
MR. CHARLES WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in consequence of representations made by the German
1568
Government and by the fishing vessels of this country, he will consider the desirability of omitting the word "sailing" in the first and second lines of Article 26 of the Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was a Debate in the Imperial German Parliament on the subject this year, and that this proposal received their support?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (for Mr. RITCHIE): The representations to which the hon. Member refers are receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade. Before coming to any definite decision in the matter it will be necessary to ascertain the views of the several interests concerned, and steps are being taken with that object in view.

BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA (HEALTH).
SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will ascertain the views of the Government of India with reference to the protection of the health of the British troops in India before Stating to the House the action which Her Majesty's Government propose to take?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have for some time past been in communication with the Viceroy, and I propose to lay on the Table of the House Dispatch addressed to the Government of India, in which the views of Her Majesty's Government are stated at length.
GENERAL LAURIE: Can the noble Lord say when it is probable that the answer from the Government of India will be obtained?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I think it better for my hon. and gallant Friend to read the dispatch.
MAJOR RASCH: In order to dispel misconception on this Question, will the noble Lord use his influence with the Government to give the House facilities for its discussion?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope and believe the dispatch is of such a character as not to call for any Debate in this House. Perhaps the dispatch had therefore be better read first by hon. Gentlemen,

METROPOLITAN POLICE BOOTS.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as regards the alleged loss to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force, by the manner in which the change of system for the supply of their boots is to be brought about, seeing that the matter in dispute is entirely one of figures and facts, he will consent to place the case before an independent chartered accountant and abide by his decision?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot assent to any such proposal.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE COMMITTEES (IRELAND).
MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland when will he introduce a Bill to define the rate from which the expenses of School Attendance Committees, appointed under the Irish Education Act, 1892, shall be defrayed?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With my right hon. Friend's permission, I will reply to this question. On the 11th February, in reply to the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I stated very fully the intentions of the Government in this matter, and to that reply I am afraid I have nothing to add.

CONVICT PRISON WARDERS.
MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary if State for the Home Department whether—inasmuch as the classes at Chelmsford and Hull for the instruction of warders prepare them only for service in local prisons, and not for special duties required in connection with the discipline and the open air labour of the convict establishments—the Commissioners will also institute a class for the instruction of officers in convict prisons?
SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension; the course of instruction is devised to meet the requirements of both the local and the convict services, as he will see if he will refer to Appendix 15 of the last Report of the Prison Department.

SCIENCE AND ART GRANT (IRELAND).
MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the new rules of the Science and Art Department provide that a pupil on the roll of National Schools in Ireland cannot be enrolled in a science class; and (2) whether the shares of the Science and Art Grant that Ireland received last year is proportional to 9/80ths of the amount paid to England; and, if not, will steps be taken in future to divide the grant on this basis?
SIR J. GORST: The answer to paragraph (1) is in the affirmative, but for this session schools have the option of working under the old rules. The Irish schools only earned 6/80ths of the total Science and Art Grant for 1895–96; but, it is open to Ireland to earn a larger proportion under the Regulations of the Science and Art Department, which are the same for the whole of the United Kingdom.
MR. MURNAGHAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that, owing to the new rules made by the Education Department it is impossible for the Irish schools to obtain the grants they formerly obtained?
SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman is under a misconception. The Irish schools are treated in exactly the same way as the English schools, not only by the Education Department but by the Science and Art Department.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether by the new rules of the Science and Art Department results fees gained in the Irish Intermediate Examinations are ordered to be treated as endowments, and deducted from any sum earned as science and art result fees; and (2) whether the same rule has been applied in the case of grants made to schools in Great Britain under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, or in Wales under the Intermediate Education Act; and, if not, what is the reason for treating the schools in the two countries on a different basis?
SIR J. GORST: The statements in the first paragraph are correct, except that the fees will only be deducted from the sum earned for elementary mathematics, as is done with English endowments. The grants mentioned in the second

1571
paragraph are not endowments, and the rules referred to do not apply to them.
MR. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the greater part of the intermediate education allowances comes from precisely the same equivalent grant as that out of which the sums are paid to the County Councils in England; and will he reconsider his decision?
SIR J. GORST: I do not think the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct.

ARMAGH UNION WORKHOUSE.
MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the, Local Government Board has ordered Mr. Agnew to hold a sworn inquiry on 1st April into the stock-keeping arrangements of the Armagh Union Workhouse; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Agnew has already sent in a report which was unfavourable to the master: and that the guardians of the union think that Mr. Agnew's part in the inquiry should be that, of a witness and not an inspector holding it; and (3) will he take steps to prevent an inspector, the correctness of whose report in this case has been impugned, from acting as judge and witness at the same time?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is, Yes. Mr. Agnew has never held an inquiry into the master's conduct. It appears that the Guardians recently passed a Resolution to the effect that, in their opinion, Mr. Agnew would be a necessary witness at the Inquiry. The third paragraph is based on a misapprehension of the functions of an inspector. He takes the evidence laid before him and forwards it to the Local Government Board, who are the judges in the matter, and it is with the Board and not with the Inspector that the decision rests. If any rule such as suggested were laid down, it, would be necessary to send another inspector to hold an inquiry in every case in which the district inspector had called attention to matters requiring investigation, which it is part of an inspector's duty to do.
MR. FARRELL: Am I to understand that Mr. Agnew is still going to hold this inquiry?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

INDIA OFFICE (AUDIT DEPARTMENT).
MR. W. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the retirement of one of the senior clerks in the Audit Department of the India Office has been sanctioned; and whether, as another appointment to the senior class would involve an increase of charge upon Indian revenues, a promotion to a senior clerkship will, in accordance with the course pursued in two cases in 1892–93 in regard to the Accountant General's Department, be deferred until such time as the official now retired on reduction of establishment would have been superannuated under the age limit, or whether the redundant clerkship can be now abolished?
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The retirement of a senior clerk in the India Audit Office has been recently sanctioned and a promotion to the senior class has been made. This does not involve an increase of charge upon Indian revenues, for, including the pension of the senior clerk who has retired, it results in an immediate saving of £83 a year, and an average annual saving during the next 15 years of £41.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION CLERKS).
MR. E. BOULNOIS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is the fact that the Lord Chancellor has authorised the Chief Clerks of the Judges of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice to adopt the style and title of Masters of the Supreme Court; if so, what power has he to alter the title given them by the Legislature in 1852 (15 and 16 Vict. c. 80) and to confer upon them the title of Masters of the Supreme Court, which the Legislature has assigned by the Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879 (42 and 43 Vict. c. 78), to other persons appointed under a different patronage, with a different qualification and discharging different duties; and whether the sanctioning the use by a class of public officers, whom the Legislature has designated by a particular name, of a designation appropriated by Statute to another and different class of officers, whose duties are essentially different, will be reconsidered?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I think the Question of my hon. Friend is

1573
framed under a misapprehension. The matter is not now controlled by the Act of 1832, but by the Judicature Act under which the majority of the Presidents of the Divisions have power to effect the change of name referred to. I have laid upon the Table of the House the Order of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice dealing with the matter, which has been confirmed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.

COUNTY COURT RULES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
MR. G. LAMBERT: On behalf of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. A. BILLSON) I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists with regard to the proposed new County Court Rule requiring a deposit for travelling expenses from plaintiffs when the defendant resides more than 20 miles from the Court; and whether the operation of the Rule may be postponed pending further consideration?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The operation of the Rule has been postponed until the month of May in order that the County Court Judges may meet together to consider the objections which have been raised to it. I ought, however, to add that the Rule was passed to restrict the growing practice of summoning defendants to Courts at a great distance from their place of residence.

FOREIGN ORDERS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the Regulations respecting, foreign Orders and medals, published at the Foreign Office in February, 1883, and still in force, by which it is provided that no subject of Her Majesty shall accept a foreign Order from any foreign country or wear the insignia thereof without having previously obtained Her Majesty's permission, Her Majesty's Government will, in view of the recent incidents in Armenia, Constantinople, and Crete, recommend Her Majesty to withhold her permission to the acceptance of such Orders and the wearing of such insignia by any of her subjects in future?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Rules to which the Question refers are very precise in their character. But infringements never come before the Executive, nor has the Government any power to interfere.
In answer to a further Question by Mr. MACNEILL,
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY said: I do not imagine that there is any constitutional authority which has the power.

CRETE.
MR. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances under which the Seaforth Highlanders entered Candia on Friday last; whether they were conducted through the town by Turkish bands; whether they were reviewed by the Turkish Governor on the square, where, in the presence of both bodies of troops, the British officer thanked the Turkish Governor for the reception which had been given to the Highlanders; whether the Turkish troops left the square to the strains of the Turkish national air played by the band of the Highlanders; and whether such incidents were calculated to inspire confidence in the minds of the Cretan insurgents? [Opposition cheers.]
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Consul and the British Military Commissioner reported by telegraph, on the 26th inst., that the British troops landed at Candia without incident, and were escorted to the barracks by half a Turkish battalion with a band. Our telegrams contain no information on the other points mentioned in the Question. I may add that I can see nothing improper in a friendly reception being given to the international troops by the garrison of a town which they have come to protect, simply because that garrison happens to be composed of Turks. [Loud Ministerial cheers.]
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—whether the Admirals were acting within their instructions in shelling the Cretans at Malaxa on Thursday, when the white flag was raised and the garrison in the act of surrendering,

1575
and also in again shelling the Christians at Malaxa on Friday; whether it is within the instructions for the Fleet to aid Turkish operations at night, by means of their search lights—[cries of "Oh!"]—whether it is true—[renewed cries of "Oh!"]—that, although the British Consul and Naval Commanders who rescued the Moslems at Candano and Selinos signed an agreement that these Moslems should not bear arms against the Christians, the Acting Governor General has distributed nearly 3,000 rifles to these men in breach of the agreement; and what steps have been, or are to be, taken to prevent this violation of good faith? [Cheers.]
MR. CURZON: Perhaps the best answer—although I am afraid it will be rather a long one—which I can make to the hon. Member is to read the facts as telegraphed to us by the British Admiral. [Cheers.] On the 23rd inst. the Admiral telegraphed that the Turkish force in the guard-house near Malaxa, about one and a-half mile from anchorage, was starving, and that the Cretan insurgents refused permission for supplies of food and forage to pass. Three Turks had been killed in sight of the ship while attempting to victual house. An ultimatum had accordingly been sent by the Admirals to the insurgent chief stating that food must be allowed in, or that force would be used to attain that object. On the 25th inst. he telegraphed that the insurgents in large numbers were preventing the revictualling of the blockhouse in spite of the notice of the Admirals to desist. [Nationalist laughter.] The Turkish men-of-war were firing to dislodge them, but if the purpose was not effected the international ships would have to fire. The Admirals had unanimously decided that this step was necessary for the preservation of the blockhouse, which commanded Suda Arsenal. On the same day he telegraphed that the blockhouse had been captured by the insurgents. [Loud cheers from Mr. MACNEILL and other Nationalist Members.] The Admirals had unanimously decided that it was necessary to open fire and drive insurgents from the position which they had captured in opposition to the written protest. Fire was opened by signal from the Italian Admiral and lasted for six minutes. On fire ceasing the insurgents had apparently looted the blockhouse
1576
and then burned it. [Renewed cheers from Mr. MACNEILL and Mr. DILLON.] On the 26th the Admiral telegraphed that the evacuation of the blockhouse by the Turks on the day before had been due to two Greek cannon, served by Greek troops—[Nationalist cheers]—being brought into operation against it out of sight of the ships. The water supply had also been destroyed, and the capture of the blockhouse was in direct disobedience to the Admirals' warning sent to the insurgents—[ironical laughter from Mr. MACNEILL]—through the British Consul two days previously. Further, as the position now taken up by the insurgents commanded the arsenal and road to Suda, the Admirals had decided to prevent further encroachment by the fire of the ships. On the 27th the Admiral telegraphed that, owing to the repeated attacks of the insurgents, who now had their cannon on outposts commanding Canea, the Admirals had decided that it would be necessary to treat insurgents as enemies—[cries of "Oh!" and "Shame," from Mr. MACNEILL and other hon. Members]—and to demand more troops from their respective Governments before long in order to afford efficient protection to the town under their charge. [Renewed interruption from Mr. MACNEILL.] The hon. Member might allow me to read my answer without these most unseemly interruptions.[Ministerial cheers and Nationalist laughter.] The further advance of the insurgents must be stopped, great alarm being felt in the town, where famine and disease were already threatening the refugees. On the same day he telegraphed that Colonel Vassos was reported to have received the Admirals' warning and to have replied by ordering the capture of the blockhouse. [Loud cheers from Mr. MACNEILL and other hon. Members.] Three guns had been brought against it on the southern side. On the 28th the Admiral telegraphed that the insurgents were following up their success against the blockhouse by developing an attack upon a strong earthwork fort held by Turks at the back of Suda Point, and that the general situation upon the island was that Colonel Vassos had declared open war against the Great Powers. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Bravo, Vassos!" and loud cheers from Mr. MACNEILL.] This is the whole information

1577
that, we possess; and I am unable to throw any light upon any of the other points mentioned by the hon. Member.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Arising out of that answer, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Admirals are acting on their own responsibility, or in obedience to instructions from their Governments in prohibiting the landing of ammunition intended for the Greek troops, whilst allowing the landing of ammunition intended for the Turkish troops?
MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say that that Question properly arises out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore notice of it should be given.

MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tomorrow till Tuesday, 6th April.
MOTION
  REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS' FUNDS.
  Bill to make provision for the transfer of the assets, liabilities, and management of the Regular Widows' Fund, and of the Elders' Widows' Fund, to the Secretary of State in Council of India, and for other purposes in relation thereto, ordered to be brought in by Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—[Bill 179.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. EDWARD BLAKEmoved:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Report and Proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland establish the existence of an undue burden of taxation on Ireland, which constitutes a great grievance to all classes of the Irish community, and makes it the duty of the Government to propose at an early day remedial legislation."
  The hon. Member gratefully acknowledged that his Motion had received favourable consideration from more than
  1578
  one influential quarter in the House, but he could not be insensible to the fact that there existed on the part of some hon. Members an indisposition, perhaps an aversion, to the further discussion of Irish grievances, some entertaining the conviction that it was but waste of time, since whatever was said or done Irish people would still remain unreasonably dissatisfied, and others cherishing the belief that Ireland was spoiled and favoured rather than wronged and neglected. He also could not but feel that the argument was devoid of dramatic interest and full of wearisome details; and most of all was he deeply conscious of his own inadequacy for the task imposed upon him. Therefore he earnestly supplicated the kind indulgence of the House while he attempted to sustain the Motion of which he had given notice. [Cheers.] This question differed in some respects from many former Irish questions. In this there was more than in those a united Ireland. [Cheers.] In those the dominating British delegation very often assumed the part of impartial judges, disinterested persons deciding for the good of Ireland between the views of contending Irish factions. In this the views of Irish Members were but lightly regarded, because, it was said, they were parties, and therefore not fit judges in the cause. But who were the other parties? If Irishmen were the plaintiffs, who were the defendants? The British Members; and their position was more powerful and therefore more invidious than that of Irish Members. If they were happily as united on those Benches as in Ireland, they would still not muster more than one-seventh of the magisterial bench. The other parties in the House could netrualise the voices of Ireland, with about 500 judges to spare. ["Hear, hear!"] British Members, then, were the judges, and it was against their adversaries they must plead to give judgment against themselves. Under those conditions on what could Ireland rest? Whence cometh her hope? She could rest only on that security which a British statesman, in the year 1800, enunciated as adequate. When speaking of this very contingency he said:—
  "But it has been said what security can you give Ireland for the performance of the conditions? If I were asked what security were

  1579
  necessary, without hesitation I would answer—None. The liberality, the justice, the honour of the people of Great Britain have never yet been found deficient."
  It was for those who spoke for Britain to-day to make good the words of Pitt a century ago. [Cheers.] And, first, he would ask the House to consider the gravity of the issue. For almost a century Britain had ruled Ireland in the House of Commons. Let British Members recall the economic conditions of the two islands, the ruling and ruled. Those considerations should give pause before the dismissal of the plaint. Take population: At the beginning of the century Ireland had five millions against a little over 10 millions for Britain. She had now 4½ millions, less by half a million, or 10 per cent. of a loss. Britain had 34 millions, having increased by 24 millions, or 240 per cent. Had Ireland increased proportionally she would now have over 16 millions; her relative loss was 11½ millions in a century. She had half as many; she had little more than one-eighth of Britain. But even this view was inadequate. Half a century ago Ireland had 8½ millions; she lost two millions directly and indirectly through the famine, and since then so many more that, after eliminating the natural increase, her population has fallen four millions, or by 47 per cent., in half a century, an absolutely unexampled condition. [Cheers.] Britain half a century ago had 20 millions; her increase is 14 millions, or 70 per cent. A proportionate Irish increase would make an Irish population of 14,300,000; her relative loss was nearly 70 per cent.—10 millions in half a century. Take the condition of the people: Of that dreadfully reduced population, large masses there were whose scale of existence was far below that of the corresponding large masses of Great Britain, while Britain's increased numbers enjoyed a steady and a rapid advance in the standard of comfort. In Britain the scale of living and the margin against emergency were such that famine was unknown and impossible. In Ireland the scale was so low and the margin so narrow that even one bad crop tended to famine in important areas and necessitate public aid. There was painful evidence of chronic penury and want in many districts—evidence
  1580
  and facts which, if they could be reported of a British district, would absolutely appal the Englishmen whom he addressed. [Cheers.] Britain imported from Ireland and abroad vast quantities of the best food for the consumption of her masses in addition to what she raised. Ireland also raised large quantities of the best foods, a very great part of which she exported to Britain, importing in exchange inferior commodities, Indian corn, and American bacon, the best her poverty-stricken masses could afford to use. [Cheers.] Ireland was in proportion to population the fourth meat-producing country in the world; she was the 16th meat consumer. [Cheers.] England was the 16th meat producer; she was the fourth meat consumer. The average Poor Law valuation of Ireland was under £3, about equal to the valuation of the poorest East London union. The paupers of Ireland were per 1,000 in 1864, 52; in Britain 49—nearly equal proportions; in 1895 they were in Ireland 95, being nearly double; in Britain 26, being almost half. [Cheers.] From equality they had become nearly four to one. Emigration had been draining from Ireland those in the prime of life. The very old and the very young remained, and thus the absolute and relative efficiency of the population had been seriously lowered. Inferior conditions had produced other painful results. The proportion of deaf mutes was near one-third larger than in England, of blind two-fifths, of lunatics one third; and the proportion of births over deaths was in Ireland five, in Britain 11. Take manufactures and agriculture: Irish manufactures had largely declined; while between 1841 and 1891 the whole population diminished by 42 per cent., that portion engaged in manufacture diminished by 61 per cent. Now only 27 per cent. of the population was urban. In the same time the Manufactures of Britain had immeasurably increased, and now 71 per cent. of her population was urban. Thus, Ireland had become more and more actually and relatively dependent on the land; 73 per cent. of her people lived in the country and 64 per cent. were dependent on agriculture. It followed that she had suffered enormously, absolutely, and relatively by the fall in the prices of agricultural products, accentuated in her case by the loss of

  1581
  local town markets; and her gross and net return from agriculture had been largely reduced, thus diminishing her yearly resources. Britain had become more and more independent of agriculture. Under 29 per cent. of her people were rural, and therefore less affected as a country by the fall of agricultural prices, while agriculture had been helped by the widespreading urban districts. Take commerce: Ireland had hardly any foreign Commerce or investments, and a large part of her yearly income was drained by absentee landlords and mortgagees. Though Ireland had a population between one-seventh and one-eighth of Britain, the number of her railway passengers were but 1–37th, her tons of railway freight 1–70th, telegrams 1–18th, postal and money orders 1–19th—all facts showing comparative stagnation. Sir Robert Giffen calculated, taking into account all the circumstances, that the incomes of the wage-earning classes in Ireland were, man for man, little more than half of those of the wage-earning classes in England. The gross income or resources of Ireland were estimated too highly at £70,000,000; those of Britain too low at £1,400,000,000. The capital of Ireland was reckoned in 1820 at £563,000,000; that of Britain was thought to be £1,500,000,000. Ireland was now thought to have £400,000,000, a reduction of nearly one-third, while Britain was thought to have £10,000,000,000, or an increase of sevenfold. Ireland had sunk from being over one third to being 1–25th in capital. These comparisons might be easily enlarged, extended, and multiplied; but the bald statement held that the conditions of the two islands were wholly different and increasingly divergent in the extent and kinds of their resources, in their economic circumstances and interests. They showed that the rule of Britain had advanced this country, but had failed to prosper Ireland. [Cheers.] They proved that her situation demanded that just and generous consideration of rich and powerful rulers towards the poor and weak island whose destinies this country controlled. ["Hear, hear!"] He would add this contrasting fact, that upon which their claim was founded. The one great point upon which Britain exhibited a decline and Ireland an advance was in the scale of taxation. [Cheers.] In
  1582
  Ireland the taxes on commodities which struck the masses were per head, in 1790, 4s.; in 1820, 11s.; in 1894, 22s. They were thus double. In Britain in 1820 they were 48s.; in 1894, 24s. They were half. [Cheers.] Irish taxes which had been under one-fourth had become almost equal, notwithstanding the relative poverty of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] Dealing next with the relative taxable capacity of the two islands as contrasted with their actual taxation, the hon. Member said that for the purposes of the Debate it was enough to show the maximum estimate of Ireland's relative capacity reached by any one of 12 out of 13 Commissioners, including one who died. The joint Report found that—
  "while the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of that of Britain the relative taxable capacity of Ireland is very much smaller and is not calculated by any one of us to exceed 1–20th."
  This conclusion was reached after two years' examination and consideration by eminent experts, financiers, statisticians, and Treasury officials. Because of the imputation a bias he should leave out of account all the Irish Members, although some of them ought to count on this question. He should take British Members only, who might by the same process of reasoning have had to contend against an unconscious bias against Ireland. It was reached substantially by Mr. Childers, the first chairman, an eminent economist, financier, and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, a man retired from Party politics, who devoted to this service the last years of his life, in the discharge of which he died. It was reached by Lord Welby and Lord Farrer, who had filled the highest posts in the British Treasury and the Board of Trade, and whose public services had been marked by giving to them seats in the Upper Chamber, which had been honoured and strengthened by their accession to its ranks. It was reached by the late Mr. Currie, also eminent in these walks, and who had proved his capacity in other public posts; and by their late colleague, Mr. Hunter, whose ability, brain power, and industry were well known to the House. It was reached substantially by Sir David Barbour, dissentient on other grounds, and of him perhaps it might be said that his distinguished public career abroad permitted

  1583
  him to be admitted as an impartial judge, though marked by Irish birth. There remained just one Commissioner, a respected colleague of theirs, who proceeded on other lines; and even he, he understood, did not negative the conclusion. It had indeed been said that these British Commissioners were tainted because they were said to be favourers of the political scheme of Home Rule. But that was not now a question, though they might make it one, of Home Rule. Home Rule rested on other and wider grounds, and it was an absurd contention, as had been well pointed out by the hon. Member for Plymouth—[cheers]—whose sympathetic consideration of the Irish case he gratefully acknowledged—[cherry]—to say that these eminent men's views on an economic question were to be regarded less because of their speculations on the political question of Home Rule. Then the House must, as he submitted, give great weight to the conclusions reached by this body of experts, but of like passions with themselves, and subject to the same infirmities, and who, notwithstanding, had given judgment against this country and themselves. It was reached on the evidence of Sir Robert Giffen and Sir Edward Hamilton and other British public servants, the one the able head of the Treasury and the other an economist and statistician of great repute. It was reached after collecting, weighing, and sifting all information suggested from every quarter and applying all tests—population, imports and exports, consumption of duty-paid goods, assessment to Death Duties, assessment to Income Tax, consumption of commodities, other incomes and wages, yearly wealth, aggregate production, capital, comparative progress and capacity, relative effects of fiscal policy, and so on, with statistical facts too numerous to name. It was reached after examination of the principles of taxation and of their application. Some of the Commissioners, however, believed that they saw an Irish surplus over living allowance of perhaps 15 millions, mainly abstracted by taxation, and a British surplus of perhaps 1,100 millions less than tithed by taxation. They saw Irish relative taxable capacity steadily declining, and believed with Sir R. Giffen that a far lower proportion would be the true one, and also that a maximum contribution should be fixed
  1584
  so as to avoid the proved danger of excessively increased expenditure. He asked the House to remember that what had been suggested was put forward only as a maximum, which Lord Farrer in another place had lately described as too high. It had been proved that there was a great disparity and a substantial grievance, and that a remedy was called for. The contribution of Ireland was between one-eleventh and one-twelfth, or nearly twice her maximum relative taxable capacity, and thus reached a minimum excess of two-and-three-quarter millions. He appealed to the Government for relief to Ireland on the ground of fair play and of the generous consideration due from the strong to the weak. ["Hear, hear!"] But he also based his claim on higher ground—on the ground of treaty and right, justice and equity. [Hear, hear!"] In 1782 Ireland had partly emerged from that condition of servitude as to her trade and manufactures which was described in 1785 in wounding words by Pitt. From 1782 to 1800 Ireland had a measure of independence, and during the first few years there was peace; and manufactures, productions, and exports all expanded. The taxation was about a million, or 4s. a head, all on consumption, and it met the expenditure. Then came the French war, which was followed by the rebellion, and then a large army was planted on the country in anticipation of and during the negotiations for the Union. These calamities had by 1800 raised the taxation to over two millions and a-half, or 10s. a head. At the time of the Union there was no pretence, that Ireland was able to bear the British rate of taxation; her absolute and relative poverty was acknowledged, and calculations were made professing to show the relative resources of the two countries, and to fix the just proportion of contribution for each of them. But the bases of calculation were unsound, narrow, and defective. They included some, unfit Irish elements in the calculation, and excluded some proper British elements. The result was an erroneous estimate of relative taxable capacity of two to 15. The population was as one to two; the quota one to seven and a half. The Irish lords protested, calculating that one to 18 was nearer the truth, and they were justified by the event. It was thought possible that a change might be made later, and

  1585
  the British professions were all against any increase of Irish burdens. Pitt assured the house that the Union was not sought from a pecuniary motive. He said that the Union must introduce a larger amount of wealth into Ireland and supply her want of industry and capital, that there was no ground for the apprehension that Britain would tax Ireland more heavily or that Ireland would be subjected to an increase of taxation or a load of debt, and that the contributions imposed upon Ireland would not be greater than her existing necessary expenses. Lord Castlereagh said much the same thing. He asserted that the ratio if Ireland's contribution must ever correspond to her relative wealth and prosperity. He also declared that the Union Parliament would always be able to make Abatements in Ireland just as the Parliament of Great Britain had always done in Scotland, and that the local circumstances in Ireland were such that a high duty could not be levied without either making the revenue unproductive or pressing too hardly upon the poorer classes. That statement disposed of the idea that the comparative poverty of the poorer classes in Ireland was to be ignored. The principle of separate entity was in this respect maintained. It was absurd to argue that a country full of contrasts with Great Britain, for which Parliament was legislating separately every day, and whose body of law differed from Britain's many vital points, was to be regarded is absolutely one with this country. These considerations showed that it was intended to secure and maintain a due recognition of the relative inferior capacity of Ireland as a country so long as that inferiority existed, first by the creation and revision of the quota, and, later, if the other plan were adopted, by due consideration in the laying and due exemption and abatement from the taxes laid in Ireland. If, then, it were possible so to read the Act it ought to be so read. [Cheers.] It was not only possible, but inevitable. The seventh section of the Act showed that it was not upon the sole condition of the debts coming into the quota proportion, but also on the determination of Parliament that the circumstances of the two countries would admit if it that the change could take place, and thereafter until this day the principle of regulating the contribution by
  1586
  national circumstances was maintained again, it was provided that if the change did take effect, yet the imposition of taxes was subject in Ireland, though not in any county in Scotland or England, to abatements and exemptions. It was recognised, therefore, that the plan might not produce the stipulated result, and it was still intended that that result should be produced by a contribution according to ability, and a remedy was provided for all time. He implored them not to minimise that remedy. That safeguard, against national injustice under the indiscriminate system was designed to preserve to Ireland substantially, though not in form, some immunities. Did anyone pretend that it was designed at the time of the Union that, the condition of Ire land should be injuriously changed by a later return to indiscriminate taxation? Could the Act of Union have been carried on any such suggestion? ["Hear, hear!"] Then Ireland was not placed in the position of an English county. An English county had no distinctive position, and besides, it was part of the ruling island. It was quite clear that Ireland had always been entitled to claim that she should be taxed by the United Kingdom substantially in proportion to her relative taxable capacity. It was clear also that, regard being had to that capacity she had been and was being overtaxed by Parliament. [Cheers.] But it was now argued that that was only half the issue, and that there was a question of the application of United Kingdom taxation—that it had to be divided into four sets of estimates, one for England, one for Scotland, and one for Ireland, and one for the United Kingdom; that the contribution of each of the three countries was to be charged first with its own estimate; that the obligation of proportionate contribution applied only and specifically to the newly proposed United Kingdom estimate; and that, therefore it was only in respect of the balance available for this new and separate estimate that any question of over-taxation could arise. It was to the recognition and to the application of this principle that the proposed new Commission was mainly directed, and against that proposal Irish Members protested. [Cheers.] What support did this contention derive

  1587
  from the Treaty—the only effective quarter? None. The Treaty rightly regarded all expenditure by the Parliament of the United Kingdom as United Kingdom expenditure. Its basis was that all expenditure decided upon by that Parliament was in its view required, wherever, or to whatever end, without regard to the locality in which it was made. Parliament formed one total to be contributed to by each country according to its relative capacity. The United Parliament in which Britain had an overwhelming majority had power to fix the objects and the scale of the expenditure. Ireland could not lay burdens on Britain or vote herself a necessary shilling. Britain could lay burdens on Ireland and could refuse to vote her one unnecessary shilling. The dread of Ireland was that she might be overtaxed and under-supplied, and the Treaty was framed to meet this apprehension. Unionists were now arguing that the expenditure determined by the United Parliament was in effect federal and must be subject to separate accounts. The fact that the Treaty made an exception with regard to debts marked more clearly in reason and in law that in all other matters there were to be no separate accounts. Under the Act there was a specific appropriation of every shilling raised in Ireland, and there was no place whatever for the proposed plan. Provision was made for the application of a possible surplus to local purposes in Ireland. It was not then every expenditure in Ireland that was local. ["Hear, hear!"] The place did not make it local; the purpose must be local too. [Cheers.] The Act also provided for the application to local purposes in Ireland of a sum equal to the average of the grants of the Parliament of Ireland for the preceding six years for the encouragement of agriculture or manufactures, or for certain charitable institutions. It seemed to him too clear for argument that no such principle as was now set up was contemplated or agreed to at the Union under the quota system, and he need not say that no such practice was attempted. But the Act, when providing for a possible change to indiscriminate taxation, only provided a new method for supplying the same expenditure on the
  1588
  same principle of just contribution. It provided for this change only—
  "if it shall appear to Parliament that the respective circumstances of the two countries will admit of their contributing indiscriminately to the future expenditure of the United Kingdom."
  It enacted that in that case "all future expense thenceforth to be incurred" should be defrayed accordingly, subject to abatements and exemptions. This was the same expenditure, provided for according to the same principle—namely, relative resources—by another method, and it introduced no further change. Under the proposed suggestion the quota system would be absolutely illusory, and would be no protection at all. Ten of the Commissioners, including three British Commissioners, had reached the same conclusion as he had done, while Lords Farrer and Welby and Mr. Currie were
  "unable to admit the general principle that local expenditure which is sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament must be regarded as imperial expenditure,"
  though they thought that
  "there is both truth and value in the contrary allegations if these be confined to the support of the argument that we cannot, in taking an account between the two countries, justly set-off the whole or the greater part of this expenditure against the over-taxation of Ireland."
  Thus there was, to a very large extent, unanimity on this head. He asked the House to agree that in the Treaty there was no ground for the general contention that expenditure in Ireland by the United Kingdom Parliament was to be separately borne by Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] The Union was consummated. The long war followed at enormous cost. Irish taxation was raised from under £3,000,000 in 1800 to £6,000,000 in 1817. The Select Committee of 1817 found that Ireland had advanced in permanent taxation faster than Britain, for, while Britain's permanent taxation had been raised in the proportion of 16½ to 10, and the whole revenue, including war taxes, as 21¼ to 10, Irish taxation had been raised as 23 to 10. The bulk of the Irish increase was on the consumption of the masses, which was taxed to and beyond the highest productive point. ["Hear, hear!"] Yet Ireland could not meet the quota. Her debt was increased

  1589
  by £84,000,000 as against a British increase of £291,000,000, or as 1 to 3½. The quota was excessive. Some of the Commissioners thought it was because the rate was too high; others because the war was too costly; others for both these reasons combined. But there was practical unanimity in the finding that "the Act of Union imposed on Ireland a burden which, as events showed, she was unable to bear." That finding he asked the House to assent to, and to remember that this was the beginning of the evil. [Cheers.] This first experience demonstrated the truth of the view that there should be some limitation to the call which, under such a union, the richer might make on the poorer nation. A joint expenditure, the proportion of which, though heavy, might be tolerable on a lower scale of joint expense, became intolerable to the poorer nation when the scale was raised while it might be no more than heavy, and quite tolerable still, to the richer nation. ["Hear, hear!"] Another illustration had been given by the results of the very latest statements as between Ireland and Britain, which showed that, while Ireland's contribution was larger than ever, the disproportionate excess contributed by Britain had apparently lessened for the year the Irish grievance. By this road Ireland approached a bankruptcy, due to the unjust quota fixed by the Union Act, and one would have thought it the fairest course to anticipate by three years the stipulated term and to revise the quota at once. [Cheers.] But by this road, though through a reversed process, the debts had come into quota proportion, and this opportunity was used to bring the other plan into force. On July 1, 1816, the Bill consolidating the debts and revenues became law. But in these proceedings twice reappeared the Union Act provision as to abatements and exemptions. The extraordinary declaration that "the circumstances will admit of indiscriminate taxation" was itself made "subject to such particular abatements and exemptions in Ireland and Scotland as circumstances may from time to time appear to demand." The declaration of expediency provided for the imposition of common taxation subject to abatements and exemptions in the same terms. Thus, the Union Act provision had never
  1590
  lost its force. ["Hear, hear!"] It was long acted on substantially; it was acted on to some extent to-day. What was the course of taxation from 1817 to 1860? There was by 1853 no substantial assimilation. Twenty millions of British taxation was not imposed on Ireland, but though peace had been restored and the expenses of the United Kingdoms enormously lightened, the Irish war taxes, already proved to be excessive, were retained, while large remissions were made in the British war taxes. ["Hear, hear!"] The policy of freeing the burdens on manufactures by abolishing the duties on materials and food supplies, was evolved and prosecuted, and to this new end Peel in 1843, and again in 1845, renewed the British income tax, originally a war tax. But that tax was not extended to Ireland, on the grounds that it bad never existed there, that there was no machinery for its collection, and that, as Britain would derive the far greater advantage from the policy, it was fair that she should bear the tax. ["Hear, hear!"] As a matter of fact, the imposition of five-and-a-half millions of taxation enabled the remission of 12 millions of British taxes. That was good and fair argument, but he asked the House to note the recognition of the separateness and of the diverse conditions, and of the different effects on different countries of a common system which it involved. He wished those sound views had continued to prevail. The general result was to lighten the British burdens directly and indirectly, and to promote enormously her wealth and population, her trade and manufactures—in short, her taxpaying power. The policy as to free food supplies was, of course, precipitated by the Irish famine, when her people died of hunger while large quantities of wholesome food were being exported from her ports to pay rents. [Cheers.] Ireland, whose manufactures had nearly perished and were still declining, derived no such gains as Britain, and she lost the advantage of preference in the British market for her agricultural produce. It was worth remarking that the conditions of foreign production and of transport, and other causes, retarded any disadvantages to the agriculturists for runny years, and it was only within recent years as to grain, and still more recent days as to meat, that the full effect of the change

  1591
  had been experienced. The economic condition of Ireland was very bad. The great famine inflicted upon her a frightful blow, and thus her relative inferiority was increased. Few of the changes in Irish taxation were very adverse to Ireland, save the tobacco taxes, until 1853, when Mr. Gladstone proposed the extension of the income tax to Ireland as a temporary measure. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the greater poverty of the masses, but urged that that did not exempt the wealthy from the discharge of their obligations, an argument perfectly valid in the readjustment as between the classes of the Irish community and the total share of her taxation, but quite fallacious when applied as a reason for increasing that total share. As a set-off, he wiped out the famine fund of four millions, which the Lords' Committee had declared as to two millions should have been more properly a grant than a loan. But the temporary income tax was made permanent, and the burden had enormously outweighed the boon. Mr. Gladstone began the raising of the spirit duties, and the result of that operation was to increase the Irish taxation by over two millions of money, or over 40 per cent. Thus, while the average revenue of Britain was not more than during the war at the beginning of the century, her population and wealth had greatly increased, and so the real burden of taxation was much lightened. But the average revenue of Ireland had been raised over a third, and it was borne by a diminishing population out, of contracting means. The change took place when Ireland was staggering under the blow of the famine, the after effects of which were accentuated by the added burdens. Complete assimilation had not yet been attempted. Much cry had been made about four millions of British taxation not imposed on Ireland. Its imposition would not affect the masses of that community; it was mainly on wealth, and its estimated yield, if imposed on Ireland, would be only £150,000, or in the proportion of 1–27th. The general effect of the British fiscal policy had been to abolish nearly all duties on raw materials and food, substituting direct taxation on income and property, and heavy duties on three or four articles of wide and general consumption. Those were the articles most largely consumed in Ireland; while
  1592
  the articles freed were so freed Mainly for the benefit of Britain. He did not object to the adoption of free trade, or of any other policy advantageous to the interests of the great bulk of the United Kingdom; but he averred that the relative advantages and disadvantages ensuing to each country, affecting, as they did, the relative taxable power of each, must be considered. It was true, as Senior proved in 1864, that, considering capacity, England was the most lightly, while Ireland was the most heavily, taxed of countries. [Cheers.] The second great purpose to which the proposed new commission was directed was to dispute the possibility of undue burdens through indirect taxation. They were dealing with two countries which the political Union did not physically unite or economically assimilate; two countries so different that, when the treaty was made, provisions were included for continued separate consideration; two countries so different that even in other vital matters their laws remained divergent. In so far as they did not apply an efficient general remedy, they could not expect Ireland—in consequence of her different economic conditions and her narrow resources the taxation pressed more heavily on her—in the exercise of her free right—[cheers]—to accept your answer that there was the same inequality with Britain too. The right to separate treatment was recognised by treaty, and when they held by the treaty, surely Unionists would do the same. [Laughter.] Unhappily the two countries had more and more diverged in the matters relevant to taxation; there was an increasing difference as to their relative taxable capacity and their economic condition. The taxes pressed hardly on a relatively poor country like Ireland where the main burden fell on the poorer classes. It was said that the indirect character of the taxation deprived Ireland of the right to complain or to ask for separate treatment, but at the time of the Union all taxes in Ireland were indirect, and yet the principle was recognized, of separate treatment and revision. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to the effect that the consumption being voluntary that was the best test, of that capacity, and that, therefore, no wrong was done, but the right hon. Gentleman

  1593
  wanted them to pay before they had the power to consume. Who would justify now the leveling up in 1800, or in 1853, or in 1860? Why were the taxes kept relatively lower fur 40 years? He thought that the consumption of the masses must be taken as a whole, as that which they find it necessary to consume. It was their habit to consume certain articles, and they were unable to forego them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not find much anxiety, for well he knew that the settled habits and tastes of the people, their wants, their cravings, their determination to have their tea, their tobacco, and their liquor amounted almost to "must," and it was a mockery to call this taxation voluntary. [Cheers.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer built the whole fabric on the principle that the people must have these things, and therefore must pay for them; but he went gaily on his way until there was this sudden outbreak of free will. There was a serious grievance of inequality which was self-evident. They would see from the evidence that in some parts of Donegal, in looking into the little family budget, that very little but tea and tobacco was consumed. Then it was said that the tax on whisky was a tax on excess, on the drunkard, and the Member for Bodmin said that if too much money were taken from Ireland it was because too much whisky was drunk there. To the whole line of this argument he demurred absolutely. The money came from those who drank tea and smoked tobacco. The vast portion that was consumed was consumed by those who were not drunkards—["hear, hear!"]—and that, made it a general tax on the masses. He denied that more liquor was consumed in Ireland in proportion to her population than in Britain. Ireland, as compared with Britain was a sober colmtry—[cheers]—and in England they were able to get their drink cheap at Irish and Scotch expense. There was here a gross inequality under a nominally equal system. They need not go to tea and coffee drinking countries for examples. Not only was Irish taxation excessive, it was grossly partial in its operations. In 1893 the expenditure on beer in Great Britain was £88,627,000—[cries of "Shame" and laughter]—or £2 13s. per head. In Ireland it was £6,291,000, or £1 7s. 2d. per head, so that the Briton
  1594
  spent all but twice as much on beer as the Irishman. [Cheers.] But it would be said, "Oh, we all know that the Briton drinks beer and the Irishman whisky! What about whisky?" The expenditure on spirits in Great Britain was £48,571,000, or £1 9s. per head. In Ireland it was £6,144,000, or £1 6s. 6d. per head. [Cheers.] Thus more was spent on spirits in Great Britain than in Ireland, and Great Britain preserved her superiority in both branches of the competition. [Cheers.] While the Briton spent £4 2s. on beer and spirits, the Irishman only spent £2 13s. 8d., and yet sonic British statesman would tell his enthusiastic constituents that Irishmen consumed too much drink. It was not for Great Britain to preach free will and probity to Irishmen or defend injustice on her part by alleging excess on theirs [Cheers.] More than this, the tax on 60 gallons of beer was equal to the tax of one gallon of whisky. Out of the Briton's drink bill of £4 2s., 16s. 1d. went in taxation, while of the Irishman's bill of £2 13s. 8d., 13s. 10½d. represented taxation, so that if the Irishman paid at the same rate as the Briton his tax would b 10s. 6d. Thus his excess was 3s. 4½d., which for Ireland meant £780,000 ["Hear, hear!"] Complaints of excessive taxation had been made for generations from the Irish Benches. In 1864 the matter was referred to a Select Committee, and in later years there were ineffectual Motions and remonstrances; but the question became demonstrably urgent on the occasion of the Home Rule Bill of 1886, when the financial proposals involved the reconsideration of the whole problem, coupled with an attempt, in view of Irish self-government, to divide what had been the United Kingdom expenditure into Imperial and local, based of course, on the respective legislative spheres of the imperial and the proposed local Legislature. In 1890, when a Unionist Government was in power, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, granted a Committee for the purpose, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of seeing "whether Scotland or Ireland should be relieved of any portion of the taxation they now pay." This Committee sat but once, when it called for Treasury Returns. The efforts to reappoint it failed because of the demand of the Welsh Members for

  1595
  similar separate consideration for Wales. This proceeding involved the recognition of the right of Ireland and Scotland as countries to separate consideration. ["Hear, hear!"] There had been also in recent years recognitions of the separate condition of Ireland and Scotland in connection with Imperial grants in aid of local rates. These grants were based, not on the plan of applying the total aid all over the United Kingdom as one taxable entity, but on the theory, though not without exception later as against Ireland, that each of the three divisions was a taxable unit, to which was being returned, for expenditure by the minor local authorities, a portion of the general taxation; and, therefore, that the return should be on the basis of the proportions in which each of the units had contributed to the fund. Last Session, when agricultural distress throughout the United Kingdom was to be aided, this device was most unwarrantably expanded, so as to limit the relief of Ireland by making the grant in form a, relief to local rates in England and thus applying, as he thought erroneously, the proportional system. And so those who opposed the view that Irishmen were entitled to separate treatment as to taxation, themselves insisted in some degree, on separate treatment in expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] They must hold by the view that the money which that Parliament voted, expended, and controlled for the purpose of carrying on government in Ireland was in reason, and in the sense of the Union Act, Imperial expenditure. This view was their only protection against the injustice which would ensue from Great Britain's being at liberty to fix the scale and direct the mode, while Ireland was obliged to pay. The objection of inequality would be fully met if, for the purpose of ascertaining the grand total to which Ireland should contribute, the analogous amount raised locally in Britain towards these two objects were added to the sum of the Imperial Estimate. Thus, Ireland would bear her proportionate share. The general result would be perhaps so to enlarge the total Imperial Estimate as to reduce the over-taxation by about £300,000, or to about 2½ millions on the minimum Estimate. The adoption of this plan afforded not the least justification for the proposed breaking up of the Imperial expenditure,
  1596
  which it rather kept intact; still less did it need a new Royal Commission. [Irish, cheers.] If, for argument's sake, the principle of breaking up the Imperial expenditure were admitted, they quarrelled grievously with the details. On these, also, all the data for judgment were before them, and the questions were peculiarly for settlement by Parliament on the initiative of the Government. The speech of the First Lord adopted the classification of the Treasury, and based on it the assertion that Ireland contributed but one-thirty-second to, what he called Imperial expenditure. Glancing at the details of this division, he observed that Ireland was charged with the constabulary, an armed semi-military force, maintained at enormous cost, far beyond any conceivable need for the policing under normal conditions of such a country; a force and scale of expenditure directly due to the Union, and doing almost entirely Imperial work. [Irish cheers.] Ireland was charged with the Imperial expenditure on the great national subject of education, with the collection of the Imperial revenue, the administration of justice, the Post Office, the Civil Service generally, and the vice-regal establishment. All these were obviously Imperial. The scale of expenditure, moreover, was expensive, extravagant, centralised, and on the Imperial scale. Let them look at the salaries and numbers of the. Judges—[Irish cheers]—and the emoluments of Bar and Bench as contrasted with those in this country, and still more in poorer countries. Let them contrast the cost of departments with the cost even here. The whole system was unsuited to the circumstances, and beyond the means of Ireland. ["Hear, yond the means of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] It was Great Britain that framed the Estimates and passed the votes. Let them give to Ireland the usual stimulus to, economy—some profit from the saving—[Irish cheers]—before they complained that she did not insist on pruning the present extravagance. It was not only to the Irish part of this divided Estimate that they objected, but to the Imperial part as well. He believed the Act of Union contemplated and provided that Ireland should contribute towards the expenditure of the Imperial Parliament, no matter where that money was spent or how it was applied. But if they

  1597
  would destroy this system, cut up the accounts, and enter into the question of the separate or relative interest of Britain and of Ireland in the different expenditures, depend upon it they would have to grapple with their Imperial as well as with their local Estimates.["Hear, hear!"] The Irish people rested on the contract; Great Britain proposed a change. Then they must look at the new Imperial Estimates. Let them look at the Navy, the expenditure on which was Britain's insurance premium; the Army, mainly required for the purposes of the Indian and Colonial Empire, and for the security of her commercial interests; and the debt charge contracted for wars waged in the same interests—could they honestly say that Ireland had the same proportionate interest in these expenditures? The proposed inquiry would, if it ever ended, never satisfy, and the only safe ground was to stand on the Union Act provisions. Two Amendments had been put down, but he ventured to submit that it was both a wiser course and a truer interpretation of Irish opinion to adhere to the comprehensive words of his proposal. It was said that the Commissioners failed to discharge their duty by not reporting upon the question of division. But the bulk of the Commissioners held that that portion of the reference had regard to the political conditions then existing as to Home Rule, and had no foundation under the Act of Union. That was the argument they advanced. On the grounds—first, that it was based upon wrong principles; secondly, that it was useless; and thirdly, that it was dilatory, he objected to, and protested against, the proposed Commission. [Irish cheers.] The question of the remedy was not referred to the Commission. It was obviously one for Parliament on the initiative of the Executive to deal with. The Government well knew what the majority of the Irish people thought would embrace a complete and effective remedy. [Nationalist cheers.] That remedy the Government refused to adopt; and, both as the depositories of power and as the special defenders of the existing form of Union, they were doubly bound to find a remedy for this grievous injustice existent under the system they maintained and controlled. [Nationalist cheers.] The Government had declared for the Union as a compact under which
  1598
  Ireland was secure in all her rights, and protected in all her interests, under which she was assured of just and generous treatment. If they now averred that the Union demanded that Ireland should labour under this injustice they could not but discourage the friends of the Union and place in the hands of its opponents a keen and powerful weapon of attack. [Nationalist cheers.]
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he rose for the purpose of seconding the motion, and the House would see in that fact an indication that upon the main issues at stake in the matter there was practical unanimity amongst all Irish men. [Nationalist cheers.] Possibly when the division took place it might be found that all Irish reepresentatives were not voting in the same lobby; and he must candidly express his personal regret that the terms of the Motion were not modified so as to enable all Irish Members to vote in its favour. But the fact remained that Ireland's case for a remedy of this grievance was being put forward on behalf of no class or Party, but on behalf of the whole people, who were united on this question as he believed they were never united before on a great public question for the last 100 years.[Nationalist cheers.] Ireland's complaint was that she was unequally taxed, having regard to her comparative capacity to pay taxation; that the Act of Union placed upon her a burden which it was impossible for her to bear; that it brought her ruin and bankruptcy; that those provisions of the Act of Union which were specially framed for her protection had been systematically violated, and that since the year 1853 in particular, while her population had diminished, and while, in comparison with England, her national wealth had rapidly declined, she had been overtaxed to an extent amounting to between two and three millions per annum. [Nationalist cheers.] Was it not almost incredible that facts of this gravity should have, remained all through those years and down to this moment without having once attracted the serious attention of Parliament? The fault of that certainly did not rest with Irishmen. The protest which was made against the injustice of the Act of Union at the time it was passed had never ceased to be repeated time after time by every generation of

  1599
  Irishmen who had appeared in the House [Nationalist cheers.] But those Irishmen ever failed to gain the ear of the House, and to induce Parliament to deal with the question in a serious way; and the great and incalculable good done to Ireland by the late Royal Commission on the financial relations was that it was no longer possible to ignore those facts. The constitution of that Commission made it absolutely necessary for the Imperial Parliament to disregard its findings. The work of the Royal Commission might be roughly divided into two parts. First, that portion in which they investigated the history of the financial relations between the two countries; and secondly, that part which concerned itself with the investigation of the relative taxable capacity of the two countries at the present moment. The historical investigations of the Royal Commission had discovered no new facts. They simply reported facts that had been known to every generation of Irishmen, and which indeed had burned themselves into the memory of the Irish people. But the good they had done by their investigations was that they had brought home a knowledge of those facts to the minds of the people of Great Britain, who after all were the masters of this Parliament. He thought he might assert, without in the least being disrespectful to the House, that until the Reports of the Royal Commission were published, not 3 per cent. of the British Members of the House were acquainted with the historical facts of the financial relations between the two countries. Before the Union Ireland was not under legal, though it was said she was under a moral, obligation to contribute towards any expenditure, either civil or military, outside her own shores. When the constitution of 1782 was established, the taxation of Ireland was not more than one million a year, and her National Debt was under two millions. At the time of the Union, 18 years afterwards, her taxation had increased to 2½ millions and her National Debt had increased to 28 millions, which was clue to the expenses of the French war, and also largely to the expenses incurred in suppressing the Insurrection of 1798, which most Irishmen believed was fostered and provoked deliberately as part of British policy in Ireland. [Nationalist cheers.] When in 1800 the Treaty of Union was
  1600
  carried, it was arranged that Ireland was for a fixed number of years to contribute taxation in the proportion of 2 to 15 as compared with Great Britain; that when the National Debts of the two countries came to the same proportion as the contributions, the Exchequers might be amalgamated and a system of indiscriminate taxation established. But the Treaty of Union provided that under no circumstances was Ireland to be taxed more than her fair proportion, having regard to her taxable capacity, and that she was to have the advantage of exemptions and abatements as her circumstances demanded. It was now admitted that that proportion of 2 to 15 was an unjust proportion. At the time it was established there were protests against it, not only in the Irish. Parliament but in the British Parliament; but Lord Castlereagh and the Irish Government of the day maintained that Great Britain was treating Ireland in an absoultely generous spirit in the matter. There was now, however, the authority of every British Treasury official who had been examined in the matter, from Mr. Smith in 1816 and Mr. Chisholm in 1865 down to Sir Edward Hamilton in 1896, that this proportion was unjust to Ireland, and that it had led to the absolute ruin and bankruptcy of Irish finance. [Nationalist cheers.] What was the state of things in 1817, after 17 years' operation of this proportion. The taxation of Ireland had increased four-fold, the national debt of Ireland had increased four-fold, while in the same period the debt of England had only doubled. Though Ireland's taxation during this period was quadrupled, yet she was never able to pay her proportion of 2 to 15, and her national debt increased until at the end of 16 years it came into the proportion of 2 to 15 in relation to the English debt, and then the Exchequers were amalgamated. But the 7th Article of the Treaty of Union provided that Ireland, if the amalgamation of the Exchequers took place, should be able to claim exemptions and abatements according as her circumstances demanded, so that she should never be called upon to pay more than her fair proportion, according to her relative taxable capacity. The Report of The O'Conor Don, and those members of the Commission who agreed with him, summarised in a few

  1601
  words the historical position of Ireland up to this point. They said:—
  "(1) That Ireland and Great Britain entered into legislative partnership on the clear understanding that they were still, for the purposes of taxation, to be regarded as separate and distinct financial units; (2) that Ireland was to contribute to Imperial expenditure only in proportion to her resources, as far as the same could be ascertained, and that even in the imposition of indiscriminate taxation, if circumstances permitted its adoption, she might claim special exemptions and abatements; and (3) that the Imperial expenditure to which these respective contributions were to be made included not only the whole civil expenditure of Ireland, but even special grants for Irish purposes, which were to remain in operation for 20 years."
  That was the position which Ireland now took up—that her constitutional and legal right to special consideration as a distinct part of the United Kingdom had never been extinguished from 1817 to the present day. [Cheers.] From a legal point of view it was impossible to maintain that Ireland bore the same relation to Great Britain as one or two English counties did to England. Ireland asserted the legal and constitutional claim to be taxed only in proportion to her taxable capacity. It was clear that this was the intention of those who framed the Act of Union. In every single speech made by Pitt and Castlereagh at this time the same principle, was again and again affirmed. ["Hear, hear!] This principle being admitted, then the real question which the Committee had to consider and Parliament had now to decide, was whether Ireland now paid more than a fair proportion according to her resources. In 1853, Mr. Gladstone, who was the author of a great deal of the financial injustice which had been done to Ireland—[Ministerial cheers]—extended the income tax to Ireland, and inaugurated the system of "indiscriminate taxation," as it was called in the Union Act, or, as Mr. Gladstone called it, of "identity of imports." The result of that policy was to increase Ireland's taxation between 1853 and 1860 by no less than 2½ millions per annum. The condition of Ireland at this time was absolutely pitiful. ["Hear, hear!"] She was exhausted after one of the most terrible famines in the history of the world. Her population had diminished by millions; and free trade, which had been of great
  1602
  advantage to manufacturing England, entailed a distinct loss on agricultural Ireland. ["Hear, hear!] As was very well said by Mr. Childers in one paragraph of his Report:—
  "Just as Ireland suffered in the last century from the protective and exclusive commercial policy of Great Britain, so she has been at a disadvantage in this century from the adoption of a policy of free trade."
  Under the scheme inaugurated by Mr. Gladsome the taxation per head in Ireland was increased from 13s. 11d. to £1 5s. 4d., while in the same period in England, whose prosperity had greatly increased, the taxation per head was only increased 3s. Of course, Mr. Gladstone's proposals were protested against by the Irish Members, and equally, of course, the protests went for naught. ["Hear, hear!"] Mr. Gladstone promised that the income tax should only be imposed temporarily in Ireland. It had remained in existence ever since. Mr. Gladstone announced that Ireland was to be compensated by the proposal to forgive her some four millions in respect of loans arising out of the famine. These loans were repayable by annual instalments over a fixed period of years, and representing an annual charge of £250,000 for repayment of capital and interest for that period. So that Ireland would long ago have paid off that debt, while the very first year's yield of the income tax imposed on her was half-a-million; and since 1853 Ireland had paid in income tax some 23½ millions. [Cheers.] In his speech proposing this arrangement, Mr. Gladstone said:—
  "If we look to the time when Parliament will be in a position to part with the income tax, Ireland will enjoy for a long term of years a much larger remission of consolidated annuities than it will have to bear of additional burdens in the shape of spirit duty."
  These words read quite comically to-day, so much were they the reverse of what had occurred. Mr. Gladstone laid down the principle that Imperial taxes to be levied in Ireland were to be made as quickly as possible identical with those levied in England—in a word, that the indiscriminate taxation alluded to in the Act of Union should be established. The fatal fallacy underlying the whole financial policy of 1853 was that identical taxation on articles consumed in vastly

  1603
  different proportions in England and Ireland was equality of taxation. What had happened was the greatest proof of its absurdity. Equal taxes—but high taxes—were put on articles largely consumed in Ireland. Equal taxes—but low taxes—were put on articles largely consumed in England. Therefore, under this scheme of identical taxation, the burdens had increased in one country and decreased in the other. This "identity of imposts" had increased the taxation of Ireland by 2½ millions. And from that day to the present, taxation per head of the population in Ireland had gone on increasing, while in England the taxation per head of the population had gone on diminishing, notwithstanding the enormous strides in wealth and prosperity made by England, and the comparative decline in Ireland. Thus, between 1851 and 1885 the taxation per head in England was reduced 6s. 2d., and the taxation per head in Ireland was increased 19s. And taking the whole period from the Act of Union to the present day, the taxation per head in Great Britain had fallen from £4 13s. 4d. to £2 0s. 10d.; and in Ireland had increased from 14s. 6d. to £1 8s. 10d. [Cheers.] So that in the course of the century, in which England had increased in wealth and prosperity beyond the dreams of man, her taxation per head of the population had diminished by one-half; and during the century, which had meant for Ireland a loss of population and a steady decrease in prosperity, the taxation per head of the population had more than doubled. [Cheers.] An interesting little table, made out some years ago by Sir Joseph M'Kenna, exemplified how, in a special way, taxation in Ireland fell on the poorer classes. Taking 1884–85 he showed that for every £1 paid in income tax by England, she paid in miscellaneous taxes £4 12s. 8d.; Scotland, for every £1 paid in income tax, paid in miscellaneous taxes, £6 10s.; but in Ireland for every £1 so paid, Ireland paid in miscellaneous taxes £12 11s. [Irish cheers.] It might be taken for granted, therefore, that the taxation imposed in 1853 by Mr. Gladstone was unjust and excessive. He knew of no one who controverted that statement. As far as he knew every member of the Royal Commission agreed with it except one hon. Member who signed a separate.
  1604
  Report, and he did not attempt to controvert it. Ireland to-day was suffering from the unjust taxation then imposed, and the real question for the House was what was the fair proportion Ireland should pay, having regard to her comparative taxable capacity to-day. He took it as established, therefore, that Ireland was entitled legally and constitutionally under the articles of the Treaty of Union to be taxed only in proportion to her resources; and, secondly, that excessive and altogether unjustifiable burdens had been cast on the country. What was the taxable capacity of Ireland compared with Great Britain. Speaking generally, he might say that every witness examined before the Royal Commission admitted that the resources of Ireland bore to the resources of Great Britain a much less proportion than their respective contributions to revenue. Sir E. Hamilton, in his evidence, admitted that in the fullest way. But for the purposes of Ireland it was not enough to ascertain what the relative resources of the two countries were, because it was universally admitted that the pressure of taxation on small incomes was heavier in proportion than on large. The standards and tests adopted by the Royal Commission to investigate what was Ireland's annual wealth were as follows:—Population, comparative imports and exports, the consumption of certain duty-paid articles, relative assessment to Death Duties to income tax, and estimated valuation of commodities of primary use naturally consumed. Opinions might differ as to the value of any one of these tests. But, substantilaly the same result followed from them all, and it was not too much to assert that the result finally arrived at must be substantially sound and correct. The result of the application of all these tests was that it had been held by the Commission that the relative annual wealth of Ireland bore a proportion of not more, at the outside, than 1–18th to the annual wealth of England. But the comparative resources of the two countries did not afford a proper test, because taxation pressed more hardly on the poor than on the rich. In finally reporting, therefore, that the relative taxable capacity of Ireland was not more in relation to the taxable capacity of England than 1 to 20, the Commissioners came to a moderate estimate. His own view was of

  1605
  little value; but he considered that the estimate of the Commissioners was altogether too low. He was convinced that the relative taxable capacity of Ireland to Great Britain was much less than 1–20th. But it was a great gain to Ireland that it should have been unanimously decided that 1–20th was the proportion, because when this was reduced to figures and compared with what, she paid, she was found to have contributed between two and a half and three millions a year more than her fair share. That substantially, and in a few words, was the Irish case. The answer made was that Ireland received back in the shape of Imperial expenditure within her shores so much more than her share that the balance was redressed. One word upon this question of expenditure from the point of view of the Irish Nationalists. Ireland was probably one of the poorest countries in Europe, and her Government one of the most expensive. Let him ask this Unionist Parliament why was that? The government of any country against the will of the governed would always be wasteful, extravagant, and bad. [Irish cheers.] If Ireland were self-governed, did they imagine that the cost of the civil administration of the country would be, as it was to-day, double per head of the population in Ireland what it was in England; or that Ireland, if self-governed, would find it necessary to spend a million and a half of money a year on maintaining an armed police force about half the size of the regular army of the United States of America? If Ireland were self-governed, did they imagine that it would be considered desirable or necessary to pay the Lord Lieutenant or Governor General of Ireland a salary of £20,000 a year—just double what the President of the United States received? When it was proved that Ireland was paying three millions a year in taxation more than her fair proportion, was it not monstrous to say, "Oh, it is true you are far poorer than we are; that your population is diminishing, your industries are dead or dying, your general prosperity decaying. It is true you pay more taxation than we do, but you have no grievance, because, in return, we maintain against your will a system of government in your country which is ridiculously extravagant, wasteful, and bad."[Irish cheers.] But he wished to be allowed to look at the question not
  1606
  from the narrow point of view from which he had been, looking at it, but from a wider point of view. If Ireland were really part of the United Kingdom what possible distinction could they make between Imperial and local expenditure? He submitted that they could make none. In the Treaty of Union it was expressly and clearly laid down that all expenditure, including civil government in Ireland as well as the Army and Navy should be common or Imperial. The words in the Treaty of Union were that the revenue so raised should be applied indiscriminately to the services of the United Kingdom. He would not delay the House by emphasising the point made by the Mover of the Resolution that that was the clear intention of the framers of the Act of Union, as well as it was the clear legal interpretation. But he might be permitted to point to one interesting statement, made by Lord Castlereagh on this point. He said:—
  "If the proportion of expenditure shall be rightly fixed and ascertained on just principles for every part of the Empire, it is immaterial to Great Britain where the expenditure takes place. If the internal circumstances of Ireland call for a larger proportion of the Army in that island the expense will be greatest there; if the southern coast of England requires to be strengthened, the expenditure will be directed to that quarter. But can Scotland, or any other part of the Empire which equally contributes but do not require any expensive protection, feel any umbrage or jealousy that their state of security requires a smaller proportion of troops and expenditure than more exposed or convulsed parts of the island?"
  The principle was here clearly laid down by Lord Castlereagh that the expenditure should be regarded as common or Imperial expenditure. In face of these and other facts, what did the Unionist Government of this Unionist Parliament propose to do? As he understood, they proposed to shelve the question for an indefinite time. In his opinion the proposal for a new Commission was a dishonest evasion of the question, and, if he might say so without disrespect, a shameful evasion of their proper responsibility by the Government. The matter concerned Unionists quite as much as Nationalists. Here they had exposed to the world the shameful fact that for 40 years and more poor depopulated Ireland, with her resources undeveloped, her few remaining industries languishing,

  1607
  her education stunted, and the shadow of famine standing perennially by the cabin door of large masses of her people—for 40 years and more she had been paying three millions sterling a year more than her fair proportion in taxation when compared to this great thriving and prosperous land. The Unionists might appoint a new Commission and pack it if they liked, so that in the result some verdict might be found in opposition to the verdict of the recent Commission. He, at any rate, as a Nationalist, would have this consolation—that by their action they would have torn to shreds the last rag of argument in favour of the maintenance of the Union, and they would have hastened the day when Ireland would find in a national Government of her own, not only political freedom, but her best safeguard against further spoliation. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. P. WHITTAKERmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words:—
  "so long as the Exchequers of Great Britain and Ireland remain consolidated all portions of the United Kingdom must be regarded as forming one country for fiscal purposes, and if any genuine and tangible grievance does exist, it can only be satisfactorily removed by so adjusting the present fiscal system as to render it just and equitable to all persons in whatever part of the United Kingdom they may reside"
  He emphasised the fact that, according to the terms of reference, the Commission which had recently reported was appointed to ascertain what Ireland ought to contribute to the Imperial expenditure in case she were given Home Rule, and thereby created a financial entity. It was vitally important to bear that point in mind. [Ministerial cheers.] They must not, however, apply the results arrived at in the course of that inquiry to the conditions which exist to-day, and which must exist until Home Rule be granted. For the purposes of his argument he was not disposed to dispute the conclusions of the Commission or accept them as absolutely accurate. It was possible there were some factors that had been overlooked. He thought, for one, there was no valuation of the tenant right of Ireland, which, in his
  1608
  judgment, was a most important omission. ["Hear, hear!"] Other figures were largely estimates and guesses. Nevertheless that inquiry was made by extremely competent and able men, and their conclusions on matters of fact must carry the greatest possible weight. But when they came to matters of opinion and policy, based on those facts, they must act upon their own judgment and form their own conclusions. It was on the results of this inquiry that the claim for relief was based, but the conditions would work out similarly in any given part of the United Kingdom. The point of paramount importance was this: under the conditions which now existed must Ireland be considered, could Ireland be regarded and be treated as a separate entity for fiscal purposes? Obviously if she got Home Rule she must be a financial entity; but short of Home Rule should she be so treated? He ventured to think not. He would refer to the Report signed by Lord Farrer, Lord Welby, and Mr. Bertram Currie, in which they quoted some very appropriate arguments used by Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Lowe in 1875. Mr. Lowe said—
  "They spoke of the taxation paid by England, by Scotland, and by Ireland, whereas, of course, taxation was not paid by geographical districts but by individuals. To establish a case it must be shown that the individual Irishman was more heavily taxed than the individual Englishman in similar circumstances, and this proof could not be adduced."
  Commenting upon this statement Lords Farrer and Welby and Mr. Currie said:
  "The point thus raised is of primary importance to our Inquiry. If it be true that Ireland and Great Britain must be regarded as only one country for purposes of taxation and expenditure, the arguments of Sir S. North-cote and Mr. Lowe are unanswerable; all endeavours to determine proportionate charges and proportionate expenditure in the two countries are misplaced and irrelevant; and our labours must resolve themselves, at the outside, into an inquiry whether, bearing in mind the greater proportion of poor to rich in Ireland, our present fiscal system is fair and equitable as between poor and rich in both countries."
  The Commissioners proceeded to contend that the principle here stated had been given up because both parties arranged to appoint Commissioners to inquire what taxation would be equitable on the entity basis. Surely in the face of the Home

  1609
  Rule agitation, in face of the passing through the House of Commons of a Home Rule Bill, the fact that both parties in the State thought it desirable to inquire into the relative taxability of two portions of the United Kingdom was no reason why they should give up their established principle of taxation if they did not adopt the Home Rule upon which that Inquiry was really based. The Commissioners considered, and rightly, that it was their duty, in view of their instructions, to regard the whole question from the point of view of a separate entity, and it was on that view their conclusions were based. But that did not make their conclusions applicable until the theory on which they were based was given effect to. The conditions for which the Inquiry was admittedly preparatory, did not exist. Ireland, unfortunately, had not got Home Rule, and pending that solution of this and many other Irish problems, the contention that Ireland must be treated as a separate entity was untenable. If Ireland were to be treated as a financial entity it must be done completely and not partially. Home Rule would, in his judgment, confer many advantages on Ireland. He believed it would confer far more on Great Britain, but he had never believed that among the advantages to be conferred on Ireland by Home Rule would be a saving in its financial expenditure. Whether it would or not, Ireland could not now have the advantages of being an entity without also taking the disadvantages. If she were to be an entity for taxation she must be an entity for expenditure on herself within her own borders out of that taxation. Taxation as an entity, without responsibility for expenditure on and in the entity would be a development of the game of "Heads I win, tails you lose," at which England would decline to play. Taxation by entity involved and required provision by the entity for the expenditure of the entity: and also a contribution to the Imperial Exchequer in proportion to the capacity of the entity. That meant some form of Home Rule, and such a financial arrangement was not possible or desirable without it. If the expenditure in and on Ireland and a reasonable contribution to the Imperial Exchequer had been less than the revenue from it, they should have heard a different story
  1610
  and argument. But did the Treaty and Act of Union require that Ireland should be treated as an entity? If the Act of Union required that Ireland should be treated as an entity, then, whether it, would be fair, equitable, desirable, or advantageous to Great Britain, was not for their consideration. They would only then be entitled to ask, "Is it a condition of the Union, is it an article of the partnership, and a bond of the contract?" And if it were, he admitted at once they were bound to fulfil it whether it was to their advantage or not. But he contended that the present conditions were strictly in accord with the Act of Union, that they carried out, not only its letter, but its spirit, that they fulfilled the intentions which that Act of Union designed should be arrived at, and that the proposals which were made would practically tear up that portion of the Act of Union. The Act of Union made special provision for that particular consolidation of the revenues of Ireland and Great Britain, which was brought about, and it was one of the conditions of the Act of Union and one of the hopes of its promoters, that that particular consolidation would be sooner or later be brought about. At the very time of the passing of the Act it was admitted it was desirable that there should be indiscriminate taxation, and that the Exchequers should be consolidated; and it was admitted that the only reason why that was not done was because of the inequality of the debts at that time. Lord Castlereagh, speaking in the Irish House of Commons on the 5th February 1800, said:—
  "Were our expenditure common (which would happen if neither kingdom had any separate debts, or if their debts were in proportion to their ability) by no system whatever could they be made to contribute so strictly according to their means, as by being subject to the same taxes equally bearing upon time great objects of taxation in both countries. Such, however, is the disproportion of debts of the two kingdoms to each other at the present time that a common system for the present is impossible."
  Mr. Pitt, speaking in the British House of Commons on April 21st 1800, said:—
  "The object of the financial arrangements was to effect the gradual abolition of all distinction in finance and revenue between the two countries, and to accelerate the time when both countries form but one fund and pay one uniform proportion to taxes throughout each."

  1611
  He submitted, therefore, that this indiscriminate taxation and consolidation of the Exchequers was distinctly contemplated at the time of the passing of the Act of Union. It was also provided that when the time arrived that that condition could be arrived at—
  "it shall no longer be necessary to regulate the contribution of the two countries towards the future expenditure of the United Kingdom according to any of the rules hereinbefore prescribed."
  That was a distinct statement that when the consolidation was brought about all these arrangements for treating Ireland as a separate entity and for fixing the proportion of contributions were to be done away with, and forthwith they were to have indiscriminate taxation, which did away with the arrangement for revising the ratio of contributions at any time they wanted, varying from seven to 20 years, because there was to be no ratio, and they were to be taxed equally as part of one kingdom. It was now desired to revive them, but he ventured to say they did not and could not apply to the conditions which now existed. There always had been special exemptions and special abatements for Ireland, and all that she was entitled to was—
  "such particular exemptions or abatements as circumstances might appear from time to time to demand."
  It was said the Act of Union was a partnership. It was true, it was a partnership, but it was a partnership, the distinct object of which was to establish a common financial system, and that the two countries should cease to be financial entities as soon as the proportion of the debts rendered complete amalgamation possible. The system of contribution in a fixed proportion was a temporary arrangement to meet special circumstances, and was intended to be abandoned when those special circumstances had disappeared. It was a makeshift arrangement, adopted because the desired and ideal system of identical taxation was not at the moment practicable. The consolidation of the revenues was carried through Parliament in 1816, and took effect on January 5th, 1817. It was a beneficial arrangement for Ireland, it was a necessary one; it was the distinct object of the Union, and
  1612
  it had worked advantageously for her. Consolidation became necessary because Ireland was piling up a debt which threatened her with insolvency, and Great Britain shouldered Ireland's debt to save her from bankruptcy. It was contended that the debt was unfairly piled up by charging Ireland with an excessive proportion of the cost of the great French War. ["Hear, hear!"] Unquestionably the great war hit Ireland heavily. It was a prolonged and costly struggle which could not be foreseen, but national misfortunes like war, famine, and pestilence, and times of great trial and distress did hit nations heavily, and must strike the poor most severely. Ireland was a poor country, but she suffered not more than the poor in England. The middle classes and the well-to-do in Ireland suffered less than anybody in the United Kingdom. Their taxation was lighter than that of the same classes in England, for there were heavy war taxes here and not in Ireland. In 1812 the Poor Rate in England was nearly nine millions; in 1810 there were 15,000 beggars in London streets. Wheat was 122s. a quarter, which was a good thing for the wheat growers, both English and Irish. But for the poor consumers it was a terrible time. The 4lb. loaf was frequently at 1s. 4d., and it touched 1s. 10½d. Was the debt unfairly piled up? He said it was not. The increase was not the result of the Union. It began before, and it would have continued if there had been no Union. In 1793 the debt was £1,917,784; in 1801 it was £28,541,157; and in 1817 £112,684,773. The greater part of the joint expenditure with which Ireland was charged in 1801–17 (£83,000,000 out of £99,000,000) was expended for and in Ireland, and would have been so required and expended if there had been no Union. It was doubtful whether Ireland could have raised that money without the Union, and the improvement which it brought about in the credit of Ireland in Ireland was noteworthy. In 1797–98–99, the Irish Government paid 8 per cent. in Ireland, but in 1800, when the Union was almost settled, she paid 5¾ per cent., while in 1802–15, a time of stress and war, she paid an average of 4¾ per cent., and it once fell below 4 per cent. It was argued that it was because Ireland's contribution was

  1613
  fixed high (1 to 7½) that consolidation became possible. The Mover of this Resolution argued that the debt built up under that ratio of contribution became a lever which was used against the provisions of the Treaty and Acts of Union, to substitute indiscriminate taxation of Ireland for contribution by a quota subject to periodical alteration. But if a lower quota had been fixed the consolidation would have taken place sooner. If the ratio had been 1 to 18 (as suggested) it, would have taken place at once, and Ireland would have paid more throughout the war than she did. If the rate had been 1 to 12 the consolidation would have been in five years, and Ireland would have paid vastly more than she did. The burden of the war was terrible, but Great Britain bore more than her share of it. Whether the proportion of 2 to 15 was fair or not it mattered little, because Ireland never paid it. Great Britain paid vastly more than her share. We had, as a nation, treated Ireland very badly in the past in many matters, but in finance during this century our treatment had been marked by the greatest generosity. After the Union, from 1801 to, 1817, the total expenditure which Ireland was called upon to meet was £159,700,000, but she did not meet, it. The revenue raised by her was £77,800,000, and the balance went to the debt which the United Kingdom shouldered. Thus the controversy as to the proportion of 1 to 7½ was an academic one, because Ireland never paid it. Mr. Childers in his Report said, "The expenditure by Ireland after the Union was to a great extent a nominal or paper transaction." Front 1801 to 1817 of the total revenue raised by taxes in the United Kingdom, England raised an average of 92¼ per cent. annually, and Ireland raised an average of 7¾ per cent., or about 1–13th instead of 2–17ths. Between 1801 and 1816 Great Britain raised £264,700,000 by special war taxes which did not apply to Ireland. Then it was said that the increase of taxation during that time was greater in Ireland than in Great Britain. Yes, because they started from a lower basis of taxation, altogether unequal to the responsibility of the nation. In 1815, when Ireland's taxation was at the highest point, she raised not 2–17ths but 2–25ths. Great Britain increased her taxation twelve times as much as Ireland, though 7½times was the legal requirement.
  1614
  He suggested that the Reports were full of fallacious contentions of this sort. The increase in Great Britain's taxation was vastly greater than that of Ireland. Another complaint was that after the war was over, and expenditure was decreased by one-half, the taxation of Ireland was not decreased, but increased. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, when Great Britain had been enormously taxing herself, not only for her share of the burden, but also for a substantial portion of Ireland's share, when she had paid 264 millions in taxation which Ireland never paid at all, it was not unreasonable that Great Britain should begin to reduce some of that special war taxation to which Ireland had not contributed. His Irish friends wanted to pick and choose; they wanted to insist upon what was convenient to them, and to ignore what was not convenient; but that was absurd and unjust. It was Ireland's interest to keep debts separate in 1801; it was Ireland's interest to amalgamate the debts in 1817; and now, after a long process by which the burden on Ireland had been reduced, Ireland wanted to go back to the old system, and be an entity again; but we could not change it every time it became disadvantageous to us. He had said something of the generosity of Great Britain, and hon. Members had sneered at that. ["Hear, hear!"] They said that Great Britain had not been generous to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly not."] He would give a few instances of that generosity. The Treaty of Union provided that when the debts were consolidated, if one portion was larger than the proportion it should be, then the excess should be met by taxes imposed in the country to which it belonged. When the consolidation was made, there was a balance due from Ireland of two millions. Did we ask Ireland to meet that by separate taxation in Ireland? No; we wiped out that debt. From 1806 to 1817 Ireland was seriously in arrears in her contributions to joint expenditure, and these arrears Great Britain made up by her own taxation, or borrowed money at heavy rates of interest at that time. Did we charge Ireland interest on those arrears? No; Ireland was not charged a penny on the money we had to raise to meet her deficiencies. Then, again, the Act of Union provided that when the consolidation of the Exchequers took place, the expenditure of

  1615
  the United Kingdom should be defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the like articles in both countries. We had never used that power to this day completely, and for 30 years we had never approached using it. When the Exchequers were consolidated, Ireland's liability for the year was reduced one-half at a stroke. The expenditure for the year 816–17 for the United Kingdom was £89,300,000, and of this, according to the Act of Union, Ireland's share was £11,200,000, and that of Great Britain £78,100,000. Did we, this ungenerous country, use our power and compel Ireland to pay £11,200,000, and pay £78,100,000 ourselves? No; instead of paying £78,100,000, we actually paid £83,750,000, and instead of requiring Ireland to pay £11,200,000, we took only £5,560,000. We only took half in the very first year of the consolidation that the article in the Act of Union entitled us to take. ["Hear, hear!"] We never insisted upon our pound of flesh. Mr. Spring Rice, then Secretary to the Treasury, said in 1834 that from 1800 down to that year Great Britain had paid in the aggregate no less a sum than 618 millions in excess of what she would have paid had her taxes been levied at the Irish rates only, and that she had also paid during that time taxes not imposed on Ireland to an aggregate amount of 478 millions. ["Hear, hear!"] Something had been said about liquor taxation, and it should be remembered that the taxes in Ireland on spirits were not equalised to the taxes on spirits in England until 1858. For 41 years Ireland paid less on spirits than England did. For 36 years Ireland paid less than half per gallon what England did, and sometimes less than a third. For 11 years. Ireland was exempted from the income tax, from 1842 to 1853. In the five years from 1817 to 1821 immediately after the consummation of the consolidation of the Exchequers, instead of Ireland being taxed equally with England, there were £107,000,000 raised for the joint Exchequer by taxation in Great Britain, for which there was no taxation in Ireland at all. Even so late as 1845 there was taxation in Great Britain which was not in force in Ireland in that year yielding 14½ millions, and to-day there was not equality, though the difference was not great, and Great Britain paid four millions in taxes that were not levied in
  1616
  Ireland. Then Irishmen complained of the cost of police, but the whole of it was borne by the Imperial Exchequer, while in England we paid half the cost of our own police. Look at the post and telegraph system. In Ireland it was a loss to the Imperial Exchequer of £40,000 a year, but in Great Britain it yielded a profit of 3½ millions, which profit went to the benefit of Imperial finance, and was practically a taxation of Great Britain to the extent of 3½ millions, from which taxation Ireland was free. He was entitled to say that Great Britain had been generous to Ireland in matters financial, and had spared Ireland taxation, bearing that taxation herself to the extent of hundreds of millions. She nursed Ireland through a time of terrible distress, and it was a time of terrible stress to Great Britain also. The period from 1817 to 1845 was one of the most trying through which this country ever passed. The library would show in the number of Reports of Royal Commissions what a time of stress and strain it was for agriculture, how manufactures suffered, what a time of financial panic it was, and to what straits the working classes of this country were reduced. The stress and strain was enormous, and yet, rather than do an injustice to Ireland, Great Britain burdened herself with hundreds of millions of taxation, which was not levied in Ireland at all. Ireland had grievances enough—genuine grievances—serious enough without fabricating fictitious ones. He was as anxious as any man that these grievances should be remedied, but let justice be done to England and Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] The consolidation of revenue was a great boon to Ireland. If it had not taken place, Ireland would have been charged with the interest on the debt which she incurred. Taking that portion of the debt alone, which was expended in and on Ireland, and would have been expended if there had been no Union, the interest would have been three millions a year, and if Ireland had not been united to England she would have had to add to that debt; but if she had never borrowed more, that debt would now stand at three millions a year. Then, if she had paid her contribution to Imperial taxation on the basis of this Report, 1–20th of Imperial expenditure, the amount, excluding debt, would have been £1,850,000. If Ireland had been

  1617
  the entity it was now desired she should be, these amounts, £3,000,000 as interest on debt, and £1,850,000, the contribution to the Imperial Exchequer—making together £4,850,000—would have to be paid before anything would be left for Ireland's home expenditure. Under the Home Rule Bill of 1893, it was estimated that the expenditure of Ireland on her own affairs would be £4,600,000 a year, and Irish Members said it was a low estimate. Add this amount, and the total was £9,450,000 that Ireland would have to pay at the present time if she had charge of her own affairs, and we had not taken over her debt at the time of the consolidation and relieved her of her burden. Irishmen should remember that we took over their debt at the rate of 1 to 7½, and now they wanted to measure their share of it at 1 to 20. If there had been no consolidation, they would have had their portion of the burden to carry, but we took the burden, and now they wanted to share again on the principle favoured by some Socialists who advocated a sharing of all property, and when some exhausted their share would have a redistribution again. We had relieved Ireland of her burden, and could not go back to the principles that obtained before. Many as the advantages of Home Rule would be, financial economy was not one of them. ["Hear, hear!"] The scheme of the Bill of 1893 allowed £4,600,000 for Ireland's internal expenditure, and on the basis of this Report her contribution to Imperial expenditure based on the principle of 1–20th, would be £3,100,000, making, altogether £7,700,000, for the same items for which she now pays,£6,800,000. Consequently, on the basis of this Commission Report, and the Home Rule Bill of 1893, Ireland would have to pay £900,000 a year more than she pays to-day. The suggestion had been made that Ireland was not concerned in our Imperial expenditure and national defences. He could not subscribe to that, and he would point out that Imperial expenditure depended upon policy, and that Ireland had no, reason to complain of the share she had in deciding that policy. ['Hear, hear!"] Her share of Parliamentary representation was far larger than the number of her population or the amount they contributed in taxes warranted. Ireland's taxation to-day was 1–13th of the taxation of the Kingdom, but her
  1618
  representation was 2–13ths, and her contribution to the Imperial expenditure was only 1–32nd. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER:" What; do you say the representation of Ireland ought to be according to the terms of the Act of Union?"] Hon. Members below the Gangway wished to keep strictly to those portions of the Act of Union which suited them, but to depart from those that did not:['Hear, hear!"] The Report drafted by Mr. Sexton proposed that no contribution should be made by Ireland to Imperial expenditure for a time, and that after that time Ireland should contribute according to the measure of the benefit she derived. That meant that another test was to be added. The contention of the Commissioners was that the ratio of contribution should be according to capacity, but here it was suggested that it should be according to the benefit received. This chopping and changing was not practical, and benefit in itself was not a proper test. Did not English landlords and farmers contribute to the cost of the British Navy, which was used partly to defend the vessels bringing corn to this country; corn, which when landed competed with their own, with the result that the price was lowered? And did not people who had no children contribute largely to the taxation which provided school grants and to School Board rates? It was absurd to say that Ireland had no interest in our Imperial expenditure. Ireland was surely interested in the means taken to defend the populations of our colonies. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "No!"] Many Irishmen were in the colonies, and their kinsmen at home would not like to see them under the heel of a foreign invader. In case of war Ireland would be very liable to attack, for an enemy would be very eager to land there—[A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"]—in order to harass this country. But a conquering foe would not talk about entities and assessable ratios. He would exact a heavy contribution from Ireland. They had been told that Ireland was but little interested in our trade and commerce, and that the Free Trade policy of this country had injured her. He affirmed, on the contrary, that Ireland had a vital interest in the trade and prosperity of the Kingdom. England was her market, and because England had prospered that market had increased. Ireland had prospered marvelously

  1619
  in comparison with her previous condition. In proof of this he would trouble the House with a few statistics. In 1841, before the adoption of Free Trade, Ireland had 1,800,000 cattle; now she had 4,400,000. She had, in 1841, 2,000,000 sheep; now she had 4,000,000. The corresponding figures for pigs were 1,300,000 and 1,400,000; and for poultry 8,000,000 and 17,000,000. In 1841 the value of cattle, sheep and pigs in Ireland was £14,000,000; in 1871 it was £32,000,000; and in 1896 it was£69,000,000. To-day, therefore, the value was five times as great as it was before Free Trade was instituted. Therefore Ireland had a, great interest in the prosperity of this country, because it had vastly increased the market for her produce. Let them consider the exports of cattle from Ireland to this country. In 1847 the exports were 190,000; in 1895 they were 790,000; in the same years the exports of sheep were 324,000 and 652,000 respectively; and the exports of pigs 157,000 and 547,000. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is the value of the cattle and sheep?"] As he had said, the value was five times as great in 1896 as it was in 1841. It would be said, doubtless, that the price of corn was lower, but so it would have been had protection continued. What was the condition of the countries abroad that had protection? Had they not suffered from competition just as much as we had? In France and Germany the distress of the agricultural population was greater than it was here. Then it was suggested that the manufactures of Ireland had been killed by the operation of Free Trade. That was not the fact. The home-weaving trade had naturally died, owing to the development of machinery, but the manufactures in the factories and mills of Ireland had increased. In 1850 there were 11 woollen and worsted factories in Ireland, employing 625 persons; but in 1890 there were 83, employing 3,463 persons, or five times as many. In 1850 there were 69 linen factories, employing 21,000 persons; and now there were 162, employing 64,000 persons. Then the prices obtained for agricultural produce were vastly greater now than 50 or 60 years ago. Take, for example, the average price of butter. In 1836 the price per cwt. was 69s.; in 1893 it was 95s. The price of potatoes had risen from 1s. 7d. in 1836 to 2s. 9d. in
  1620
  1893; beef, from, 33s. to 44s.; mutton, from 34s. 6d. to 53s.; and pork from 25s. 6d. to 40s. 7d. Agricultural labourers' wages had risen three-fold within the memory of Irish Members now in that House. But the best test of all was to take the average value per head of the population of the whole crops and stock in the farms. He found that the average value per head of the population of crops and stock, in the period 1851–55 was £15 16s.; and that in the period 1889–93 it was £19; and in this calculation the value of milk, butter and eggs was not included, and their value had increased materially. The value of Ireland's present exports of cattle, pigs and sheep to Great Britain was greater than the value of her total exports of all kinds of goods and produce at the beginning of the century. The amount of money in the Irish banks was five times as much as it was in 1841–45, before Free Trade was adopted. The income tax returns also showed a wonderful growth—even under Schedule A. In 1854 the items assessed under Schedule A amounted to £11,700,000, and in 1894 the same items were assessed at £15,700,000. The total gross assessment of the profits in Ireland rose from £26,390,000 in 1856 to £38,190,000 in 1895, and the net assessment from £21,334,000 to £27,500,000. Irishmen contributed largely to the revenue in proportion to their capacity, mainly (1) because they spent a larger portion of their means on liquor than Englishmen or Scotchmen did; and (2) because they selected a heavily taxed liquor. With a third of the spending capacity of Englishmen they spent three-fourths as much on liquor and tobacco. Ireland had increased her expenditure on these articles during the last thirty-five years; and if the Irish people only smoked and drank now as much as they did in 1862, she would pay £1,300,000 less in taxes. The taxation of liquor was special and peculiar. It was not merely for revenue purposes, but was also deterrent and preventive, and might also fairly be regarded as some compensation for the cost and the burden which the use of that liquor put upon the community in other directions. The hon. Member for Longford spoke of the expenditure on drink and tobacco as a necessary and not a voluntary expenditure, because it could be steadily relied on year by year. They could equally

  1621
  rely on the statistics of crime, but the hon. Member would never on that account argue that criminals should go unpunished because crime was a necessity. Intoxicants were at best a luxury—a dangerous and injurious luxury—and it was too late to say they were a necessity. The people of Ireland, foolishly and extravagantly, spent a larger proportion of their income on liquor than the people of Great Britain did; but that was no reason why liquor should be taxed less. They should cut their coat according to their cloth; they should adapt their drinking to their means, and then they would not be taxed in excess of the people of England or Scotland. Further, the liquor trade and the drinking customs were a source of injury and danger and cost to the community, and it had always been recognised as fair and reasonable that there should be special taxation of liquor. It might be thought that on that matter he was somewhat of a prejudiced witness. But they had the evidence of John Stuart Mill, Professor Sidgwick, and Professor Bastable, Professor of Political Economy in Dublin University—not one of them teetotallers—all of whom justified special taxation on luxuries, and they specially mentioned stimulants as articles on which taxation should be levied. Mr. Dudley Baxter was of opinion that taxation on the heavy consumption of liquor should be regarded as a fine rather than a tax; and he noticed the other day that the right hon. Member for Bodmin described the tax on liquor as a penalty. The policy of Irishmen, when they had a Parliament of their own, was to tax articles of consumption which admittedly pressed most heavily on the poor. Henry Grattan advocated a high duty on spirits and a low duty on beer, and in the Irish House of Commons on February 2, 1791, he moved:—
  "That a principal cause of the excessive use of spirituous liquors is the low price thereof. That to remedy said evil it is necessary to impose such duty or duties on spirituous liquors as render the same too dear for the consumption of the lower orders of the people. That in order to give the lower orders of the people a wholesome and nutritious liquor it is necessary to give the breweries of this kingdom decisive advantages. That for this purpose it is necessary that the duties affecting the brewer should be reduced and the restrictions and regulations whereby he is now restrained taken off."
  1622
  The reason why the duty on beer in this country was proportionately lower than on spirits was because it was the opinion 70 years ago that if they provided what they called wholesome, nutritious beer, they would wean the people from spirits; and the duty on beer was now only one-third of what it was at the beginning of the century. The idea, however, was an exploded delusion, and he was not sure that anybody believed in it except the hon. Member for Northampton. If the taxation on spirts were a grievance at all, it was an individual grievance. It pressed on spirit drinkers wherever they were found, and whatever their nationality. If there was an injustice, and a remedy was called for, it must be applied to those who suffered—the whisky drinkers. But no one suggested that the relief should take that form. That was very significant. He did not admit that the heavy tax on liquor was a grievance, but there might be a grievance in not taxing all kinds of intoxicants equally, and he would be the last man to place any obstacle in the way of increasing the taxation on beer. If they doubled the taxation on beer and abolished the taxation on tobacco, the poor people of these countries would not pay a halfpenny more taxation, and Ireland would get relief to the tune of £600,000. He for one would vote for that proposal with pleasure. But if the extra tax limited consumption, glad as he should be personally, he was not sure that they would accomplish what they were aiming at in the way of giving relief to Ireland. Equality between entities would not secure equality between individuals in those entities. Indiscriminate taxation did not secure absolute individual equality, nor was it true that any system of taxation in vogue in any country did bring about absolute, or anything approaching absolute, equality of the taxation of individuals. How was this problem to be grappled with, and what were the suggestions of the Commissioners? After reading through their Reports, he ventured to say that the suggestions they made in the way of remedies were miserably disappointing, Few of the Commissioners dare face the issue, and those who did screw up their courage to face it did not grapple with it successfully. He ventured to say that to

  1623
  name the suggested remedies of the Commissioners was to reject them and to indicate the flimsy basis on which the grievances which were alleged to exist rested. [Ministerial cheers and Nationalist cries of "Oh!"] That Ireland should be relieved of £2,500,000 a year would not bear examination. It meant that she would not pay a single penny to the National Debt, to the Army or Navy, or even to the defence of Ireland itself; and it meant, in addition, that they should pay a subsidy to her to enable her to carry on her own government within her own borders. [Ministerial cheers.] With all respect, he said that such proposals were preposterous. The doles and subsidy policy illustrated the fallacy of the entity theory. The allegation was that it was the poor who were over-taxed and the well-to-do under-taxed. The policy of doles and subsidy would benefit and relieve those who were under-taxed to day, but what would it do for the poor man who was spending more than he ought to do on whisky? This policy meant that the poor of England and Scotland were to be additionally taxed in order that the well-to-do in Ireland might be relieved. He claimed that no case had been made out for special and separate treatment of Ireland. [Ministerial cheers.] If Ireland was unfairly treated it was only because individual members of the community were unfairly taxed, and they were only taxed precisely the same as men of similar income and similar habits in England, Scotland and Wales were taxed. Therefore, if there was any injustice on that ground in Ireland, there was a similar injustice in England, Scotland and Wales, and it could only be remedied by rectifying and amending the taxation on the mass of the people in each of the three countries. This was not an Irish question, but it was a question for the whole of the United Kingdom. [Ministerial cheers.] It was not a question which concerned melt according to their nationality, but according to their resources and their income and their habits. If Ireland was unjustly taxed she could have that grievance rectified by taxing everybody according to their income and their habits, in whatever part of the United Kingdom they lived. If that was possible and desirable in Ireland, it was possible and desirable throughout the United Kingdom;
  1624
  and if it was not possible in the one it was not possible in the other. There must be equity in the taxation of the individual, if there was to be real equity. If they rectified the inequalities of individual taxation, wherever it was desirable and possible, the inequalities of national taxation would be by that very process rectified automatically, so to speak. This was not a question of treaty or of Act of Union. [Nationalist laughter.] It was a question of common justice. [Ministerial cheers.] It was not a question of nationalities or of entities, but of persons. It was not a question of abstractions and geographical areas; it was a question of human beings and of adjustment between individuals. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  COLONEL WARINGsaid his rising to second the Amendment would occasion some surprise among the Irish Members on both sides; but, while there was a great deal in the speech of the hon. Member with which he disagreed, he entirely agreed with the Amendment, with the exception that he would substitute "are now" consolidated instead of "remain." He seconded the Amendment as an Imperialist, in the interests of the Empire at large, and in the interest of what he considered justice and honourable dealing. Another strong reason which induced him to second the Amendment was that this was a very complicated and contentious account, and the study he had given to the matter convinced him that when the book came to be made up the balance would be on the wrong page for Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]. He did not pose as a very virtuous person, and he did not say that if he could put his hand into John Bull's pocket and pull out a handful of sovereigns, he would have any great scruple in doing so; but he did not care to do that when the probability was that he would not even get a few shillings. He would not wish it to be supposed that he sympathised with all that had fallen from the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, but for the reasons he had stated he would be very unwilling to see an investigation and a

  1625
  balancing of accounts. It might, perhaps, have sufficed to have voted a simple negative to the proposition of the hon. Member for Longford, but there was something more in the question than the Amendment touched—the most important point of the whole controversy—and that was that all portions of the United Kingdom must be regarded as forming one country for fiscal purposes, and if for fiscal purposes, for all purposes. ["Hear, hear!"] He could not understand the position of any Unionist who could support the principle of regarding Ireland as a separate entity for fiscal purposes, seeing that separation of the Government of Ireland must inevitably follow. ["Hear, hear!"] When the proposition for separate Government for Ireland was made in 1886, it was accompanied by a bribe to the Irish landlords. That bribe they refused to accept. Now they were again offered a paltry bribe, some little contribution for industrial objects, some further squandering of money on useless objects which would do no more good to Ireland than the paper on which the resolution of the hon. Member for Longford was written. Fortunately, in his judgment, Ireland had not got Home Rule, and he held that the Report of this Commission, which had its origin in the Home Rule Bill of 1892, should be committed to oblivion with that Bill. ['Hear, hear!"] It was curiously out of place that hon. Members who had so much abused the Act of Union should now base a large part of their arguments upon its construction. He thought that the proposer of the Amendment had shown that the Act of Union did not justify the conclusions hon. Members opposite had drawn from it. While he he did not accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Longford that Ireland had been so much wronged in the past, he did think there was one matter in which Ireland did not receive that equal treatment to which she was entitled. Last year a very important Bill was passed and a large sum of money was voted to assist local taxation on agricultural incomes. That amounted to 10s. in the pound on agricultural rates in England. In that matter Ireland ought to have been treated as one to England, and ought to have received 10s. in the pound on agricultural rates instead of being put off with 2½., a sum so contemptible that it had to
  1626
  be put by until someone would be good enough to take it from the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that the proposer of the Amendment had brought forward weighty and unanswerable reasons for its acceptance, and he agreed that it was the proper way of meeting the proposition of the hon. Member for Longford. With the exception of the grievance he had just mentioned, he did not think that Ireland had at present any substantial grievance to justify this question being raised in the House of Commons. He begged to second the Amendment.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEconfessed that it caused him considerable surprise to see the hon. Member in the position he occupied that night, because he could not understand how any Irishman, and especially an Irish landlord, could set himself in opposition to the claims of the Irish people for the redress of their grievances. The interests of Irish landlords and Irish tenants were identical in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] The pressure of taxation in Ireland affected the landlords every bit as much as it affected the tenants, but, if he might use a homely phrase, any stick was good enough to beat a dog with, and inasmuch as this Amendment was possibly to some extent in opposition to Home Rule, the hon. and gallant Member saw his way to support it. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, in a speech of great ability—["hear, hear!"]—brought forward an elaborate array of figures in support of his contention, but the burden of his speech was that the objection to the claim of Ireland was that that claim was based on the supposition that Ireland was a separate entity. He could not understand how anybody could hold that the Irish people were anything but a separate entity. This separate national entity of Ireland had been expressly recognised in almost every Act of financial legislation which had occupied the attention of that House from 1800 to at all events 1860. Every Session of Parliament they had separate legislation for Ireland on every subject imaginable. If they could have separate legislation for Ireland on every subject except finance, Moreover, why could they not also have separate legislation in regard to financial matters? The hon. Member had stated that in recent years the number and

  1627
  value of live stock had increased in Ireland. It might be true that the number and value of live stock in Ireland had increased, but in the meant time the population had decreased. [Irish cheers.] Since 1841 their population had decreased by four millions. They would rather have more people in Ireland than more pigs, and sheep, and cattle. The hon. Member had told them that since 1853 there was a very great increase in the number of factories in Ireland. That might be, but had the hon. Member ever read of the industrial condition of Ireland before 1800? Did he know the number of industries which existed in Ireland before the destruction of the Irish Parliament, or the number of people who were employed in Ireland then? ["Hear, hear!"] If he would devote his undoubted abilities to an investigation in that direction he would probably realise that on the whole the condition of Ireland had not improved from 1800 to 1896, although possibly the deterioration in Ireland might have been somewhat checked from 1853 to 1896. The hon. Member spoke of the great improvement in Ireland since 1853, and forgot, or had not taken into account, the enormous improvement which had taken place in Great Britain in the same period. Ireland might have improved since 1845, though he doubted it. ["Hear, hear!"] But what had been the improvement in England since then? He believed the wealth of England had increased since 1800 something like a thousand fold, and he was perfectly certain that the wealth of Ireland since that period had decreased. In 1800 the capital of Ireland was estimated at 513 millions, but nobody estimated the capital of Ireland at the present moment at more than 400 millions. In "Thom's Directory" he found it estimated as low as 280 millions. The hon. Member stated that the Irish smoked too much. The people of Ireland now paid to the Exchequer something like £1,100,000 for tobacco, and probably the same amount for tobacco which they employed for manufacturing purposes, whereas in 1820 the Irish people grew their own tobacco and manufactured it free of tax. As to their drinking propensities in Ireland, he found, on looking into the drink bill of
  1628
  the two countries, that when an Englishman spent 1s. in drink he got 10d. worth of drink and paid 2d. worth of tax, whereas an Irishman got 2d. worth of drink and paid 10d. worth of tax. [Laughter.] That was a homely but an incisive way of putting the matter before the House. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) seemed to be highly amused by that statement. He did not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman drank whisky, but if he did he would know in future that for every glass he consumed he paid 5d. to the Exchequer, and only got 1d. value for his money. [Laughter.] Even if all the arguments advanced by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment were well founded, it would not in the least affect the position of the Irish Members, which was that in the matter of taxation Ireland occupied a position relatively to that of England which was neither equitable nor just. The Irish claim had been put forward ably and fully by his hon. Friend the Member for Longford in his extremely powerful speech, and his hon. Friend's arguments were enforced with eloquence by his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, who also made a valuable contribution to the Debate. But there were one or two matters which had been left unsaid in those speeches of his hon. Friends, and which he would touch upon. They had spoken of the financial condition of Ireland before the, Union. He wanted to draw attention to what followed with reference to Irish taxation subsequent to the Act of Union and previous to the consolidation of the two Exchequers. All the speeches made by Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Pitt, and others who spoke in support of the Act of Union, contained the promise that Ireland would never be taxed more than her relative taxable capacity. But after the Act of Union, it was unfortunately true that the liabilities of Ireland and her taxation increased in an enormous degree, so much so that there was absolutely no comparison between the two countries. At the time of the Union, Ireland's National Debt, funded and unfunded, was £28,000,000, and England's National Debt, funded and unfunded, £440,000,000. After sixteen years of Union finance the Irish debt had risen to £112,000,000, and England's debt to

  1629
  £700,000,000. According to the statement of accounts between Great Britain and Ireland in the period 1801–17, the Revenue receipts of Great Britain were £900,000,000, and those of Ireland £84,000,000. Those were the Treasury returns published in 1824, and with reference to Treasury returns generally, he must express, in parenthesis, his profound conviction that they were, as far as his experience went, absolutely unreliable. The Treasury returns did not, for instance, give credit to Ireland for her payments in respect of tithe rent, quit rent, or Crown rent, payable in England, or for many other taxes paid by Ireland in England. On an examination of figures he held that Ireland did pay her proportion of contribution according to the Act of Union; not only so, but she overpaid her proper proportion the sum of £6,000,000 during the 16 years to which he had referred. The more one studied the financial position between the years 1800 and 1816 the more one saw the injustice which was done to Ireland. The Irish deficit in 1817, according to the Return (No. 256) of 1824, was £11,700,000. In order to make up that deficit the Irish debt was increased by £80,000,000. This Paper was full of extraordinary revelations as to the treatment of Ireland. On the 15th January 1816, the debts of the two countries appeared distinct for the last time. The debt of Great Britain was put at £688,820,000; and that of Ireland at £107,388,000—a total of £796,000,000. The same Return gave the debt of the two countries in 1817, the following year, as £755,000,000; a diminution of 40 millions, which could not possibly have been effected in one year. But this amount, curiously, was just the amount necessary to bring the Irish deficit up to a level which would allow of the two Exchequers being united. After the Union Mr. Pitt introduced his first Budget. The "Annual Register" of 1801 gave the statistics. Mr. Pitt brought in an elaborate calculation in which every item was divided in the proportions of 15–17ths to Great Britain and 2–17ths to Ireland. In that particular Mr. Pitt acted the part of an honest man. According to Mr. Pitt the total supplies for the year were £35,587,462, and the Irish contribution at 2–17ths was £4,186,760. The permanent charges of the Civil List and other
  1630
  charges not related to the Public Debt amounted to £1,170,000, and Ireland's share was put at £137,000. Then Mr. Pitt went on to declare that whatever else remained with the exception of the National Debt of Ireland was to be provided by Great Britain. But a few days later the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Corry, brought in his Budget, and charged Ireland with £2,000,000 more than Mr. Pitt had done. He correctly stated Ireland's share of the war expenditure, 2–17ths. But Civil expenses were put at £600,000, as compared with £137,000 charged by Mr. Pitt. Next Ireland was over-charged £500,000 for interest on that Irish debt; £622,000 for the purchase money of Irish boroughs, though that expenditure was covered at the Act of Union by a charge of £1,500,000 on the Irish National Debt;£230,000 was added as compensation for the loyalists in respect of the revolution of 1798, though they had already been compensated to the tune of £1,300,000 charged on the Irish National Debt; £100,000 was added for inland navigation; and £70,000 was charged for the Irish army resident in England, although the English army resident in Ireland was being paid for out of the Irish Exchequer. Altogether £2,000,000 were added to Mr. Pitt's figures. Then Mr. Corry proposed a loan of £2,500,000 to meet his manufactured deficit, and issued stock to the amount of £4,500,000 on this pretext. This showed how the finances of Ireland were brought to the point at which amalgamation with England became possible. Of course, this Amendment would be defeated, and the Government would refuse to listen to the demand of the Irish people for the redress of the national grievances. But he could promise the Government that this would not be the last word said on the question. [Cheers.] Irishmen knew that they had right on their side. This subject had been taken up in Ireland, and there they intended to pursue it. If the House did not deal with the grievances of Ireland there would be an agitation in Ireland which would give the Government more trouble than all the agitations that had gone before, because there were men joined in it who were never in political harmony before. Ireland was over-taxed. In England eleven millions was paid in remission of local rates, but Ireland was

  1631
  given a beggarly £250,000. In England they passed an Agricultural Rating Bill and refused to extend its benefits to Ireland. All these points would be seized upon by the Irish people.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): Whatever opinions we may hold On this important subject, I am sure that all of us who have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Longford and the hon. Member for Spen Valley will agree that we have had able and exhaustive statements of two very different sides of it. I have no intention whatever of attempting to rival those two hon. Members in the length at which they have addressed the House. Not that I blame them for that length. By no means, for it is necessary that this subject should be fully placed before Parliament. But it is unnecessary for me to go again over ground already trodden. But, widely as those two speeches differed, I confess there was something in the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that made me feel even more how difficult it is for those who live on the two sides of St. George's Channel to approach this matter from anything like a common point of view. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for Longford and the hon. Member for Waterford attributed in so many words everything that was wrong in Ireland or had been wrong during the last century to Great Britain. [Nationalist cheers and Ministerial laughter, and Mr. MACNEILL: "Perfectly right."] Great Britain instigated the Irish rebellion of 1798; Great Britain ruined Ireland by the provisions of the Act of Union; Great Britain was responsible for the Irish famine. [Mr. MACNEILL: "It was," and laughter.] Great Britain is responsible for the fact that the population of Ireland now is half-a-million less than it was at the time of the Union. [Nationalist cheers.] Great Britain is responsible for the fact that Ireland has unfortunately no mineral resources. [An IRISH MEMBER: "Your competition closed them up."] Because that is the secret of the vast industrial prosperity of Great Britain as compared with Ireland. Great Britain is responsible, I gather, for the increase of rates in Ireland; Great
  1632
  Britain is responsible for the Exchequer expenditure for local purposes in Ireland—[An HON. MEMBER: "The east wind," and laughter]—because she fixes the scale and moulds it according to her will. During all this century, Irishmen, of course, have had no representatives in the Imperial Parliament, and those representatives have never by any chance had their way in matters relating to Ireland. [Nationalist cheers.] Now, I think it will be admitted that, that being the view of hon. Members from Ireland who sit on the opposite Benches, it is a mere waste of time for me, an unfortunate person living on this side of St. George's Channel, to argue in the hope of convincing them to the contrary. But this, at any rate, I can say—that it is my sincere desire in the responsible position which I hold, to approach this question of the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain in the most impartial spirit and to endeavour to do justice to both sides. [Cheers.] I will not follow the hon. Member for Longford in his historical retrospect. I am quite prepared to admit that, as events shaped themselves, the burden imposed upon Ireland by the proportionate contribution which was required of her by the Act of Union, was more than she could bear. I think that if the years that followed the Union had been years of peace instead of war, a very different result might have occurred. But as a matter of fact, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley has pointed out to the House, Ireland never did bear that burden. She was relieved of it by the arrangement of 1817, when the debts and the Exchequers were consolidated, and the whole of the United Kingdom became responsible for the Irish debt. Well, Sir, that arrangement has been objected to by the hon. Member for Longford. All I can say is, that the Bill sanctioning it passed the House of Commons in ten days with 103 Irish representatives sitting in the House, and passed with practical unanimity, because it was known to be a great relief to Ireland. [Cheers.] And, further, when the circumstances of 1816–17 were inquired into by a Committee of this House in 1864, that Committee—composed, as it was, of a majority of Irish Members—reported that the Imperial Parliament was justified in

  1633
  consolidating the debts and amalgamating the Exchequers of the two countries. At any rate, nobody wants to go back to the provisions that existed before 1817. So far as I can gather, no real complaint has been made of anything that occurred between 1817 and 1853. Complaint has been made, and I dare say with justice, of the increase of Irish taxation between 1853 and 1860. But it is a matter which is now mainly of historical interest to the followers of Mr. Gladstone, who must, I fear, be somewhat shocked by the way in which such devotees as Lord Fairer and Lord Welby have turned against their old political chief. [Laughter.] What we have to deal with to-day is not a matter of historical retrospect—not the many interesting circumstances Which, from very different points of view, have been detailed to the House to-night in regard to the past, but the present position of affairs. Is there now any substantial grievance in financial matters on the side of Ireland as against Great Britain, and, if so, how should that grievance be remedied? The hon. Member for Longford bases his Motion on the opinion of 11 members of the late Royal Commission that, whilst the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of Great Britain (it has since decreased to one-twelfth), the relative taxable capacity is very much smaller, and is not reckoned by any of them as exceeding one-twentieth. On that statement he asks the House to affirm that there is "an undue burden on Ireland which constitutes a great grievance to all classes of the Irish community," and he carefully explained that, so far as the well-to-do classes were concerned, it was in the nature of a moral and intellectual grievance. [Laughter.] I would just venture to observe in passing that the Royal Commission do not say what the hon. Member asks the House to affirm. They do not say that their statement constitutes a grievance to Ireland. Why? They could not have said so, because out of the Royal Commissioners who signed that statement, three—and these by no means the least important—held that expenditure might, at any rate in some measure, be taken as a set-off against taxation. But that
  1634
  is the view of the hon. Member, and he asks us for early remedial legislation. What remedial legislation? I have listened to the hon. Member's speech from beginning to end, and I failed to discover. He complained of over-taxation. What over-taxation? Surely some tax must pinch. The whole theory is that unfortunate Britons know nothing of the needs of Ireland. He represents a majority of the representatives of the Irish people. Cannot he tell us what tax constitutes the grievance? Cannot he tell us where he wishes taxation to be reduced or abolished? No; he is dump. [Cheers and A VOICE: "He spoke for two hours!"] Yes, he spoke for two hours, but on this important subject he was absolutely dumb. He cannot say whether he desires this alleged grievance to be remedied by the remission or reduction of taxation, or in any other way. And why? Because the whole burden of his speech was this, that the circumstances of the two countries are so different that they cannot properly be subjected to the same system of taxation or of government, and that in his view and in the view of his colleagues, and of the right hon. Gentlemen On the Front Opposition Bench, the only remedy is Home Rule. [A laugh.] I did not hear a very loud cheer in support of that view from the opposite side of the House, because I think they must have had in their minds the painful picture of the condition of Ireland which was painted by the hon. Member for Long ford. What did he say to us? A more painful picture was never drawn. He spoke of the enormous increase of population in Great Britain, and the decrease of population in Ireland; he told us how, even in agricutural matters, Ireland being an agricultural country, the agricultural produce per head of the population in Britain was double that achieved in Ireland; he told us, I think, that the value of the agricultural produce in Ireland was hardly worth reckoning, at all, that the people were too poor to consume it themselves, and had to send it abroad; told us that the margin of Irish income above the bare necessities of existence did not materially exceed the amount lost by the economic drain and by taxation. The hon. Member for Waterford told us that the shadow of famine was

  1635
  permanently standing by the door of the cabins of Ireland—[cheers]—and, as Mr. Sexton said in his Report, Ireland was crippled in the struggle for mere existence by the taxation which was imposed on her. Sir, I think I could draw a different picture, gathered perhaps from the reports of increasing deposits in all kinds of banks—[ironical laughter]—of rising wages, of enormous prices for tenant-right—[Ministerial cheers]—of increased exports of Irish manufactures, and other evidences of material prosperity, less, I admit, than the prosperity of Great Britain, but still prosperity. ["Hear, hear!"] But suppose the picture drawn is a true one. What, then? Does it not show conclusively that Home Rule would mean financial ruin to Ireland—[derisive laughter from the Nationalists]—unless, which I hope is impossible, she was reduced to the position of a mere dependency of Great Britain, contributing nothing to the common expenditure or to her own defence, without representation in this House, and without any power of controlling the destinies of the Empire. [Cheers.] I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose will take a very sanguine view of the possibilities of Home Rule as a remedy for this grievance. He told us some little time ago that he did not think much political capital could be made out of this question. ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. J. MORLEY.] He is responsible for the appointment of this Royal Commission. The Royal Commission Was appointed not as previous inquiries have been appointed, to investigate grievances that were alleged in regard to Irish taxation on the basis of our existing financial system. No; but to discover an entirely new financial system which should be part of a scheme of Home Rule.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in substance the terms of reference to the Commission appointed by our Government was the same as those of the Committee proposed to be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman beside him?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As the right hon. Gentleman has questioned my statement, I am afraid I shall have to detain the House while I give the history of the appointment of this Commission. In 1886 Mr. Gladstone proposed, as we all remember, a Home Rule Bill. In that Bill were contained certain provisions with regard to the future contribution of Ireland under Home Rule to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom. Those provisions were characterised by Mr. Gladstone as equitable and even generous. They were not thought so by the Irish representatives of the day, and, as the Bill was rejected on Second Reading, they were never practically discussed in Parliament. In 1893 Mr. Gladstone made other and different proposals for the same object, which had to be withdrawn on account of erroneous statistics. Then came a third set of proposals of a temporary character to last for only six years, and those proposals passed through the House of Commons because of their temporary character. The only condition on which they were allowed to pass either by Irish or Unionist representatives was because the Government undertook to appoint a Committee to inquire into the true revenue of Ireland. The inquiry of that Committee was extended, on the instigation of Mr. Sexton, to the principle and mode of equitably determining the relative capacity of Ireland to contribute to Imperial charges, and how the amount of such annual contributions should be fixed. That is the origin of the reference to the Royal Commission, and not the Committee of my right hon. Friend. [Cheers.] And, Sir, when the matter was discussed in the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, representing the Government of the day, said that, having regard to the controversy raging round the question of how much the Irish contribution to Imperial expenditure should be,
  "it is fair to both countries that the subject should be investigated independently by a Royal Commission, and this was the justification of the Government for the purely temporary way in which the matter had been dealt with in the Bill."
  [Cheers.] What is the outcome of this? The question, and a most vital question

  1637
  to any settlement of Home Rule—what should be the contribution a Ireland to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom?—Which Mr. Gladstone, with all his financial genius, had three times failed to settle, was referred to the late Royal Commission. [Cheers.] The late Royal Commission absolutely declined to report upon the subject. [Cheers.] They deliberately left that question unsolved, and, as they have themselves admitted, the Report, truncated and maimed as it is, obviously deals with but a small part of the inquiry intrusted to them. [Cheers.] What is the result? Here we have a financial question brought before us tonight which, in the opinion of the Home Rule Party and of right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Bench, can only be satisfactorily settled by Home Rule. [Cheers.] It is admitted that the settlement of part of that financial question, the contribution of Ireland to the common expenditure under the system of Home Rule, on fair terms, acceptable to both sides, is an essential preliminary to any Monte Rule scheme: here we have a Commission specially appointed to settle that very question, and that Commission can arrive at no conclusion whatever with regard to it. [Cheers.] I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman does not congratulate himself from the very bottom of his heart that it is likely to be some years to come before he has to propose a Home Rule Bill to the House of Commons. [Laughter and cheers.] But I would say something further. This Commission has disclosed on this very subject a difference of opinion which may be a fatal obstacle to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. Hitherto in all the Home Rule Debates it was always admitted that there should be a substantial and real contribution from Ireland under Home Rule to the Common expenditure of the United Kingdom. That was admitted even by Mr. Sexton; it was admitted to the full by the hon. Member for Mayo—whom I do not see in his place to-night—who said in so many words, "Ascertain the fair taxable capacity of Ireland, and fix her contribution to the Imperial expenditure on that taxable capacity." Very well. Now we have a very different state of things. The right hon. Member for Fife, Lord Spencer the other day in the House of Lords, and I fancy alt those who sit on
  1638
  the opposite Bench, will and must adhere to this principle of a fair contribution front Ireland under a Home Rule Bill to the expenditure of the United Kingdom. That is now repudiated. [Opposition cries of "No!"] It was repudiated tonight by the hon. Member for Longford On behalf of the Party whom he represented. [Cheers.] it was repudiated in the Report which he signed in concert with Mr. Sexton. [Cheers.] It is repudiated by Lord Farrer, who agrees with them in saying that, for an indefinite period Ireland should pay no Imperial contribution at all. Why? Lord Farrer says on the ground of the poverty of Ireland, on the.ground of the past Over-taxation of Ireland. [Nationalist cheers.] That is not the view of the hon. Member for Longford. He told us to-night very plainly what his view was, and I will quote it from the Report which he signed together with Mr. Sexton. His opinion is, and that I take to be the opinion of the section of the Irish Party which he represents, that all this expenditure on the Army, the Navy, and the debt, represents the cost of securing and extending British possessions, trade, and commerce, obtaining British income, and protecting British wealth: and does not represent any corresponding advantage in the case of Ireland, and causes no augmentation of her resources. [Irish Cheers.] And, therefore, Ireland is to retain her share in the Government of the Empire and pay nothing for it. [Ministerial cheers.] I wish the right hon. Gentleman joy in the preparation of his next Home Rule Bill. [Ministerial cheers and laughter.] I have, so far, dealt with the opinion of the hon. Member for Longford—and those who agree with him—that this matter can only be settled by Home Rule. I think I have shown some little difficulty in the way of that settlement. But he appeals to us to-night as a Unionist Government, and he Says;—
  "You will do nothing towards How Rule; in order to keep off Home Rule you are, therefore, bound to meet this demand in some other way."
  That, I think, is his argument. Well, Sir, I will tell him, as a Unionist, Government, we will do nothing to meet his demand which will tend to a separate

  1639
  system of finance between Great Britain and Ireland, any more than we will move in the direction of it separate political system for Ireland. [Ministerial cheers.] We believe that the arrangement which has existed since 1817 of a consolidated debt, of a common exchequer, of equal taxes levied on the same articles in both countries, is in principle far more equitable as between individuals, as between classes, aye, and even as between countries, than any system based on taxable capacity which is, as we have seen in this Blue-book, a matter of the wildest speculation—[cheers]—or any system of contribution according to specific proportions which is absolutely negatived for the future, after the consolidation of the Exchequers, by the provisions of the Act of Union, which was tried and failed so disastrously in the early years of this; century, and which, to my mind at any rate, could never be successful, having in view the constantly varying circumstances of the three parts of the United Kingdom. [Cheers.] That is the principle on which we stand. Common taxation is part of the Union—["hear, hear!"]—and I would no more be a party to even such a Measure as that wonderful suggestion of Lord Welby, borrowed from the great example of the Isle of Man, that there should be a fixed contribution from Ireland towards Imperial expenditure, and that the remaining taxation of Ireland should be left to a Committee of this House, composed mainly of Irish Members, to distribute—a proposition which to my mind would be a direct step in the direction of Home Rule—than I would be a party to Home Rule itself. I am convinced, however mischievous, however fatal to the interests of the United Kingdom political Home Rule might be, financial Home Rule would be just as mischievous and as fatal. ["Hear, hear!"] That is the position on which we take our stand—on the arrangements that were sanctioned unanimously by the Imperial Parliament according to the provisions of the Act of Union, and in perfect fairness to Ireland.["No, no!" and cheers.] I entirely admit that with that arrangement was coupled a proviso which has now become celebrated—that indiscriminate contribution should be subject to such particular exemptions and abatements in Ireland and Scotland as circumstances might appear from time to time
  1640
  to demand. I do not think it is very easy to know precisely what was meant by statesmen nearly 100 years ago when they framed those words. I am quite sure it is very difficult to know how they would have applied them to the circumstances of the present day, and for this reason we propose this matter as one of the subjects of inquiry we contemplate. We wish it to be impartially, I would even say judicially, investigated.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Judicially?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, I hope that on the forthcoming. Royal Commission we may obtain the services of some Judges from England, Scotland, and Ireland. [Ironical laughter.] I do not quite understand the object of that interruption. Here is a matter which is surely of difficult interpretation. It is the interpretation of great statutes, of an Act of Union between the three kingdoms, which ought to be interpreted by the most impartial tribunal you can obtain.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the Judges to sit by themselves? [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As members of the Royal Commission. I am merely putting forward the view I myself entertain. Nothing is settled yet as to the composition of the Commission, because it has, been postponed at the wish of hon. Members opposite, until the subject had been debated; but I put forward my view as to it matter which should at least be considered in forming the Commission. This proviso is by no means easy of interpretation, and I will endeavour to explain why. The circumstances, both in the matter of Exchequer expenditure and of taxation, have entirely changed since it was enacted. Exchequer expenditure was then mainly confined to the Army, Navy, and National Debt—the cost of civil government was very small as compared with those services. But in our day Exchequer expenditure for civil government has been enormously swelled by charges for education, police, and prisons, for inspection, for poor law; sanitary purpose and for all the multifarious needs of our modern civilisation, which, 100 years ago were hardly included in it at all. Again, with regard to taxation, the whole system is changed. Of course it has been said that we have

  1641
  all the information we require in the proceedings of the late Royal Commission. That is not so, because the late Royal Commission approached this matter from an entirely different point of view. They were obliged to do so by their order of reference. We approach it from the Unionist point of view. They were directed to approach it from the Home Rule point of view; and, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley has stated, you must consider this subject from those two different points of view in a totally different way. But does the Report of the Royal Commission even express their opinion on this subject? They say in the first place, that "identity of taxation does not necessarily involve equality of burden." That is a very wise axiom; but they do not proceed to show how it is applicable to the circumstances of the present day, or whether it is applicable at all. They say that "the increase of taxation laid on Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified by the then existing circumstances;" but they do not say that increase of taxation ought now to be repealed, any more, than did the hon. Members from Ireland who spoke this evening. They did not deal with anything beyond the narrow scope of this joint Report, signed by different persons holding so many different views. Well, obviously there can be no desire to repeal the taxation proposed in 1853. No witness before the Royal Commission suggested the repeal of the income-tax in Ireland, and no person of authority has suggested its repeal there is no grievance on the subject of direct taxation at all. Why? Because, as some of the Commissioners discovered, while by the taxable capacity of Ireland 1–20th would be her share of direct taxation, the proportion paid is only 1–23rd. ["Hear, hear!"] I can conceive that Great Britain might have something to say on the subject of direct taxation if that is to be considered not as between individuals, in which case it is fair enough as it stands, but as between countries. Now, take our system of death duties. We have a system of death duties heavily graduated against larger properties and under which the smallest properties are entirely exempt. Is it not obvious that under such a system the country in which the largest proportion
  1642
  of rich men die may, through the system of graduation, pay a great deal more to the death duties in proportion to the total amount of property assessed to the death duties than is paid in the country where there is a small number of rich men? ["Hear. Hear!"] Take Schedule A of the Income tax. You have landed property in Great Britain assessed on the total rental, which in Great Britain belongs to the, landlord, but the total rental in Ireland is divided between the tenant right and the interest of the landlord, and only the part of it which belongs to the landlord can be assessed, because the income of the tenant will nearly always come below the income tax limit. Again, when a large property is bought by a number of tenant purchasers, the, total value of the property remains the same, but while before it was broken up it paid income tax under Schedule A, after it is broken up it will not pay income tax at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, the total amount assessed to income tax in Great Britain may very likely not fairly represent the real wealth of that country as compared with the total amount assessed for income tax in Great Britain. ["Hear, hear!"] I ought to ask pardon for detaining the House upon these points, but they are points that were not investigated at all by the Royal Commission; and if full consideration is to be given to taxable capacity they are points that ought to be considered. Now I come to that part of taxation in regard to which grievances are alleged; it is, of course, indirect taxation. I wish the, House first to notice how totally different our system of indirect taxation is in these days to anything that existed in the early part of the century. Of course, the proviso with regard to exemptions and abatements must apply primarily to indirect taxation; that is obvious. 1816 what was the system of Customs duties in Great Britain and also in Ireland? There were nearly 500 articles in both countries subject to Customs duties, and there were nearly 1,600 different rates of duty on those articles. Everything was taxed—necessaries of life, luxuries—everything. I think the only articles that were free were, oddly enough, bullion, diamonds, turbots, lobsters, and fish of British and Irish catching. [Laughter.] Ireland had an advantage in lower Customs duties on the important articles salt, wood, and coals. There

  1643
  were also very large Excise duties in both countries, and Ireland had considerable advantage in those. But the whole system of taxation was a system of levying revenue in every possible way, and on every article that could by any possibility be taxed. Well, compare that with the system of the present day, a system under which indirect taxation is only levied on a very few articles of large consumption producing a very great revenue. What was Lord Castlereagh's intention as to the application of the proviso as to exemptions and abatements? His words have been quoted by the hon. Member for Longford, but I ask no pardon for quoting them again. He said abatements might be made on some out of many articles where a high duty was unproductive or pressed hardly on the poor. Well, nobody can say of the present system of indirect taxation that it is unproductive. Anyone who has studied the returns of revenue for the past few years will see that the revenue has been increasing largely from both direct and indirect taxation. But increases in revenue from direct taxation have been due mainly to an increase in taxes; whereas increases in revenue from indirect taxation have been due, generally speaking, to a greater consumption of the articles taxed. That does not look as if our present system of indirect taxation pressed hardly upon the people. It is elastic, and our system of direct taxation is not. But it is said that this is not the case in Ireland. I have seen a calculation which I fancy is not very far from the truth, that if the, principal articles subject to indirect taxation were not consumed more largely per head in Ireland now than they were 35 years ago the taxation in Ireland would be automatically reduced to the extent of £1,300,000. I do not think it will be, and as Chancellor of the Exchequer I cannot say that I particularly desire that it should be. I merely wish to point out that in this automatic growth of revenue from indirect, taxation Ireland has taken her share. It is argued that the articles on which our indirect taxation is levied are necessaries of life, and the main grievance turns upon that assertion. For the sake of argument I will eliminate for the present from consideration the article of tea. It is pretty well known that our indirect taxation is mainly de-
  1644
  rived from the duties on tea, alcohol, and tobacco. I eliminate tea because it is more a necessary of life than the others, and also because, if the whole duty on tea were repealed to-morrow Ireland would only benefit by about half a million a year. The main Irish grievance with regard to indirect taxation arises from the taxation upon alcohol and tobacco. Now it is argued that they are necessaries of life. Why are they necessaries of life to the Irishman more than to the Englishman or Scotchman? I have never heard that question answered. [Laughter.] The Highlander, the inhabitant of the Hebrides, has the same Celtic nature; he is surrounded by the same melancholy sea; he lives in the same moist climate as the inhabitant of the west of Ireland. Why does he not want whisky as a necessary of life quite as much as the Irishman? [Laughter and an HON. MEMBER: "He does!"] Why is the inhabitant of the slums of Cork or Dublin more subject to the depressing influence of poverty, more in need of stimulants to counteract it, than the equally unhappy inhabitant of the slums of Whitechapel or Bethnal Green? If alcohol be a necessary of life for the other it is also a necessary of life for the other. ["Hear, hear!"] But is it a necessary of life to either? I will put a case. Mr. Childers occupied an important part of his Report with an argument as to the comparative change in the circumstances of Great Britain and Ireland in the last 50 years. He alluded to the advance of Great Britain in wealth as being much greater than the advance of Ireland. He argued that the policy of free trade had benefited Great Britain as a mainly industrial country, but had rather injured Ireland as a mainly agricultural country, and that view was adopted by the hon. Member for Longford tonight. Mr. Childers went on to suggest that it would benefit Ireland if part of the duties on tea and tobacco were transferred to foreign meat, live stock, and dairy produce. Now, if I were to come down to the House before Easter and propose such a transfer, what would happen in the holidays? [Laughter.] Why, the right hon. Member for Montrose and all his colleagues would go to the country and denounce me as proposing a tax on the food of the people and the necessaries of life. ["Hear, hear!"] He and his colleagues have been for years responsible

  1645
  in the past, and I dare say will be responsible in the future, for duties on tea and tobacco. Does that not prove that there is some difference at any rate between the position of tea and tobacco on the one side, and meat and dairy, produce on the other, and that the term "necessaries of life" cannot be applied in the same degree to those two classes of commodities? But I press the matter further. The right hon. Gentleman considers alcohol a necessary of life. [Mr. J. MORLEY: "No!"] Oh yes he does. ["No!" and laughter.] Well, I will not put it quite so strongly. He concurred with the right hon. Member for Fife in describing alcohol as much a necessary of life as clothes to a man at the North Pole. [Laughter.] That was the comparison of the right hon. Member for Fife. It was a little ridiculed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and, speaking, after my right hon. Friend, of course the right hon. Gentleman supported his colleague. [Laughter.] I hope he may be able to explain it [Laughter.] Because I am puzzled by the recollection that the right hon. Member and all his colleagues in the late Government were promoters of a certain Bill called the Local Veto Bill—[laughter]—the object of which was to allow a majority in a district to prevent a minority of the inhabitants from obtaining the necessaries of life. [Renewed laughter.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have characterised argument on this subject as pedantic; but we should be very glad if they would explain themselves and show how these articles which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer of all parties have considered fit subjects for high taxation, which Parliament has always considered fit subjects for high taxation, which hon. Members below the Gangway now consider fit subjects for high taxation—are necessaries of life in the ordinary use of the term. No, Sir, what they are is this—they are articles largely and generally consumed by a11 classes in this country, the duty on which necessarily falls more heavily on the poorer classes who consume them than on the richer classes who consume them; and the balance is made up by our system or direct taxation. That is the real position. But now, what is the suggestion which I find on the Notice
  1646
  Paper, but which has not been moved, as to the course which we might take with regard to this question? The hon. Member for Longford has not suggested, no one has suggested, the abolition or reduction of existing taxes; but a suggestion has been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dublin, that, having regard to the disproportionate tax revenue contributed by Ireland, it is desirable that the Government should propose remedial legislation calculated to develop the resources of Ireland, and to increase the capacity of her people to bear taxation. I believe the suggestion that in lieu of reducing taxation which really is not felt oppressively by anybody—["oh!"]—if it were, you would be able to tell me what tax I should reduce—larger,grants should be made from the common purse either towards local taxation in Ireland, or, as my right hon. Friend suggests, for reproductive purposes in Ireland, has been very favourably entertained by many persons in Ireland. I am not sure that it did not receive the blessing of the hon. Member for Waterford himself. But now let me see what that means. It means the absolute repudiation, to begin with, of the extraordinary doctrine that you are to take Ireland into consideration as a separate entity in matters of taxation, but not in matters of expenditure. It means that it is absurd to argue that the grievance, whatever it be, would be abolished if, for instance, you got rid of the existing duties on spirits and on beer in Ireland, but it would not be touched if you gave 20 millions a year to Ireland for reproductive purposes, or towards the reduction of local taxation. I confess I should prefer, on purely Unionist principles of finance, to consider this matter from the point both of common taxation and common expenditure, with a fair and due regard to the needs and wants of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. But when Irishmen themselves, led by my right hon. Friend, whose exertions in the cause of self-help in the material interests of Ireland are worthy of all praise, ask us to remedy their grievance by giving them larger grants from the Imperial purse, in justice to the ratepayers of England and Scotland, we must consider how Irish taxation is already

  1647
  expended? The hon. Member who preceded me in this Debate cast, I am afraid, very grave doubts upon the Treasury Returns, and said some things with regard to the Treasury which were generally so unpleasant that I would rather not refer to them. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite from Ireland, and I dare say hon. Members on this side also, will not accept the Treasury calculations as to the division between the common expenditure of the United Kingdom and the expenditure for local purposes in different parts of the United Kingdom as conclusive. Two members of the Commission—Mr. Childers and Sir David Barbour—suggested that the nature of the public expenditure in Ireland, and the possibility of reducing it, would be it very proper subject for a separate inquiry. The O'Conor Don declined to admit, on behalf of himself and his colleagues, the estimate, of Irish local expenditure as set forth in the Treasury returns as correct. He said that a more careful and detailed examination of the figures was necessary. Mr. Sexton and the hon. Member for Longford said that no systematic inquiry had been attempted by the Royal Commission, and that no definite opinion could be offered without detailed inquiry on the calculations of the Treasury as to the adjustment between the revenue collected in Ireland and that contributed by her. I do not profess to put forward this evening anything which I could ask the House to accept, even as my own final conclusions upon this point. But this I will say: The Treasury have done their best, and they estimate, with regard to the year 1895–96, that the total revenue of Ireland for all purposes was £8,034,000, that of that revenue £5,938,000 was expended in Irish local services, and.£2,095,000 only on imperial services. Now, if we are to deal with this, as my right hon. Friend presses me to deal with it, on the lines of separate taxation and separate expenditure, I am obliged to say that the only real burden upon Ireland is, not the total taxation which she pays, but that amount
  1648
  of it which is devoted to the common expenditure of the country. And, in passing, I would add, when we are charged in this matter with robbery and plunder, and when we are told in the matter of taxation that there is an economic drain from Ireland, that more than the £2,095,500 which I have named was actually expended in Ireland upon the maintenance of the soldiers quartered there, so that, as a matter of fact, in that year the whole Irish taxation was expended in Ireland itself. [Cheers.] This £2,095,000 is but one-thirty-second of the total common expenditure of the United Kingdom as calculated by the Treasury, instead of the one-twentieth which ought to be Ireland's contribution, according to the estimate of her taxable capacity by the Royal Commission. [Cheers.] Between the years 1785 and 1791, years of peace, Ireland contributed one part to 22½ parts contributed by the United Kingdom to Imperial expenditure. In the year 1819–20 she contributed 7'28 per cent. of the total Imperial expenditure, and in 1895–96 she contributed only 3·01 per cent.
  MR. T. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the populations?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am talking of the contribution. Her taxation was increased, no doubt, between 1853 and 1860; but how has it been spent? In the year 1859–60 70 per cent. of the revenue raised in Ireland was spent for the common purposes of the United Kingdom, and 30 per cent. only for Irish local services. In the year 1895–96, 26 per cent. of the revenue raised in Ireland was spent for Imperial purposes—common expenditure—and 74 per cent. on Irish Local services. Well may Sir David Barbour say in his Report:—
  "If Ireland pays more revenue in proportion to her resources, she receives back the whole of the excess and at least £1,000,000 in addition in expenditure for Irish purposes."
  As a matter of fact, if we were to give back to Ireland now, from the common purse, the £2,691,000 which hon. Members below the Gangway opposite claim, the result would be that Ireland would contribute nothing whatever to the common expenditure of the United Kingdom,

  1649
  but would receive a tribute from England and Scotland of £600,000 for her own purposes. [Cheers.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is England running Ireland at a loss? [Nationalist cheers and Ministerial cries of"Order."]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Of course, the answer to this is that the expenditure from the Exchequer upon Irish local services is too large. No doubt it is very large—[Nationalist cries of "Why?"]—if you compare it either with revenue or population.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Then end the partnership.[Nationalist cheers and Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR THE EXCHEQUER: The Irish revenue from all sources is 7½ per cent. of the revenue of the United Kingdom from all sources. The Exchequer expenditure on local services in Ireland is 15½ per cent. of the total expenditure of the United Kingdom from the Exchequer for local services. In Ireland 26s. per head of the population is spent by the Exchequer on local services, and 18s. 8d. in Great Britain. If you exclude the collection of revenue and the postal service from the definition of local services, 21s. 5d. per head is the expenditure on local services in Ireland, and only 12s. per head in Great Britain. ["What are local services?" and "What about the Secret Service?"] If Irish taxation were reduced according to the estimate of taxable capacity laid down by the Commissioners, Ireland would give absolutely nothing to Imperial expenditure, but there would be a deficit of £500,000 a year for local services alone. [Mr. T. M. HEALY: "Give us back our country!" and cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKER: I beg that hon. Members will not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman who is in possession of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think we listened very patiently to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford—[cheers]—and I claim to be heard on such a question as this. ["Hear, hear!"] It is said that this local expenditure in Ireland is monstrous and excessive. It has been said by Mr. Sexton that, it is a flagrant evil. It was argued not long ago by a very eminent prelate, Bishop O'Dwyer, of Limerick, that it is forced upon Ire-
  1650
  land by this Parliament. He contended that the expenditure on the Land Court was due to the Imperial Parliament; as if Land Courts would ever have been instituted at all if the matter had been left to English Members to decide. [A laugh.] He contended that the expenditure for the constabulary was excessive. I do not know why Irishmen should not pay for keeping the peace if they insist on—[An HON. MEMBER: "Breaking it,"and loud laughter.] He described the present system of elementary education as forced upon Ireland by the British Parliament. I can only say that time after time I have known Irish Nationalist representatives press us to increase the expenditure on this system of education. But, of course, we are told that this expenditure would be, decreased, perhaps by three millions a year, by the change which would result from Home Rule in Ireland. I have always doubted that assertion; it is an hypothesis quite incapable of proof on either side. I would just ask the House, before they accept it, to consider for one moment what are the elements of this expenditure. Why is it so large? It is large not so much because Irish local administration costs more as because the Exchequer provides for more of it. ["Hear, hear!"] That is the real truth of the matter. For every pound that is spent in local administration in Ireland the Exchequer pays 13s. 6d., while the rates pay only 6s. 6d. For every pound that is spent on local administration in Great Britain the Exchequer pays 9s. 6d. and the rates pay 10s. 6d. [Cheers.] That is the main secret of this large Irish expenditure. The expenditure from the Exchequer upon Irish local services exceeds by £2,165,000 a year what it would be if it was in the same proportion to the population as it is in England. Now, how is this made up? Port of it, no doubt, is due, in my humble opinion, to excessive cost of, for instance, the Irish legal and judicial establishments—["hear, hear!"]—which I should be very glad to see reduced—[cheers]—and if hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will help us to reduce them, I promise that they shall have back for other purposes every penny they save. But the main part of it—no less than £1,570,000 of the £2,165,000—is due to the cost of services undertaken and provided for by the State in

  1651
  Ireland, but not in England, and by charges on the Exchequer for Irish local services, a great part of which in England falls on the local rates. For example, the whole cost of police in Ireland, instead of half of it as in. England, falls on the Exchequer; and nearly the whole cost of elementary education, instead of two-thirds of it as in England, is borne by the Exchequer. I do not want to argue to-night whether that is right or wrong—["hear, hear!"]—but I would say that I think the fact I have stated shows the large Exchequer expenditure in Ireland cannot all be set down to extravagance, nor can it be called a necessary incident of a centralised and unpopular government. What has happened is this. Ireland has anticipated the rest of the United Kingdom in obtaining a larger transfer of the burthen of local services from the rates to the Exchequer than England or Scotland. That policy, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sorry to say, is becoming increasingly popular throughout the United Kingdom, and I dare say Ireland will have her full share of it in the future. I have noticed that, while I have been quoting these figures as shortly as I could, hon. Members below the Gangway have been inclined to dispute them altogether. That is precisely my case. I do not quote them as authoritative. I do not ask hon. Members to accept them as true. I have merely quoted them as primâ facie proof that there is something in this matter which requires further investigation. ["Hear, hear!"] We are asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Dublin, we shall be asked by other hon. Members from Ireland, to meet this grievance by additional grants from the Imperial Exchequer. I have endeavoured to show how the accounts, so far as the Treasury are aware, stand now. The whole account may require rectification. That is my case. I wish for an inquiry into this matter by an impartial tribunal. I want an inquiry into it by persons whose verdict may be accepted as conclusive by hon. Members below the Gangway as well as by ourselves, and I maintain that it cannot be
  1652
  controverted that this inquiry has formed no part whatever of the work of the late Royal Commission, and that it cannot, as Lord Farrer has suggested, be fairly and properly settled merely by Treasury Returns. We desire in this matter to do full justice to the claim of Ireland, aye, and of Scotland too—["hear, hear!"]—under the proviso as to particular exemptions and abatements in the Act of Union; we desire that the facts as to expenditure shall be also carefully investigated; and when those facts are fully ascertained, when the meaning of that proviso is laid down and its application to our existing circumstances is shown by a tribunal in whose verdict both sides may have confidence, then I can assure the House it will be our desire to endeavour to do full justice in this matter to the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. But under this one condition—we will take no step whatever to depart from that system of common taxation which was established in 1817—["hear, hear!"]—we will do nothing to impair either the financial or the political permanence of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland—[cheers]—least of all will we give any countenance to the monstrous doctrine that any part of the United Kingdom should be relieved from its fair obligation to contribute to the necessities of the National Debt, of the Army and of the Navy, and to the maintenance of our great Empire. [Cheers.]
  SIR EDWARD CLARKEmoved the Adjournment of the Debate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not rise, of course, to object to my hon. and learned Friend's Motion. I understand that the Debate is to close on Wednesday evening, and therefore I will not contend for the other ten minutes
  Debate Adjourned till To-morrow.

MILITARY WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
Third Reading deferred till Thursday.
MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
SUPPLY [26TH MARCH].
Resolution reported.
SUPPLY [26TH MARCH].

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1897–8 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,631,218, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1898, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES—CLASS II.

  £

  Local Government Board

  60,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  40,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  240,000

  Resolution Read a Second time.

  CRETE.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPErose to move, on Class 2, Vote 5 (Salary of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), to reduce the item by £1,666. He said it would be remembered that his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton took advantage of the Committee stage to move a similar reduction in the salary of the Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs, but the First Lord of the Treasury said he thought the opportunity chosen was a bad one, because the Opposition had not thought it proper to raise the subject on a Vote of Censure. He believed the only reason why this matter had not been raised in that way by Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench was because the Leader of au Opposition was unfortunately ill and unable to be in the House. He had no doubt that when the right hon. Gentle man was again amongst them he would seize an early opportunity of taking up that challenge. ["Hear, hear!"] However that might be, it was the duty of independent Members of the Opposition to take every opportunity of raising this question, and particularly at the present moment. Since the last occasion on which they had had a Debate on the question, there had been developments of a most unsatisfactory, dangerous and alarming character in the affairs of Crete. ["Hear, hear!"] The First Lord of the Treasury some three weeks ago told the House that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to secure the peace of Europe and the freedom of the island of Crete, So far as the peace of Europe

  1657
  was concerned, affairs never looked more menacing—100,000 men on one side, and 60,000 men on the other, were prepared to rush into war, and no action on the part of the Concert of Europe seemed likely to prevent it. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, the freedom of Crete was being assisted by the bombardment of the insurgents by the Fleets of the six Powers. ["Hear, hear!"] That night, in answer to a Question by his hon. Friend the Member Northampton, a series of interesting extracts front dispatches was read by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs front the Admiral commanding the British Fleet. That officer gave some exceedingly unsatisfactory details as to the action of the British Fleet in those waters, and it must have been with universal regret that the House heard that British troops had been played into their quarters by Turks to the strain of their national air. [Cheers.] The British Admiral made use of this remarkable expression:—"The general situation in the island is, that the forces of Colonel Vassos have declared war on the Great Powers." He would have said that the Great Powers had declared war on Colonel Vassos and his gallant men, who came as brothers-in-arms to help the Cretans when they were struggling for freedom. ["Hear, hear!"] All sympathy for the Cretans seemed now to have vanished. There was nothing but a desire to use pressure and force in order to prevent the success of Greece, and to impose on the Cretans an autonomy they did not want. ["Hear, hear!"] They had been taunted with having no policy. That was not the case. Their policy was, first, that the Government should signify that all Turkish troops should be immediately withdrawn from Crete; secondly, that they should cooperate with the Greek troops in pacifying the island; and thirdly, that the autonomy should be under Greek influences, with some governor at its head agreeable to Greek ideas, and should be merely a step towards the eventual union of Crete with Greece. ["Hear, hear!"] Let the Government have the courage of their convictions, and unless they could secure freedom in Crete and tranquillity to Europe, let them take no part in that Concert of Europe which had signally failed to perform its objects. They had received tidings of another mas-
  1658
  sacre in Armenia, where, according to different accounts, 400 or 700 Armenians had been slaughtered at Tokat. What had the Concert of Europe done during the last two years in order to save these unhappy Armenians? If they had failed in Armenia, do not let them repeat the blunder in Crete. The Turkish troop had shown a disposition to evacuate Crete. He called upon the Government to show themselves willing, not only to be a member of the Concert of Europe but to be representative of the British people, who were determined that liberty and freedom should not be destroyed. He begged to move the Motion standing in his name.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the House will not follow the hon. Gentleman in repeating these fragmentary, inconclusive, and unsatisfactory Debates upon the difficult question which has now arisen in the East of Europe. ["Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely anxious, as I do not doubt he is, about the freedom of Crete—by which I understand him to mean the freedom of Crete from Turkish domination—I can assure him that his action is absolutely unnecessary. He has asked for a distinct pledge from. Her Majesty's Government on the subject. I confess I had thought that our policy had been stated in the clearest terms before [Cheers.] But if there is any ambiguity hanging over our statements, I now beg to dissipate it for the hon. Gentleman's benefit by declaring, as I do, in the clearest terms that can be used in connection with the subject, that the Great Powers in general, and this country in particular, feel themselves pledged to give autonomy to Crete, and by autonomy we distinctly mean that Crete shall not henceforth be subjected to the domination, in her affairs, of Constantinople and the Porte. [Cheers.] That is a statement which I trust will relieve the hon. Gentleman from the anxiety he tells us he feels on the subject; and, having relieved him from that anxiety, I hope nothing will be done to prolong the Debate, which, if it can have any effect at all—beyond keeping us up to an unusually late hour tonight—would have the effect perhaps of hampering the Government in carrying out a policy which I understand the hon. Gentleman himself approves. That being the case, I trust he will not press his

  1659
  Motion to a Division, and that he and his Friends will agree with me in thinking that the sooner this Debate is brought to a close the better for the general interests of Europe and the dignity of this House. [Cheers.]
  MR. JAMES BRYCEsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that enough had been said when he had pointed out that a pledge of autonomy had been given to Crete. They were all aware that such a pledge had been given; but, what they had said before and what they must repeat now was, that the present situation in Crete was due to the failure of the Powers to take the obvious method of pacifying Crete—namely, the withdrawal of the Turkish troops, which were a standing provocation to disorder in the island. In the second place, they must ask again that there must be a clear declaration of the terms of this promised autonomy. At present it was confined to the word "autonomy"—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I distinctly stated in the clearest terms that autonomy means absolute freedom in local concerns from the control of the Porte. [Cheers.]
  MR. BRYCEsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had permitted him to finish his sentence, he would have understood that what he had desired to convey was that the pledge given in the House was not known to the insurgents of Crete, and that it ought to be made clear to the insurgents that they were to have a Christian governor, that he was to be irremovable by the Porte; and, above all, that, he was to be free from the possibility of all interference from Constantinople. If a plan of that kind were brought to the knowledge of the insurgents, all the information available led to the belief that fighting would cease, and that the removal of the Turkish troops would be followed by the pacification of the island. The serious danger of war which now threatened not only Crete but the northern frontiers of Greece would then be averted. He would not ask for a further pledge in the House, but an assurance that the Government was going to take the obvious method of pacifying Crete, the only alternative to which was a policy of starvation, or the undertaking of military operations against the insurgents. As to the present position of affairs in
  1660
  Asia Minor, it was exceedingly alarming. No steps had been taken, as far as was known, to carry out the reforms initiated by Her Majesty's Government in September last. In September the correspondence began; in January the proposals of the Ambassadors had not been brought before the Powers, and apparently the Powers had not yet considered them. It would be said that the disturbances in Crete had intervened. There had been plenty of time before the Cretan troubles began; and, even new, the position of Crete was accentuating the dangers in Asia Minor. It was a matter of as much urgency to prevent further troubles there as to pacify Crete. There was a significant feature about the massacre of the other day. Tokat and Erbah were the only cities which escaped massacre in 1895. It seemed as though the few places in which the Armenian people were beginning to gather again were to be subjected to further massacres; and it was quite clear from the Blue-books, and from the accounts of travellers, that no massacres occurred in Asia Minor unless with the permission of the Palace. The massacre at Tokat was a serious warning of what must be expected unless drastic measures were taken. The premises of the Sultan and his offers of a Commission of inquiry were mere waste paper. He should think the Government now wished that they had taken the advice offered to them in 1895, and had endeavoured to bring about the Sultan's deposition. It was the only efficient remedy. [Cheers.] Unless some measure of that kind were taken, there would be further revolutionary movements. Agitation was now going on, and these attempted insurrections would probably be followed by further massacres. The whole Turkish Empire seemed to be rapidly drifting to an abyss, and unless the Powers of Europe could rouse themselves and limit its powers terrible calamities would ensue to the Cretan subjects of the Porte, and what would be worse a European war. The only escape from this was to at once apply such coercive powers as would destroy the power of the present ruler of Turkey. Only a few weeks or months might be left within which to avert even worse calamities than those of the last few years.
  MR. DILLONprotested against the proceedings of the Powers described by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs

  1661
  at Question time. He declared that the six Great Powers of Europe had declared war on the insurgents.
  MR. CURZON: I do not say anything of the kind. The hon. Member must not misquote me.
  MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Admirals—who appeared to be the instigators of the situation in Crete—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—had decided on their own responsibility that insurgents in Crete were to be treated as enemies.
  MR. CURZON: I cannot allow these persistent misinterpretations from hon. Members opposite, more especially from the hon. Member. After detailing the constant attacks made by the insurgents on the positions occupied by the Great Powers I said—in the words of the Admirals—that if these attacks were persisted in the Admirals had decided that it would be necessary to treat the insurgents as enemies. [Opposition, cheers.]
  MR. DILLONdenied that the insurgents had attacked any position occupied by the Great Powers. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to point to a single instance. In view of the appalling, condition of things, that the six Great Powers should be aiding the Sultan to put down 200,000 unhappy Christians in Crete who had been for months struggling to save themselves from extermination and assassination, it was outrageous that the right hon. Gentleman, to prejudice the ease of these gallant men, should tell the House what was not true. ["Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman means to say that the right hon. Gentleman stated what he knows was not true, of course it would be entirely out of order; but I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to imply that. [Irish, cheers.]
  MR. DILLONsaid that Mr. Speaker had correctly interpreted his remarks. Although the right hon. Gentleman was at the Foreign Office he did not appear to be correctly informed, and he would tell him what did occur, on the authority of The Times and the Standard. [Ministerial laughter.] He observed with amazement that the Tory Party treated with surprise the authority of The Times and the Standard in this matter. What he was about to read was from an eye-witness, and was telegraphed to and published in the Standard
  1662
  [An HON. Member: "What is his name?"] He is the accredited correspondent of the Standard, a journal favourable to the Tory Party and not very favourable to the Cretan cause. Now what did this gentleman say?—
  "At about two o'clock the insurgents recommenced firing, one of their guns being pushed forward to within 20 yards of the fort, and an hour later the white flag was hoisted. The Turks were being shelled on both sides, and had had nothing to eat or drink for three days. I at once ran down the hill, and found the fort surrounded by about fifteen hundred Cretans, many of whom had their rifles thrust through crevices in the walls, whilst the approach to the gateway was filled by an excited throng. Luckily, five Greek Regular officers were present, and succeeded in temporarily restraining their men until I arrived, and was able to parley through the gate with a Turkish sergeant, who asked my advice as to whether he should open. Seeing no help for it, I counselled him to do so, and at this moment the fleets, mistaking the white flag for the Greek ensign, fired the first of their shells, knocking off a corner of the wall. Both the Turks and Greeks were at a loss to understand their action in firing on a flag of truce. While I was hastening through the archway, another shell smashed the whole of the masonry, burying two or three men, both Turks and Cretans. This led to a general helter-skelter from the doomed fort, everybody running away at the top of their speed."
  No wonder they ran at the top of their speed. [Ministerial laughter.] It was very amusing to hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he said it was a, most infamous and scandalous transaction. [Opposition cheers.] According to these English correspondents the result of the action of the Admirals was in the first place to fire on the white flag, and in the second place to throw shells among Turks and Cretans, the first of which buried the Turks under the masonry of their own fort. The Correspondent of The Times confirmed the statement of the Standard correspondent, and said in addition:—
  "As soon as the Christian artillery had rendered further defence impracticable, the Turks raised a white flag, and the whole body of the adjacent insurgents rushed forward. Luckily for the defenders, the first man to enter the fortress was Manos, a young Oxford man, who leads a band of young Cretans called the Hieros Lochos, whom he has equipped. By his personal exertions, and those of one or two others, the insurgents were prevailed upon to spare the lives of 43 prisoners, who were conveyed to Kontopulo, and afterwards to Alikianu. As the Christians were congratulating themselves on their success, Shells from the European warships drove most

  1663
  of the insurgents to shelter. One heavy shell passed clean through the blockhouse, destroying the greater part of one wall, and killing one Christian and two Turks."
  Was there ever heard of in civilised or uncivilised warfare such an insane and monstrous proceeding as that? [Opposition cheers.] The Correspondent added that the condition of things in Crete was going rapidly from bad to worse; the Admirals were of opinion something should be done, and it was proposed "that the Turkish troops should be forthwith withdrawn as a condition of the restoration of peace." He thought something should be done with the Admirals to restrain their operations. For his part he said the condition of things in Crete was an outrage on common sense, and the almost unanimous sense of the people of this country. It was idle for the First Lord of the Treasury to come down to the House night after night and make appeals to hon. Members not to engage in discussion—
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I did not appeal to the House not to engage in discussion. I appealed to them, if they wished to discuss the matter they should discuss it in a manner in which it can be thoroughly thrashed out, and have the common courage to move a Vote of Censure.[Ministerial Cheers.]
  MR. DILLON(who was received with cries of "Move") said it was the privilege of Leaders of the Opposition to select their own time, and he found no fault with them in having determined not to move a Vote of Censure until the Government had revealed what was heir policy. [Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers.] It was idle for the First Lord to say that the policy of the Government was a policy of freedom for Crete and peace in Europe. He did not pretend to be in the secrets of the Foreign Office or to be an authority on foreign affairs. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] He was as little an authority on foreign affairs as the electors who sent hon. Gentlemen opposite to the House. [Laughter.] When the public read the description given by the special correspondents of British troops marching between lines of Turkish troops through the streets of Candia, played to their quarters by a Turkish band, and returning the compliment by playing the
  1664
  Hamadieh Hymn, he said the feeling would be that the instruments of an English band ought not to be sullied by such strains. [Cheers.] Again, when it was read that on Sunday the British flag was planted side by side with the flag of the Osmanli, on the ramparts of the walls of Candia, in presence of the population of the town, it was idle to say that the Cretans believed that England came to them as friends. [Cheers.] If the Government really meant to win the confidence of the insurgents and to get them to forget the broken promises and the betrayals of last autumn, they ought not to go to them in company with their oppressors and slaughterers. The situation was an outrage on common sense and a mockery. In spite of all the pledges of the Powers, Canea was handed over in February last to a scene of carnage, plunder, and outrage. If the insurgents of Crete were wise men they would keep their arms in their hands. [Cheers.] They could not trust the pledges of the Government. [Cheers.] They could not trust to the friendship of the Admirals, which was only known to them in the form of bursting shells. They could not trust to the military officers at the head of the British troops when they saw them hobnobbing with their oppressors. The insurgents could only trust to three things: to that nation which had never deserted them through centuries of persecution and torture, to the inaccessible nature of their mountains, and to the public opinion of Europe, which, He trusted would yet rise to their relief. The Powers were now to treat them as enemies. What had been their treatment for the last fortnight? In one hand a proclamation of liberty, and on the other hand districts of the island were by blockade reduced to starvation. It would be just is well for the Under Secretary to speak the truth at once, that the public might know what was being done in their name and by English armaments against a people struggling to be free, for he believed the Government would find before long that public opinion was opposed to their action. ["Oh, oh!"]
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): I do not know whether the speech to which we have just listened should be more correctly

  1665
  described as an outrage or as a farce. [Cheers and cries of "Oh, oh!"] It is an outrage if one expects, in a speech on an important, question in this House, that any attention should be paid by the speaker to truth or reason or fact. [Ministerial cheers.] It is a farce if one expects from such a speech any effect whatever except one of disgust in the mind of the public. [Ministrial cheers.] I have not risen to continue this Debate. ["Oh, oh!"] I have not risen even to repel the charges against myself which the hon. Member has thought fit to make.
  MR. DILLON: Because you are not able to. [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. CURZON: I have at least as much capacity to defend myself as the hon. Member has to make unmannerly interruptions. [Ministerial cheers; Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] I have not risen to defend myself, because, after all, it has merely been my duty to read to the House the official information that we have received from our representatives acting under circumstances of great responsibility and difficulty in Crete—[Ministerial Cheers]—reports which are not lightly to be brushed aside or put aside either on the strength of what may appear in the newspapers or still less on the ipse dixit of the hon. Member for East Mayo. [Ministerial cheers.] The hon. Gentleman has boldly charged the Government with having taken the side of Turkey. ["Hear, hear!"] That charge is absolutely false. [Cheers.] On behalf of the Government I repel it and deny it in toto. [Cheers.] Considering that it has been due to Her Majesty's Government, in the first place, that Crete has been taken from Turkey—[ironical Nationalist laughter and cheers]—and autonomy has been promised and guaranteed to Crete; that the Turkish Government have been prevented from sending reinforcements to the island; that the Turkish troops have been confined within the coast-ports and garrisons of the island; that it has been due to the action of the international troops that the lives of thousands of Christians have been saved; that it has been due to their action that the lives of thousands of Mussulmans, who, after all, are Greeks quite as much as the Christians, have also been saved; considering that the only thing that now stands in the way of a war of absolute
  1666
  extermination in the island is the presence, of the contingents of the Great Powers and their action, I say it is a monstrous travesty and perversion of the truth to say that the Powers have taken the side of Turkey as against the side of Crete. [Cheers.] Then the hon. Member takes the case of Candia, and says that the contingents of the Powers have there intervened in the interests of the Mussulmans, and he makes a great point about this incident in the streets of the town. I can tell him this—if the troops of the Great Powers had not been landed in Candia many thousands of his friends the insurgents might not be alive at this moment. [Cheers.] He owes it to the action of the Powers that their lives have been saved, and if he cares little or nothing for Mussulinans, even when they are Greeks, as his action when the relief of Candano took place the other day showed—["hear, hear!"]—let him at least show some consideration on behalf of those for whom he professes to speak, but who, I venture to say, would disown any such spokesman. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!" and cheers.] The hon. Member has made a great point about the action of the Admirals during the past few days, and he says that the insurgents are not threatening the posts occupied by the Powers.—[Mr. DILLON: "I said 'attacking.'"]—Well, that they do not attack the positions occupied by the Powers. But what are the facts? The positions occupied by the Powers are commanded by a number of outposts and blockhouses. Does the hon. Member contend that the forces of the Powers are to sit still in the towns and to allow these outposts in the surrounding hills to be occupied by the insurgents, with guns borrowed front the Greeks, with which they are to bombard, and turn out the forces of the Powers from their positions?
  MR. DILLON: What I said was that if there was that danger, the troops of the Powers ought to get between the Turks and the insurgents. [Loud laughter.]
  MR. CURZON: I confess that the ideas of the hon. Member as a military strategist fill me with dismay, and I cannot help feeling glad for the sake of the insurgents in the island that they are not led by a gentleman with the military ideas of the hon. Member. [Laughter.] I was pointing out when the hon. Member interrupted me that the insurgents had

  1667
  been steadily occupying these positions which command the towns, that they had done so in distinct violation and disregard of warnings addessed to them over and over again by the Admirals, that they knew perfectly well the consequences that would ensue from this advance, and that any attack or bombardment to which they may have been subjected was therefore invited by them. To represent such movements as movements on behalf of the Turk or as hostile movements directed against the insurgents qua insurgents, or as an outrage on humanity, is a complete perversion of fact. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that the policy of the Powers was directed not merely to the extermination of the insurgents, but to the starvation of the people. [Nationalist cheers.] What right has he to say so? (Several HON. MEMBERS: "Facts!" and cheers.] By facts the Opposition merely mean what they cull from the newspapers. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman is quite unaware of the fact that the Admirals have taken special measures to consider this matter of the food supplies to the people and that they have taken steps and are taking steps to supply provisions to the peaceable inhabitants of the island—[Ironical Opposition laughter.]—so far as the conditions permit them to do so. I have nothing more to add. [Ironical laughter.] I have risen only to repel the most unfair charge brought by the hon. Gentleman to the effect that this country or that the Powers in general are taking one side against the other. Their one object is the restoration of peace and order in the island, and I am bound to say that the attitude taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite—not, I admit, on the Front Bench—[Mr. LABOUCHERE: "Yes, Bryce!" laughter—but below the Gangway—is an attitude that is not likely to help the Government or to help the Powers in the duty which they have set before them. [Ministerial cheers.]
  AN IRISH MEMBER: "Tommy rot!" [Laughter.]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If I knew the hon. Member who made use of that expression, I should call the attention of the House to his conduct. [Ministerial cheers.]
  SIR R. REIDsaid he did not think any advantage would
  1668
  be gained by entering upon or continuing any spirit of recrimination. The matter to his mind was far too serious; but, accepting the entire accuracy of all the statements of the Under Secretary, was it not a fair inference to the Gentlemen who supported the Government that the present was a very serious position? Cheers and counter cheers.] The policy which the Government had thought wise in the interests of the pacification of Crete had led them into rather a false position. They commenced by reprobating the conduct of Greece, and in consequence of that they proceeded to blockade Crete. He did not see the logic of that position. ["Hear, hear!"] Further they had issued a proclamation which he thought ought to be submitted to the criticism of the House at the earliest possible moment. [Cheers and counter cheers.] He believed that it was going contrary to international law, and when the matter came to be discussed he thought it would be very difficult for the Law Officers to defend a proclamation in which he could not but think from its contents they had no serious part. In addition to that they found that the attempts towards the pacification of Crete were placing us practically in a position of war—of hostile operations, at all events—against the insurgents in the island. He could not help feeling that such operations as the bombardment reported this morning of a village containing nothing but women and children, though they might be lightly cheered by thoughtless supporters of the Government, did not commend themselves to the sober judgment of the older and more experienced Members of the House. [Cheers.] Nobody who thought of it could doubt that this was an extremely grave and serious question. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not intend to dwell upon it, because the subject had so many sides, and could be considered from so many points of view—for example, its bearing on the whole aspect of the Eastern question—["hear, hear"]—that it could not be adequately debated in sporadic discussions. [Ministerial cheers.] His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley was bound, as they had been bound from time to time, to bring it forward, on such occasions as they could command. An offer had been made by the Leader of the House—[Ministerial Cheers]—to the

  1669
  Leader of the Opposition of a day for the full discussion of this subject. He had not the slightest intimation as to what course might be taken by his right hon. Friend, but he did not doubt that he would take a wise course. In his opinion he was bound to say the wise course was to raise as soon as possible, in such a fashion that they might be able to record their opinion in that House—[Ministerial cheers]—the whole question of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in Crete. [Cheers and counter cheers] For his part he most deeply deplored that policy. He believed it was unwise, and he could not help thinking that it was now creeping into the minds of some of the friends of the Government and of some Members of the Government itself that it was not so wise and successful as they anticipated. But whether it was right or wrong, he hoped they would have—and he could not doubt from the wisdom of the Leader of the Opposition that they would have—an early opportunity of placing their real views fairly before the House, and of taking the judgment of the House, leaving upon those who chose to support the Government in its policy the heavy responsibility of the course they had adopted. [Cheers.]
  MR. JOHN ELLISdesired to associate himself entirely both as to matter and tone with what had just fallen from his hon. and learned Friend. He hoped with his hon. and learned Friend that very soon an opportunity might be found and seized of enabling the House to discuss this question in all its length and breadth. He fully acknowledged the gravity of the issues raised. He noticed that his right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs on Friday night deprecated this question being drawn into the pure Party cauldron. He ventured to deprecate that also, and he believed that there was a great deal more unanimity on this question on both sides of the House as to the way in which the honour, dignity, reputation, and power of this great country should be used in the East, than was sometimes supposed. He did hope they would no Longer be obliged to raise this question in a sporadic manner, as these occasions did not afford to anyone the opportunity to which he was entitled of stating his opinions fairly to the House. Three were
  1670
  many points which occurred to him on hearing the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whose manner certainly left something to be desired. It was not the function of the Under Secretary to treat his colleagues in the House in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman sometimes did. It was always a pleasure to approach the right hon. Gentleman privately, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman would in his place show a little, of that perfect courtesy of Manner which he did in private. But he rose particularly to join with the hon. and learned member for Dumfries in the expression of the hope that they would have an early opportunity of going into this matter in all its details.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the pure forms of the Constitution were observed in reference to the movement of the forces of the Crown, he took it that without any Vote of Censure they would have an opportunity of expressing their view upon the present situation. The expenditure of money on the movement of the Seaforth Highlanders to Crete was a matter on which the House must sooner or later have an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion without the moving of a Vote of Censure. Let him say one word of warning to hon. Gentlemen opposite respecting a Vote of Censure, Hon. Gentleman hoped that the voting on a Vote of Censure would end the opposition to their policy. He remembered circumstances not dissimilar to the present about the time of the treaty of San Stefano. The Leader of the Opposition, Lord Hartington, was unwilling to move a Vote of Censure upon the policy of the Government. A private Member of great authority, Mr. Gladstone, proposed to move a Vote of Censure, but only 110, half the Liberal Party, could be found to promise him their support. What happened? Within three years the country undoubtedly pronounced upon the side of the 110 Members of the House of Commons. At the present time he believed there was a far stronger feeling of profound dissatisfaction in the country at the policy which the Government were pursuing than there was at the policy which was being pursued at the time of which he spoke. The defence of their policy made by the Government was mainly

  1671
  comprised in the application by Lord Salisbury to the action of the Greek Government and the King of the Hellenes of the term filibustering. The hon. Member cheered that he had the courage of his opinions. [A laugh.] If they looked at the history of Crete, at its connection with Greece on the mainland, if they looked at history, how could they term the Greeks filibusters? The hon. Member, no doubt, had prayed for the success of Garibaldi. His expedition was welcomed universally, and he was praised and fêted as a hero. England employed her strength to prevent the Great Powers menacing him, and now in a case enormously stronger, they applied the term filibuster which the hon. Member himself dared not apply to Garibaldi. They had followed the lead of Germany, who would not herself send troops into this hornets' nest. ["Hear, hear!"] They had placed their fleet under the command of the Italian Admiral, who now, to the shame of Italy, herself made free, was taking the lead in crushing down a far stronger case of national aspirations. What was the next step? He feared it would be the holding of the Greeks responsible for the patriotism of their brethren in Crete. It was to him a most painful thing that the House of Commons should have no opportunity up to the present time of pronouncing upon all these facts. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman had given the House very bad history. He told them that the Government of Lord Beaconsfield was defeated in 1880 in consequence of its Eastern policy. The Government of Lord Beaconsfield was defeated for many reasons, but mainly because of the unfortunate condition of trade in this country. [Laughter.] Would anyone deny that if Lord Beaconsfield had gone to the country in 1878, after his triumphant return from Berlin, he would have been returned with an overwhelming majority? The second bit of bad history was comparing Garibaldi's expedition with the expedition of the Greeks to Crete. The Cretans were sure of autonomy before the Greeks went to Crete. They went there, not on behalf of Cretan freedom, but to prevent Cretan autonomy. ["No!"] The great factor which hon.
  1672
  Gentlemen ignored was that there were 70,000 Mussulmans driven from their homes by the Cretan insurgents, whose lives and honour depended absolutely on the protection of the Great Powers. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who had advocated the mutilation of cattle and boycotting, was the last man who ought to interpose—[Loud Irish cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to impute to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo that he has advocated the mutilation of cattle? [Cheers.]
  MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly not in order. [Cheers, and cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!"]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I was referring, Mr. Speaker, to records of the hon. Member's speeches that are printed in the Parnell Commission. [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not use expressions of that kind in reference to an hon. Member sitting in this House. [Cheers.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Of course, Sir, if you rule that I am not allowed to refer to speeches made by the hon. Gentleman I withdraw my statement. He was saying that the hon. Gentleman from his record was the last man who ought to pose as a Christian philanthropist in the House. [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman who misrepresented the action of the British Admiral, and cast a slur on our gallant soldiers because they marched into a town where Turkish troops were stationed, to whose good conduct every officer, English and foreign, in Crete had borne witness, had not said a word of pity for these unfortunate Mussulmans. The hon. Gentleman had not a single word of pity for these Cretan Mussulmans, although in the same paper he had quoted, he might have read an account of the atrocious massacre of hundreds Of them who were deluded by false promises to give up their arms, and were taken out from the mosques in which they had taken refuge, and barbarously murdered. When the truth was known he did not believe the people of this country would hold the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he sincerely hoped the House would have an opportunity of having a complete Debate on this question. When they did he was satisfied the

  1673
  verdict of the country would be the same as that of the House.
  MR. W. ALLANregretted that the challenge which was given by the First Lord of the Treasury was not accepted by the Leader of the Opposition, as he thought it would have saved a great deal of time and thrown much light on the subject. He endorsed the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken in favour of this matter being thrashed out, either by a Vote of Censure, or by some other mode. He hoped their leaders would accept the challenge. If the Government wanted peace in the island the simplest way would be to order the Turkish troops out of it—["hear, hear!"]—and then call on the insurgents to lay down their arms. What was the use of wasting powder and shell, and getting a lot of barnacles on their ships when it would be so easy to settle the matter? He would ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the Cretans had decided for annexation to Greece why the Government prevented it? And if they wanted to give the Cretans autonomy why did they go to war with them and blockade them? Then, again, he would ask, if they were agreed upon an autonomy to Crete, what was the nature of that autonomy? Autonomy to Crete without the withdrawal of the Turkish troops would be a farce; and he would like to know what it was that prevented England—great and powerful England—to order the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from the island?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that hitherto Members had to walk by faith, but not by sight, in regard to the policy of the Government in the East of Europe. They should like to have some confirmation of their faith vouchsafed to them, and it would be greatly to their advantage that opportunity should be given to the Government to state a little more clearly than those sporadic occasions had given them the opportunity of doing what really was their position in regard to affairs in the East. They had seen very little up to the present calculated to satisfy their aspirations. There were certain things happening in the East which must be obviously distasteful to every Member of the House, and they would be glad to know what was the overwhelming necessity which compelled
  1674
  this country to accept those painful results. He wanted, for instance, to see the reason why the English troops in Crete should not be confined to the strictest limits in their intercourse with the Turkish troops. Considering the work the Turkish troops had recently been engaged in, and considering the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed in Crete, it would be desirable if the Government could give orders to the British officers and soldiers in Crete that they should confine their communications with the Turkish troops within those limits demanded of them in the strictest discharge of their duty. He also thought that some assurance should be given that, in following the lead of Germany and Russia, nothing would be done antagonistic to the policy which, as a free nation, this country had always pursued. The House would also like to be assured, while these tremendous sacrifices of the traditions, principles and immediate interests of this country were being made, that Germany, that great Power at whose tail we were being dragged—[loud cheers from the Opposition Benches, and from Mr. DILLON in particular]. There was no one in the House who valued the cheers of hon. Members opposite less than he did. And when he heard the hon. Member for East Mayo agreeing in these views of his he felt shaken in them; for the hon. Member belonged to a Party which expressed the hope that Her Majesty's ships should be sunk, and that Her Majesty's troops should be defeated. [Ministerial cheers.] But what were the convincing reasons which should reconcile the country to the present course? It had been truly said that there were many on the Ministerial side of the House who were truly anxious to be able to support Her Majesty's Government. They really believed that it would be to the advantage of the country if an opportunity could be given to the Government to explain more fully what were their hopes in calling on the country to make these great sacrifices. Because every step of the present policy could only be justified by some overwhelming public advantage. It was an absolute contradiction of the past traditions of both sides of the House in foreign policy. There might be great emergencies in which this policy was inevitable, and if it were crowned with success it would be justified;

  1675
  but there was no sign of success. He hoped the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division would be able to persuade his leaders to give the House this Debate, and he would then deserve the thanks of Members on both sides of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Irish Members now had a special interest in the British Navy, for, according to the Act of Union Ireland paid about one-fifteenth of all the shells which were flung into Crete. Therefore to that extent he wished to associate himself with the inquiries to Her Majesty's Government. The Leader of the House made an observation which had considerable force from the point of view of Party tactics. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Opposition why they did not move a Vote of Censure. But there might be Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House not willing to take part in a Vote of Censure, who wished to see the best thing done for the people of Crete, without any regard to Party advantage on one side or the other. His point was that those who spoke "On the true faith of a Christian," did not desire to see people believing in Christ and His Virgin Mother massacred as they had been by the abominable Turks. Last year he put questions to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs relative to the burning of priests in their own churches in Crete, on pyres made of pictures torn from these churches. The First Lord of the Treasury had said that night that the Great Powers—and England foremost among them—were willing to give the Cretans autonomy. He did not know any Greek himself, but he understood one word—"autonomy" [Laughter and "hear, hear!"] But the Cretans understood Greek if he did not, and when they were told they would have autonomy they would understand it. He himself understood it as meaning the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island. [Cheers.] Then why should the British Government be assisting to maintain the Turkish garrison in their blockhouses—when ex hypothesis the whole of the Turks must be cleared out. When was autonomy to begin—after the insurgents had been humiliated by defeat? He believed that
  1676
  the policy of the Government, like other articles we consumed in this country, was "made in Germany." [Cheers.] Last year the German Emperor sent his portrait to the Sultan. Although the Government admitted that it was to the German policy they were "tuning up," he believed they were really anxious for the welfare of the Cretans. Yet they allowed the German Emperor, or as Mr. Gladstone, with his splendid courage, called him, "this foolish young man," to dominate the policy that had been pursued in the East. ["Hear, hear!"] He believed the Government were no more in favour of Turkish rule in Crete than he was in favour of English rule in Ireland. He believed they were as much convinced it was a nuisance, as he believed their rule in Ireland to be so. The Government called all this the Concert of the Powers. The only evidence they had of that Concert was the hiss of the shells as they fell in the Christian camp. What a time they were from the battle of Lepanto, when all Europe rejoiced at the defeat of Turkish power! Now English troops were received with the cheers of the Turks, and sent shells into the blockhouses when the Cretans happened to take them. He was only concerned for the lives and liberties of this poor agricultural people, and he said to the Government—make the Turks withdraw first, and then settle whether it was to be autonomy or junction with Greece.
  MR. ROBERT PIERPOINTprotested against the sympathy of the Opposition being limited to the Christian population, while the Mussulmans, who were in the proportion of about one to four of the Christian population, were designated as Turks. There was nothing at all strange that when an English force landed at Canea it should be welcomed by the Turkish, soldiers and the other occupying forces. That was perfectly natural, because the population of Canea was nearly entirely Mussulman. As far as he knew of the island there was nothing whatever, if there could only be a strong Government at the head of affairs, to prevent the Mussulmans and Christians living together in perfect peace and amity. But as long as there was a force of insurgents

  1677
  in the island, all of them Christian insurgents, who had been committing just as great cruelties on the Mussulmans as ever the Mussulmans of the island had committed on the Christians, it was necessary that there should be some force to prevent the Mussulmans from being treated in the manner in which the insurgents would undoubtedly treat them if they had the power. There was nothing to prevent the two religions of the same race living together in perfect amity. In the Island of Cyprus the population was practically in the same proportion as the Mussulmans to the Christians in Crete, but in Cyprus there was a strong Government, and thus the two religions were enabled to live in perfect peace and amity, and there was no sign of war between the two races. If the country and the House would have patience and wait, they would find that the peace of Europe would be preserved by the Concert of Europe, and that a strong Government would be established in Crete. Surely it was worth while to have patience and to believe that the best was being tried, when the peace of the whole world was endangered for an island with a population only as large as that of one of our moderately large towns.
  Question put, "That £10,631,218 stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 163: Noes, 60.£(Division List, No. 152.)
  Resolution agreed to

DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL
Second reading deferred till Thursday.
METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next
PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE BILL.
Second Reading deferred till. Thursday.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading [22nd March] further adjourned till Thursday.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNINNG) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
KINGSTOWN HARBOUR ROADS TRANSFER BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL, CASES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY (TRANSFER OF PATRONAGE) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Wednesday.
WAREHOUSEMEN'S CERTIFICATES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday 3rd May.
LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
POOR LAW OFFISERS' SUPERANNUATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Heading deferred till Monday next.
POOR LAW OFFERS SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 6th April.
PLUMBERS' REGISRATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 30th April.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, etc., [17th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
HIGHWAYS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
Adjourned Debate on motion for Committal to select Committee [24th March] further adjourned till Thursday
COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) (WOMEN) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
MOTION.

  CANALS AND NAVIGABLE RIVERS (IRELAND).
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Canals and Navigable Rivers in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. P. Farrell, Mr. Macaleese, Mr. Donal Sullivan, Mr. Tuite, and Mr. Field; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday 29th April, and to be printed.—[Bill 180.]
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Two o'Clock.

COMMISSION
The following Bills have received the Royal Assent:—

1. Army (Annual).

2. Consolidated Fund (No. 1.).

3. London (Borough Road, Southwark) Provisional Order.

4. London (Churchway, St. Pancras) Provisional Order.

5. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.

6. Surveyors (County Dublin).

The Lords Commissioners were the LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury), Lord JAMES of HEREFORD (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), and the EARL of WALDEGRAVE (Captain, Yeomen of the Guard).

THOMPSON'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
OCCUPIERS' DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to provide facilities for the acquisition by occupiers and occupying ratepayers of their dwellings—Was presented by the Lord de Vesci (V. de Vesci)(for the Lord Wemyss (E. Wemyss)); read 1a;and to be printed.—[No. 38.]

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF DENBIGH,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, reminded their Lordships that last Session, at the instance of the London County Council, he introduced a Bill for the purpose of amending the existing law, dealing with the protection of infant life, with a view of making it rather less of a dead letter than it unfortunately was at the present moment, except in the area administered by the London County Council. As the law now stood the registration of houses where infants were kept was only required in cases where more than one infant of less than twelve months old were maintained, therefore anybody could take in
1530
One child of less than twelve months, and any number of a greater age. In such cases nothing could be done by the local authorities or anybody else. It was important to remember that it was not merely ill-treatment and neglect which caused a great amount of mortality amongst infants, but it was the mere aggregation of a large number of small children under one roof which caused a mortality so truly distressing. The Bill of last Session was introduced with the view of extending the age and making it apply to cases where only one child was kept, and was referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, over which he had the honour of presiding. A considerable amount of searching evidence was taken from philanthropic people and charitable societies, and also from several of the London coroners who had had a considerable amount of experience in the administration of the existing law. As a result it was decided to abolish the proposal for the registration of houses, and to insist merely on notification being given to the local authorities where it was decided to maintain such infants, so that there should be no interference with existing charitable and voluntary societies which, in many instances, put out children to nurse with foster parents, and did a great deal of good in that way. It was also decided that notification should be insisted upon in places where only one infant was maintained. There were two classes of people who now engaged in the bringing up of children not their own. There were many who took them in from a pure neighbourly feeling when children were left suddenly without parents. Others were taken in by foster parents who were engaged by charitable societies and philanthropic individuals, but over and above these there were what he might call the professionals—those who had children handed over to them at railway stations with the payment of a considerable lump sum, who passed the children through various hands till they were lost sight of and, in most cases, ultimately made away with. There were also extreme cases, such as that which occupied so much attention last year of the unfortunate woman, Mrs. Dyer, who took in children partly with the view of deliberately murdering them, and also with the idea of gradually starving them to death by neglect and cruelty. It was

1531
only those professionals there was any desire to deal with under an amended law, too many of whom carried on their trade with impunity. It was necessary in the interests of humanity to do something to amend the present law, under which it was practically impossible to deal with many cases that occurred, or to make provision against the Act being evaded in every possible particular. If their Lordships read the Bill a Second time, and ultimately passed it a great many cases which now evaded the law would be brought within its scope, and much of the mortality which now prevailed would be stopped. Objection was raised to the Bill last year on the ground that it was too much of a permissive nature. He thought, however, it was absolutely necessary to make it permissive to a certain extent, because if they made it too obligatory in the rural districts it would be regarded as a great hardship inasmuch as those districts would be put to a considerable amount of expense for the purpose of looking after children who were brought into those districts from other localities. If the Bill was now read a Second time he should be perfectly willing in Committee to accept any Amendments which might be proposed with a view to making the Measure more workable. There might be questions, such as which was the best authority for the purpose of administering the Bill. In England the promoters had suggested that the authorities should be the District Councils. Others preferred boards of guardians, but he had a perfectly open mind on the subject, and was prepared to accept whichever authority was considered by those who had experience to be the better. He begged to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER,in supporting the Motion, observed that the Bill had precisely the same object in view as that which became an Act 25 years ago, but, as had been already said, that Act had ever since its birth been a dead letter. Now, if an Act of Parliament with the object of which everyone, he presumed, sympathised, had for 25 years been a dead letter, it must be for one of two reasons: either that the object aimed at had been attained in another way, or that the machinery proposed by the Act for attaining that object was found cumbrous and
1532
unworkable. Unhappily it was clear that the object aimed at had not been secured. That the present machinery on the other hand had been found cumbrous and unworkable was amply shown by the noble Earl himself in the Debate of last year, and it was easy to amplify evidence of it if necessary. But practically no evidence was necessary when they considered that with the exception of the London County Council, the Bill had not been put in operation in any part of England. The novel machinery proposed by the present Bill was the result of very careful consideration and thought, and would with a minimum of personal hardship, a minimum of administrative friction, and what was also important, a minimum of public expense, bring about, he believed, the result they all desired. That object was the better protection of infant life. He presumed that many persons when they heard that word jumped at once to the conclusion that the object of the Bill was to put down the sort of horror to which the noble Lord alluded—those great baby-farming cases which now and then sprang to light, and at which England stood aghast. But he believed the Bill would have little effect in that direction; nor did he believe that any legislation could be introduced which would make much difference in that particular unless it were what the Prime Minister had described as of such a Draconian character as to hurt a hundred innocent people for every criminal brought to justice. Those persons were already defying every law, human and divine, and it was not by passing a Bill of this sort they could bring their wickedness to an end. But those black horrors were insignificant compared with the slow, the unostentatious, and the lingering sufferings which were being inflicted by foster parents, often in sheer ignorance, sometimes, he feared, in callous indifference, all over England upon infant lives that were intrusted to their care. What was proposed in the Bill would, he believed, go far to bring to an end some of the ill-deeds which were thus, partly from ignorance and partly from indifference, being perpetrated, and would do it in a practically efficient manner. In the forefront of this question stood the fact that nearly all the children whom they were thus called upon to protect were

1533
illegitimate. Illegitimate children were the most unprotected of all unprotected folk, and he did not believe the country was in the least aware what was the proportion at this moment of illegitimate children who died before they were 12 month old. If they had the statistics before them, he believed England would be appalled, and he confessed it did seem to him discreditable to their official returns that the statistics were not tabulated so that the true proportion of such infant mortality should be known. The fact were all there, ready to hand, in Somerset House. when an infant died, its death was duly registered as legitimate or illegitimate, and though they were furnished annually with a return of the number of illegitimate births, there was nothing in the public tables given them with regard to the number of illegitimate infants whose deaths were thus registered that it was necessary they should have such information was obvious, when by such inferential or incidental means as were at their disposal they got at the facts at all. They had means for getting at all circumstances here and there. For example, in London in 1895 there were 2,119 inquests upon children under 12 months' old. The birth returns of the whole country showed them, roughly speaking, that one birth in every 25 was illegitimate. If the mortality were anything like equal between legitimate and illegitimate children, 1–25th of these 2,119 inquests would be inquests on illegitimate children. That was to say, there would be 90 inquests in all on babies who were illegitimate, but instead of 90, as a matter of fact the number in 1895 was 322, showing what an appalling proportion of the suspicious mortality that took place among infants was in regard to the cases of illegitimate infants, for whom protection was so specially needed. Another bit of fact available was the following. Dr. Tatham, now head of the Statistical Department of Somerset House, and formerly Medical Officer of Manchester, had carefully tabulated the returns for the years 1891–94 for Manchester, showing the proportion of the deaths of infants under 12 months old legitimately born and illegitimately born. Of the legitimate infants the proportion was 174 per 1,000, and of the illegitimate 392 per 1,000, so that nearly 40 per cent. of the illegitimately born infants in Manchester died before they
1534
were 12 months old. This fact, even if it stood alone, appeared to him to justify a demand that statistics should be tabulated and made available for the whole of the kingdom. The facts would be found to be appalling, and much more terrible than the mere mortality was the thought of the long and horrid suffering undergone before these little lives came to an end. These deaths took place for the most part in the homes or houses of the foster parents, and in trying to apportion the blame they must, of course, lay it upon the foster mother in the first instance; but it would be found that to ignorance, carelessness, and the extreme poverty and wretchedness of the home rather than to cruelty most of the deaths were due. Again, severe blame could not always be attached to the unfortunate mother, some unhappy girl who had no thought of harming her baby, but who, earning a miserable pittance, was obliged to board out the child at the least possible expense. To him it seemed rather that the blame went further back to the father of the infant, who so often in callous selfishness shirked all responsibility; but until amendments were made in regard to the affiliation laws this could not be death with. The object now was not to apportion the blame, but to legislate as far as possible in the direction of providing a remedy for a system leading to so much suffering and infant mortality. It might be an open question who should be the authority to put this machinery in operation, but some such machinery was urgently required. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD BELPERexpressed, on behalf of the Home Secretary, entire sympathy with the object of the Bill. The effect of the Bill would not be so much to put a stop to those dreadful cases of professional baby-farming brought to light from time to time, as to do something to prevent the suffering arising from ignorance, carelessness, and want of thought, to which that suffering was more often due than to intentional ill-treatment. The scope of the Bill was clearly defined and restricted by the Committee on the subject, and the evidence given before that Committee was conclusive as to the necessity of confining the operation of the Bill to cases where more than one child was kept under five years of age. The alteration of the system of registration to notification would be less onerous on parents, and the effect would be to

1535
encourage entries being given. Another point was of grave importance, and that was the machinery for carrying the law into effect. In the opinion of the Home Secretary there were points of difficulty in this respect, and therefore his right hon. Friend, in assenting to the Second Reading, reserved the right to suggest Amendments in Committee. He asked the noble Lord to defer the Motion for Committee until after Easter, in order that full consideration might be given to points of detail, and the Bill made more efficacious for the object with which it was introduced.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Amendment Reported (according to Order), and Bill to be Read 3a To-morrow.
House Adjourned at Five Minutes before Five o'Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.