Sitting of 10 February 1898

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  Sir John Mowbray,—Standing Orders,—That the Select Committee on Standing Orders do consist of Thirteen Members:—Mr. Buchanan, Sir William Coddington, Mr. John Edward Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Sir Ed-
  222
  ward Gourley, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. James Lowther, Sir John Lubbock, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. William Redmond, Sir Mark Stewart, and Mr. Whitmore.
  Sir John Mowbray,—Selection,—That the Committee of Selection do consist of Eleven Members:—Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir John Dorington, Sir William Hart Dyke, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Albert Spicer, Mr. Philip Stanhope, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Wodehouse, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  The motions were agreed to.

  NEW WRIT.
  SIR WILLIAM WALROND: I move that Mr. Speaker do issue his writ for the election of a Member of Parliament for the Edgbaston Division of the Borough of Birmingham, in the room of Mr. George Dixon, deceased.
QUESTIONS.

  MUZZLING OF DOGS.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to announce the date of the withdrawal of the muzzling order for dogs.
  MR. SKEWES-COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what steps he proposes to take with a view to early withdrawal of the Order relating to the muzzling of dogs?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Rt. Hon. W. H. LONG,): The withdrawal of the various Muzzling Orders now in force must necessarily depend upon the conditions which from time to time prevail in regard to rabies in the districts concerned, and it is, therefore, not possible for me to specify a date for such withdrawal in any particular case at the present time. I may, however, take this opportunity of stating that so far as our operations have

  223
  at present proceeded, we have met with even a greater measure of success than we might have anticipated, and there is no reason to doubt that, with patience on the part of the owners of dogs, and the co-operation of all concerned, we shall be able to secure the extirpation of rabies in this country.

  COLOUR-BLINDNESS.
  MR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that of the number of persons (sailors) rejected by the Board of Trade as colour blind, as appears from the Board's report, 1897, 41.6 per cent. of those that were rejected and appealed were, on appeal, proved; and whether the Board of Trade propose to take any steps to revise their tests?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): 5,017 persons were examined in colour vision during the year 1896, and of this number 56 failed to pass. Of the 56, 12 availed themselves of the right to appeal, and 5 were successful. The present system of sight tests is based upon a report of a Committee of the Royal Society especially appointed to inquire into the subject, and I am advised that no case has been made out for revising it.

  COMMERCIAL SIGNALLING FROM LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether it is yet possible for him to make a statement on the subject of commercial signalling from lighthouses; whether he will be able to make arrangements under which vessels passing the Tuskar Light and signalling may be promptly reported?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir, I am not in a position to make any arrangements for commercial signalling at present.

  GRANTING OF BAIL BY MAGISTRATES.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Justice of England on Saturday last, in the case of the Queen v. Charles Rose, in which his Lordship referred to the question of magistrates not granting bail; and whether he will take steps to bring his Lordship's remarks before the benches of magistrates of this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, Sir, I have read the judgment to which the hon. Member refers, and most fully agree with the views expressed by the Lord Chief Justice, as regards the principles which should determine the question of allowing bail. They are, in fact, the views to which the Home Office have often given expression. In a circular issued not very long ago to Justices, they were urged, in deciding questions concerning bail, to keep in view the importance of not imposing any imprisonment on an untried prisoner, beyond what is absolutely necessary to secure his attendance at the trial. Everything that can be done by the Home Office to impress these views on magistrates, has, as I think the hon. Member will see, already been done.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Irish Land Commission will be laid upon the Table of the House; and when it will be distributed to Members?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The annual Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ended 31st March, 1897, has already been presented to Parliament, and printed for distribution amongst hon. Members. The Report for the current year will not be ready for some months.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. G. N. CURZON,): Our

  225
  latest information is that there has been some fighting between Moslems and Christians; that on January 23rd a demonstration was made in favour of some Moslem prisoners; but that on January 24th quiet was restored. We have not heard of the emigration mentioned in the second paragraph, but it is unhappily true that there is much distress among the Mussulman refugees at Candia. The French Government and Her Majesty's Government have each placed £400 at the disposal of their Admirals in Crete for the relief of cases of grave distress.

  GOVERNMENT OF CRETE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state if any agreement has yet been come to by the Concert of Europe in regard to the appointment of a Christian Governor General for the Island of Crete?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir.

  SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and, if so, what change has taken place by resignation or otherwise in the constitution of the Board of Directors of the British South Africa Company since Jury last; and whether any arrangement has been made for the efficient administration of the territory under the control of the Company; in that case, whether he will lay the particulars before Parliament?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official intimation of any change in the Directorate of the South African Committee, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement in the public Press that the Duke of Fife and Lord Farquhar have resigned. Papers as to the proposed changes in the Administration of the Company have been laid to-day.

  GRAND JURY CESS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much indignation prevails among the cesspayers of county Monaghan owing to an attempt that is about being made by the Grand Jury to re-impose a cess already paid; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter; also whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of the county Monaghan appointed cess collectors without solvent security, and that a large deficiency in the cess has occurred in consequence. And whether he can state what steps he intends to take against the Grand Jury?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that two Barony Cess Collectors for the county Monaghan have become defaulters, that proceedings were taken against them and their sureties by the Grand Jury, and that these proceedings resulted in the recovery of a considerable portion of the deficiency. The Grand Jury propose to re-present for the balance at the next Assizes. The Executive has no power over the Grand Jury, nor is that body responsible to the Executive for the manner in which it performs its fiscal business.

POTATO CROP IN IRELAND.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the flax and potato crops in Ireland during the past harvest have turned out very deficient, while oats and barley have yielded wretchedly; and whether, under the circumstances, he will grant a revision of the judicial rents to help the farmers to tide over the great distress that prevails?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I am aware that there was a deficiency in the yield of the various crops referred to during the past Session. The Government have no intention of legislating in the direction suggested in the Question.

IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount that will be annually required for the purposes of the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund under the proposed new rules, and what sum the increased premiums demanded from the teachers is estimated to yield; whether there is any, and if any what, proof that the increased contributions from this source will not exceed one-fourth of the total sum required; and what steps have been taken to ascertain precise particulars relative to the matter?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): The total amount which will be required to make up the deficiency in the Fund is, as the hon. Member knows, £1,200,000—or, excluding the recent grant, £1,100,000. It is impossible to say what the actual amount required in any given year for the purposes of the Fund will be, because the claims upon the Fund must vary considerably from year to year. The average amount, however, will be the present income—about £62,000 plus £28,000, of which latter sum it is estimated that £10,000 will be provided by the increase in the premiums of the teachers. The proof that the total increased contributions from this source will not exceed one-fourth of the total sum required rests upon the calculations of the skilled actuaries consulted, and further security is afforded by the fact that periodical revisions will be made in order to insure that result.

POOR LAW VALUATION.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the difficulty of procuring seedpotatoes is by no means confined to the
228
small farmers in Ireland, he will consider the desirability of extending the present limit of Poor-law Valuation from £15 to £30 or £50?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: This point was considered by the Government, and on the whole it was decided to adhere to the £15 limit.

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY—ANNUAL SHOWS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the loss and inconvenience caused to cattle breeders in the South of Ireland by the action of the Royal Dublin Society, in reserving all the premiums for bulls allocated to Munster to animals exhibited at the Dublin Shows, he will suggest to the Society the desirability of handing over these premiums for competition at the shows held under the auspices of the Cork Agricultural Society?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: Representations to the effect stated in the Question were made to Government and were considered in May, 1895, by the Council of the Royal Dublin Society, who explained that the Scheme carried out at the Society's Annual Show offers the same facilities to the farmers of Munster as are offered to the farmers of other provinces, and that one of the important advantages of the Scheme is that it leads to the introduction of superior bulls into districts in which bulls are not at present to be found—an object which would not be attained if the premiums were awarded at Shows in which competition is practically restricted to animals already in the district.

OUTRAGES ON ABORIGINES.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

229
Colonies whether he has received an official report concerning recent outrages upon blacks in Western Australia; whether the Board nominated by Imperial Government for the protection and supervision of the aborigines of Western Australia is still in existence; and whether it is proposed to transfer complete control and oversight of the Western Australian aborigines to the Local Government?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a report from the Governor of Western Australia of two recent cases of cruel treatment of aborigines in that Colony. In one case the accused was tried for murder and convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to penal servitude for life; in the other case the accused were tried for manslaughter and acquited. An Act has been passed by the Colonial Legislature abolishing the Aborigines Protection Board and transferring the care of aborigines to a department of the Colonial Government.

AUSTRALIAN LEATHER PROHIBITED.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the use of Australian leather has been prohibited by Military authorities; and if so, on what grounds?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR: At present the specifications for harness and saddlery require the use of "prime British bark tanned leather." The Australian leather is understood to be tanned with mimosa and not to be so durable in this climate as bark-tanned British leather. The question is, however, being further considered at the instance of the Agent General for Victoria, and the Director of Contracts is obtaining information from experts, on receipt of which the point as to whether our specifica-
230
tion can be revised will be carefully dealt with. If supplies other than harness and saddlery, the only proviso is that the leather shall be up to standard.

HOLIDAYS AT CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that junior clerks at the Central Telegraph Office are still compelled to take their holidays during the winter months; and whether he has considered the matter, as promised in the Post Office Circular of 10th August, 1897, with a view to an improvement of the system, and with what result?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: It is the fact that the junior telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office have to select their periods of annual leave after those who are senior to them, and are, consequently, compelled to take their leave in the least favourable months of the year. The Postmaster General has considered the matter, as promised in the Circular, and is at the present time making an experimental trial in some large provincial offices of another system which, if it succeeds, must enable the staff at those offices to take their leave in the better months of the year, and which could then be extended to London. The Postmaster General hopes also that, as soon as the postal and telegraph staff are trained to do both postal and telegraph duties—and new entrants are being so trained—it will make it more easy to secure to the junior telegraph staff a larger amount of summer leave. It must be remembered, however, that the fact that the telegraphic work of the country is much heavier in the summer than in the winter months, makes all reform of

231
this character very difficult to effect without causing inconvenience to the public service.

DISTRESS, EAST CLARE (IRELAND).
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any reports in reference to the failure of the potato crop in East Clare; and whether the Government intends to take any steps in view of the probability of considerable distress being felt in various portions of Ireland this winter?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY: Representations have been received in reference to the partial failure of the potato crop in East Clare, but no reports have, so far, reached me showing that there is at present any exceptional demand for relief in that district. The restrictions on outdoor relief have been relaxed in the Union of Scariff, and should it become apparent at any time that the relief is likely to impose a heavier burden on the ratepayers than they might reasonably be expected to meet, the Government will be prepared to assist the Guardians financially, on condition of their adopting the labour test. I have already explained, in outline, the steps taken by Government to alleviate distress in the West of Ireland.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that none of the land cases for which notices were served after 8th January, 1897, for the Mullingar district of county Westmeath have been heard; and, if so, why the Land Commission have appointed no sitting for that district during the last 10 months; and how many cases are still unheard; and, will he use his influence to expedite the hearing of those cases?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: A Sub-Commission was employed in the Mullingar Union up to August last. A new list of
232
cases will be issued for this Union in the course of a few days, the hearing of which will commence on the 7th of March. The number of unheard cases in the Union is, I am informed, comparatively very few.

TREATY WITH ABYSSINIA.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Treaty of Commerce and Friendship concluded between Her Majesty and the Emperor Menelik of Abyssinia will be circulated to Members; what is the present international situation of the territory of Harrar; and whether Her Majesty's Government can give the House any information as to the whereabouts of the French military expeditions commanded by Captains Marchand and Liotard or as to that of M. de Bonchamps?
MR. CURZON: The treaty was presented on Tuesday. The territory of Harrar is recognised by Her Majesty's Government, and, it is believed, by other Powers, as forming part of the dominions of the Emperor Menelik. We have no information, other than what has appeared in the Press, with reference to the French expeditions named in the third paragraph.

"STRIKE CLAUSE" AND CONTRACTORS.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the benefit of the "Strike Clause" is to be allowed to contractors whose work has been delayed by the lock-out in the engineering trade; in what cases, if any, and for what periods has an extension of time been allowed to such contractors; and whether he can give the House any indication of the extent to which the programme of the year has been delayed by the dispute in the engineering trade?
MR. MACARTNEY: No applications for extension of time under the "Strike Clause" have been received by the Admiralty, and cones-

233
quently no action has been taken. With regard to the third paragraph of the question, it would be impossible, within the limits of an answer to a question, to give an adequate reply, but the information will be given in the First Lord's statement, explanatory of the Navy Estimates.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will introduce a Bill to enable the enforcement of the compulsory attendance of children at school in Ireland by fixing the rate from which funds shall be derived for the purpose of carrying into effect the Act already passed?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: This matter is under consideration in connection with the Local Government Bill.

FOREIGN MEAT AND FORAGE.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the greater portion of the meat supplied to the troops and the forage supplied to the horses stationed in Ireland is foreign imported meat and forage; and whether he can state the quantity so imported into a meat and forage producing country?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY: As regards meat, the condition is that not less than 40 per cent. of the supply to the troops shall have been killed within the United Kingdom. If forage comes up to the required standard, no question is raised as to its place of origin, but as far as possible local sources of supply are resorted to.

SAILORS' PRIVATE DEBTS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the
234
fact that traders cannot recover private debts from sailors or messmen in Her Majesty's ships for goods supplied except by the ordinary civil procedure, will he explain why notice is not given at the ports that the Admiralty is not responsible for those supplies; and whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of giving notice in future to those concerned as traders?
MR. MACARTNEY: The rules and customs affecting the private arrangements of officers and men with traders are well understood at the ports, and it is not considered necessary to take any action in relation to these matters.

IRISH RAILWAYS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to bring in a Measure for the purchase of the Irish railways, or for their amalgamation under State, with a grant sufficient to substantially reduce passenger fares and goods tariffs?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: No proposal is at present under the consideration of the Government.

TUBERCULOSIS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state about what date the Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis may be expected; whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction exists in many places, owing to confiscations and injury to business caused by proceedings on the part of certain local administrators; whether such proceedings can be modified pending the report of the Commission; and whether he is aware that many of those prosecutions have been instituted in opposition to the

235
recommendations made by the first Royal Commission?
MR. CHAPLIN: The Royal Commission have under consideration their Report, but I am unable to say about what date the Report will be issued. As to the second question, this is a matter on which the Royal Commission have taken evidence, but I have not yet received the evidence taken by them. With respect to the third, I have no authority to alter the existing law, under which seizures may be made by officers of Sanitary Authorities and carcases condemned by Justices. The answer to the fourth question is in the negative.

DRAINAGE OF THE ESLIN RIVER.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken by the Board of Works for Ireland with regard to the drainage of the Eslin River, in South Leitrim?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: I have received the following telegram from the Board of Works:—
"The Board are informed by the secretary to the drainage trustees that, at their last meeting, contracts were entered into for cleaning the rivers and drains of the Eslin district, and that men are at work on most of the thirty-two sections into which the work is divided. The contracts are to be completed by 16th June."
The above action of the trustees was not instigated by the Board of Works, who had received no complaint as to the district justifying their intervention.

THE LATE CLERK OF THE WESTPORT UNION.
MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of the Local Government Board auditors who were responsible for auditing the
236
accounts of the late Clerk of the Westport Union while the frauds were taking place, which have been discovered at a recent Local Government Board inquiry, and what steps have been taken to ensure that similar frauds cannot take place with impunity in future?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY: The auditor of the Westport Union during the time that the forgeries referred to were committed was Colonel O'Hara, who has since retired under the age clause. The Local Government Board have issued a circular of instructions to the Guardians, which, if duly carried out, will ensure that similar frauds cannot be perpetrated in future.

THE REORGANISATION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the recent Committee on the re-organisation of his Department, and also the evidence taken by that Committee?
MR. CHAPLIN: The Report of the Committee referred to has been laid on the Table of the House. I do not consider it necessary to present the evidence.

RELEASE OF MR. SPRIGGS.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state upon what grounds he has ordered the release of Mr. Spriggs, who, at Flintshire Assizes last year, was convicted of felony, before Mr. Justice Grantham, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. And upon what conditions has Mr. Spriggs been released?
MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the grounds upon which he has ordered the release of the

237
convict Spriggs, who was found guilty at the Ruthin Assizes of a serious assault upon a lady cyclist; and whether, although a defence of alibi had been set up at the trial, Spriggs admitted, after the trial, to the Governor of Ruthin Gaol, that he, Spriggs, had been at or near the scene of the assault on the day when it was alleged to have been committed; and whether it is usual for the Treasury to conduct the defence of a prisoner whose parents and friends are well able to provide funds for this purpose?
THE HOME SECRETARY: In consequence of certain information which reached me after the trial, I caused inquiry to be made as to the evidence of identification tendered by the prosecution, which disclosed certain facts not before the Court at the trial. The results of the inquiry were laid before the learned Judge, who concurred in the view that there was sufficient doubt in the case to justify the release of the prisoner on an order of licence. The usual conditions as to reporting to the police have been remitted, and inquiries are still being made with a view to seeing whether any further action may be necessary. Perhaps I may also answer now the question of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs. With regard to the admission which the prisoner is stated to have made, I came to the conclusion, after careful inquiry as to the exact words used, that they were not intended to, and did not, in fact, amount to such an admission as is suggested, or to any admission at all. It is not the case that the Treasury conducted the prisoner's defence. There was reason to believe, however, that the means of the prisoner's friends made it difficult, if not impossible, for them to take their witnesses down to the Assizes in Wales, and advances were in consequence made to enable them to travel there. This is the usual practice in cases where there is reason to fear that the matter would not otherwise be presented to the Court with perfect fairness. Nothing more was done.

CROWN DEBTS IN BANKRUPTCY MATTERS.
MR. MCNEILL: I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Boyd, on Friday last, in which he commented strongly on the difference between the laws of England and Ireland, in the matter and the priority of Crown debts in bankruptcy matters, and stated that he was coerced to hold that a Crown debt in Ireland was payable in priority to all other debts, whether mentioned in the Schedule or not, whereas in England there was no such priority. And (2) whether the Government will, by legislation, in the immediate future, rectify this system by which the Crown can recover debts in Ireland which, in similar circumstances in England would be postponed to the payment of the debts of secured creditors?
*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: My attention has been drawn to the observations of Mr. Justice Boyd on the occasion referred to, which are substantially to the effect mentioned in the first paragraph. The matter is receiving the consideration of the Government, but no statement can be made on the question raised by the second paragraph without further and fuller inquiry.

POTATO CROP IN IRELAND.
MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is his intention, at the earliest moment, to take effective steps to ensure that this year's potato crop in Ireland shall be safeguarded against blight by spraying, so as to prevent the disastrous results which have reduced large districts to the brink of starvation. And (2) whether he has any information as to the effects of spraying last season, particularly where that course was adopted twice?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY: The Government have under consideration the desirability of inserting in the Seed Supply Bill a clause empowering Boards of Guardians to obtain loans for the purchase of spraying machines to be sold or

239
hired to occupiers of holdings valued under £15. As regards the second part of the question, my information is that the spraying of the potato crop, and especially where that operation is carried out twice over, is most beneficial in its results.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES RETURN.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return on Supplementary Estimates, ordered on the 6th August, 1897, will be presented and issued.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY: The Return was presented yesterday.

REGULATION HEIGHT FOR DRAGOONS AND LANCERS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the regulation height for Dragoons and Lancers has been reduced from 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 7 inches, and from 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 6 inches. And whether this reduction is caused by the difficulty of obtaining recruits of the proper standard.
THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR WAR: Before 1896 the standard for Lancers and Dragoons was from 5ft. 7in. to 5ft. 9in., but it was represented that young men of this height frequently grew too heavy for the horses. The standard for recruits under 20 years of age was, therefore, reduced and fixed at 5ft. 6in. to 5ft. 8in. for men under 20 years of age, and at 5ft. 8in. to 5ft. 9in. for older men. The recruiting officers represented that under the latter very narrow margin many good recruits were lost. The minimum was therefore reduced to 5ft. 7in. for men over 20 years of age, being the standard before 1896.

THE NUMBER OF MEN MOBILISED FOR FIELD SERVICE.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he
240
will agree to a Return of the number of men mobilised for field service in the Frontier Campaign of 1897–8, who were left behind sick, showing those suffering from venereal disease, or its effects, and the number of men who broke down in service in the above campaigns from the same causes?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I will ask the Government of India to prepare the Return asked for by my hon. Friend.

THE CANDIDATURE OF PRINCE GEORGE.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Russia pressed the candidature of Prince George of Greece upon the Sultan for the Governorship of Crete without first consulting the other European Powers; and whether it is a fact that the Governments of England and France are supporting the Czar in forcing Prince George's candidature upon Turkey?
MR. CURZON: The Russian Government informed the other Powers of their disposition to view favourably the candidature of Prince George before recommending the Sultan to propose him. It is true that the Governments of Great Britain and France have supported the idea of Prince George's candidature, but Her Majesty's Government are not aware that any attempt has been made by the Emperor of Russia to force that candidature upon Turkey.

RUSSIAN TROOPS IN MANCHURIA.
SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if Her Majesty's Government can give the House any information as to whether there are at present any Russian troops at Kirin or in occupation of any part of Manchuria; whether there are any British warships now at Port Arthur; and whether that port is under Chinese or Russian authority?
MR. CURZON: I answered the first and third of these questions on Tuesday night. In reply to the second, I am not aware that there is at present any British vessel of war at Port Arthur.

THE GENERAL FRENCH CUSTOMS TARIFF.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or propose to take, any steps, if so, what steps, to uphold the rights and immunities of British subjects affected by the law applying the general French Customs tariff to Madagascar, which law practically excludes from the markets of Madagascar the trade of Great Britain; and, whether any further negotiations on this subject are now proceeding with the French Government?
MR. CURZON: The papers have been laid before Parliament, and no communications have passed since that date.

SUS.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any grounds for the belief that the country of Sus, lying to the south of the Atlas Mountains, is claimed by the Sultan of Morocco as forming part of his territory; whether, in the country of Sus, authority is and has been from time immemorial exercised by the chiefs of the tribes inhabiting that country; whether the Maroquine Government levies dues and taxes so high as to be prohibitory on all trade that passes across the Atlas mountains to or from Sus; whether the Maroquine Government maintains any resident officers, or levies any taxes in Sus itself, or maintains any troops there otherwise than in periodical raiding expeditions; whether considerable numbers of slaves are captured by Maroquines in Sus, and are brought thence into Morocco for sale; and whether Her Majesty's Government recognise and are prepared, as regards British subjects, to acquiesce in the right of the Maroquine Government to forbid
242
and to prevent by force all direct trade by sea with any part of Sus, and all trade whatever with that country otherwise than through Morocco and across the Atlas Mountains?
MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Sultan of Morocco claims the Sus district as portion of his territory, and Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier recently received an official notification from the Grand Vizier that the inhabitants of the regions in question were under the protection and guardianship of the Government of Morocco. It is probable that the authority exercised in the country is mainly that of the chiefs, only occasionally controlled by the Central Government. The duties on trade passing across the Atlas Mountains are understood to be heavy, but they can scarcely be prohibitory. Concerning the capture of slaves we have no reports. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to contest the claim of the Moorish Government to sovereignty over the territory which is acknowledged by other Powers, and it follows that British subjects wishing to trade with the inhabitants of the Sus district must first obtain the permission of the Government of Morocco to do so. It has, however, been, and continues to be, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to advise the Government of Morocco to open trading ports in the region in question.

SECONDARY EDUCATION.
MR. MCLAREN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the recent applications by county councils to become local authorities for Secondary Education; whether these applications are looked upon with favour by the Education Department, having regard to the opposition of existing education authorities, and to the fact that the country has not yet had an opportunity of making itself acquainted with the Government proposals as to Secondary Education; and under what statutory powers does the Science and Art Department appoint local authorities?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (SIR JOHN GORST,): No, my attention has not been called to any application of the kind; but several county councils have, under Clause VII. of the Directory, notified their willingness to be responsible to the Department for the Science and Art Instruction within their area, and such notifications are looked upon with favour by the Committee of Council. The Science and Art Department has no statutory power, and has never attempted, to appoint local authorities. The County Council is, by the Fourth Section of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, constituted a local authority for technical instruction, which, by Section 8 of the same Act, includes Science and Art instruction.

UGANDA.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to give the House any further information as to the suppression of the revolt in Uganda, and the safety of our fellow-countrymen and fellow-countrywomen there?
MR. CURZON: Our latest information is that the mutineers who had been shut up in the fort at Lubwa's by Major Macdonald's force succeeded in evacuating it by water on January 9th. They marched towards the Nile, whither Captain Harrison, with a force, was despatched if possible to anticipate them. Meanwhile, the ex-King, Mwanga, having crossed the German Frontier, is reported to be in the south of Buddu. Major Macdonald has started to stop his advance. The Mahomedans in British territory have not revolted, and the remaining Soudanese garrisons are reported loyal. The situation is one of some anxiety, but two more companies of the Indian regiment, making five in all, are being pushed to the front.

COST OF INDIAN FRONTIER OPERATIONS.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what has been the amount of expenditure to the present time on the military operations on the Frontier?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: It is estimated that the cost of the military operations on the North-West Frontier of India, for the whole of the year 1897–98, will amount to about four crores of rupees, the equivalent in sterling of £2,541,000.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the case of three girls who, in the course of their work in the potteries, have become blind through the action of lead poisoning; and whether it is the case that the Workmen's (Compensation for Accidents) Act, when it comes into operation, will provide a remedy in such cases.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My attention has not been called to the case in question. It is not possible to answer an abstract question as to the effect of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Every case must depend on its own special circumstances as to whether the injury was the result of an accident.

DISTRESS IN CANDIA.
MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any information respecting the present condition of affairs at Candia; whether a large numer of Christians on the brink of starvation have left for Greece during the last few days; and, whether the distress of the Mahomedan refugees is also very great; and what steps are being taken by the Powers to remedy the present state of things.
MR. CURZON: Our latest information has been that there has been some fighting between Moslems and Christians; that, on the 23rd January, a demonstration was made in favour of some Moslem prisoners; but that on the 24th January quiet was restored. We have not heard of the emigration mentioned in the second paragraph, but it is unhappily true that there is much distress among the Mussulman refugees at Candia. The French Government and Her Majesty's Government have each placed £400 at the disposal of their Admirals in Crete for the relief of cases of grave distress.

ALDERMAN BEN TILLETT.
MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could inform the House what decision (if any) had been arrived at in the case of Alderman Ben Tillett.
MR. CURZON: The terms of an Agreement referring the matter to arbitration have been agreed on between the British and Belgian Governments, and instructions are on the point of being given to Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels to sign it.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  QUEEN'S SPEECH.

    ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
    ADJOURNED DEBATE ON ADDRESS.
    Adjourned Debate on Amendment [9th February] to Motion for an Address [8th February.]
    Motion for an Address, Motion made, and Question proposed:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:"—(Colonel Lockwood:)—
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that in large districts of Ireland considerable bodies of the population have been for some time, and are at the present moment, reduced to live on insufficient and unwholesome food, and are on the very brink of actual famine, that this condition of things has been brought about by a failure of the potato crop, and partial failure of other crops in districts the population of which, impoverished by the general depression of agriculture, had even in better times existed under such conditions that the failure of one year's potato crop produced a famine; that the temporary relief measures proposed by Your Majesty's Government have been too long deferred, and are entirely inadequate; and that we earnestly urge on Your Majesty the necessity, first, of applying measures of temporary relief on a large and generous scale to the suffering districts, and secondly, of introducing legislation calculated to avert the constant recurrence of famines in certain districts of Ireland:"—(Mr. Davitt:)—
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    *MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH: Mr. Speaker, I resume my remarks upon the amendment of my hon. Friend, the Member for South Mayo, and I think it would be appropriate that I should briefly refer to the statement made to this House yesterday evening by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman started by informing the House that there was no ground for the statement made by the Member for South Mayo, to the effect that the relief which he proposed to give to distressed districts of Ireland had been too long deferred, and that it was inadequate. He informed the House that

    247
    he had started inquiries in regard to the distress in the Western districts of Ireland so early as August last, when he learned that the rains were falling like a deluge in different parts of Ireland. He said also that he had ordered inquiries to be made by his inspectors in October, and he added that the result of those inquiries led him to the conclusion that exceptional relief was not likely to be required much before Christmas. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know what is the meaning of this statement of the Chief Secretary? He said that exceptional relief was not likely to be required much before Christmas. My interpretation of that statement is this, that the result of those inquiries which he ordered to be made went to show that some exceptional relief, at all events, would be required in the distressed districts before Christmas. But I ask the Chief Secretary: What was the exceptional relief that he gave in those distressed districts before Christmas? Did he give any relief at all? No. He gave no relief. Therefore, I am entitled to condemn him out of his own mouth. He next attempted to minimise, in a few most ungracious sentences, if he will permit me to say so, all the force of the evidence given by Professor Long, in the speeches which he made in Manchester and the letters he published in the Press. He said that—
    "It must be remembered that Professor Long, according to his own account, was an absolute stranger in the Western districts of Ireland, and that he went hurriedly through them. I have carefully studied all Professor Long's letters, and I am bound to say there is not one which does not bear witness to the fact that Professor Long was a stranger in the West when he went there."
    The Chief Secretary for Ireland may have read, as he has stated he did read, the letters of Professor Long, but I ask him, did he read the speech that Professor Long made at the Great Distress Meeting at Manchester? If so, all I can say is, that one of the statements made in that speech must have escaped his
    248
    memory, because, in that speech, Professor Long himself clearly stated that it was the first time he ever was in the Western districts of Ireland. What, then, was the object of the Chief Secretary in making that statement? Simply to point out that Professor Long was not "properly equipped" for the investigation of the distress in the West of Ireland. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by proper equipment for the investigation of the distress? Were his inspectors properly equipped? Yes, they were properly equipped, because they went down to the West of Ireland, ironbound with red tape and officialism. They went down with pre-conceived ideas that the cry of distress was an absolute fraud—that it was a pretence, and I would point out the very appropriate observation made upon this statement in the Manchester Guardian of this morning—that paper which has done so much to assist the distressed people in the West of Ireland, and has done so much to give publicity to the state in which they at present exist—remarks dealing with Professor Long, at whose equipment the right hon. Gentleman sneers
    "Because he did not already know the West of Ireland, Mr. Balfour suggests that he was not properly equipped for the task he undertook! It is scarcely a paradox to say that, on the contrary, it was an essential part of his equipment. For the special value of his letters consisted in this, that they recorded the absolutely direct first-hand impression made by the distressed districts, on the mind of a first-rate expert in agriculture, influenced by no political or religious sympathy with the people he visited, but simply concerned to state precisely what he heard and saav—to act as the eyes and ears of the readers for whom he wrote. What he saw was that whole families were starving. 'I affirm solemnly,' he wrote the other day, 'that although I visited many villages, entering house after house, in each unexpected, I never saw any food but the potato, except upon five occasions—once flour, twice Indian meal, and twice a herring.'"
    Now, I think the Chief Secretary, in trying to minimise the value of the statements made by Professor Long, has proved himself as great a failure

    249
    as he proved himself in that scheme, that labour-test scheme, over which he spent so many studious nights burning the midnight oil in Dublin Castle. And then he says:
    "I will pass at once from the very difficult question of permanent relief to the question of temporary relief."
    Now, the Chief Secretary forgot when he made that statement that he had not at all touched upon the question of permanent relief. The right hon. Gentleman could not. You cannot pass from a question that you do not touch. His only reference to permanent relief was his reference to the statement made by Professor Long when that gentleman referred to the work of the Congested Districts Board. He then went on to indulge in destructive criticism about the methods that had been adopted in the past for the temporary relief of distress in Ireland, and he referred, in particular, in a sneering fashion, I must say, to the resolutions which had been adopted by the Castlereagh Board of Guardians and the Manorhamilton Board of Guardians, and also referred to a letter that had been written by a member of the Claremorris Board of Guardians. They simply said that they anticipated that the distress would cause a burden in the districts that the ratepayers could not bear. I say it would be better, as was stated immediately afterwards by the right hon. Member for Montrose, if he had not referred to these exaggerations. He might as well charge the Secretary of the Treasury with exaggeration, if he over-estimated for any public work in Ireland or Great Britain. And this remark as to exaggeration was made in reference to the gentleman who, he says, wrote up saying that he had seen dead men in a terrible state of deprivation. He might as well say that we are to judge of the morality of the Members of this House by the morality of that saintly convict
    250
    Jabez Spencer Balfour, who once adorned the benches of this House of Commons. I must say that, as far as the statements of the right hon. Gentleman are concerned, he has failed to bring home anything discreditable to the members of the Manorhamilton Board of Guardians. He then goes on, and comes to his own proposals for temporary relief. Now, I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the underlying principle of his proposals is that principle against which we must emphatically and strenuously protest, for that principle is this—that he tries to shift from his own shoulders the responsibility of dealing with distress, and of taking the necessary steps for ameliorating the conditions of the people in the Western districts of Ireland at the present time. I protest against this proceeding. I say that the responsibility of relieving distress in the West of Ireland does not lie upon the shoulders of the Members of the Boards of Guardians. It lies upon the shoulders of the Chief Secretary for Ireland as representing the Irish Government. He says that "the Government are not undertaking to give employment to the people." I say, Mr. Speaker, that cuts at the very foundation of what I consider to be a most important principle—namely, that it is he, Mr. Speaker, and not the Members of the Boards of Guardians, who is responsible for the relief of the distress which he himself has admitted to exist.
    "All we are doing is to say to the Guardians—'There being this amount of destitution in your district, we relax the conditions of outdoor relief. If you will impose the labour test, and the financial condition of your union is such as to necessitate Government aid, that aid will be forthcoming upon the approval by the Local Government Board of the works to be started.' The proportion to be contributed in each case by the Local Government Board will depend upon the character of the proposals of the Guardians, upon the financial conditions of each particular union, and upon the amount of the distress in the union. In the first instance the schemes are proposed and discussed by the Local Committees. They are then submitted to the Guardians, who put them before the Local Government Board."

    251
    But, Mr. Speaker, it is not red tape that we want, it is immediate relief for the people that are starving in the West of Ireland; and does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that you are going to get immediate relief if you have to send down an Inspector, who has first of all to go round the country and see the prominent people—large ratepayers and others—then you must form a Committee in each parish, and those Committees, after perhaps a month, will go to the Board of Guardians, and the Board of Guardians will consider the matter after a fortnight's notice, and then the Local Government Board will be consulted, and three months will elapse. Why, Mr. Speaker, it will be time for another famine to occur before relief is given if we go on in this way. As I said before, what we want is immediate relief, not procrastination. This system, which the Chief Secretary for Ireland wishes to press upon the people of the West of Ireland, reminds me of the old saying, "Live horse, and you'll get grass." He says himself in his speech yesterday, that it is quite possible "there may be such an amount of distress as to call for exceptional relief much before Christmas." But, Mr. Speaker, this is not much before Christmas—it is much after Christmas—and his proposition has this fundamental defect, that if this scheme is adopted by Members of the Board of Guardians in the West of Ireland, the inevitable result—the immediate result—will be this, that the poor people with small patches of land will not be able to cultivate their own little farms, but they will have to go to these relief works, and leave their own lands untilled. You are sowing the seeds of future famine if you insist upon this scheme. Besides this he distinctly stated that the Government will under no circumstances pay the full cost of the relief works. Where are we going to get the balance? From the unions? Well, if so, where will they get it from? From the paupers?—from the men who are starving? I say, unless you give the full cost, unless you pay the full cost of these relief works, you might as well
    252
    keep your scheme at Dublin Castle where he burned so much midnight oil. He talks about a shadowy scheme—no maximum and no minimum for the contribution of the Government. I say that the whole thing is a muddle, and it would be better, in my opinion, for the Chief Secretary, better for this House, and better for the distressed people of Ireland if he had not spent so much time worrying his brains in Dublin Castle. He stated that the addition to the ordinary rate would not be much; that the extra tax added to the old rates would amount to about 10d. in the pound. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that in many unions in Ireland the poor rate is not 10½d., or even 10d? In Oughterard it is 10½d., and in Belmullet it is 10d.; but because these are the two poorest unions in Ireland, he comes forward with this scheme, which will still further increase the taxation upon these poor unfortunate people. It reminds me of the Scriptural saying, "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even the little that he hath." The Chief Secretary for Ireland, after taking away the little that these poor people still possess, then tells us, as if it were a magnificent concession to our demand, that he is going to relax the rules of the Local Government Board in regard to outdoor relief. We do not want any of your relaxation. We have plenty of it already. And suppose you force us to accept it, what will be the inevitable consequence? The consequence will be this—that in every union where that relaxation is availed of—it is only meant for the poor unions, and in the absolutely poor unions where such relaxation would be taken advantage of—you say to the Guardians that you give them power to give more outdoor relief than they are entitled to give at present in accordance with the rules of the Local Government Board. Again, I ask you, when you give them this relaxation where will you get the money from? You are going to take the members of the Boards by the throat, and say, "You must pay extra taxes, and if you do not do so then you have two alternatives before you. You must either make yourselves bankrupt

    253
    or you must let the people die." I say that is a very unfair position to place the Guardians in, and nothing less than the full cost of these relief works will be of the slightest advantage to the people who are now dying of starvation. He talked about Killala. Does he know anything about it? He did not tell this House what is the condition of Killala in regard to outdoor relief. I will give him the condition with regard to that. Let us see the number of people who received outdoor relief, though, of course, to the Chief Secretary it is a matter of too little importance to deserve his attention. Last year there were 114 persons who received outdoor relief; this year it is almost double—204. Next he comes to the Congested Districts Board, and he says, "Oh! we will give them an advance of £10,000." Where is the money coming from, Mr. Speaker? It is not coming from the British Treasury. It is not a slice of the Chief Secretary's salary, or a slice of the Lord Lieutenant's salary. It is to come out of the pockets of the people of Ireland. The Chief Secretary proceeds—
    "This we have done. We have proposed to the Congested Districts Board that an amount of £10,000 should be advanced to them free of interest—in other words, they should be allowed to anticipate their income to that extent, repaying in three or four years, and the interest on the sum so withdrawn from their capital during these years should be recouped by the Treasury."
    Why did not the Chief Secretary propose that the income of the Congested Districts Board should be increased for the purpose of enabling that Board to cope with Irish distress? Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the paragraph in the last report of the Congested Districts Board, which he stated yesterday in this House had been drafted by himself. I may say this, that as far as I know the drafting of this paragraph was the first step towards the policy he inaugurated when he became Chief Secretary for Ireland of killing Home Rule with kindness, but he may go a little further, by informing the Irish people whether or not he proposes to have his own suggestion realised in this House. "The income of the Board remains at £41,250." £41,250! Why,
    254
    you could blow the amount away in powder at a day's review—
    "The income of the Board remains at £41,250 a year, and we think a close examination of the work that has been done by the Board since its formation would justify the granting of an increased income."
    But the main question is this: Will the Chief Secretary stand up before this debate is finished and tell the Irish Members what the Irish Government propose to do during this Session in order to realise, to carry into effect, the suggestion which the Chief Secretary himself has made in the report of the Congested Districts Board? There is no indication that he would press for any such a concession made in his speech last night, and, as far as I am concerned, I will never believe in his sincerity until he comes forward in this House with a proposal for the purpose of increasing the revenue of the Congested Districts Board. Now, Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted last night, in accordance with the rules of this House, I was referring to resolutions that had been passed at a great meeting of the people of North Leitrim, and which was held on the 29th December of last year at Manor Hamilton, I read out what I considered to be resolutions of a most practical character, calling upon the Government to give a grant for the purpose of repairing roads that are not under the control of the Grand Jury of the County of Leitrim, and also for giving grants for the purpose of levelling roads that are under the control of the Grand Jury. But besides these resolutions there were others passed, and I do not offer any excuse to this House for reading those resolutions, because I have the mandate of my constituents to bring them forward in this House. No doubt they were sent to the Chief Secretary, and no doubt the usual formal reply that they were received may have been sent; but has the Chief Secretary read them? No; they are probably in the waste-paper basket. Now these resolutions are as follows—
    "(1). That while recognising the kind intention of the Government in offering a loan for a seed supply, we feel, from our experience of past loans, that such a mode of supply is not beneficial, as the abnormal cost in the first instance, and expense of distribution and legal expenses in their collection, serve only to

    255
    cripple the limited resources of the recipients (2). That we respectfully ask the Government to place funds in the hands of the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of small loans repayable in 12 or 15 years, for the execution of reproductive works in the several farms of the district, notably for drainage, and that the execution of these works in the months of January and February would provide the small farmers with funds for the purchase of an adequate supply of proper seed. (3). That we earnestly call upon the Government in this exceptional season to use their best efforts to provide employment for our people to enable them to tide over the privations entailed by the late disastrous harvest, and that improvements effected upon their respective farms are preferable to any system of public works. (4). That the meeting feels bound to express its strong disapproval of the action of the landlords of the district in exacting the full rent from their hard-worked, sorely afflicted tenantry, and that such indifference to the losses of their tenantry is not only reprehensible in itself, but sows the seeds of distrust and ill-feeling which may, in the end, culminate in exasperation."
    Now, regarding the existence of distress in certain populous portions of Ireland it is not necessary to argue. We have come to the end of argument, and we have reached the domain of action. The Chief Secretary himself admitted yesterday evening the existence of great distress. Testimony was borne to the effect that the distress existed in Western Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Dublin. It would not be necessary to further add proof upon proof for the purpose of establishing our argument—that distress does really exist; but our contention is that while the Chief Secretary admits the existence of dire distress in many parts of Ireland, he has practically done nothing to avert it. Yesterday I heard many speakers deplore the circumstances in which they found themselves taking part in this debate. They said they were ashamed to come here and speak of the distress in the West of Ireland. I am ashamed, but it is not of myself, or of the Party to which I belong. I am ashamed of the Irish Government that they have not taken some steps to avert the distress, and have not listened to the warnings which we have sent from various parts of the country, and which even the Times gave them. Why should the Chief Secretary not listen to the warnings of the Times? He could ignore us; we are only Irish representatives. He
    256
    could ignore the Boards of Guardians, and the priests and bishops; but, in the name of God, why should he not listen to the warnings of the Times? If he had done so, we should not have been here, and telling you that his proposals have been delayed too long. I am going to make a quotation, and, in my opinion, it is a most important quotation, from a letter by the Most Rev. Dr. Lyster, Bishop of Achonry, to the Bishop of Manchester, His Lordship says, writing on the 15th December—
    "I have just returned from a sojourn in the distressed districts, where I have witnessed scenes which I am perfectly powerless to describe. The people—naturally hopeful and patient—are sad, silent, and dejected; their faces are pinched and puckered and wan, their eyes hollow, sunken in their heads, their voices weak and feeble, like the piping of a child. Often was I forced to turn my head aside, as I watched the big tears stealing down a withered cheek, whilst wistful eyes were turned towards the fast dwindling heap of potatoes, small as marbles, which now stood between many a family and starvation. An aged priest, the Nestor of our clergy, who has been labouring in the ministry for five-and-fifty years, who passed through the famine of '47, and who recalls the gruesome memories of those terrible days, assures me he has not seen such privation since that time. Now, as then, there was barely one-third of the crop of potatoes; now, as then, the few picked from the sodden soil rotted before they were used. As I write these lines, hundreds of my poor hungry flock are gathered round my door waiting for a scanty dole. Unless the kindly hearts of the charitable turn to us in our need soon, I must appear empty-handed, for nothing will be left but words of patience and encouragement to save them from despair."
    MR. G. BALFOUR: Has the hon. Gentleman read the whole of the letter?
    *MR. M'HUGH: I have read all that I have seen.
    MR. G. BALFOUR: Of course, I have read the letter; but the hon. Member has not read the whole of it. He must have been aware of the passage in which it is stated than an inquest was held in the case of one old woman, and it was shown that she died from some other disease, and that in the case of a man who was said to have died, he is not dead at all.
    *MR. M'HUGH: The right hon. Gentleman has said I must have been aware of the other part of the letter. I assure him that I have read no part of the letter except that which I have quoted,

    257
    and I took the extract, not from an Irish paper, but from a report of the Manchester Distress Meeting, which I read in the Manchester Guardian. If I had had a full copy of the letter I should have read it all. I quoted the letter, not for the purpose of showing that there is distress in that district, because that is admitted, but for the purpose of pointing out that the Chief Secretary has been dilatory, in the face of such statements, in bringing forward some system of relief. I should like to quote from a letter written in the Irish papers by one who was an esteemed Member of this House, Mr. William O'Brien. He, in my opinion, very fittingly described the attitude of the Irish Government by saying that the Irish Government were—
    "Waiting with a Governmental hand on the pulse of a half-starved population to calculate how long the British Treasury can go on economising without the fear of actual deaths from hunger."
    Does the Chief Secretary wish to wait until deaths are reported from the West of Ireland? I trust not, although it is coming very near it at the present time. The Chief Secretary is well acquainted with a friend of mine, the Very Rev. Denis O'Hara, who presided over a meeting in Swinford Union in November last, at which the following resolution was passed—
    "We hereby declare—and we do not wish to be alarmists—that in this district a large number of families will, during the coming season, suffer great distress and destitution unless the Government gives employment of some kind immediately. Now is the time to give it, when the people can, without neglecting their own work, earn something at it, and not when they should be putting down next year's crop. If something be not done now, Government efforts to relieve distress may be what they were often before—too late."
    We are justified in telling the right hon. Gentleman that the efforts he is now making cannot meet the case. As I said before, if these poor people accept employment on the relief works, they will have to abandon their own farms, and be unable to cultivate them in such a way as to make provision against the distress which may possibly come in the following year. Here is a letter written by Dr. Michael J. Burke, Medical Officer of the Kiltamagh Dispensary District—
    "Kiltamagh, 15th November, 1897.
    "Sir—I beg to state, for the information of the Board of Guardians, that at the present time in my district a disease is rather prevalent, the principal symptoms of which are vomiting, diarrhœa, and cramps in the stomach. It seems to me to be produced chiefly by the bad supply of the prevailing esculent—the potato—the quantity and quality of which were far below the average. I fear the disease may become epidemic.
    "I am, Sir, etc.,
    MICHAEL J. BURKE.
    "T. R. McNulty, Esq.,
    "Clerk of the Union, Swinford."
    That was also a warning to the Chief Secretary, but it seems to have fallen upon deaf ears. The right hon. Gentleman remained in Dublin Castle devising this great scheme of his, over which he burned so much midnight oil. He paid no attention to the warnings sent him from Very Rev. Denis O'Hara, from the Bishop of Achonry, or from the Swinford Board of Guardians. His scheme, in my judgment, is a perfectly worthless one. In December, 1896, the Chief Secretary's illustrious brother made a speech in Manchester upon the Report of the Financial Relations Commission. What did he say on that occasion? He said that the Report, which had been sent in by men like Lord Farrar, Lord Welby, and Sir Robert Hamilton, men famous as Treasury experts, was a farce. I tell the Chief Secretary that his scheme for the relief of Irish distress is a farce, and will bring no benefit to the people for whom it is intended. Is this the way in which he is going to kill Home Rule with kindness? Only yesterday, the Member for South Dublin gave us to understand that unless the Treasury loosened its purse-strings, and gave to Ireland some of the money it deserved to get, he would cease to be a Unionist.
    MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I deny making such a statement.
    *MR. MCHUGH: If you did not say it in so many words, you said you would be very doubtful about telling your Unionist friends in Ireland that a Unionist Government was better than a Home Rule Government, unless some money was advanced by the Government.
    MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I must refer the hon. Member to the official report.
    *MR. M'HUGH: I have not read the official report; it is not yet printed. I read the Times report. The First Lord of the Treasury said that the history of Irish discontent had its roots in past misfortunes, and in past injustice; but, Mr. Speaker, my statement is, that the present Irish discontent has its roots in present misfortunes and present injustice. Why should we have this huckstering about a few pounds? Why not take a step forward? The Chief Secretary complained in the beginning of his speech that all he had for his work in Dublin Castle was insult, thanklessness, and insolence.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I never used those words.
    *MR. M'HUGH: I know you did not. I put an interpretation upon what you said. In the words of the old song: "Nobody axed you to be Chief Secretary for Ireland, and nobody wants you." It would be better if we had the Unionist Member for South Dublin to act as Chief Secretary. He might not be agreeable to us all, but he excels, in one way, the present Chief Secretary—he knows something about the social condition of Ireland. It would be a benefit to us if such a gentleman as the Member for South Dublin were appointed to the position of Chief Secretary. What we ask by this Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Mayo is that immediate steps be taken to relieve what is admitted to be a very grave crisis. Is the Chief Secretary going to stick to that miserable scheme over which he toiled during the winter months? If he is, I fear that the words used by Very Rev. Father O'Hara, to whom I have already referred, will come true, and that now, as always, legislation for the relief of Irish distress will come too late. What has been the result of the government of Ireland by British Ministries? We have decreased in everything to be desired, and we have increased in everything to be deplored. We have decreased in population, in wealth, in prosperity, and in comfort. We have increased in emigration, in poverty, and in lunacy. The number of emigrants who left Connaught from the 1st May, 1851, to the 31st December, 1896, was 568,576, and the population of the province of
    260
    Connaught, where this distress is prevailing at the present time, has decreased from 1,418,859 in 1841, to 692,079 in 1896; so that in that time the population of this congested district has decreased by more than one half. I fully agree with the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who said that this word "congested" was ridiculous. Fifty years ago you had twice as many people there as you have to-day, and if it is congested now, it must have been twice as congested then. In Leitrim in 1841 the population was 155,197; to-day, according to the latest statistics, it is 75,713, or considerably less than one-half. I should like to ask the Chief Secretary, does he consider this is a "satisfactory" state of things? He said at Leeds that Ireland was in a peaceful and satisfactory condition. He made, I admit, a very ingenious explanation of the word "satisfactory" yesterday. He says that everything was going on as well as he should like, and Ireland was peaceful, and because it was peaceful its condition was "satisfactory." What would be the logical conclusion if you pursued it? It would be that every peasant who is now starving was rotting in a pauper's grave, the condition of the people would be "satisfactory" from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. I find in the forty-third report of the Inspectors of Lunatics, 1893, remarks in connection with agricultural depression to the effect that one of the causes of the increase of insanity was the acute agricultural depression so widely experienced, which had occasioned great mental strain; and in illustration of this, reference is made to the report of the Medical Superintendent of Armagh Asylum, in which it is stated that as many as 349 inmates belonged to the agricultural classes, while only 38 were drawn from the professional and commercial classes. According to the report the number of lunatics in asylums in Ireland has increased from 5,074 in the year 1851 to 14,945 in the year 1891; while, according to the last report issued, there are 18,966 persons at present under care in lunatic asylums in Ireland. The great bulk of these cases are attributed by Government officials to acute agricultural depression. Does the right hon. Gentle-

    261
    man believe that this increase shows a "satisfactory" state of things in Ireland? I should think not. Now, in 1841 the number of inhabited houses in these congested districts of Ireland was 243,192, and in 1891 the number was reduced to 134,009, showing that within those 50 years the fires had been put out upon 109,183 hearth-stones in the province of Connaught. I do not think that even the Chief Secretary would say that that was "satisfactory." We hear a great deal about Cromwell in Ireland. I consider the present Government is worse. He gave us the option of going to hell or to Connaught, but the present Government would drive us even out of Connaught. The Chief Secretary proposes to do nothing; for it is all a question of money; that is, if he is not able to get money—not English money, but Irish money—to expend in Ireland. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Louth that the Chief Secretary is no good. Let him go home to England. What is the use of sending him over there, where he cannot do any good for the people he is supposed to govern. I should like to make one or two very simple suggestions. I would say, in the first place, that we must have immediate relief if the people's lives are to be saved. I would propose that the Chief Secretary send down to every distressed Union that he named yesterday a Government official with the powers of an inspector—call him what you please—and let him tell the Guardians that he is empowered by the Chief Secretary to have expended under his own supervision a certain sum of money, such as may be considered necessary. Is the Chief Secretary able to do that? If he is not able to do that, let him resign his position. I should say also, let him get the Government to agree to an increase in the annual income of the Congested Districts Board from that miserable pittance of £41,000 to, say, £1,500,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland, laughs at the idea. He does not seem to know that we are over-taxed annually to the extent of £3,000,000; that the British Treasury owes us for over-taxation in the past at least £150,000,000. Let a portion of it be put into the purse of the Congested Districts Board, as we have confidence in
    262
    that Board. If that were done you would be able to make permanent improvements; you would have no huxtering and no tinkering with questions of this kind. You could have compulsory purchase passed into law to enable the Board to buy out landlords in the West; you could have migration introduced, whereby the farms would be increased in size and the peasants would have an opportunity of making a living when there was no landlord to grind them into the dust. If the Chief Secretary does this we will be grateful. If he does not, as I said, let him go back to his own people. He is no good to us if he stands by that wretched system he propounded in the House last night. If he refuses to give immediate relief, to make some effort for the permanent improvement of that country, he will simply add one more to the long list of colossal failures who have made the name of Chief Secretary for Ireland stink in the nostrils of the people of that country.
    *MR. SHARPE: So many sensational pictures of distressed localities have been interposed since the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that I desire very briefly to recall the attention of the House to the facts of the case as proved. I speak with deep sympathy for my native land. Although I am not an Irish Member, I am an Irishman, and it is perhaps owing to the formidable rivalry of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland that I am not able to address the House as an Irish Member. Now it is clear from the statements made by the Chief Secretary that, in the first place, the area of the distress is circumscribed, and confined chiefly to the counties of Mayo, Sligo, and Galway, though there is, of course, some destitution also in other counties, as Roscommon, Clare, and Donegal. Secondly, the nature of the distress has been proved to be that of destitution not famine; indeed, not a single case of death from starvation has been proved. It is a sad and piteous state of things, and deserving of our deepest sympathy, but it does not call for special measures, such, for instance, as were adopted at the time of the Irish Famine. Thirdly, the Local Government Board has been quite alive to the diffi-

    263
    culty of the situation, and my right hon. Friend has watched the progress of events with the deepest sympathy since August last, and has kept the Boards of Guardians on the alert and stirred them up to do their duty. I trust he will continue to act in that spirit. I deplore the infusion of political bitterness by some of the speakers into this debate. This is a discussion of a great social difficulty, a matter calling for great patience, great care, great sympathy, great watchfulness on the part of the Government, and I venture to say that it is not by the infusion of vitriolic bitterness that this end will be attained. I, at all events, and many of us on this side especially, feel this very keenly. I venture to appeal to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment—especially to the Seconder, who acquitted himself well, and with much moderation in the discharge of his task—I venture to appeal to their colleagues on those Benches, and to say that the Amendment might now be withdrawn, and the vote be taken on the question. I venture to press upon the House that, great as is the evil, and deeply as we sympathise with the people who are suffering, the exact state of the case, as presented by the Chief Secretary, is of the character I have described, and is not of such importance as to call for the addition of a paragraph to the reply of this House to the gracious Speech from the Throne.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Mr. Speaker, I need not take up very much time in this House. I have had eleven years' experience of the House of Commons, and the kindness accorded to me from every side of the House enables me to know nearly all the Members of the House of Commons, and I say that England cares nothing for Ireland or Irish interests. I know, and undertake to say, that there are not half-a-dozen gentlemen in this Chamber who are acquainted with Ireland either by work or representation. In fact, except for the Irish Benches, they might as well be non-existent. I suppose the sleepy condition of the English section is really the result of the right hon. Gentleman's (the Chief Secretary) optimistic view of the situation that Ireland is peaceful. If Ireland were not peaceful it would need Measures in the proper
    264
    way to be given to it. Now, I have a great deal to say—I mean it shall be very short—of a character not altogether pleasing, and I wish to begin by simply doing the one act which I consider is only just to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has done his best, as far as I am able to see, to promote the extension of the railway in Donegal, and that is most beneficent work. I deeply regret at the same time that the right hon. Gentleman did not carry the work into operation about the spring-time, when he knows very well that the peasants would not be engaged on their farms, and would be able to take more benefit from it. Now I say—and I am not sure that I should have mentioned it but for the optimistic remark of my hon. Friend and fellow-countryman, whom personally I admire—I don't think that my hon. Friend, who is a most good-natured man, would have made this pessimist remark if he had not read a letter in the Times. Now that article shows, I say, the true import of English feeling. It stated that what Ireland is suffering from is over-population. Now, it is 98 years since the Act of Union, and while your population has doubled, ours has been reduced by one half. In 93 years, while your wealth has grown up by leaps and bounds, ours has been reduced by one-third, and now we have the Times out-Pigotting its Pigott days by saying Ireland is over-populated. That is an atrocious thing to say, and it has been stated before. When the Chief Secretary spoke contemptuously of the surplus population, it only shows that any persons who can state that the country is suffering from over-population do not know the people, and do not see what can be done for them. Now, Sir, a great number of my hon. Friends have said that we have come here in a begging aspect, begging for bread for our people. But is it through the fault of the people, or through their indiscretions? But these people for whom we beg are—I say it solemnly—the victims of your own misgovernment, and their poverty and distress is the direct result of the government of this House. Let us see, and let us understand, this question, immense as it is. No one ever more graphically described the condition of the congested districts in Ireland than the First Lord

    265
    of the Treasury did in a speech in December, 1890, in Manchester. I remember the speech because it concluded wish a personal attack upon myself. Describing a congested district, or a distressed district in Ireland, he said—
    "People in England, when they hear of 'congested district,' think it is one which is overcrowded. On the contrary, it is one not overcrowded. One might go mile after mile without meeting a human being, but it is congested because there is not food enough in it to supply the wants of the people, and to fulfil their legitimate necessities, and to give them what is known as a fairly tolerable and 'comfortable life.'"
    Now we see congested districts and enormous tracts of pasture land from which the people of the congested districts have been driven. I am only quoting now in sense, and in fact what the First Lord of the Treasury said in reference to these very forms—
    "It is the bounden duty of England to take right good care of them, because they were forms of that distress caused through the force of legislation of past ages, and they were the victims of that distress, because England for 200 years had crippled and destroyed Irish industries and driven the people into the most barren parts of the kingdom."
    Now the House must not be alarmed by these figures, for I always wish to be accurate, and if there were the smallest difficulty I could give the quotation in full. Mr. Speaker, it is to me a very melancholy thing that I have seen during my 11 years in Parliament this miserable scene, and I act this part now for the eleventh time. I have heard year after year this story of Irish distress, and I have heard it as clearly as if I were actually in the Chief Secretary's room at Dublin Castle. Now, I venture to say this: It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the answers that are given to us when we call attention to the Irish distress are what the lawyers would call common forms. First of all, the distress is denied altogether. Then the Chief Secretary will answer that there is nothing more than abnormal distress; that the distress is not abnormal, or it is nothing more than a normal distress, the Irish people are like eels, accustomed to be skinned. The Government are watching, and they say there will be critical watching. That reminded him of the days he had in the Army. In cases of
    266
    punishment, after each ten lashes the Army-Surgeon used to come and feel the unfortunate man's pulse, to find out whether he could stand it or not. Now, is that an exaggeration? Let me geo whether it is or not. In September last, when the papers were literally filled—and not only the Nationalist, but the Unionist papers were tilled—with accounts of Irish distress, a correspondent in London, of the New York World, got this telegram in reference to Irish distress from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—
    "In reply to your telegram, the Lord Lieutenant desires me to say that the reports which you characterise as most alarming, and the prediction of famine in Ireland which you mention, are in his Excellency's opinion unjustifiable."
    The right hon. Gentleman had spoken very disparagingly of Professor Long, and said, practically, that he knew nothing about the country. He said that Professor Long, on whose labours he relied, was not much of a politician. I am sure the Chief Secretary knows better. At the last General Election, in 1895, Professor Long, the great agriculturist that he is, stood in the Unionist interests against the Member for South Molton, and he went to Ireland as a military Unionist politician. What does he say? Unhappily, in the districts in which this distress occurs the potato forms the staple food, and nothing else, of the people. Now, I will only read you three lines. He says—
    "It is admitted that the potato crop is a partial failure, the sprayed crop not numbering one in hundreds. Well, that means that thousands of families are obtaining only partial rations, or that they have no potatoes, and consequently no food at all. I affirm solemnly that although I visited many villages, house after house in each, unexpected, I never saw any food but the potato, except on five occasions—once flour, twice Indian meal, and twice a herring at least three of the families at which these foods were noticed being, although very poor, able to make both ends meet."
    Here I might add one word. Some years ago I went to see a family I knew, and I found famine absolutely at the door, and it was only with the greatest difficulty, and by making the greatest effort,

    267
    I was able to get them to tell me their true position. He goes on to say—
    "I was permitted to explore the little cottages, and to find potatoes or any other food I could. That the want of these poor creatures was paraded by them, as Mr. Robertson's informants insinuate, is an ungenerous libel upon the most simple, single-minded, and uncomplaining people I have ever met, and I speak of them individually and collectively, visiting them in most cases."
    That is all I have to say upon that, and I am sure, after what I have said, the right hon. Gentleman will look with a more curious and less philosophical view on the sufferings of the country, and will say, I will do my best to relieve the Irish people. I will give the right hon. Gentleman what may be called a forecast of his speech. I think the forecast is by the Rev. Joseph Cassidy. It was written on January 3rd this year to my hon. Friend on my left, and I think Father Cassidy's comments will bear very properly on the way in which the speech will proceed. He says—
    "There are about 550 in the parish of Ross-muck and Lettermore, and of these I am safe in saying 400 or more require immediate relief. I fear that before the dilatory and halting schemes of feeding a dog with a bit of his own tail system are in working order we shall have sad tales to tell."
    Now let the right hon. Gentleman see what an admirable comment this is of making the Boards themselves supply part of the money—
    "I fear we shall have sad tales to tell. Even then, as we have been informed, only a limited number of persons will be allowed on the relief works—not more than a fourth of the number of families in each electoral division of this union."
    Then he says—
    "Now I submit this tinkering policy on the part of the Government is nothing short of a scandal in the face of the financial wrong inflicted on Ireland. We claim as a right, in justice, that England will now restore to us a share of the money unjustly extracted from this country, to enable us to tide over the present distress. The plea can no longer stand that the Englishman is unjustly taxed for the relief of Irish distress."
    The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from his information sent down to the Castle the way in which his Inspectors did their work. I have spoken
    268
    to him across the Table and in type in respect of the vagaries of these gentlemen's visits to the distressed districts. On some occasions I have asked, "Did the Inspector look here?" and the answer was, "Oh, no, sir; he looked the other way." I was told that another Inspector had had a very pleasant tandem tour, but saw no distress, and they made no inquiries of parish priests or Protestant clergymen. Their only idea was to make things smooth for the Government, and I am borne out in this by the parish priest of Portray, Rev. James Cobbett having stated that the people cannot go to Mass on Sunday because they have no clothes. You must understand what that means. It is not like attending Church. Attending Mass is an indispensable obligation for a Catholic, and yet we are told that these poor people could not attend Mass—could not attend an indispensable obligation of their religion—for the want of clothes, which they had pawned. After speaking of the Government Inspectors he says—
    "I have seen myself from time to time heaps of these pawn-tickets, and on a former similar occasion, not half so bad as the present, I actually forwarded a batch of them to the Local Government Board. It is notorious that from the whole district of Glenmask not more than a dozen people, young or old, have been seen at Mass any Sunday for the last three months for want of clothes. If any of those pompous Inspectors who are masquerading in the Glens for months, with their hands in their empty breeches pockets, watching"
    the distress will call upon me I will give them proof of this fact, but they will not call. These gentlemen never darken the door of a priest for any information, which illustrates, perhaps, better than anything else, the spirit and the manner in which they pursue their inquiries into the distress. I have now done, except for a moment, for I must demolish this labour test by this letter, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman as an Irish view of the labour test. The gentleman who wrote this letter I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with. He is Father Healy, parish priest of Carraroe, Galway. This gentleman wrote to my hon. Friend on the left, in December last, asking for a public meeting to call the attention of the Government to the distress in his parish, in which 600 persons were

    269
    on the verge of starvation. I agreed to go down to the meeting, and then, to show how little he desired to parade the distress, he said there was no necessity now to go down, because relief works had been started, and the meeting was only to be called to force on the commencement of those works. Now, this letter is written to show the absolute failure. He says—
    "In the first place no one need apply for employment on the Government test, except the relieving officer of the district is able to show the officials that the applicant is, if not already starved, at least that he is half-starved. Secondly, that he has neither cow, sheep, nor pig in his possession. Thirdly, it must be the head of the family that will have to work. Fancy a widow to be obliged to work for 10d. a day, and if she has a son who is able and willing to take her place he is not allowed to do so unless the mother proves herself incapacitated, through a medical certificate, and even then he is only allowed the same wages as his mother had been. I say it is as barbarous as it is inhuman to have women, bent from years, or whose condition is such that out of delicacy I refrain to mention, carry stones and sand on their backs from eight in the morning until live in the afternoon. Nearly in every case old and infirm men and women have to travel from four to five miles to and fro, notwithstanding the smallness of the wages and the heavy work which is to be done; still hundreds who have begged and prayed to be employed have been refused. It is most pitiable to see the number of men and women going day after day to the relieving officer asking for food or work. It is not a matter of surprise, because in this poor and extensive parish, comprising about 800 destitute families, there are only 200 who are at present employed."
    Perhaps my hon. and benevolent Friend opposite would like to do something for us, or may say the state of things is exaggerated, but the subject matter of my speech is comprised of things I have seen myself; but I can tell him a remedy, and what the late General Gordon said upon the matter. When some Chief Secretary spoke as to the distress of those which were not employed, General Gordon said—
    "I wish I could bring you to the hovels I have seen, and put you to live in them for a week; the lesson would last you for your life."
    When I had been to see friends of my own I have been taken to look at their stables. I did not want to see them, but I have been taken to see them, and I have said to my friends: Tour stables are pal-
    270
    aces of Paradise to the hovels I have seen people living in in Ireland. I desire to refrain, at the end of a speech to which the House has listened with kindness and courtesy, from describing the scenes I have witnessed, and I only say, as regards myself, and can instantly in my own mind fix the date of any occurrence as to whether it was before or after the scenes I have mentioned. When we go into these places and see men, women, and little children suffering through no fault of their own, it is a shame which we cannot but feel that it should be allowed. I think it is very wrong, because these people who are suffering are not of the same blood as yourselves, that you should shut out all your compassion for them. Are we to have no remedy? I implore the right hon. Gentleman to take the steps which are personally within his power to take, to relieve the excess of human suffering which is now visiting large sections and large portions of the Irish people.
    MAJOR JAMESON: I desire to say a few words to the House on the subject of the Amendment made by the hon. Member for South Mayo, with which I cordially agree. I do not intend to speak at great length, but I should like to place before this House some of the bald facts of the distress in Ireland, and more particularly of the distress which is, perhaps, more accentuated in my own constituency than in that of any other part of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Dublin, has told you that a large portion of my constituency in the extreme West—from Kilkee to Loop Head—are suffering great distress, and distress which has been in no way exaggerated either by the hon. Member for South Mayo or by any Member of this Party. Sir, I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Dublin has mentioned this fact, and to show you that this is not the only part of my constituency where deep distress and suffering are to be met, I have here a list, sent me by the Poor Law Guardians of Kilrush, of 86 families, consisting of 462 people, who live within a very small area around that town, who are absolutely in a state of destitution; and in that district we have 570 more people in receipt of out-door relief than last year.

    271
    Sir, I have spent considerable time in driving round some of the poorest parts of my constituency, and visiting the people in their own cottages, in order to see for myself the present state of the country, and to be able to assure this House that what I say I know from personal knowledge. I have had many interviews during the last nine months with the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I may state with truth that I have written to him every week during the last five or six months—I do not think I would be far wrong if I said every second or third day. It is only within the last three weeks that I presented to the right hon. Gentleman a most influential deputation, and five out of the eight members of this deputation were Tory landlords and Deputy-Lieutenants of the county. I feel bound to testify to the unfailing courtesy and sympathy with which the Chief Secretary has, at all times, received my communications, and I can only regret that courtesy and sympathy will not feed my starving constituents, or in any way assuage the misery of famine. Sir, the fault lies in the rotten system of Government in Ireland, and is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It is against that system that the representatives of Ireland have protested for a hundred years. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth denounced this rotten system, and while denying it was the duty of Irish Members to make suggestions for the assuaging of the great distress which we now have to deplore in Ireland, because that distress was brought about by the system of government forced upon us by this country, he suggested that something should be done to give us power to make railroads, to deepen our harbours, and to make and improve our piers. This latter suggestion of making piers raised a laugh amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. Either their spelling has been neglected in their youth, and the money that was spent on their education in England, that ought to have gone to Ireland, has been misused, or they would know that the hon. Member for North Louth referred to piers spelt with an "i," and not to those blind peers without an "i" that this Government are far fonder of creating than of creating or fostering industries in Ireland. We pay no attention to these kind of peers, nor do we
    272
    desire to make them. We believe our only prosperous brewer has been already converted into a peer, and although we have every desire to improve him, we fear that the case is hopeless. I would point out to this House that at the deputation that I presented to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 25th January last, we asked for money to enable us to dredge the Creek of Kilrush, and I pointed out that, in the distressed circumstances in which my constituency, through no fault of their own, are plunged, we would be enabled to apply this money, or a large portion of it, in wages among the distressed people. Sir, the answer of the Chief Secretary was this, and he stated the same to you in his speech yesterday—
    "That he was obliged to make a very broad distinction between reproductive works of permanent utility and relief works."
    It may be true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the work to be effective as a work of relief cannot be a work of permanent utility. Personally, I differ with the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, and I would point out this, that temporary relief works would be of no avail in preventing the recurrence of distress and famine, if reproductive works of permanent utility are denied to those parts of my country that suffer from famine and distress. Sir, while giving every prominence to the consideration and courtesy I have at all times received from the Chief Secretary, I feel that, in bringing forward a few isolated sentences of the shortcomings of some of the Board of Guardians in Ireland, and holding them up to the ridicule of this House, he has taken a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for North Armagh, which is incompatible with his statement that the situation is a grave one, and one calling for exceptional measures. I also take some exception to the hon. Gentleman's statements as regards Professor Long. The right hon. Gentleman condemns the conclusions at which the worthy Professor has arrived because he was not aware of every particular as regards the Congested Districts Board. It was surely unnecessary for him even to know of the existence of the Congested Districts Board in order to arrive at the conclusion that Ireland was suffering from famine and from want; and I do not

    273
    believe that, if he had been well-primed by the official records of Dublin Castle he would have received nearly as correct an impression of the state of Ireland as he did by going as a perfect stranger to find out facts for himself. Sir, the Congested Districts Board has always received a good word from the hon. Member for East Mayo, the Leader of the Irish Party, and from every Member of our Party. I have begged of the Chief Secretary again and again to extend the Congested Districts Act to my constituency. He has acknowledged that, practically, they ought to be brought under it. But it will require an Act of Parliament. I have myself taken steps to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to congested districts, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give me every facility, although, in my opinion, this should have at once been made a Government matter of urgency, and be dealt with as such. Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo, in his powerful speech, has informed you that if Ireland had her own Parliament she would speedily have taken steps to assuage the sufferings of her people; but I go further, and I say that history shows that while Ireland had a Parliament, famine was unknown. I was glad to see the hon. Member for East Essex get up and say that this distress in Ireland should be relieved. We, on these Benches, are, and always have been, grateful for any assistance that has been given us by Members on the opposite side of the House. There are many who think with me that the Corn Laws and Free Trade, which have proved so beneficial to England, because of its teeming population of artisans and miners, has been the ruin of the agricultural interests of Ireland, has, year by year, decreased the profits which it was possible for Ireland to make by the sale of her produce, while the never ceasing increase of taxation has always added to the debit side of her balance-sheet. Sir, I appeal to this House, on the testimony of their own Minister, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the situation is a grave one, and one calling for exceptional measures; and if Members of this House believe that he is correct surely not one of them can vote against the Amendment of the Member for South Mayo, and tell us that we, in Ireland, have no right to
    274
    humbly represent to Her Majesty that famine is rampant in part of her dominions, and that the temporary relief measures proposed by Her Government have been proved to be wholly and entirely inadequate. I appeal to hon. Members opposite, many of whom for the first time have, I believe, sympathy with us in our distress. I appeal to them to see that we have the right to insist that our case be laid before Her Majesty, and that special legislation be introduced, not only to give relief, but to avert these constant recurrences of famine and distress. I cannot believe that this request will be refused, and that the same old policy which, a hundred years ago, drove us to rebellion is still to be continued, and that our wrongs are still to be un-redressed.
    *MR. JOHN ROCHE: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few observations in reference to the Amendment proposed by my friend the hon. Member for South Mayo. I am induced to do so as Member for a division of a county in which it is admitted distress prevails—viz., the county of Galway, and as guardian of the division in which I live, and which is scheduled under the Congested Districts Board. Together with that, I have always lived amongst the people, and have had a thorough knowledge of how they are situated, their wants and requirements, and I may add that I have, to a great extent, to live by farming myself. Therefore I need not trouble the House by quotations from speeches made on the subject, or with extracts from reports of correspondents, and will confine myself to personal experience and to facts that have come under my notice. The condition of the vast majority of the people amongst whom I reside is such that famine or otherwise depends on the potato crop. If it is a good one, they live upon them and make no complaint; on the other hand, if it is a failure, as it was last year, they then have to depend on such of their neighbours who may have been more fortunate than themselves, and the shopkeepers in the towns and villages, to give them a further instalment of Indian meal, with the hope that the next harvest may be a good one, and thereby enable them to pay for it. However, it is with the harvest of last year we are dealing,

    275
    and I desire to give my experience of it. I have made it a rule to sow as much land under potatoes each year as I consider will produce a sufficient supply for the use of my house, together with seed for the following season. I observed that rule last year, and what was the result? I can assure the House that before the end of last December I had not one potato except what I had to buy, and will have to continue doing so until next harvest. Well, I know scores of families who are in a similar condition, but who, unfortunately, have no other resources to fall back upon, and who at the present moment are living on private charity, together with what they may get from friends or relatives who may be in foreign countries. The outlook having become so serious, together with the numerous representations made to the Rev. Father Costelloe, P.P., who had special advantages of knowing the condition of his people, he called a public meeting, at which it was clearly shown that distress prevailed. A resolution relating thereto was adopted, and I was requested to forward copies to the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary. I did so, and received in reply the usual callous acknowledgment. Having subsequently learned that the police were instructed to investigate the matter, I immediately called on the officer in charge and requested that he should see for himself, and not trust altogether to the reports of his subordinates. He consented to do so. I then informed him that I, with several others, were having our potatoes dug. He visited the district, and in a subsequent conversation he informed me that I had little reason to complain compared with what he saw elsewhere. Another officer, who was also instructed to report on the potato crop in his district, told me that in order to convey to the Chief Secretary the extent of the failure in his district he stated in his report that he had nine yards of a ridge dug, and that it only produced 28 small potatoes. Still, in the face of the reports of his own officials, nothing has been done. I need not ask why, for I know it is because we are peaceful. And after considerable experience I regret to say that I am reluctantly obliged to come to the conclusion that if our poor people died of starvation in the ditches and on the
    276
    roadside, as the people did in '47, and if the country remained quiet, or its Members failed in their duty in this House, they would meet with the same fate. Therefore I would earnestly appeal to my fellow-countrymen, if they want to save themselves from starvation and extermination, to have recourse to the old methods and weapons which rendered such service in the past, and which entitled them to the respect and attention of this House.
    MR. DAVID SHEEHY: I followed the speech of the Chief Secretary, which he delivered last night, with the greatest attention, and to-day I have made a careful study of the newspaper reports of that speech. I confess that, after the most careful study, I am totally unable—perhaps it is my dulness that is responsible for it—to see how the movement he is taking, will at all adequately meet the requirements of the situation in Ireland. The Chief Secretary himself, in his speech last night, made no effort to deny that along the Atlantic seaboard—practically, from Donegal to Kerry—extreme destitution exists in Ireland, and that, in many portions of that seaboard, intense want prevails. He does not admit, however, that the statement in the Amendment—
    "That the temporary relief measures proposed by your Majesty's Government have been too long deferred, and are entirely inadequate,"
    is accurate. He does not admit that the measures have been too long deferred, because, if he did admit that, he would be practically saying that he was responsible for the delay. But that the delay has taken place, and that nothing has yet been done, is unquestionable. He mentioned, with a great flourish of trumpets, that the Local Government Board had given power to the Guardians to grant outdoor relief. That is the only step yet taken to meet this terrible crisis. The Chief Secretary has given these powers to the Guardians of Unions that are themselves in a famished condition, and whose own finances are in a bad condition. I may ask, what will be the result of giving such unions powers to extend the operations of outdoor relief? The result will be that these unions will have no money with which to carry on the good work they have set themselves.

    277
    Galway is one of those unions which have determined to carry on the scheme while they can. In that scheme we have it that the unions must contribute a fourth of the moneys expended. We have it in the scheme also that the works are not to be of a permanent or enduring character, but are to be what is called relief works. I fail altogether to realise what is the meaning of relief works. What are their nature? What may they be? What is the exact nature of the relief works that the Government require shall be first prepared by the local people, then sent to the Poor Law Guardians, and then submitted to the Government, and either pooh-poohed or disapproved by the Government? What is to be the nature of the works? They are not to be reproductive works. Then what are they to be? I want to know. If they are not to be reproductive works, they should be works of utility. I further want to know—May large and sufficient water-tanks be constructed for the purpose of saving up some of the excessive rainfall? That is one of the things which the people have said is necessary year after year, but I do not know whether they could undertake such a work, or whether, of they propounded a scheme of such a character, it would meet with approval. It is well known at the present time that there is in one of the unions of Galway County a very hot controversy with reference to the dismissal, because of his incapacity to collect the rates, of a rate collector. A sealed order of dismissal was issued, for the sole reason that he was not able to collect the rates. If the rates are uncollected in this union, and if the condition of things is such that the Government are obliged to nominate a collector of their own, I want to know how the new collector will be able to knock out of the empty purses of the ratepayers the money by means of which any works that will be initiated may be carried out. There is a large mountain district around this union, and there are a great many very destitute people living there. These destitute people are the very people to whom application must be made for the rates, and then out of the rates they are to get relief. I must say, for myself, I totally fail to see how this scheme can be carried out in such a way as to save from death by starvation many of the
    278
    people now living in the West of Ireland. And if the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, which he propounded to us last night, does not save from death by starvation every human being in the West of Ireland, if one death by starvation results in consequence of the extraordinary scheme which the Chief Secretary has propounded, the responsibility will lie at the door of the right hon. Gentleman, and not at that of the Guardians. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has narrowed this down into a most ingenious proposal, by which he tries to throw the responsibility from his own shoulders and from the Government on to the Poor Law Guardians, who are themselves in a famished condition, and unable to meet the situation. If the Poor Law Guardians were able, in consequence of the powers now given to them, to meet the distress in the West of Ireland, it would prove that the distress did not exist. Either they are in a famished condition, and have not the means of sustenance, or of paying rates, or they are not in a famished condition. You will find that every one of the unions, not only the three that have accepted, but the others that have refused, will find considerable difficulty in meeting the demands made upon them in consequence of the great distress. I admit that there is one thing that will be useful—one power which will be found useful and beneficial to the West of Ireland—in the scheme of the Chief Secretary, and that is the permission which is extended to Boards of Guardians to give spraying machines in the summer time. It is very much to be regretted that this permission was not extended to them last year. If the Poor Law Boards had had that power last year, some, at any rate, of the present distress would not have prevailed. But it is always the principle of the Government, so far as Ireland is concerned, to be just too late. You are always late in your measures. You had warning last August, you had warning in September, in October, in November, in December, and we are yet discussing the question. When is relief going to be sent, and in what measure? That is the question we, the Irish Members, ask; that is the question we are unable to get an answer to. An hon. Member on the other side of the House advised us Irishmen not to use any harsh language

    279
    in speaking on this question. I do not wish to speak harshly or strongly, but as an Irishman, and as a representative of one of these districts in which distress prevails, I cannot, with patience, see the devices with which the Chief Secretary is trying to divest himself of his responsibilities. He cannot, however, divest himself of those responsibilities, which will remain with him. He, and he alone, will be held responsible.
    MR. W. O'MALLEY: I will not occupy the time of the House long, but I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland described the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo as eloquent. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I am accurate in describing that speech as a scathing condemnation of the Irish policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and I beg to submit to this House—to those who listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who have read it—that the reply of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was feeble and flabby in the extreme. We have yet to hear the speeches of the hon. Members who have preceded me replied to. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for East Mayo very properly and appropriately read extracts from the important declarations of Professor Long, which he communicated to the Manchester Guardian, and I will direct the attention of the House for a moment to the method which the Chief Secretary has adopted in referring to those able and impartial statements of Professor Long. The Chief Secretary said, in his speech last night—
    "At a meeting in Manchester the other night one of the speakers described Professor Long as a gentleman whose accuracy was unimpeachable, and whose heart was kind. I have no doubt whatever of the kindness of heart of Professor Long, or that he conscientiously gave to the public his impressions. But it must be remembered that Professor Long, according to his own account, was an absolute stranger in the West of Ireland, and went hurriedly through it."
    And then, in order to discount the statements of Professor Long, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I have carefully studied all Professor Long's letters, and I am bound to say there is not one which does not bear witness to the fact that Professor Long was a stranger in the West when he went there. I will give merely two illustrations of this. He wrote a
    280
    series of letters dealing with the condition of Mayo, and others dealing with Donegal and Galway. But it is a singular fact that throughout the whole series of letters Professor Long, although he had actually been staying with a member of the Congested Districts Board, appeared to be totally unaware that such a board existed or had done any work in the West of Ireland."
    Now, Mr. Speaker, so far from Professor Long being a stranger to Ireland, he has, I understand, had a long experience of that country. More than 15 years ago he was a lecturer to the Agricultural Society of Ireland. He has, I believe, been several times through a great part of Ireland, and I do not think that there is a greater authority on this matter than Mr. Long. And yet, Mr. Speaker, the Chief Secretary contends that because forsooth he has not been in the West of Ireland before, and although he has been in the Society of a member of the Congested Districts Board, that he is unaware of the work the Congested Districts Board has done, and therefore what he has seen with his own eyes as to the poverty and condition of the people must be discounted. A more extraordinary conclusion to come to. I think I have never heard. Professor Long went to the West of Ireland and himself visited the people looked upon their pinched faces, saw the condition of their houses, and knew exactly how they were situated. And yet what is the argument which the Chief Secretary for Ireland launches against the hon. Member for Mayo? If, Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Long was a candidate for an appointment under the Local Government Board, if he had a brother or a son who was seeking an appointment in Ireland, I have not the slightest doubt whatever that Professor Long would appear very differently through the Chief Secretary's glasses. But Professor Long is an independent English gentleman, and he has, I believe, given a most faithful and graphic and true account of what he has seen; and although the Chief Secretary refers to his letter in terms of contumely, and uses the argument I have already referred to, that because he has not known what the Congested Districts Board has done, therefore, we must receive with caution and reserve his assertions as to the condition of the people. Now, Mr.

    281
    Speaker, I would like the Members of this House, and especially the hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House, to try if possible to realise the condition of the mind of the Chief Secretary in approaching the distress in the West of Ireland. I think it is quite evident from his speech last night, if we had no other evidence, that he has doubted the statements made by Irish Members and others on this subject; and the fact that he went back to the years 1891 and 1895 to try to prove that the Irish Boards of Guardians had been in the habit of exaggerating the facts shows that his main object has been to try to prove to this House that anything the Irish Boards of Guardians say, must be discounted. His sole policy in dealing with the distress in the West of Ireland has been to send down a representative of the Local Government Board with no other object than to try to find some means of avoiding relief works, and when at last he could not possibly overlook the situation, when the distress was so evident and apparent, the scheme he has propounded to these Boards of Guardians in Galway, Mayo, and elsewhere, is intended to throw responsibility upon them in such a way as to prove to this House, and the country that all our statements with regard to the failure of the potato crop, and our demand for relief works and all that sort of thing, ought to be discounted, if not denied. Now, Mr. Speaker, of course, I will readily admit that some of the statements of these Boards of Guardians—I will even go further, and say that perhaps some of our own statements, and some of the statements of interested parties in the West of Ireland, may have been exaggerated. I say it is inevitable, in cases of this sort, that there should be exaggeration. Have we not exaggeration and misrepresentation in other matters? I would point this out to hon. Members on the other side of the House, and I would ask them whether, when they were trying to get relief from the rates, there was not some exaggeration as to the distress of agriculture in this country? Had there been no exaggeration when talking of our policy in regard to Africa, Chitral, the frontier of India, and elsewhere? Do you not exaggerate on one side the advantage which this country will
    282
    derive from a certain policy, and, on the other side, did you not exaggerate the difficulties and dangers of that policy? I say that in the West of Ireland the people are suffering from chronic distress, and have been dependent year after year, when seasons are bad, on this House for generosity, or whatever you like to call it. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that there should be exaggeration. But the Chief Secretary has not dealt with this question in a broad or candid spirit. I think his policy compares very unfavourably with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he went over to Ireland, where, in rather a big and grand way, he had coerced us by sending us in dozens to gaol. But when there was distress in Ireland two years ago he did not inquire whether there was real distress or whether the people were starving. He did not put his hand on the people to know whether they were dying, but he spent a considerable sum of money in trying to relieve their necessities. As to the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, I state in this House that his whole policy has been to try to prove that there has been no distress, and when he could no longer deny the fact, then I say his mode of relief and his method of dealing with the distress is calculated to make things worse than they were. The poor people are starving. It is no exaggeration to say that the people in the West of Ireland are in a state of semi-starvation. What do we find the Chief Secretary doing? Four or five months have elapsed, and up to the present day I do not believe a single public relief organisation has been established. And yet the Chief Secretary poses before this House as the friend of Ireland. Well, Mr. Speaker, being aware of the state of mind of the Chief Secretary, and being aware of how the matter had been misrepresented in the early part of last autumn, I thought it my duty to pay a visit to my constituency. I had seen in some of the London papers, the Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Chronicle, accounts of the failure of the potato crop in Kerry and elsewhere. I put myself in communication with the Editor of the Daily Chronicle, and I told him I was going to pay a visit to my constituents in Connemara. He invited me to give

    283
    my experience, and he enjoined upon me the desirability of not over-stating my case. Well, Mr. Speaker, I went down to Connemara, and I did not take the statements of the priests, nor of the people; I did not rely upon any statements made to me, but I relied upon my own judgment and my own sense. I looked into the state of things at the end of September. I had a certain field dug up, and I kept my eyes upon the potatoes that were dug up, and I had them weighed. And what were my experiences? I found that in a plot four yards long and four feet wide there were fifteen pounds of potatoes. In an ordinary year there would have been more than seventy pounds of potatoes there. I tried the experiment in several fields, and in one field I found that in five yards there were only ten pounds of potatoes. A great proportion of them were rotten, and they were nearly all small. I communicated with the Chief Secretary upon this matter. I maintain that there was an admitted failure of the crops in August; and I say that, so far as the county of Galway is concerned, the representative of the Local Government Board in that district minimised the failure of the potato crop. Over and over again, at the Boards of Guardians, he stated that there was only a partial failure, and he altogether denied that the failure was serious. Well, it is a very extraordinary thing that we have the Chief Secretary for Ireland so early as August admitting that there would be relief required by Christmas. We are now in the month of February, and nothing so far has been done, except in four or five districts. In addition to my experiences in testing the quality of potatoes, I visited the homes of the people. I inquired into their condition, and I ascertained these facts: Along the western seaboard one of the principal industries that supported the people and enabled them to pay their rent and to keep body and soul together year by year was the kelp industry. Upon the strength of the kelp industry, and of a fairly decent harvest, these poor people were enabled to live with some decency on account of the credit they received from the shopkeepers, but I found that because the potato crop had failed, and the kelp industry had slipped, the poor people were
    284
    left without credit, and in a hopeless and helpless position. These facts I brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary, and I invited him to deal with this sad and terrible position. We are now in the month of February, and the Chief Secretary has not done anything to meet the necessities and wants of these people. It is an extraordinary thing that although the Chief Secretary, and no doubt his supporters around him, are perfectly satisfied with the scheme he has now proposed to meet the distress, the people who are supposed to be benefited by it look upon it as a complete failure. I will trouble the House with a short extract from a letter of the Rev. Father Healy, parish priest of Carraroe. He wrote this letter in December, when, I think, the Local Government Inspector had been approaching the Oughterard Guardians and asking them to devise some labour test with regard to the relief. And what does Father Healy say upon that. He was acknowledging in this letter to the Freeman's Journal the help received from charitably disposed people, and I would take this opportunity of pointing out and stating my belief as to the priests in certain districts of the West of Ireland. I am speaking particularly of Connemara, a district I know. I know every priest in Connemara, and I know the people there. I have gone among them. I was brought up there, and what I am stating I can prove; and I say that were it not for the appeals that these priests have made to the charitable world before now there would have been many cases of death from starvation in the West of Ireland. The Chief Secretary may thank himself that these appeals have been made, because I believe, from what I know of these districts, that deaths from starvation must inevitably have occurred if these priests had not provided funds for clothing them and keeping them alive. Now, what does Father Healy say?—
    "Repeated appeals to the Government on behalf of 800 poor families of this parish have failed to elicit any more sympathetic response than the relaxation of the law which deals with the granting of outdoor relief and the appointment of an extra Relieving Officer in the district at a salary of £1 a week, while the Poor Rate is already as high as 5s. in the £."

    285
    Now, Mr. Speaker, I will invite the House to consider what follows—
    "The utter fatuity of this course will be appreciated from the fact that I have been obliged to relieve the families of some of the ratepayers out of the charitable donations of Mr. Laing and Mrs. Alley."
    I will trouble the House with a short extract from another letter which has appeared in to-day's Daily Chronicle. It is from the Rev. Father M'Hugh, parish priest of Carra, co. Galway. The Member for South Dublin has left his place, but if he were present he would bear me out when I say that the Congested Districts Boards have done some good work, and that Father M'Hugh is not a man to exaggerate. Yet he has found it necessary to make this appeal to the British public on behalf of these poor starving people:—"The Editor of the Daily Chronicle. I have waited a considerable time"—Mr. Speaker, I think it would be to the advantage of our Unionist friends on the other side if they tried to realise how far this proposal of the Chief Secretary has been received favourably in Ireland, and what is said about it, and I think Father M'Hugh's letter will throw some light upon the subject. He says—
    "I have waited a considerable time before making a public appeal to the charitable, in hopes that through the action of the Government, or in some other way, I and my people would be spared the humiliation of appearing as beggars before the world. I hate public charity and its demoralising effects, but, much as I loathe it, I am forced to have recourse to it as it is the only means of rescuing my people from the clutches of the grim, gaunt spectre of famine, which is now wasting their strength and energies. The Government relief works, from which we expected much, have not been started, nor do we know when they will be started. The Poor-law Guardians, who have been called upon under the Government scheme to contribute a portion of the sum required to meet the distress, are slow in imposing additional burdens on the already overtaxed ratepayers. In the meantime the suffering of the famine-stricken people is becoming more intense, and their condition becoming more alarming. A wretched portion of boiled turnips and Indian meal is the only food partaken of by them for weeks—and not enough even of this. What wonder, then, is it to see men, who were but a few months ago strong, strapping fellows, now reduced to such weaklings as to be scarcely able to crawl along to the place where the Relieving Officer so grudgingly distributes the orders for the miserable pittance of a stone or two of Indian meal, which must suffice for the family, no matter how large, till next week comes round."
    Well, Mr. Speaker, I will not apologise for reading these extracts, but in con-
    286
    clusion I would echo the sentiments that have been expressed, and the statements that have been made, by my hon. Friends with regard to the Congested Districts Board. I believe myself that if the Congested Districts Board were allowed sufficient money to carry out the scheme they have started in some parts of Mayo and Donegal, they would take up these lands which were cultivated by the tenants but are now in possession of the landlords, and if they had compulsory powers to buy these lands at a fair valuation, they would enlarge the holdings of these poor people along the coast. If they had further powers to improve the fishing industry and the reafforesting scheme, I believe that in that direction as the hon. Member for Longford said yesterday, a solution of this question would be found. But, Mr. Speaker, what is our experience as to Irish demands upon this House? We are told that you are prepared to admit that in the past the English Government has treated Ire land shamefully and scandalously. You are always maintaining, at the present time, that what you do now is the right thing, although what your predecessors did was the wrong thing. The Irish people, and the Irish representatives, have always protested against your method of governing our country. Why can you not, in the face of the fact that you have, year after year, the Irish Members coming to this House making an appeal for their poor constituencies on the Western seaboard, listen to their suggestions and adopt their advice? Why do you not, at this time, in the face of the report of the Commission, when you must recognise that uncontrovertibly you have been robbing Ireland for over 50 years of at least two and a half millions a year, even if you are not prepared to go so far as granting Home little, meet, at all events, the Irish case which is now presented be fore you? I think the eminent Members will realise what is the state of mind of the Chief Secretary, because it is the state of mind which has been brought to bear upon this question by every Chief Secretary that ever governed our unfortunate country. And I say that the English people, if not at the present time, yet perhaps before very long, will realise the danger to their country, and to the integrity of the whole Empire, of

    287
    this perpetual bad treatment of our poor country. At the present time you have very few friends throughout the world. You have France, Russia, and Germany, and other powers hating and detesting you. You are very indignant when you hear us making statements showing a feeling of disloyalty; but I say that the Irish people can never have a feeling of loyalty, and can never have sympathy with you in your troubles, whether at home or abroad, so long as you continue to treat Ireland as the Chief Secretary has treated Ireland in this emergency.
    MR. R. AMBROSE: The districts in which the Chief Secretary proposes to put his relief scheme in force are in the strictly congested ones—the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Roscommon, Mayo, Leitrim, Galway, Kerry, and Cork; and taking the population of those districts, you will find it totals 549,516; and the highest valuation is £1 6s. 8d., and the lowest 17s. 10d., so that the average valuation per head is £1 0s. 3d. The Chief Secretary proposes to call together the largest ratepayers of those congested districts, and to ask them to pay out of their own pockets a certain amount of rates to be given to the Guardians, and to be handed back again in the shape of relief. It contend it is utterly impossible that this system can work. Take the county of Mayo alone. There you have a congested district population of 143,000, in a total population of 218,000; over three-fourths are, you see, in a congested district, and I should like to know from the Chief Secretary how he can expect—their valuation being but 18s. 3d. per head—to get any money from them in the shape of relief for the remainder of the population. But that is not the worst. Take the union of Killarney. In a portion of that the valuation is 6s. 9¼d. per head, yet the Chief Secretary seems to think that these people can meet together, and devise a scheme to raise money on the ratable value. I think that there is only one remedy applicable—the one alluded to by several of my colleagues—i.e., to enlarge the holdings of the people. The right hon. Gentleman suggests he can wipe out the possibility of famine by improving the breed of cattle, but I say that it is utterly impossible to improve the breed of the cattle without enlarging the holdings of the people. The Congested Districts
    288
    Board should have the power of doing that. I may mention that on the 10th May, 1895, the Congested Districts Board held a meeting which the right hon. Gentleman attended.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I was not present at that meeting.
    MR. R. AMBROSE: Your name is appended to the report.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My name is attached to the report because it was published after I became Chief Secretary. But I did not attend the meeting.
    MR. R. AMBROSE: Then are we to take it the putting your name to the report is a forgery? At the meeting in question, the Congested Districts Board passed a resolution in favour of having compulsory purchase powers, and that resolution is signed by the Chief Secretary.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have fully explained I was not present when the resolution was passed, nor did I accede to it.
    MR. R. AMBROSE: But the right hon. Gentleman drafted the last paragraph of the report, which practically amounts to an urgent demand on the part of the Congested Districts Board for compulsory purchase powers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will promptly give effect to those ideas.
    MR. KNOX: I shall not detain the House more than a few minutes. Hon. Members opposite may think that we are making an exaggerated demand, and are asking for something which has not been given to England. But what are the facts? The relief which the Chief Secretary has promised to the poorest parts of Ireland—I will not weary the House with detailed figures—does not amount in any case to half the normal rates of the district, and yet there is not a single agricultural district in Great Britain where the Government are not giving half the agricultural rates to every farmer! In these poverty-stricken districts in the West of Ireland, where the people are paying rates of 5s., 6s., and even 7s., in the £, such as you have no conception of, you are refusing to give them out of the joint taxes to which they contribute, as much as you give to every farmer in England, in regard to whom there has been no question of destitution or famine. Your English farmer spends as much on his dinner every market-day as would keep an average inhabitant of a congested district for a week, yet he has been granted

    289
    a great deal more relief than is being doled out in two or three exceptional Unions in Ireland. I will give you another comparison, this time from India. Sir Anthony Macdonald, a native of an Irish congested district, and of one of the distressed counties, was in charge of the North-West Provinces during a time of famine. If he had remained in Ireland he would never have risen to anything better, perhaps, than the position of a Member of Parliament. What did he do in India when famine threatened? The first thing he did was to remit large parts of the land tax, and make grants to the landlords and zemindars on the condition of their remitting double the amount of rent. But in Ireland you are exacting from the tenant full rent and full rates, although those taxes are reported by your own Commissioners to be out of all proportion to the wealth of the people. I ask whether, under these circumstances, seeing that you have treated these poor people at your very doors so very differently from the manner in which famine was dealt with in the North-West Province, you are not ashamed of the action of your Chief Secretary?
    MR. CRILLY: I also promise not to detain the House more than five minutes. I desire to conclude this debate by drawing the attention of the Chief Secretary to a telegram which I have just received from Belmullet, which place, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is one of the distressed districts of Ireland. The telegram is signed in the first place by the Protestant rector of Belmullet; it is also signed by the Catholic curate, and by some of the largest merchants in that part of Ireland. It asks me to bring before the House during the Debate on Irish distress, the fact that, owing to continued storms, neither sailing vessels nor steamers can approach Belmullet, and, consequently, the town and district is left without a single bag of Indian meal, and there is only two days' supply of flour to be had in the town. How the unfortunate population will exist if this weather continues much longer, it is impossible to say. The Government officials on the spot, are fully aware of the state of things. A similar state happened last year, and it will recur at intervals until Belmullet is provided with railway communication. Now, I want to draw the
    290
    attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that telegram in order to emphasise what has been said by six or seven of my colleagues as to the necessity for prompt relief. The quarrel we have with the right hon. Gentleman and his associates in Dublin Castle is that they delay dealing with these periodical occurrences until the last moment. The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape from this fact. Last year I drew his attention continually to the existing state of distress in the West of Ireland, and in February and May last he himself admitted that distress was then existent in North Mayo, and that a sad condition of affairs had prevailed for three years owing to the absolute failure of the potato and other crops. And while these unfortunate people have been starving, the right hon. Gentleman, bearing out the old bad records of the Dublin Castle, has done nothing at all. To-day he comes before us with a proposal to supply these people with spraying machines and seed potatoes; and with some Poor-law relief. Does he think thus successfully to cope with a distress which amounts to absolute poverty? I spent two months of the Recess in my own constituency, and I went over practically the same ground as Professor Long covered for the Manchester Guardian, and I can vouch for it there is not a single word of exaggeration in any one of the letters he wrote. The right hon. Gentleman stated last night that, since the famine of 1817, these poor people had been able to find sustenance other than potatoes. But I can assure him and the House that I have entered dozens of houses in which the poor families had nothing to eat except diseased potatoes, which were not larger than marbles. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down may laugh. I come from the same county as he does, and I am glad to think that in Down the people never had such miserable experiences, but if he will come down with me to North Mayo, and accompany me round the district on an outside car, I guarantee he will acknowledge that a condition of affairs exists which demands from the Government immediate and adequate relief. Surely the wealth, power, and experience of England in Ireland should be sufficient to enable you to find some remedy for these everlasting grievances in the West of Ireland. Cannot the statesmen of England take

    291
    some action to put an end to this chronic and eternal distress in the West of Ireland? Had the Local Government Board of Ireland of the last 30 or 40 years been doing what the Congested Districts Board is striving to do to-day, we, the representatives for the West of Ireland, would not now be asking you to relieve those who are starving, to a large extent, because of your bad Administration of the country. I agree with my colleagues that the proposed solution indicated by the Chief Secretary will not meet the difficulty. As the telegram I have read shows, what is wanted is immediate relief, for when the potato crop fails in the West of Ireland, the people have nothing to fall back upon except cheap, unwholesome Indian meal. And one cause of that is that we have no railway communication in North Mayo. As we are told, on the authority of the Protestant rector, there is not a bag of Indian meal in Belmullet to-day. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that by supplying spraying machines for use some months hence, or by giving the Congested Districts Board £10,000, he will be able to deal adequately with the case of these poor people? I will end my remarks with an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take immediate and adequate steps to meet the momentary distress, which is shown in the telegram I have read, to exist in North Mayo.
    MR. FLAVIN: Although this Debate may be troublesome and tiresome to hon. Members opposite, it is our duties, as the representatives of constituencies in the West of Ireland, to bring before this House the existing state of affairs there. I wish to lay before the right hon. Gentleman a statement as to the condition of North Kerry, although I have little hope of getting a remedy for our grievances. During the Sessions of 1896 and 1897, I frequently, at the instance of public boards in the division, made appeals to this House, but I did so in vain. Now, within the past fortnight or three weeks, in the Listowel Union, we have had the unfortunate spectacle of labourers appealing for work. The Guardians are empowered, on a requisition from the ratepayers, to increase the rate, and give outdoor relief; but, unfortunately, the rates in that Union are already as high as 13s. in the £, and it would be, therefore, impossible and ridiculous to ask the farmers and other rate-
    292
    payers to contribute more for the relief of the starving poor in their districts. On the 28th April, 1897, at the request of the Listowel Guardians, I made an appeal to this House, and it was found necessary, owing to the rotten condition of the potatoes in that year, and the failure of the previous year's harvest. The Guardians asked for authority to expend, out of the rates, the small sum of £50 for the purchase of sprayers. The reply was that there was no legal authority by which the rates of the Union could be so expended, but the Congested Districts Board proposed that year to apply some of its funds in the supply of spraying materials. I at once suggested to the Listowel Guardians that they should apply for a portion of that money, but the reply they received was, no money for them. The result is that the potatoes are a complete failure in that Union, except on the holding of well-to-do farmers who were able to purchase spraying machines. The people in the poor parts of North Kerry are now on the verge of starvation, and unless the Government take prompt steps, the results, before the winter has passed, will be most deplorable. There are no seed potatoes or oats to be obtained. I am only sorry the Chief Secretary, in regard to these matters, prefers to believe the reports of the Local Government Board Inspectors sent from Dublin to the evidence given last year by a Kerry landlord. I do, however, appeal to him to make a more minute and detailed inquiry into the condition of these poor people.
    Amendment proposed—
    "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that in large districts of Ireland considerable bodies of the population have been for some time, and are at the present moment, reduced to live on insufficient and unwholesome food, and are on the very brink of actual famine, that this condition of things has been brought about by a failure of the potato crop and partial failure of other crops in districts the population of which, impoverished by the general depression of agriculture, had even in better times existed under such conditions that the failure of one year's potato crop produced a famine; that the temporary relief measures proposed by Your Majesty's Government have been too long deferred and are entirely inadequate; and that we earnestly urge on Your Majesty the necessity first, of applying measures of temporary relief on a large and generous scale to the suffering districts, and secondly, of introducing legislation calculated to avert the constant recurrence of famines in certain districts of Ireland" (Mr. Davitt).
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided.—Ayes, 153; Noes 235. (See Division List, No. 2.)

  SLAVERY IN THE ZANZIBAR PROTECTORATE.
  *MR. J. A. PEASE: It is somewhat humiliating to be compelled by the situation in the Zanzibar Protectorate to once again draw the attention of the House to the position of affairs on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and on the mainland, within the Zanzibar Protectorate. It will be in the recollection of the House that last year a Decree was passed, upon which the Government relied to secure the abolition of slavery on the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and when the House reflects that that Decree was not the production of English officials, and that it was left to be carried out by the very officials at Zanzibar who had constantly reported against the abolition of slavery, it will not be surprised to find that the Decree has become practically a dead letter, in so far as the abolition of slaves on these two islands is concerned. I should be quite willing to admit, Sir, that the position of the slave population on the islands has been improved in consequence of this Decree. It is very obvious that certain direct and indirect benefits have been secured for them, and that Arab masters have been compelled in self-defence to show some consideration towards their slaves, and to treat them in a more humane manner than they did prior to the promulgation of the Decree. But the fact remains that the majority of the labouring population on these islands and under our British flag remain in bondage. It was on the 24th June last year that the First Lord of the Treasury pledged the Government to carry out on the mainland of the East Coast Protectorate what they were in the process of carrying out on the islands. But, so far as I can gather, in the interval between the 24th June and the present time no steps whatever have been taken to secure the abolition of slavery on the mainland portion of the Zanzibar Protectorate. In the island of Zanzibar I am told 20 slaves have been liberated. The number has perhaps been increased recently, and I hope the Under Secretary will give us
  294
  some information on that subject, for I am aware that our information is not very recent. In a letter which Bishop Tucker wrote to The Times newspaper, and which was published on the 26th January, there is a paragraph which says that there is no visible difference in the status of the slaves since the issue of the proclamation. Then, in regard to Pemba, we have the admission of the Vice-Consul there that on the 30th September only about 20 slaves had been liberated in consequence of the Decree of April 6th, on which the Government relied to secure the abolition of slavery in that island. So far as I know, very few slaves have since September obtained their liberation in consequence of the Decree—very few indeed out of the 60,000 or 70,000 that have been kept in bondage in that island. What is the reason put forward to justify that position? The Vice-Consul. Dr. Sullivan, says that the slaves themselves have no conception of the fact that they can obtain their freedom by simply asking for it. Surely, that is a reflection on the Government of the day, if the slaves themselves have not been made aware of the effect of the Decree passed last April. Now, I understand that the Decree was published on the island, not in Swahili, the only language which the slaves understand, but in Arabic. Still, Dr. Sullivan contradicts himself, for in another paragraph in his report he says that the slaves are gradually beginning to acquire some knowledge of what the Decree really means. We have, however, some further light on the matter, for Bishop Tucker, on December 30th, states that five slaves recently escaped from the island of Pemba to the mainland at the risk of their lives, and they testified to a general knowledge of the Decree on the part of the slaves, but to an equally general fear of the consequences of making any attempt to claim their freedom. But that is not to be surprised at, bearing in mind the procedure which it is necessary for a slave to go through before he can obtain his freedom. These are the steps that have to be taken. First, the slave must go before the Wali, an Arab official associated with prisons, shackles, and floggings. Then he is asked why he wants to become a free man, and whether he has any complaint to bring forward

  295
  against the master who possessed him. Next he has to tell when and where he became a slave, and has to allow himself to be examined. His description, height, colour, age, tribe, and length of arm, as well as any marks on his body, are taken note of. Then it is necessary for him to be conveyed from Pemba to Zanzibar, a proceeding looked upon more in the light of transportation than anything else; and as soon as he gets there he is again examined, and valued as a chattel, and not until all that is done is he presented with his paper of freedom. I hold that it is a disgrace to the British race, that it should be necessary thus to present a slave with papers of freedom. His liberty ought to be his inalienable right. We complain, too, that the law is being administered by a Wali official instead of by an English official, and that it is being administered as a permissive act contrary to the intention of Parliament, to British traditions, and to the spirit of the Brussels Act. It will be no credit to the Foreign Office if it proposes to shelter itself under the excuse that the administration of the law is under the Sultan's Government, and not under the British Government, for every Member of the House knows that any influence brought to bear by our Government, or any advice given, has to be accepted by the Sultan of Zanzibar. As an illustration of the administration of the law as it now exists, I should like to read an extract from a letter by Mr. Burtt, written last September, which says:
  "Last week I visited the prison here, and found three female slaves heavily ironed. The Wali committed them to prison for seven days, with shackles on their legs, for refusing to work for their master. When asked if this was not contrary to the law, he said he knew it was, and then remarked, 'But then, the women don't know that they can be free.' He promised that they should be set at liberty at once, but when next I inquired, they were still in prison."
  That is merely one of many instances I could give the House of the way in which the law is administered by these Mahomedans. I submit nothing will be satisfactory except placing the administration of this law in the hands of British officials. The next point I wish to refer to is the clause in the Decree of the 6th April, which precludes concubines from obtaining their freedom. It is very diffi-
  296
  cult to ascertain the exact proportion of women to men on the island. I am told that in the island the proportion of women to men is probably about four or five to one, and it must be obvious to every Member of this House that the Arab slave-owner, when he knows these female slaves can be exempted from the operation of the Decree, has every direct encouragement to pursue his vile purpose of seducing the women in order that he may retain them in a position of slavery. Such a proceeding is differentiating between men and women to an extent not based on either moral or just grounds, and I do not think the Government will feel inclined this evening to justify such a distinction being made between the sexes. Sir J. Kirk, whose great authority is acknowledged at the Foreign Office, states—
  "I object to female slaves being exempted and left in slavery, and I do not consider any practical difficulty would have arisen had the law been made of universal application."
  Then I want to turn to another point—the question of compensation. The Government have with some ground stated that the circumstances in the islands of Pemba and Zanzibar are somewhat different to cases where no compensation has been given. In the Decree the Government have undertaken to compensate all slave-owners who can prove that they have a legal right to the possession of their slaves, and the ground on which that decision is based is, I believe, that in the Decree of 1890 there were words which prevented any child born in slavery upon these two islands from being retained in slavery. Otherwise the status of the slave would remain unchanged, according to another provision in the Decree. Now, it seems to me that the Government have introduced into the clause the words "for ever." This country has secured from time to time the alteration of these Decrees, and the Decree of 1890 was altered only 19 days after it had been passed, with a view to making the position of the slaves rather worse. There were two provisions to which the Arabs took exception. One was the giving slaves the right to purchase their freedom, and the other telling the Arab masters that they must not ill-treat their slaves. Nineteen days later another Decree was passed, although it was not published in this country for many months, in which power

  297
  was given to punish slaves who ran away, and to refuse to accept money offered by a slave who wished to purchase his freedom, if the master desired not to take it. Therefore, we may take it that these Decrees are not permanent, and that there is no obligation on the Government to decline to alter the Decree of 1890. They can, if they deem it necessary, do away with compensation. I do not approve of the principle of compensation. I have to acknowledge the fact that the Government have instituted the system of compensation upon these two islands, but I say that the British taxpayers will probably be called upon to pay the compensation, and, as they naturally would like to know the extent of their liability, the Government should name a day upon which the right to compensation should cease to obtain. It would be most unsatisfactory to allow the charges for compensation to go dribbling on for a term of years; therefore, I would suggest the Government should fix a day by which the Arab owner must make his claim, so that the British taxpayer may know the exact amount he will be called upon to pay in compensation for the liberation of these legally-held slaves. I think I ought to allude to the way in which this money is concealed from the knowledge of this House. While this country is liable to pay any deficit that occurs in the Zanzibar revenue, the item is concealed from the House, as it is an item of the Zanzibar Exchequer account, and this House has no cognizance of the amount which will be paid for the purpose of compensation, in 1893 Mr. Rennell Rodd, in a despatch sent to Lord Rosebery, said it was his firm conviction that it would be difficult to adopt energetic measures on the islands without a similar enforcement on the mainland. He says—
  "The link is too strong for differential treatment to be possible. The Arabs of the capital are so many of them holders of property on the mainland, and the old institutions of the Sultanate have been preserved in great measure on the coast, that portion administered by the Company being in fact still an integral part of the Sultan's dominions."
  Mr. Rennell Rodd was, perhaps, not altogether inclined to interfere with slavery in the same way some of us in England thought necessary. He submitted that the mainland question ought to
  298
  be settled at the same time as it was in the islands, and inasmuch as the mainland is governed directly by the Foreign Office, without any buffer between them, as was the case in the islands, it was quite as necessary for the Government to stop slavery. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in March, 1895, said it was quite time slavery came to an end. The First Lord of the Treasury, since this present Government came into power, said—
  "Any steps that can be reasonably asked of us we shall be willing and glad to take."
  We are asking to-night that reasonable steps shall be taken by the Government, and we ask that, first of all, on the mainland the slaves should be free, that it should be unnecessary that they should run out of our country into a foreign country, in order to come back and then be free. Under the law, as it was stated last Session by the Attorney-General, it was admitted that if a slave leaves the mainland, and goes out of that district, and comes back again, he can claim his freedom, as no British subject has the right to detain a fugitive slave. It ought not to be necessary to have recourse to that system in order to obtain freedom. The second thing we ask is a proper time limit, after which no compensation shall be paid; we ask also that freedom shall be given to all women, and that the administration of the emancipation law shall be placed in the hands of British officials and without delay. We think those demands are reasonable, and we think the time is opportune for another forward step to be taken by the Government. We hope the Government is now prepared to take steps which will, once for all, wipe out a stain and a blot upon the national honour of our country.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: My hon. Friend who has brought this matter before the House, asks the House to express its regret that no efficient action has yet been taken for the abolition of slavery in the British Possessions or Protectorates in East Africa and Zanzibar. I feel that that regret will be shared not only by myself, but also by my hon. Friends as well. There is but one object: at the earliest possible time, and in the most practical way, to secure the abolition of

  299
  slavery. The attention of the country has been very much drawn to this question by the letter written about two weeks ago by Bishop Tucker, who, by his self-sacrificing conduct and devotion in the cause of Christianity and freedom, has made this cause of the abolition of slavery particularly his own. Certainly, there is a most deplorable condition of things in this Protectorate at the present time. He does not look with any favour on the so-called emancipation; he calls it rather a degree not of emancipation, but rather of slavery. It certainly was not the intention of the proclamation that it should have this distinctly retrograde tendency. Bishop Tucker is very much afraid lest a similar measure should be adopted in the East African Protectorate. He is in favour of a very strong Forward policy; he says the time is come for a very complete and full abolition, while there is a great demand for labour outside the slave trade, and he claims that no time is more opportune than the present. There are two ways—the slow way of Sir A. Hardinge and the more advanced one of Bishop Tucker. I am very glad to associate myself with my hon. Friend in this matter, because it is one on which the country is very sensitive. It is one to which this House is very distinctly pledged to go forward, and the feeling of the country is strong on this matter. Therefore, this matter must be very jealously watched, and every encouragement given to go forward and give help. For a moment I would ask the House to look a little more widely afield than this Protectorate. This country was bound to do what had to be done to put down the state of things in East Africa. In five years no less than 95,000 slaves had been exported to the coast of Arabia. Evidence was given before the Committee to inquire into the slave trade as to the awful state of desolation to which the interior of Africa was reduced by the raids upon peaceful villages, and it was calculated that for one slave probably five, or some thought ten, lives had been sacrificed through the cruelties inflicted upon them during the misery of a 500-mile journey. We may take great credit to ourselves for the efforts persistently made by this country, partly by the action of the police, and partly by colonisation and the taking up of
  300
  the interior of Africa. It is imperative that this infernal slave trade must end. Then through all that large district peace and quiet will reign, and the natives will be secure against slavery. But that is only a question of the slave trade. We may hope that very shortly, when the state of slavery is abolished, there will be no question of our spending large sums of money, and we should be able to draw our fleets from those shores. The question is rather a question of the abolition of the status of slavery. You must remember that, at all events, in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, we hold the Protectorate, and in that Protectorate Mahomedan law prevails, and we are bound to recognize Mahomedan law. And that must be taken into consideration in dealing with this slave trade. We have a solemn responsibility. Mahomedan law, which recognises the mastery over slaves, and regards interference as unwarranted and sacrilegious, is enforced legally, and we are bound, to some extent, to respect it. But we have worked in the direction of freeing the slaves to a considerable extent, more especially by the Sultan's Proclamation of 1890, prohibiting the exchange, sale, or purchase of slaves, and declared the immediate liberation of slaves; and slaves who are ill-treated have the right to purchase their freedom. If that had been in force in these eight years, all who were slaves have the right to be free who were employed since 1893, and since 1890 have passed from father to son. This decree was acted upon by the British East Africa Company, and one-third of the slaves have been liberated under it. The view taken by Sir A. Hardinge is that slavery is a patriarchal institution, which would gradually disappear; it is the view generally held in America before "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was written. What I would like an explanation of is this. When the late Sultan died his slaves, who ought to have been free, were handed over to his successor. Then we come to this Decree of last April, and, after reading the report, I cannot but think that it was hardly treated. When you have this report from our responsible official, that the decree has acted beneficially, that it has effected a substitution of piece-work for undefined labour, that a slave can work for him-

  301
  self, that the owners no longer dare to ill-treat, and that the slaves are beginning to know that they can have protection, we must admit that the progress has not been rapid. But we are, at all events, on the right track in what we have done. We are bound to go forward. I say, again, our responsibility is great. This is a state of transition in Pemba, of which the Sultan has spoken, and cannot be regarded as final. Our responsibility for slavery is the same as if the country was our own. There is a strong national sentiment as to the incompatibility of slavery on British soil. That dictum we knew in the days of Mr. Wilberforce. It was laid down a hundred years ago. A still further step was taken in 1834, when slavery was abolished in the West Indies, and the inalienable right was established of everyone living on British soil to be free. We pride ourselves on that sentiment and that action, and we shall be satisfied if it is repeated in East Africa. We must be guided by commonsense and by prudence in the matter. We must remember the situation at the present time. We have read how Sir Henry Hardinge is at this moment on a great march for the relief of the garrison at Uganda, and when he returns I hope he will receive sufficient encouragement, and that sufficient pressure will be put upon him by my hon. Friend for us to see the freedom of every British subject brought about.
  MR. BAYLEY: We have a general statement from Bishop Tucker as to slavery in a country administered by the Foreign Office, and this House is responsible. He says that slavery is not only a legalised institution, but that it is bolstered up by an officer holding the Queen's Commission. We have the opinion of the Attorney-General, obtained at the end of last Session; we have the clear and definite opinion that it is illegal for a British subject to own a slave, and that it is illegal for a British subject in any part of Her Majesty's dominions to make a profit out of slaves. How much more illegal is it, then, for Her Majesty's Government sitting on the Bench to pay an officer who supports the system? I am glad that the
  302
  right hon. Gentleman cheers that statement, but we have this fact, that during the six months which have elapsed since the decree was promulgated, in Pemba only about 20 slaves have obtained their freedom. There is one ominous and peculiar sentence in a letter of Mr. Theodore Burtt, which says that there is a conspicuous scarcity of girls in the island of ages varying from 15 to 20 years, and yet there is an overwhelming majority of women in Pemba. What is becoming of these girls under the protection of the British flag, which is under the administration of the House of Commons? We are absolutely and entirely responsible. What has become of them? A statement has also been made in one of the Blue Books that there is a large trade to the north of Pemba. Is it not about time that we really dealt with the subject as it ought to be dealt with, firmly and determinedly? We hope that the Foreign Office will deal with it in the same determined way that the Colonial Office have dealt with the Western question, and then the whole question would be settled in a very short time. But can you settle a question like this when you have the gentlemen who have to administer this law by their own reports admitting that they are entirely out of sympathy with the administration of the law itself? That is the whole question. I have great pleasure in heartily supporting the Amendment.
  MR. R. M'KENNA: I have no wish to charge the right hon. Gentleman opposite with personal inhumanity, nor to suggest that any British official is himself guilty of any desire to extend the evils of the slave trade, but we have a certain state of facts to deal with. Undoubtedly—I don't think the right hon. Gentleman will deny it—Sir Arthur Hardinge thinks that slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba is the best form of social organisation for the blacks. There cannot be a doubt that that is his view—provided the slaves are properly treated. Do the Foreign Office propose that slavery should be abolished gradually over a long period of years, as Sir Arthur Hardinge suggests, or that it should be abolished as the

  303
  Colonial Office have done it, in a single day, in West Africa? I think there are some very curious admissions on this point made by Mr. O'Sullivan in the recent despatch he has sent with regard to Pemba. In the first place, Mr. O'Sullivan describes himself, in carrying out the decree of April, simply as an amicus curiœ; he is not directly a party to the enforcement of the decree establishing freedom for the slaves. Then he tells us that the Arabs, on learning of the decree, heard of the terms with comparative relief, and he also tells us that a meeting of Arabs was called, in order to have the meaning of the decree explained to them. But, so far as one can learn, absolutely no step has been taken, or is likely to be taken, to inform the slaves that they will be freed. These unfortunate blacks in Pemba do not know that they are entitled to freedom. He then explains that, on the whole, the decree has been fairly well carried out, but he says that this has been owing, doubtless, to the knowledge of the Walis that their proceedings are in all cases carefully noted, and this has been the main factor in determining their course of action; that is to say that this gentleman, who is in the position of amicus curiœ, tells us that if by any chance he is withdrawn from his position as amicus curiœ, undoubtedly the Walis will not administer the decree in a satisfactory manner. Now, these are such very strong admissions that possibly the Government will be able to make some more definite statement as to their intention of carrying out the decree. Let me for a moment recall to the attention of the House what are, under the rules made under the decree, the necessary steps for a slave to go through before he can obtain his freedom—and it must be remembered that the slaves we are now speaking of are described as the most ignorant and stupid population in the world. First of all, the slave has to present himself before the Wali, whom he looks upon as his enemy. Then he has to make a statement in asking for his freedom, and to mention any complaints he has to make against his master, and when and where he became his slave. Now, these things are imposed upon the stupidest of human beings. Then the slave is sent from Pemba to Zanzibar. Then we are informed that the slaves in Pemba look
  304
  upon being sent to Zanzibar as a punishment of the greatest kind. At Zanzibar the slave is re-examined, and if everything is right so far he receives papers of freedom. What is the result? Only about 20 slaves have obtained their freedom under the decree within six months in the whole of the island. But there is another history attaching to these 20 slaves. I believe—though I cannot vouch for the figures—that more than half of these slaves, certainly a considerable fraction of them, obtained their freedom, not through the British Government at all, but by application through the French Consulate. A certain number of these slaves had gone through the formalities, as they thought, but on returning to Pemba there was found to be some informality in their papers and they were refused their freedom, and it was only on the application of the French Consulate that final freedom was given to them. I ask, is not the contrast between the action of the Colonial Office in this matter in West Africa and the Foreign Office in East Africa too marked for public opinion not to condemn the methods of the Foreign Office? I know that the right hon. Gentleman, if he were sitting on this side of the House, would make as eloquent a speech in favour of freedom of the slave as anybody could do on these Benches; it is only his position that makes him for a moment appear as inhumanly supporting slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba, and if he should be able during his present administration to secure final freedom for the slave, the country will hear a great deal about it. But, in the meanwhile, has he got any definite assurance to give us, who are deeply concerned in this matter, that the Government do intend to enforce upon their representatives the wishes of the House of Commons in this matter? I have no doubt, although the views of Sir Arthur Harding in the matter of slavery are such as I have described, that he is a zealous and honourable civil servant; and if he is assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the intention of the Foreign Office is that the slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba should be freed immediately, I have no doubt he will most zealously carry out their orders. The responsibility rests upon the Foreign Office, and they must

  305
  stand condemned or acquitted by the public opinion of this country, according to the manner in which they are prepared to deal with this great question.
  SIR R. REID: want to try, in this extremely important matter, to bring to a point what I conceive to be the real difficulties with which we have to deal. The object of the Government and of Gentlemen on this side of the House was, as I understood it, that slavery should be put an end to. Now just let us see the way in which, in point of fact, slavery has been put an end to. I will deal with the island of Pemba first. It seems that, according to the information given by Mr. Farler, a complicated procedure has to take place, to which my hon. Friend referred when he opened this matter for the consideration of the House. In the first place, according to the statement of Mr. Farler, the wretched and miserable slaves, who naturally live in terror of the tribunal, before which they are dragged before they can become free, have to go before the Wali, who is the official in question, and give him full information as to why they wish to be freed. But why should they have to go before an official, and give reasons why they wish to be free? Then the next thing is that they must make an adequate complaint against their masters. How is that material? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to us—I don't hold him responsible for it unless he allows it to be continued—how is it that they should first be compelled to mention any complaint they may have against their masters? Then another thing is, that they have to state when, how, and where they became his slaves. That, however, may be necessary for purposes of registration, and I don't make any complaint upon that point. Then all this is to be taken down for the information of the Wali. That may be perfectly right. Then it appears, after all that, the slave must be sent to Zanzibar, where he is again submitted to examination and valued for the benefit of his owner.
  MR. G. N. CURZON: That is not true.
  SIR R. REID: The right hon. Gentleman says that is not true. I am very
  306
  glad to hear that explicit statement from the right hon. Gentleman, because I think it conveys the impression that he does not approve of these things, which are stated upon very high authority to be true. Now if that is not true, of course. I have nothing to do but to turn to the Decree, for which I think the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge some degree of responsibility. Now I say that this Decree is almost as bad for all practical purposes as the particulars which I have been reading from, and which the right hon. Gentleman says are not correct. The object is that these men should become free men instead of slaves. I have a copy before me, and there is not a word in it stating that the slaves shall become free from its date. There are two articles of importance, Articles 2 and 5. By the second Article it is not said that a man may go to the court and demand that he should be declared not to be a slave and relieved from bondage, but in substance it is that where the master claims certain rights over the slave, the court should decline to enforce those rights. Is that a carrying out of any promise that there should be an abolition, or a substantial abolition, of the status of slavery in Zanzibar? Now the right hon. Gentleman and the Government may think that that is an effective method of extirpating slavery in Pemba, but the best proof that it is not an effective Measure, is that, according to Vice-Consul O'Sullivan, only 20 or 30 slaves have been restored to freedom during the six months following the publication of this Decree. And there is another thing to be pointed out, although I am not quite confident about it. I state it, however, upon the pretty good authority of my hon. Friend behind me, and it is that, practically, the Decree is unknown among the slaves. It is no use doing these things piecemeal. Either the thing is right or it is wrong; if it is wrong that you should take slavery under the British flag—and I think it is not only wrong but infamous—you ought to take the most simple and direct means of extirpating it. Let me pursue it further, because I should have thought that some sort of procedure would have been invented under this clause by which the slaves could have had the means of originating the proceedings themselves.

  307
  So much for the second article. I have only got one more article in this document to refer to, number five, which refers to the status of women, and I think it is a very remarkable article to have appeared under any Government in this country. Although I am not a purist in any particular sense, nor do I want to talk the language of Exeter Hall—for I don't much believe in the language of Exeter Hall—I think hon. Members will be rather shocked by what is contained in this Clause. The article simply amounts to this, that if a man has a dozen girls working in the fields, and who otherwise might be free, all he has to do is to turn them into his concubines, and he can keep them for the rest of their lives. (Mr. CURZON dissented.) Will the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the consequences of this Clause and any suspicion he may have in his mind. I do not make any imputation of a motive, and I have not the least doubt that what is revolting to me and others is revolting to the right hon. Gentleman. That is the obvious effect of the Clause. These people don't want to part with their slaves; they are told that all they may do is to turn them into concubines, and they may keep them for the rest of their lives. I am perfectly certain that all gentlemen, who are men of the world and possess commonsense, will not dispute that. I am certain the right hon. Gentleman himself will not approve of it, and I don't think he will deny that that is the natural consequence and result of the Clause. Now, I want to say this for myself. As far as I am personally concerned, it is a simple matter, I know, but if the right hon. Gentleman and the Government will set to work to put an end to this abomination, I don't think any of us on this side of the House would object. I don't think we are unaware of the difficulties there are in dealing with a country of many centuries, or rather æons; we are not at all insensible to the difficulties which a civilising Power has to encounter when it goes to a country which is shrouded in a thick cloud of darkness. At the same time, is it a little money that is wanted? For my part, I would object to the money. But what is it that is wanted? It is nothing in the world but a firm determination to put an end to this
  308
  blackguard business—for it is a blackguard business—and to restore to these wretched people their freedom. These poor creatures probably do not know anything at all, and you have to tell them of their position. If the Government would do that, and approach the matter in the spirit which I have indicated, I don't think any difficulty would be experienced from any member of this House.
  *MR. CURZON: The speeches which have been delivered by Gentlemen on both sides of the House, the moderation of which I desire to recognise, will give me the opportunity of removing many misapprehensions that appear to exist upon this matter. Hon. members have shown a greater moderation than has been exhibited by some of their clients in the newspapers. I have, of course, seen the letter of Bishop Tucker, to which my right hon. Friend, the Member for the Honiton Division, referred. I have read the series of letters from Mr. Burtt, the missionary in Pemba, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield, when he said that those letters constituted a grave indictment of the honour of Her Majesty's Government, accusing, as they do, the Government of a reluctance or an inability to fulfil assurances that have been publicly made in this House. That is a definite challenge, and I am glad to have the opportunity of accepting it, and of refuting the evidence upon which it is based. The speeches to which the House has listened this evening, contain, in the first place, a general charge against the Government, and then a number of detailed and specific charges. The general charge is in this form, that the Decree of April, 1897, has been shown in operation to be a dead letter, that little or no effort is being made to carry it out, and the hon. Member for Chesterfield even went so far as to insinuate that British officials and Arab officials were acting together in a sort of conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice and to violate the pledges that have been given by the Government in this House. The words of Bishop Tucker have been quoted, and they are even more strong. He says that by the Decree of last year a cruel wrong was done to the servile population of Pemba, and that it has proved to be a Decree of enslavement

  309
  rather than of emancipation. Well, let us call to mind what this Decree was, and what were the assurances that were given with regard to it. The Decree was one for the abolition of the legal status of slavery in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba—that is, for the abolition of the system under which the master of a slave enjoyed certain rights over the person and property of his slave under the Mahomedan law, supported by the Mahomedan courts of the country. We were asked to abolish that system, and to introduce into those islands the system which had been so successful in India in 1843, and I invite hon. Gentlemen, and especially my hon. Friend (Sir Robert Reid)—who, with his legal acumen, need not be reminded of the distinction I am about to draw—to remember that the abolition of the legal status of slavery is not the same thing as the abolition of slavery itself. If slavery itself is abolished every slave becomes ipso facto free from that moment; he is free to run away from his master or his service, and to do what he pleases; and in the islands of which I am speaking, had slavery itself been abolished, it would have been in the power of 140,000 persons out of a population of 220,000 at once to quit the service upon which they were engaged, and to sweep in a great wave of disorder across the surface of those two islands. But what does it mean when the legal status of slavery is abolished? It means that every slave is at liberty to go before a court established for that purpose, and to claim his freedom. All he has to do is to go before that court, prove his identity, claim the liberty to which he is entitled, and receive the papers which register that fact; and no court can, from the passing of the Decree, enforce any claims upon him by his former master. I venture to think my hon. Friend opposite has somewhat confused these two different things—the abolition of the legal status of slavery and the abolition of slavery itself. I would remind the House that it was the abolition of the legal status of slavery which was always demanded by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. You may look back at their speeches, at the petitions of the Anti-Slavery Society, and at the addresses of the various missionary societies, and I defy you to find a single one in which it was not the aboli-
  310
  tion of the legal status of slavery which was asked for, and was promised by successive Governments in this House. And why did these societies and individuals ask for the abolition of the legal status of slavery, and why did the Government grant it? It was for the simple reason that all of us desired to effect a great social revolution with the minimum of social and economic disturbance. We wanted to strike off the shackles of these poor people, and at the same time not to ruin the industry of these islands; and, therefore, I venture to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not quite fair, or, at least, have not good memories, if they confuse these things, and now accuse the Government of having broken its pledges. At the present moment it is in the power of every slave—or every former slave, for no slave now in effect exists—in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba to go and claim his freedom. A great many have done so—a great many more than hon. Gentlemen opposite have any idea of—but a great many have not done so; and why? Because their masters have wisely offered to substitute for the former conditions of their service new conditions, under which the same people can continue to work for them for a definite wage. The system of paid labour is everywhere in these islands replacing the system of forced labour; and there are, I assure the House, hundreds of slaves who, attached to the soil upon which they and their wives and families have lived for many years, satisfied with the new conditions of service under which they are now employed, have, instead of going to the courts to claim their freedom, settled down under the new conditions on the old spot. I venture to say that that is a state of affairs which ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged. Does anyone dispute that? Is there a man in this House who will contend that if these people are attached to the place where they have lived and worked, and if they are allowed to substitute free for servile labour, and to continue in the position of free men, instead of acting as slaves, that is a bad condition of things, and impediments ought to be put in the way of it?
  MR. MCKENNA: That is romance—it is not the fact. It ought to be, but it is not.
  *MR. CURZON: But the sources of information from which I speak to-night are really superior to those which can be in the possession of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The state of things in the islands is really such as I have described, and if that be the case I think both sides will agree that it is a state of things which ought to be encouraged. I turn to the particular charges which have been brought in this connection. The first charge is one of the greatest importance, and it is one to which I am very glad to have an opportunity of turning, because it has been the subject of great misconception. It is the charge about concubines. In the Decree which was issued last year, two paragraphs are found upon one point, as to which Her Majesty's Government entertained no doubt whatever—namely, as to the inexpediency and injustice of interfering with the family arrangements of the people. That Decree declared that so far from being attended with hardship or cause of complaint, the lot of the concubines who bore children, was not an irksome one, as they held a position scarcely inferior to that of a wife; and the Sultan was, therefore, to be assured that no interference was contemplated with the family rights to which so much value was attached. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries has said to-night that this was a provision at which every honest man ought to be shocked, and Bishop Tucker, in a letter to the Times, which has been quoted, called it "an iniquity beyond description." But at whose suggestion was it that we introduced this indescribable iniquity? It was by the advice of the representative of the Society, of which the spokesman in this House is the hon. Gentleman. He will not deny that three years ago the Anti-Slavery Society sent out to Zanzibar Mr. Donald Mackenzie, who came back and wrote a strong paper in favour of the abolition of the legal status of slavery, but who told Sir A. Hardinge that, in his opinion, concubinage, one of the most difficult factors of the slavery question, would have to be retained, even if slave labour was abolished, as it was so essential a feature of Arab domestic life, especially in that part of the Moslem world, that interference with it was practically impossible.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: So far as I am aware, that opinion of Mr. Donald Mackenzie was never endorsed by any Society in this country, and I believe he came to the conclusion owing to the arguments of certain officials in Zanzibar, who were known to be against the abolition of slavery.
  *MR. CURZON: But the question is, is it an honest opinion or not? And Mr. Donald Mackenzie's opinion does not stand alone. You will find in the same Blue Book the statements of two lady missionaries who may be presumed to have proper regard for the sacred interests of their sex. Miss Green writes—
  "The effect on the slave women themselves of suddenly abolishing slavery would be disastrous, for though I am sure, some from affection, and some from family ties, would stay with their mistresses, the majority would leave them, and unless some great effort was made, immorality and sin would abound unlimited."
  I turn to the report of Mr. O'Sullivan, Vice-Consul in Pemba, who is a confirmed liberationist. He says:—
  "It would be undesirable, I consider, to include concubines in any scheme of liberation which may be decided upon. I am confident that the Arabs would strenuously oppose and bitterly resent any interference with the inmates of their harems."
  Why were these persons excepted from the scope of the Decree? I know it is a delicate subject to speak on, and I hope I shall speak on it with respect, but I invite hon. Members to dissociate themselves from the ideas which ordinarily, in this House and in this country, connect themselves with this name. You must remember that we are dealing with a Mahomedan country, with Mahomedan institutions, and under Mahomedan law; and, as Mr. O'Sullivan says in respect of the island of Pemba, the condition of these women is very different from that of ordinary slaves. They are required only to perform the slightest domestic work; when they bear children they cease to be slaves and their children are legitimate. It is clear, therefore, that these persons, of whom I am speaking, are not slaves in the ordinary sense of the term, but are really wives in a country where polygamy is an institution; and I definitely assert it as my honest

  313
  opinion that if we had freed these persons we should have grossly and unnecessarily affronted the most deeply-rooted instincts of the Arab nature, and should have prepared for ourselves very serious social trouble. What is it that my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dumfries, insinuates? He says that a man has merely to declare that any slave girl is a concubine, or to announce his intention to treat her as one, in order to be able to evade the Decree, and to retain her in slavery. No such thing has been done, I believe, or can be done—it would be a dishonest evasion of the Decree.
  SIR. R. REID: Does any doubt exist that the fact that a woman is a concubine excludes her from the chance of liberation? You cannot ask what is the motive for putting her in that position.
  *MR. CURZON: That is exactly what we do ask. The only persons to whom that part of the Decree applies are, if I may use the word, bonâ-fide concubines, who have acquired that status in the household of their masters, which cannot be claimed in favour of a slave who is only a potential concubine. Any woman treated as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would only have to go before the Court and state her case. Let me also point out that the section of which I am speaking, is but a small section of the entire community. Mr. O'Sullivan says there are only 2,000 concubines in Pemba. The whole of the rest of the female slave population of Zanzibar and Pemba are absolutely free, and have only got to claim their freedom in order to receive it to-morrow. That is a clear and definite statement, to which the Government adhere. I pass on to the more specific cases which have been brought before us.
  MR. BAYLEY: I should like to ask whether the inhabitants of Pemba have to go to Zanzibar to claim their freedom?
  *MR. CURZON: That is very important point, and I will come to it in a moment. I pass to the specific cases, which appear in the letters of Mr. Burtt.
  314
  The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Mr. Burtt. I shall show that there is absolutely no reason to believe it. Mr. Burtt is a missionary, who represents the Society of Friends on a plantation in the island of Pemba, and he has written a series of letters to the Times, which have been published, with sensational photographs, by the Anti-Slavery Society, and circulated throughout the country. He brings forward a number of cases in which he accuses the Wali of Pemba having failed—of having, indeed, refused—to carry out the terms of the Decree. When we saw those statements, which I think the hon. Gentleman opposite was kind enough to send to me at the Foreign Office, we at once sent out a copy of them to Sir Arthur Hardinge, at Zanzibar, and instructed him to make inquiry. He went to Pemba, and announced his intention of holding a Court of Inquiry. The Vali, who had been accused by Mr. Burtt, emphatically denied every accusation, and asked to be confronted with his accuser. Sir Arthur Hardinge then asked Mr. Burtt to attend. I may say it appeared Mr. Burtt was not acquainted with the language of the country, and had had to rely on an interpreter, who was imperfectly acquainted with English; but will it be believed that Mr. Burtt declined to produce the interpreter, and himself asked to be excused from attending the inquiry? Sir Arthur Hardinge pointed out the inferences which would naturally be drawn there and in this country from that conduct; but Mr. Burtt said he had supplied names and dates and places, and that was enough. However, Sir Arthur Hardinge determined, in spite of these discouraging circumstances, to investigate these charges, and did so. I will deal with two of them. One has been mentioned in this House to-night. The other has been mentioned by Bishop Tucker, and I will deal with the latter first, because it is the most aggravated. Mr. Burtt, in his letter, made this statement—
  "Only a few days ago a case came under my notice in which a young female slave refused either to allow her master to seduce her or to be made one of his concubines, and terribly had the poor girl to suffer at his hands in consequence. Complaint was made to the Wali, but no redress was obtained, and I presume she has had to submit and suffer."

  315
  And it is upon that statement, greedily accepted without any examination by Bishop Tucker, that he remarks:
  "We learn with a shameful indifference that, under the shadow and shelter of the protection afforded by Great Britain, the charmed circle of womanly sanctity, which is every girl's birthright, is obliterated and trampled in the dust."
  This charge proved upon inquiry to be entirely false. The girl came before the Court. She testified that some time ago she had become the voluntary mistress of a man, and that he, loving her, wished to legalise his position with her under the Mahomedan law, by making her his concubine. She, not caring for him, declined, and appealed to the Wali for protection. The Wali gave it her and restored her to her mistress, since which she has not been interefered with. That is the extent to which the charmed circle of womanly sanctity has been trampled in the dust by the Arab and British authorities in Pemba. I take the second case, which has been mentioned in the House to-night. This is the statement of Mr. Burtt, which was read out by the hon. Gentleman opposite—
  "Last week I visited the prison here, and found three female slaves heavily ironed, who stated that their master had not given them proper food, and when they asked to be allowed to go into the town and find work, and earn money for their food and for him, he refused, and ordered them to go to work on his shamba. This they declined to do, and came and complained to the Vali, who forthwith committed them to prison for seven days, with shackles on their legs, for refusing to work for their master. On the Wali being questioned as to the cause of their imprisonment, he admitted it was for the offence stated above; and, when asked if this was not contrary to the law, he said he knew it was, and then remarked, 'But, then, the women do not know that they can be free.' He promised, however, that they should be set at liberty at once, but when I next inquired, they were still in prison."
  I may say that these are the four women who figured in the photos in the leaflets issued by the hon. Gentleman, and disseminated for the information of the constituencies in the recent elections in this country. What are the facts about these women? Three of the four were slave girls who left their master, who, on his part, complained to the Wali. The
  316
  Wali said they could not be allowed to live upon the streets as they were then doing, and if in three days they did not find some occupation he would be obliged to shut them up as vagrants. They did not comply with the injunction, and, after the lapse of the three days, they were shut up for one week. At the end of that time they were let out, they have obtained employment, and they have not since been interfered with.
  MR. DAVITT: Were they ironed while shut up?
  *MR. CURZON: I think it is quite possible, under the circumstances, but I do not see that that affects my point or weakens my case. It is a matter of prison regulations. Perhaps hon. Members know that such things as handcuffs are in use in this country.
  MR. DAVITT: Yes, I was ironed.
  *MR. CURZON: I do not desire to say anything offensive. I am quite ready to apologise. I did not mean to say anything in the least personal; I was only tempted to say what I did by the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. The fourth girl in the photo was not a slave girl at all, but was put into prison in connection with a case of assault and wounding. I have now dealt with two of the cases alleged by Mr. Burtt. I have here a list of each of the cases named by him in his letters to the Times, but I will not detain the House by further exposing their inaccuracy, and I will only say that we propose to lay the papers on the Table, and so put the whole evidence before the House of Commons. There is, however, one other point in connection with Mr. Burtt. He concluded with a general charge against the Arab officials, to the effect that they had never come to understand the first principles of justice, and had not the slightest desire to see justice done or freedom given; and when he was asked by Sir Arthur Hardinge, to whom this sweeping accusation applied, he had to admit that it applied to no one but the Wali, whose vindication I have already given to the House. I come now to the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who

  317
  asked just now whether slaves in Pemba were not required to go to Zanzibar to claim their freedom. I think there has been some misconception on this point, even in the island itself, because there is evidence in these letters, that Mr. Farler, who was appointed to superintend the execution of the Degree, was of opinion that slaves in Pemba had to go to Zanzibar to get their freedom. I need hardly say that that was a complete illusion on his part; and, as far back as November, Sir Arthur Hardinge, in reply to Mr. Burtt, told him no such steps were necessary, and that any slave desiring freedom, could, either by himself or through application to Mr. Farler or Mr. O'Sullivan, or to any missionary, apply to the Court; that the Court had no authority to send him to Zanzibar, but that the case of his freedom must be settled at once upon the spot, and that he must, on complying with the necessary conditions, be provided with papers testifying to the fact.
  MR. BAYLEY: Do we understand that there is a Court at Pemba, which can give a man his freedom?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, there is a Court at Pemba which is specially instituted to give slaves their freedom without any reference to Zanzibar.
  SIR R. REID: Are any conditions exacted before the grant of freedom is made by the Court at Pemba?
  *MR. CURZON: So far as I know, the only conditions exacted, are the satisfactory establishment of the identity of the person, and that he or she is the slave of a particular master. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, that if the procedure has been accurately described by him, it is unnecessarily cumbrous, and needs simplifying; and I shall be prepared to write out, and ask that it shall be as much simplified and made as rapid as is possible. It has been my duty to dispel some of the fictions which have been circulated, not by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but by persons in the island, and I should now like to give the House what, we are informed, are the real facts of the case as regards the carrying out of the Derece. The hon. Member, who moved the
  318
  motion, said that only 20 slaves had been freed in Zanzibar.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I stated that my information was not at all of a recent date.
  *MR. CURZON: I am glad to hear the hon. Member say so, because as far back as July last—less than three months from the passing of the Decree—Sir Arthur Hardinge told us that 120 slaves had claimed their freedom, and he also said that the freed slaves, although willing to take work, were insubordinate and difficult to manage. On the 17th June Archdeacon Farler reported that the news of the Decree was spreading rapidly, and that the slaves were recognising their freedom, but were disobedient and independent. He said—
  "When I first came here it was cruelty or beating, but the letter of His Highness the Sultan has almost put an end to cruelty, and the Walis deal now officially with all cases of grave offence on the part of slaves."
  On July 2nd, he wrote—
  "The slaves are getting very independent and to know their rights, and refuse to work at all if they think the work is not fair. Sometimes, when angry, they will bring serious accusations against their masters, without a shadow of truth in them."
  He mentioned two cases in which the charges were proved to be quite false. Many of the slaves who applied for their freedom were given work for wages, but they soon proved to be hopelessly idle, transferred their services, and preferred to starve rather than work. On August 29th, Archdeacon Farler visited Weti. He says—
  "We have visited Weti and inspected the prison, and made arrangements for new contracts between several parties of masters and their slaves."
  Then I turn to the report, which I need hardly quote, of Mr. O'Sullivan, lately presented to the House. From it the House will see that he speaks of the greatly improved conditon of the prisons, the re-organisation of the native police, and in it he also says that the importation of slaves has absolutely ceased. Well, Sir, that is, so far as the Government are acquainted with it, the real state of affairs in the island. I now come

  319
  to the question—how is it that so few slaves have so far been freed in Pemba? The hon. Member who moved the Amendment implied that under the Decree issued on the 6th April only 20 slaves in all had been freed in the island in sis months, and he seemed to assume that the whole of the rest of the working population had remained in slavery. That is not quite correct. If he will continue to read that passage in the report he would see that a very definite explanation, with which I need not trouble the House, is given as to the reasons why the slaves had been so slow in applying for their freedom. But there is a further reason, not there stated, which is worth mentioning, and that is that in Pemba it is not urban slavery but agricultural slavery, and the people on the island, who are satisfied with the condition in which they and their families have been accustomed to live, are content, as I have before remarked, to accept wages in place of the old slave labour, and to remain on the estates with which they have been connected. At the same time, we are most anxious to spread the knowledge of this Decree to every hut and hovel in those islands. I do not deny for a moment that every step ought to be taken, and we are most anxious to take every step, to spread this knowledge of the Decree. It is for that reason that we asked Archdeacon Farler, who is well known as a very strong advocate of liberation, to act on behalf of the Government, and to see that the Decree was properly carried out. In September last we sent special instructions to the Wall in Pemba directing them seriously to enforce the Decree. Sir, there are two other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, to which I must allude. One is the question of compensation. I will not argue the rights or wrongs of compensation now. The Government decided a year ago that they were bound by their word, and that has, I believe, been acquiesced in by the House. But the hon. Gentleman has asked me whether this was not involving great expense upon the British taxpayer. Well, we have no reason to suppose that any claim will be made upon the British taxpayer. The number of cases in which compensation has been demanded is very small, and is well within the competence of the Zanzibar administration to deal with.
  320
  As regards the question of a limit of time, I cannot see that that has anything to do with it, when the obligation is one of honour on our part, and if we had acted in the way that has been suggested we should, I think, have been giving away our own case. The other question to which I alluded was in regard to the mainland. Sir, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last year gave a pledge that, at the earliest possible date the abolition of slavery would be carried out on the mainland also, but the conditions are not favourable at present for the carrying out of that task. In the first place, we must wait for the result of the experiment in the islands, from which we shall, no doubt, learn some useful lessons. Then there are one or two local conditions which have greatly disorganised the labour market on the mainland, and brought many of the landowners to the verge of ruin. One is the construction of the Mombasa railway, which has raised the price of labour; and another, the temptation held out by missionaries to induce slaves to run away from their masters, and to settle on the mission land. But there is a third reason, which is this: that, with a troublesome rising going on in East Africa in the interior, we have enough on our hands, and we do not want to precipitate trouble upon the coast. I think I have now answered the various criticisms and remarks that have been made by gentlemen opposite,, and I think I have said enough to show that, if upon the mainland we have not yet been able to carry out all that hon. Members opposite desire, yet the Government and the agents of the Government have endeavoured to honourably carry out their pledges, and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not be so unreasonable as to demand that the prescription which we adopted on their advice should be abandoned almost before it has been tried. The proclamation was only passed last year, and has not yet run for ten months, and in that short space of time you cannot eradicate all the social instincts and religious prejudices—because you must remember that slavery is a matter of religion to the Mahomedan—that have grown up in the mind's of these people in the course of centuries. You cannot take a national character into your hands and twist it and shape it as if it were

  321
  putty, and you must consider past history. We do—and I repeat the assurance I have given—we do want to make this abolition of the legal status of slavery not a dead letter but a living and enduring fact; we want the native courts to be genuine in the discharge of their responsibilities; and we want every freed slave to be turned not into an idle vagrant, but into a free labourer, working for a recognised wage. I hope I have made this clear to the House. I must be allowed before I sit down to repeat my apology for one hasty expression which I used in reply to an interruption from an hon. Gentleman opposite. May I say that if hon. Gentlemen opposite would give us a helping hand in this matter; if the Society which the hon. Gentleman so ably represents in this House, instead of rushing headlong into the Times newspaper whenever any sensational letter conies from a missionary at Pemba containing perfectly groundless and unsupported charges, would put themselves in correspondence with us, and endeavour to assist us in the honourable object we have both at heart; and if, instead of prejudging and denouncing the Government for every step taken, hon. Gentlemen would give us credit for a little of that honesty and sincerity which we are only too ready to believe they possess themselves, I believe that if they would only treat us in that way, we should, in a few years' time, settle this vexed question of slavery without detriment to the peace or prosperity of the islands.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: The language used by the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning and end of his speech will not, I think, find sympathy in any part of this House. This is not a question which ought to excite Party feeling. The question of slavery has not, in these discussions, assumed a Party aspect, and no Party character attached to any single speech yet made in this Debate before the right hon. Gentleman rose. This is a matter upon which every person, I believe, in this House desires to obtain a satisfactory solution, but the right hon. Gentleman has made it the opportunity for an attack upon a man like Bishop Tucker.
  MR. CURZON: I really must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, though I do so most reluctantly. I repudiate absolutely having made any attack upon Bishop Tucker. All that I did was to show that Bishop Tucker had, in a letter in the Times, supported and repeated, without adequate examination, charges made by a missionary, which I have proved, in evidence, to be false.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I express my own feeling on the subject. I say that the language used by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs about Bishop Tucker is, in my opinion, considering the influence, the most proper influence, which Bishop Tucker has in East Africa, most unfortunate, and I think it will have the effect——
  MR. CURZON: What did I say?
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: The House heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  MR. CURZON: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote my words. I am very sorry to persist in interrupting, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to do me a great injustice any more than I desire to do an injustice to Bishop Tucker. He has made a very serious charge against me. Will the right hon. Gentleman quote my words?
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot from memory quote your words, but they will be reported, no doubt, and then it will be seen whether or not the right hon. Gentleman did severely censure Bishop Tucker.
  MR. CURZON: Hear, hear!
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, I say that was a most unfortunate course for the right hon. Gentleman to take on a question of this kind. I do not think Bishop Tucker deserves any censure. The only question we have to consider is really this. Are we doing all we ought to do, or all we can do, to put an end to the system of slavery in Pemba? That is the only question before us, and not any difference between the Under Secretary and Bishop Tucker or anybody else. That difference is really immaterial, and

  323
  I only mention it in order to protest against his being made the scapegoat in this discussion. This question of slavery in these countries has been for several years, and upon many occasions under discussion in the House of Commons. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has stated that nobody ever proposed the abolition of slavery. That is not so. My right hon. Friend behind me, who so persistently and ably brought this matter up for discussion in the House, most distinctly dealt with it upon that footing, advocating emancipation pure and simple. Upon a former occasion the present Colonial Secretary, totally dissatisfied with the statement of the Government of the day on this subject, came forward and said—
  "Is it consistent with all we have done and said in the past, that what is practically the British flag should fly over slavery?"
  That was said in 1895, and the only question we have now to ask ourselves in 1898 is—Is the British flag to continue to fly over slavery? That is a very plain and simple matter, and it has nothing to do with letters in the Times or anything else. The question is—Is the British flag flying over slavery today? That is a matter upon which the House can judge and upon which the Government can act. I, therefore, hope that without the least regard to Party, or the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the House will proceed to vote upon the immediate issue—whether or not, in their opinion, slavery ought to go on in those islands. That is a very definite issue. The question which the Colonial Secretary asked upon a former occasion, we ask now. He was dissatisfied with the course that was taken at that time, but the Government of which he is a Member are now responsible, and are they prepared to act upon the principle as stated by the Colonial Secretary? That is a definite matter upon which the House of Commons can pronounce an opinion. Well, now, Sir, as to these documents, these articles which have been drawn up. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as if it was inconceivable that there should be abolition of slavery. I hold in my hand what professes to be a translation of the Decree. I don't know whether it is a mistake or not, but it professes to be a
  324
  document declaring what has been done in Zanzibar and in Pemba. Now, what is the heading? It is "The Abolition of Slavery in Zanzibar." That is the heading, and it professes to be an official translation of the Decree abolishing slavery, issued by the Sultan on the 8th of April.
  MR. CURZON: That is not our heading.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: It may be that it is not part of the document; that it is no part of the Decree. Now, the Decree as I have got it here, professes to carry out what the Colonial Secretary calls "the abolition of slavery under the British flag." Let us see how it is done. It is done in this extraordinary way. First of all, all claims made, of whatever description, before any Court of public authority, with respect to the relations of master and slave, shall be referred to the District Court. Well, now, that Court, as I understand it, is administered by the Vali. I have nothing to say against the Vali, but I venture to think that if you want to put an end to slavery under the British flag you should have the authority of the British Government to do it, and you never will really accomplish the object which you aim at if you do not carry this thing out under British supervision. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the people are of the Mahommedan religion, and that they do not look upon slavery as a thing to be got rid of. It is the English belief and English faith alone that can do any thing in this matter to put an end to slavery. Therefore, if you are to do any thing at all, it ought to be done under British administration, whatever the machinery may be that you employ. When you come to consider that these ignorant slaves are to be themselves the promoters, and carry on as it were a litigation which is to end in their freedom, the thing, on the face of it, is doomed to be a failure. It cannot be otherwise. Then the right hon. Gentleman said—and I could not understand that part of his speech—that the slaves who were emancipated were "disobedient and independent." Well, it is very much the nature of a slave, when he is emancipated,

  325
  to be disobedient and independent. These men, the moment they are emancipated, would become independent. Do I understand that when they are free they are to be subjected, in the well-known phrase, to forced labour? Are these men, when their slavery has been abolished, in the words of the old Southern States of America, to be men "held to labour," because that was the euphemism for slavery. What is the meaning of denouncing these emancipated slaves? The right hon. Gentleman has described what bad fellows they were—that they were "disobedient and independent"——
  MR. CURZON: They were really not my words; I was quoting from the letters of Archdeacon Farler, the representative of the Government in the Island of Pemba.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well, then, I do not want the Government to be represented by men who say that slaves who are emancipated are "disobedient and independent." I strongly desire that the right hon. Gentleman shall instruct his agents in future not to be impatient of the independence of any emancipated slaves; and, at all events, if we gain that, it will have been something gained in this matter. Well, Sir, the question is: Is not the thing condemned by the fact that the number of these slaves is 200,000, and that they are to be emancipated at the rate of 40 per month? I want to know when this will end. I do not know whether the present Government will last until the final emancipation of 200,000 slaves at this rae of 40 per month, of these independent and disobedient men. We make no charge against the Government of desiring not to see the emancipation of the slaves; but we want to point out that the methods they are pursuing are not adequate. I have no doubt the Government desire, as any Government would desire, that slavery under the British flag should be abolished; but what we are contending for is, that the methods they are pursuing are not the proper methods, and are not adequate methods. Now, the extraordinary thing is that the right hon. Gentleman talks of the small number of
  326
  men in respect of whom compensation was paid. That is a very striking fact, because compensation is only claimed by those men who have owned slaves under the old law; but the great majority of these slaves have never been legally slaves at all, and that proves that the condition of things is that these were men who were illegally held in slavery altogether, and that there was no question of compensation at all. Then the right hon. Gentleman complains that the missionaries have been inducing slaves to run away from their masters. Why should they not be induced to run away? Has the right hon. Gentleman ever read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or the history of the runaway slaves in the Southern States of America? These men were legally slaves, but when they are illegally, by the laws of the country, held in slavery, why should not the missionaries induce them to become free and independent men? But the right hon. Gentleman charges these missionaries with inducing the slaves to leave the condition of slavery in which they are. I cannot understand the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman upon this subject. He really seems to think that it is the duty of these illegal slaves to remain with their masters, and anybody who induces them to leave their masters is doing something which he ought not to do, and that the slave who frees himself is wrong in preferring liberty to slavery, and the company of the missionaries to that of the slave master. Then the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with the question of the article—that article with reference to the question of concubines, and he waxed very warm about the opinions and feelings of Mahomedans upon the subject. But I want to know, can you give any example of where you are setting to work to do away with slavery when you have made a similar condition? Now, the right hon. Gentleman gave his strong opinion upon the matter; but, Sir, the hon. Member who sits behind me has given his opinion, which I venture to say, with every respect to the right hon. Gentleman, is as good an opinion upon this subject as his; but he did not stop there. He gave us another opinion. If there is any man who is an authority in East Africa, it is Sir John Kirk. Any man who knows Africa

  327
  knows he is one of the best administrators in the country, and, now, let us see what Sir John Kirk says in a letter to my hon. Friend—
  "I object to female slaves being exempted from the operation of the new law, and left in slavery. I do not consider that any practical difficulty would have arisen had the law been made of universal application."
  That is an absolute contradiction to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, and a contradiction by the man who is most capable of giving the House an opinion upon the subject. I hope the Government will really alter that article, which makes this exception in the case of female slaves, an exception which Sir John Kirk thinks totally unnecessary. If that is so, I cannot think that the Government will have any desire to insist upon an article which certainly does not read pleasantly at first sight. Now, Sir, upon this whole matter let us see what it is that we ought to do in the House of Commons, without any party feeling or prejudice. Let us ask ourselves, are we going on with this work, which we all believe to be a necessary and honourable work, as fast as we ought and as effectually as we ought? I cannot help thinking that as this work was commenced to be undertaken in 1895, and this is the third year since it was undertaken, and last year—the Jubilee year of the Queen—the Proclamation was issued, it is a work which should be speedily accomplished. We are not getting on with it as we ought to do. Therefore, I do hope that we shall have an assurance from the Government that the methods by which the emancipation of slaves shall be effected, shall be more rapid, more reasonable, and more efficient; and that these roundabout methods of procedure shall no longer be insisted upon; above all, that the British authorities shall themselves undertake to see that the thing is done, that it shall not be left in the hands of Mahommedan administrators, but the Government shall make themselves directly cognizant and directly responsible for the carrying out of a work in the prosecution of which I believe both sides of the House are equally interested.
  RIGHT HON. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot ask the House to listen to me for more than a few minutes, and I should not have intervened in these pro-
  328
  ceedings to-night had it not been that it appears to me the right hon. Gentleman has implied a luke-warmness on our part in dealing with this question of slavery, which certainly we are not open to, and has implied a virtue on his part to which, I think, he has very little claim. The islands of Zanzibar and Pemba have now been under the dominant control of the Government of this country since, I think, the year 1891 or 1892. In the years which have elapsed since that period, the right hon. Gentleman has had a leading share of control in the policy of the country for a large portion of the time. Let anybody ask himself in what years, since 1890, most has been done towards the liberation of slaves in the islands? The Party to which I belong, both in Opposition and in Office, have shown a great desire to further the cause of freedom. The zeal of the right hon. Gentleman has been demonstrated in acts, and in words even, only since he went into Opposition. And for him to come down and lecture us, and pose as the great advocate of freedom as against the Party who sit on this side of the House, really is absolutely ludicrous in face of the undoubted historic facts which we all have at our command, and within our most recent memory. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman or his friends suppose that I think that they are less earnest than we are in the cause of the abolition of slavery. I make no such absurd charge. I know they are anxious to do it; but I think they will admit, on their side, that it is a little unreasonable to be so very much alive to the extreme difficulties of the problem while you are in office, and to see no difficulty at all in sweeping away the whole system at one stroke of the pen directly you get into Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman forgets that the steps we have taken, and which are now criticised by him and his friends, are steps taken, I was almost going to say, upon the very advice of those who now pose as our critics. We are told we ought to have done much more than abolish the legal status of slavery. Sir, to abolish more than the legal status of slavery would be to go against the advice of Bishop Tucker and other missionaries. And when the right hon. Gentleman quotes Bishop Tucker, as he

  329
  has a perfect right to do—the Bishop being a great authority on the subject—let him remember that in this case it is Bishop Tucker's advice we have taken. No doubt, one result of proceeding to deal with the problem of slavery, by abolishing the legal status, is that the actual process of liberation may be somewhat slower than it otherwise would be. That may be true, but the right hon. Gentleman has, in the first place, not ventured to say that the gradual process is less beneficial than the sudden process in such matters; and, in the second place, he has greatly exaggerated the slowness with which that beneficial process is being carried on. He quoted statistics, furnished by the hon. Gentleman behind him, and which at any rate I do not want, to the effect that only 40 slaves a month have appealed to the court for their freedom; and he bases upon that premise the erroneous conclusion that it is only 40 slaves a month who have obtained their freedom. There is no connection whatever between the premise and the conclusions. The slaves are widely acquainted—I hope they are universally acquainted—with the fact that the legal status of slavery is abolished, and that they can obtain their freedom. One of two courses is open to the slave. He may go to the court and take his freedom; or he may go to his master, and say—
  "I have a right to my freedom. I am now a free man under the laws of the country. I am satisfied that I can leave your service, but I am prepared to work for you for a wage."
  And that is the process which has gone on to a much greater extent than the legal process, which the right hon. Gentleman erroneously thinks is the sole and only measure of the success of the action the Government has taken. Of course, we have no statistics as to the number of slaves who have made new conditions with their former masters, we have not the power to get or give them, but there seems every ground to believe that they are far in excess of the number of slaves who have found it necessary to go to the court. Every man in this House will admit that, of the two processes, the first is far the smoothest and most beneficial, and the one least likely to cause social revolution and difficulty. For the House must remember that, how-
  330
  ever desirable it may be to carry out such a change of the law as we are endeavouring to accomplish in Pemba and Zanzibar—and nobody can think it more desirable than I do—no such great social revolution can be carried out without much suffering. The result itself may, in the main, be beneficial—I believe that they are almost wholly beneficial—but the change itself in no country in the world has yet been carried out without a great deal of difficulty and friction, and evil—subsidiary evil, if you like, but still evil. If we can find a plan—as, I believe, under the advice of Bishop Tucker and his friends, the Anti-Slavery Society, we have done—of carrying out this great change without undue friction, we deserve, in my opinion, not blame, but credit for what we have done. The House may rest assured that the policy, so far from being inimical to the cause of freedom, is the very policy which is likely to place that cause on a solid and permanent basis. I do not know that I need deal with any of the subsidiary sarcasms of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman denounced Archdeacon Farler for having, in a report which my right hon. Friend read to the house, described the slaves, who claimed their freedom, as being disobedient and independent, and, indeed, as having all the other virtues of the present Liberal Party. But I think the right hon. Gentleman was unduly hard on us when he criticised us for appointing Archdeacon Farler as our assistant and adviser in the process of extinguishing slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba. He was appointed at the very request of the gentlemen who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman. He had been well known for many years for his strenuous and arduous work in the cause of liberation, and that cause had no firmer friend in East Africa, or elsewhere, than this gentleman now attacked by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It does appear to me that never was anybody worse situated for criticising us in this matter than the right hon. Gentleman. In office he did nothing, and when we come into office and try to do something he attacks us for not doing more; and then, when his indictment is closely examined, it turns out that the things for which we are chiefly attacked are the things which we have done at the instance and

  331
  by the advice of the Anti-Slavery Society, of which, in Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman is glad to make himself the spokesman. Under these circumstances, I hope the House will not agree to this Amendment. We are all at one in our earnest desire to carry out the policy to which both sides of the House have now committed themselves, and the House may rest assured that no measures will be left unattempted by us which may bring this great social reform to a successful issue, without carrying in its train more than the inevitable minimum of evil which any social revolution must necessarily carry with it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I should deplore if this subject were in any way to be treated as a Party question, because it is a matter that for many years past has been one of the utmost importance. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and by the Under Secretary, was practically that he did not propose to abolish slavery—that it was not possible at one fell swoop to liberate all the slaves at Zanzibar. But I think it is understood on both sides of the House—it certainly is on this side of the House—that, if it is to be abolished, it is not to be a dead letter, but that it was to be carried out at the earliest possible moment, and that it was to be carried out earnestly. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat sanguine as to the steps which have been taken towards the abolition of slavery in Zanzibar, and as to the likelihood of its being altogether abolished. The right hon. Gentleman said that a good many slaves were being liberated without the operation of the court, but simply went to their masters and claimed their freedom. But that is certainly contrary to the report of a gentleman who was sent out to inspect and report upon the subject, for he says that slaves were being retained as slaves who had no knowledge of the position—the legal position—in which they had been placed and they did not know that they could obtain their freedom. Could not the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as would bring the matter more to the knowledge of the slaves themselves, or do something more than has been done
  332
  at the present moment? We understand, from the official reports, that these proclamations have never been published except in Arabic. I certainly think, and others think, that the proclamations, should be published in the language of the slaves themselves, so that those who were able to read them should be in a position to explain their purport to their fellow-slaves. I am glad to hear that it is not a fact that these slaves, in order to obtain their freedom, have to go through all sorts of formalities, and that they have not to be sent in any case to Zanzibar. But it is a fact, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that they are sometimes sent from Pemba to Zanzibar in order to obtain their freedom. These slavery formalities will be in future, as far as possible, abolished, so that the slave will be able to obtain a summary freedom. And I should like to go further. I certainly consider, Mr. Speaker,—and I think there is a great deal of force in what I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman—viz., that in every case where these demands for freedom are heard in the native courts, there ought to be some English representative present not only to give confidence to the slaves but also to see that justice is done. As regards the compensation which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, what we do think with regard to that matter is this—whether it would not be worth while to consider the advisability of stating that after a certain date no further compensation will be paid—in order to see whether, by adopting that course,, it will induce the masters of their own free will to bring the system of slavery to an end shortly themselves, in order to obtain that compensation which they will not otherwise obtain later on. Under present circumstances I think there can be no doubt that there is almost universal ignorance as to their proper legal status on the part of the male population themselves. There is, of course, a great deal of opposition on the part of the Arabs to allowing the meaning of the proclamations to be widely known, and consequently there are very many difficulties in the way of any person who desires to obtain his freedom. Something has been said with regard to the administration of these Acts. There is no doubt that the chief is a man of very

  333
  great ability—a man who has done more public service in the proposed abolition of slavery than anybody else—but we can hardly expect that he would be anxious to endeavour to carry out these proclamations as some impartial new man. And, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that his opinions are well known to the Arabs of Zanzibar, and they consider that so long as he is there they need not themselves very much trouble about the abolition of slavery. We have had arguments so fully stated on both sides of this House with regard to this matter that I do not propose to carry it further, but what all of us do feel, and feel strongly, is that this matter has continued too long, and we do desire, by raising our voices in protest this evening, not in any way to say anything at all adverse to the Government, but to do that which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to do, viz., to strengthen the hands of the Government in the work which they have undertaken, and I earnestly trust that this Debate will do something towards bringing about, the consummation we all desire, but I do regret that neither in the speech of the Under Secretary of State, nor in that of the First Lord of the Treasury, have we had any adequate promises with regard to this matter. It is a very lamentable thing on the part of my hon. Friend that he should have over and over again in this House to raise this vexed question, but the full justification for his action has been shown by the fact that whenever he has raised this question he has obtained satisfactory concessions from the Government of the day, and we are all at one in hoping that this Debate will lead to further concessions.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 120; Noes, 181.
  Main Question again proposed.
  COLONEL SIR C. E. HOWARD VINCENT: I rise to propose the Amendment which stands on the paper in my name. I regret that there is such a very short time to-night for the discussion of so complicated a subject. I will not detain the House
  334
  longer than I can possibly help, but the House will realise that a matter of this sort has necessarily to be stated somewhat fully. Sir, although I make reference in this Amendment to the West Indian colonies, it will not, I hope, be thought that I complain in any shape or form of the attention that has been given to those Colonies in the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, I think it is very doubtful indeed if the relief that is proposed does not come altogether too late. At all events, I am rejoiced by the recognition made by the Government that the position of affairs in the West Indies has been
  "Artificially stimulated by the system of bounties to the producers and manufacturers of beetroot sugar maintained in many European States."
  I notice that the Speech goes on to say:
  "There are signs of a growing opinion in these states that this system is injurious to the general interests of their population."
  I think that that exactly indicates what is the result of Measures of that sort. The result has been that every year fresh duties and greater exactions in the way of Customs regulations against our trade have been made in every part of the world. I cannot, of course, anticipate the remedy which the Government propose as regards the West Indies. This, however, I may say at once, that the belief of the Chairman of the recent Royal Commission, that the only suit able remedy is by countervailing duties, is a belief that is shared almost unanimously by the people of the West Indies as expressed by mass meetings, the re ports of which have now come over from Barbados, Saint Christopher, and others of the West India Islands. As regards myself I can only say this, that I have received a positive mandate from my own constituents not to vote for any pecuniary aid for the West India Colonies unless steps are taken by the Government to get rid of these foreign bounties. But it is not only a question of the West Indies and of the sugar industry. The bounties have ruined the West Indies. They have compelled the Government to come forward to tax our already overtaxed people. The bounties have closed

  335
  more than half the sugar refineries which existed 15 years ago in this country; they have deprived thousands of employment and laid a large amount of capital idle. But this evil as regards the sugar industry is not half—is not indeed a tithe—of the injury which has been done to the staple trade of this country by foreign bounties and hostile tariffs, and other fiscal means. I am surprised that the colossal increase in the importation of foreign manufactured goods shown by the trade returns of last year, and the alarming decrease in the exports of British manufactured goods has not been referred to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. Indeed, I may almost say that it would look as if the Board of Trade hardly existed at all. Everybody knows that my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, is a very active and industrious man, and we all appreciate the great exertions that he made lately in endeavouring to arrange the lamentable dispute in the engineering trade; but I hope my right hon. Friend is not going to rest on his laurels, or to rest from his labours. The other day he gave a humorous extract from his diary. It ran, for last Saturday:—
  "10.30. Went to Board of Trade; found nobody.
  "12 noon. Went to Cabinet Council; did nothing."
  No one who knows the indefatigable zeal of the right hon. Gentleman and his unswerving devotion to his duties, would take this humorous diary too seriously, but, at any rate, it would seem to afford something like a ground for the exemption from the Queen's Speech of all matters relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There is nothing about alien immigration, or the promised legislation on that subject, although the number of immigrants had increased to nearly 50,000 last year; and there is no reference to any trade or labour subject. It is true that last year we passed the Prison Goods Act, and since that Act has been placed on the Statute Book no complaints of the importation of prison goods have been received. At any rate, I have received none, and as before the Act was passed I had received very many, I think that is some evidence to
  336
  show that the measure has been extremely valuable. I may just say that Mr. Bateman, the new Comptroller-General of the Commercial and Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, under my right hon. Friend's direction, has made very considerable changes in the form in which the Trade and Navigation Returns are presented to this House; and I take the opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend for his directions to Mr. Bateman in this connection. I do invite very seriously the attention of every hon. Member to the Trade Returns for last December. They are most clear, and they show a lamentable condition of things. They show that in 1897 the imports were nearly £10,000,000 more and the exports nearly £6,000,000 less than in 1896. They show an excess of imports over exports in 1897 of £157,000,000, while the exports of the United States exceed the imports by 356,000,000 dollars. They show that we exported £8,700,000 less of textile fabrics, and that we imported £85,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured articles—more than ever before, £14,000,000 worth of miscellaneous articles, and £1,000,000 worth by the Parcel Post. All these £100,000,000 worth of manufactured goods—ten times the importation of manufactures 40 years ago—could have been made in this country by British and Irish labour, instead of by foreign artisans, who thereby earned between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 in wages. I make no apology for continually bringing these matters before the House. It is what Central Sheffield has sent me here to do. These are matters that concern the very life of my constituents. They would be the very last to complain if their exports had received equal treatment at the hands of foreigners that we extend to the imports of foreign countries. In a fair field Sheffield can well hold its own. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean—who I observe have left the House directly a labour subject has come before it, although they were here five minutes ago—spoke on Tuesday with tears in their eyes at the effect which had been produced upon British trade by the state of affairs in Madagascar and Tunis. If the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, and the right

  337
  hon. Baronet who sits below the Gangway, are so sincere in their apprehensions as regards British trade, I am very much surprised that they are not here tonight and have not studied these Returns for themselves. It is no question whatever of Party; and if, when they spoke so vigorously the other night, it was not really the interests of British trade which animated them, but merely the desire to make some little hit against Lord Salisbury, I say it is a most unfortunate condition of affairs for the great industrial masses of this country. Everybody knows that Lord Salisbury takes a common-sense view of these matters, and he has repeatedly expressed himself in that direction, and, I believe, he would do all in his power to give British trade the full rights which, in common-sense, it ought to enjoy, but he fears—as I think, needlessly—to go in advance of public opinion. Already the Government has done much by last year shaking us free of those Commercial Treaties with Germany and France which so seriously handicapped us, and the result has shown that there was no ground for the fears that were expressed that a renunciation of that character would be adversely taken by the people of this country; on the contrary, there is a unanimous chorus of approval of the action taken by the the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. But there is much more than this to be done. I have here the Dingley Tariff of America, which was passed in July of last year, and which puts duties of 40 to 60 per cent. on one-third of what we sell to the Americans. Then there is the French Tariff, with its duties up to 50 per cent. on the goods they buy from us, as compared with the free market we give to four times the quantity of goods the French sell to us. And what, Sir, is the result of a state of affairs such as this? The result is that many firms—I may mention, for instance, Messrs. Oldham and Messrs. Priestley, and there are many others—have removed their plant and capital to France, and, while employing no British labour whatever, paying no contribution towards our taxation and duties, they command the British market just as easily as they did when they were established here, and, in addition, they command the
  338
  French market. There was a decrease last month in the exports of textile fabrics by half a million, a decrease of three and a quarter million pounds in the importation of raw materials for textile manufactures, a decrease of £500,000 in the exports of machinery and wearing apparel, while nearly £8,000,000 worth of foreign manufactures were imported to what Mr. Cobden declared was the workshop of the world. And so it was before he established free trade without reciprocity. I am sorry not to see the hon. Baronet the Member for Hallamshire in his place. He made a very notable declaration in the course of last year, and, as nobody will dispute his long commercial experience, I may quote what he said. He declared—
  "That this country cannot support its present population unless we are able to maintain our export trade with foreign countries, and that we are gradually being beaten out of."
  But it is not a question of duties alone. There are, as everybody knows, who is engaged in the slightest degree with our export trade, harassing Customs exactions to which British goods are subjected by foreign States—Custom House detentions for paltry offences, fines for misdescriptions, misweights, and what not. Cases have been recently brought to my notice in which the French and Spanish Customs have persistently harassed goods from Sheffield by placing every kind of difficulty in the way. It is not only in regard to sugar that Germany and other countries give bounties, to our most grievous injury. The Merchandise Marks Committee of last year reported in these words—
  "The Committee has had evidence of the increase of bounties and subsidies granted by foreign Governments to their national lines of shipping, expressly designed to foster foreign trade in national bottoms, and officially declared to have done so. Moreover, some foreign State railway administrations have adopted a system of reduced rates from inland ports to seaports, and for long distances, by which prejudice has been caused to British interests."
  The hon. Member for West Perthshire, President of the Shipping Exchange, gave evidence
  "That in 1896 these subsidies amounted to about £45,000 in respect of the German East and South Africa lines alone, or about equal to their earnings."

  339
  Even so as to German lines to India, Australia, and America, and to some of the French lines competing with us.
  "But it is not only," said the hon. Member for West Perthshire to the Committee, "bounties which have to be considered, but the international wrong done by State railway aid in low through rates. They give a special rate of carriage of 10, 15, or 50 per cent. less than what is intended for British ships loading alongside them in the docks; and this enables them to ship hardware from the Continent at 19s. 6d. per ton less than from Sheffield or Birmingham or any British port."
  I submit, on the grounds I have briefly enumerated, that the artificial stimulus given to foreign competition with the staple trades of the United Kingdom by foreign tariffs, bounties, and other fiscal means, should receive quite as much or the attention of Her Majesty's Government as the state of things produced in the West Indies by similar means. The duties, bounties, and fiscal exactions which are raised against us in every port in Europe, and, indeed, throughout the world, are most hostile to the welfare and the well-being of the working masses of the country, and tend to increase the number of unemployed and the number of paupers. I have brought this matter before the House mainly in consequence of a recent public declaration of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is, first and foremost, the trade of the United Kingdom, the retention of what we have, and the taking steps to secure that by no means whatever shall other markets be closed against us, and monopolised by any other country to our prejudice. The House, I am sure, will recognize that I have put a complicated matter before them, in circumstances of some difficulty, and I apologize for having detained them at some length. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  *CAPTAIN R. G. W. CHALONER: I think, Sir, the present is a particularly opportune moment for the consideration of the matters with which the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend deals, in that our memory is now fresh with the result of that terrible strike which has taken place in one of the great trades of this country; and, I think, if we consider the reasons of that strike, we shall find that they are closely
  340
  interwoven with the subject of this Amendment. Everyone knows that these strikes are brought about by the action of the Trades Union leaders, and I would venture to press this upon the Trades Union leaders of this country. The object of Trades Unions, I take it, is to protect labour from the tyranny of capital, and also to keep up, so far as they can, the wages earned by the labourers. But I venture to say that the efforts of these Trades Union leaders are entirely in the wrong direction. The reduction in wages that has been brought about is inevitable, for the simple reason that, owing to the competition from abroad, the employers of labour are obliged to reduce their working expenses, and one of the first of those expenses to be reduced is naturally one of the heaviest—namely, that of the price of labour. If, therefore, the labour leaders would turn their attention to endeavour to keep up prices, they would be benefiting the working classes, instead of running their heads against a brick wall as they have been doing. Foreign nations are now attacking us in every direction, not only in their own markets, but even in our own Colonies and Dependencies. What we have to consider is whether we intend to allow them to deprive us of our trade by means of tariffs, while we are unarmed, and, therefore, unable to compete with them, or whether we should not arm ourselves with the same weapons that they possess, and fight them on the same terms. I believe Ave are all in favour of Free Trade, but at present we do not possess real Free Trade; it is a one-sided sort of Free Trade, by which we suffer and foreign nations derive the benefit. On the other hand, if we could arm ourselves with the weapon of a tariff which would enable us to meet them on their own ground on level terms, the result would be that we should be able to get markets now closed to us open to our export trade, and in that way not only the whole trade of the country, but the working classes themselves would benefit. I will not detain the House at this late hour with any further observations, but for these reasons, and in the hope that, if no absolute action can be promised, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that this proposal will receive his sympathetic consideration, I beg to

  341
  second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend.
  Amendment proposed:—
  "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that the artificial stimulus given to foreign competition with me staple trades of the United Kingdom by foreign tariffs, bounties, and other fiscal means, should receive the attention of Your Majesty's Government simultaneously with the condition there brought about of certain of Your Majesty's West Indian Colonies, and particularly in the increase to £100,000,000 last year in the importations of foreign manufactures, and the decline of the exports of British and Irish produce, and the consequent displacement of labour" (Sir Howard Vincent).
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
  Main Question again proposed:—Debate arising.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Sir, none can be surprised, knowing the views held by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that he should have taken the very earliest opportunity he could of bringing before the attention of the House the question of tariffs, in which we all know-he takes such an interest. He has gone over a vast number of extremely important points in connection with the subject, points involving a great mass of detail in an extremely short time, and we are all very much obliged to him for having concentrated his remarks in the brief way he has. I will endeavour to emulate my hon. Friend in the way of brevity in the remarks I have to make. Sir, my hon. Friend has raised the question of bounties, and on that point I am entirely in accord with him. As the House knows, we are engaged in negotiations for the purpose of endeavouring to bring together a Conference of Powers, in the hope that the Conference will result in the abolition of sugar bounties which have done so much harm to our West Indian Colonies. I am certainly not one of those who believe in the ultimate advantage of bounties even to the countries that grant them, and I do not think that any Member of the House, in whatever quarter of the House he sits, will be prepared to defend the system of bounties from any point of view I
  342
  believe the whole House would welcome the abolition of bounties if it could be brought about by some action of the Powers who give them. My hon. Friend has spoken of bounties in addition to those connected with the sugar industry. He referred to the Report of the Comittee on the Merchandise Marks Act as showing that bounties were given in increasing quantities to the shipping of foreign countries, and, I think, especially to German shipping. This kind of bounty is, of course, of a different order altogether to the sugar bounties of which we are endeavouring to get rid. These so-called bounties are given in the form of subsidies, and with regard to them it must be remembered that this country is not altogether free from the same kind of thing. They are subsidies given for the purpose of establishing quick communications by sea, and services are performed in return for the subsidies which are given. Whether these subsidies exceed the value of the services rendered or not is a question which it would hardly be possible to discuss with any hope of arriving at a satisfactory result. But whether that be so or not, if we were convinced that these subsidies were in excess of any services rendered, I would like my hon. Friend to point out any means by which we could stop them being given. He referred to another matter—namely, the Inland Railway charges in Germany and other countries, which undoubtedly do give to the lines of steamers belonging to those countries an advantage over those possessed by shippers in this country, and I think that, having regard to the fact that we in this country endeavour to secure that there shall be no preference whatever given to any person or body of persons in the matter of railway rates, we are entitled to make some representation on the same score when opportunity arises to foreign Governments. I may tell my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in accordance with a suggestion made from the Board of Trade in connection with the new German tariff, is making a representation on the subject with a view to endeavouring to see whether Germany will not do as we do in this country, and place their Railway tariff in such a position as will secure that no parti-

  343
  cular body will have an advantage which is so injurious to our traders here. That representation will be made, and we hope that the German Government will see their way to meeting us in that matter. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with my assurance that we are alive to the facts that he has put before us, and that we are doing what we can to endeavour to secure the advantages for which he seeks. My hon. Friend drew a rather melancholy picture of the position into which the country was getting in consequence of the duties and the tariff regulations of foreign countries, and he referred to the increase of our imports of manufactured goods and the decrease in our export trade. No doubt it is the fact that there has been an increase in the import of various manufactured articles, but not to such an extent as he imagines.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I got my figures from the Board of Trade returns themselves.
  *MR. RITCHIE: My figures do not agree with those cited by the hon. Member. My information is that the hon. Member is not correct in giving one hundred millions as the increase. There is no doubt that the imports of manufactured articles have increased, but it must not be taken that the whole of these articles, although they are manufactured articles, are really altogether completely manufactured. A very large proportion of these articles are things which in effect form the raw material for manufacture in this country.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Might I ask, then, why they are not classified as raw material?
  *MR. RITCHIE: They would not be properly classified under the head of raw material, but practically they are partially manufactured here, so that although they appear as foreign-manufactured articles, they are, in effect, raw material for manufacture in this country. It would be impossible at this hour of the night to enter into the economic argument with regard to this matter, but I will only say that while I regret to see our exports somewhat decreased this last year, the quantity of imported manufactured articles coming into this country does not alarm me. Indeed, so far from the country being in the melancholy state de-
  344
  scribed by the hon. Member, I do not believe that at any previous time this country has been in a more healthy condition. When my hon. Friend speaks of displacing our labour, I would remind him that the returns of the unemployed in the Trades Unions of the country up to the time when the unfortunate strike and dispute occurred was much less than had been the case for years past—very much less; and, further, the prosperity of the working classes of this country at the present time is shown by the very great increase that has taken place year by year in all the excisable articles of consumption, and so with regard to the savings banks deposits and other indications of prosperity. The condition of the working classes cannot be described otherwise than as one of prosperity—greater prosperity than in any previous period. Therefore, although the statistics that my hon. Friend has given may not be altogether satisfactory, they certainly do not show that the country is in an unhealthy condition. With regard to the decrease in the exports, the amount of decrease is not large; it is, I think, something like six millions, and that is quite sufficiently explained by the abnormal condition of things in several of our best markets. Take, for instance, the state of things in India. In consequence of the famine and pestilence which unfortunately visited that country last year, the exports have naturally fallen off considerably. So with regard to China. The state of China has been such that she has not had that buying power which she formerly possessed, and therefore a falling off in our exports to that country was perfectly natural. So with regard to the United States of America. The currency tariff troubles have had a very considerable effect upon our exports to the United States. There are other causes which I need not trouble the House with. We are sorry to say that the exports did go down last year, but the amount by which they have fallen is nothing to be alarmed at, and when we come to consider the dislocation of trade caused by that disastrous strike to which my hon. Friend the Seconder of the Amendment has referred, I do not think there is very much to be surprised at. My hon. Friend has made a few pertinent remarks in regard to that unhappy trade dispute. In my opinion, the barriers which are erected

  345
  against our trade in foreign countries, are nothing like the barriers which are erected often by ourselves. I hope that one good result of this unfortunate dispute will be to convince the working classes that the only method by which they can hope to encounter successfully the keen competition which faces them in every quarter of the globe is by endeavouring to work in harmony with their employers, and to turn out as much work in as little time as possible. I was informed by one who knew thoroughly well what he was speaking of in regard to this strike that if the freedom for which the masters contended, in the carrying on of their business, was secured by them, he hoped and believed that the cost of production in this country, in some of our great manufacturing trades, would be reduced by something like fifteen per cent. Well, Sir, if it be true that by our own trade troubles and disputes, by unduly insisting on certain conditions for the carrying on of work, we raise the cost of manufacturing operations in this country by ten or fifteen per cent., I say that we ourselves raise up a greater barrier against our export trade than any barrier raised by any foreign country. My hon. Friend seems to think that we should better gain entrance into foreign and neutral markets by adopting protective tariffs. My own view is exactly the contrary. I have yet to learn that a protective country can, as a consequence of protective tariff, produce articles for sale in neutral markets at less cost than we can. I have yet to learn that the fact of the manufacturer having to pay more for the machinery which he employs, more for much of the material that he uses, because of an import duty, will put him in a better position to compete against a country which has perfect free trade. I do not believe it is so for a moment. If we were to abandon the policy of free trade, which has done so much for this country, it would make our position, in competing with foreign countries, much more difficult than it is. Sir, my hon. Friend has a right to ask that we should use every endeavour to lessen the difficulties which face us; he has a right to ask that the Government should omit no effort to procure greater facilities for our trade and to open up new markets. I am satisfied that the declarations re-
  346
  cently made by Members of the Government as to their determination not to allow this country to be shut out of the markets which they have a right to enter, and to do their utmost to secure that the territory which they possess, and which they protect in other parts of the world, shall not be handicapped by the operations or the actions of foreign Powers, embody a policy which has met and will continue to meet with the approval of the country. I hope that in the few words I have said I have convinced my hon. Friend that what we can do we will do; but we can not agree that the proposition which he urges with so much energy and earnest ness would be at all likely to carry out the end he has in view, and certainly the methods he proposes are not methods which can be adopted by the Government of this country. My hon. Friend has referred to many other matters, to which I would have liked to allude but for the lateness of the hour. He referred to the great increase in German shipping. I can only say there has undoubtedly been that increase that he speaks of, but the increase in German shipping, which he says has been brought about by subsidies, is not to be compared for a moment with the great increase which has taken place in our shipping, and if I had time to give the House some statistics with regard to these matters I am sure that even my hon. Friend would be convinced that, so far from having anything to be afraid of with regard to competition of that kind, we can face with equanimity any competition which is likely to arise. Sir, I hope my hon. Friend, having discharged the duty which he thought was imposed upon him by the representation of Sheffield, will not consider it necessary to trouble the House to go to a division, but will be satisfied with the assurance I have given him.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and his assurance that he will do everything he possibly can in the direction at which I am aiming, I do not think it is necessary to trouble the House to divide. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Leave to withdraw being refused, the Amendment was put and negatived.
  Main Question again proposed—
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien)—put and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till to-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS COMMITTEE.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (SIR W. H. WALROND,): I beg to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the kitchen and refreshment rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House; that the Committee do consist of 17 Members; that Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Richard Cavendish, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Thomas Curran, Mr. Horatio Davies, General "Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Mr. Llewellyn, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Macdona, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. P. J. Power, Mr. William Redmond, and Lord Stanley be Members of the Committee."
  *SIR W. LAWSON: I think, Sir, this Motion cannot be allowed to go without some observation. Last year the Chairman of this Committee informed us that they intended to do something with regard to the sale of drink in this House which the Attorney General had declared two days before was carried on, in his opinion, in an illegal manner. They said they were going to do something, and upon their stating that I made no objection to the Committee being appointed what followed? They brought in a Bill—a most amazing Bill—with regard to this matter. Of course, I cannot go into that now, but this Bill, instead of being brought on at the proper time, when we could discuss it, was brought on night after night at 12 o'clock, when it was impossible to discuss it. I do not know what the intention now is, but I should like, before this Committee is appointed, to hear from the noble Lord opposite, who, I presume, will be in the Chair again (of course, we should all wish that), some statement as to what the intention of the Committee is, whether they intend to carry on the sale of drink
  348
  within the precincts of this House in a manner which the Attorney General has declared in his opinion to be illegal, or whether they intend to take any steps to alter that state of things. If they do intend to carry on the sale of drink here after the opinion which the Attorney-General has expressed, I think it will be—if this is a Parliamentary expression—very little short of a public scandal. On this ground I shall certainly object to the appointment of the Committee until we have had some statement upon this matter.
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Lord STANLEY,): Sir, the answer to the question of the hon. Baronet is very simple. If the hon. Baronet will allow this Committee to be appointed, at their very first meeting they will tell him what course they will take.
  DR. TANNER: The noble Lord opposite is always kind enough to give us the very best intentions in the fewest possible words. A certain number of Members, some of whom happen to be here to-night, may propose to mark their appreciation of those intentions by at the proper time raising an objection to the undue amount of money spent upon this Committee. It is not my intention to raise any objection to the personnel of this Committee, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that, instead of persisting in trying to appoint this Committee to-night, and putting us to the trouble of a division, he should postpone it till Monday or Tuesday, when the material matters of fact can be gone into. The noble Lord, as Chairman of the Committee, receives £2,000 a year, whereas his predecessor received only £1,000, and with all the intensified wealth which he enjoys at the present time, I do ask him, at any rate, to give our friends, not merely those sitting upon these Benches, but those sitting opposite—an opportunity of, at any rate, conversing over this matter.
  THE HON. V. DUNCOMBE: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes after 12 o'clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Company Acts. I move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Bill read accordingly, and referred to Select Committee.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill, entitled, "An Act to amend the Law of Evidence." I ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a first time.
Bill read accordingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I move that this House do adjourn until Monday.
House adjourned at half past four o'clock to Monday next, a quarter past four o'clock.