Sitting of 16 February 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PETITIONS.
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (No. 1).
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (No. 2).
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  EDUCATION (ENFORCEMENT OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE).
  Petition from Sheffield, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Salisbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Petition from Patrington, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES (SCOTLAND) (REGULATIONS).
  Paper [presented 14th February] to be printed. [No. 59.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACTS, 1866 TO 1878).
  Paper [presented 15th February] to be printed. [No. 60.]
  EAST INDIA (FAMINE).
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Indian Famine Commission, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  JAMAICA.
  Copy presented,—of Correspondence relating to the Public Finance and Resources of the Island of Jamaica [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1898–9).
  Estimate presented,—of the Further Amount which will be required during the year ending 31st March 1899, beyond the sum already provided in the Grant for Navy Services for the year [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 61.]
PAPERS LAID ON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure for 1897, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 62.]
  PUBLIC RECORDS (DISPOSAL OF DOCUMENTS).
  Copy of Rule under the Public Record Office Act, 1877, for the disposal of certain Documents [by Act].
  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF NORFOLK).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Norfolk, the particulars of which are re-Corded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1862–4: (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 433 (12), of Session 1868)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Middlesex, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1861–3 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 433 (11), of Session 1868)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF WORCESTER).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Worcester, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1873–5 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 155 (3), of Session 1876)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  ENDOWED CHARITIES (COUNTY OF RUTLAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Digest of the Endowed Charities in the county of Rutland, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities for that county, 1863–4 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 433 (19), of Session 1868)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
QUESTIONS.

  NIGER COMPANY'S GIN TRADE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Niger Company is its own custom house and its own revenue collector, and itself imports and distributes spirits; whether there is any check on the published returns of the amount of liquor imported by the Company into its territories; whether since February, 1897, the decrease said to have taken place, up to 1896 inclusively, in the importation of spirits by the Niger Company has continued; and whether there is any truth in the statement that the Company shipped in 1898 from the Continent to one part of its territory 900,000 large square bottles of gin of the most fiery and injurious description, distilled immediately before being shipped, and known as "trade gin"?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The books of the Company are at all times open to the inspection of Her Majesty's Government, and there is no reason to believe that the Company issues false returns. The shipments of spirits by the Company for 1897 and 1898 were approximately equal to the average annual shipments since the Charter. The number of bottles shipped in 1898 was 900,000, containing a little over a pint each. The quality was normal "trade gin," about 20 per cent, under proof. Analysts state this spirit to be no more injurious than the spirits ordinarily sold in Great Britain.

  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NIGER COMPANY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state if any arrangement has been come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Niger Company with regard to the future of the territories at present administered By the Company?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS): This matter is in progress, and we expect to be able to bring it before the House in the course of this Session. But it would be premature to make any statement at present.

  SUEZ CANAL SHARES.
  MR. MONK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the amount paid into the Exchequer during the year ending 31st March, 1898, as interest and dividend on the ordinary Suez Canal shares, held by Her Majesty's Government, includes the nominal value of the shares drawn for redemption during that period; how many shares were so drawn; and whether he will consider the desirability of distinguishing in future between the repayment of capital on the drawn shares and the interest and dividend on ordinary shares up to the period of their redemption?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBUST,): The amount paid into the Exchequer as interest and dividend on ordinary shares in the year ended 31st March, 1898, was £688,917 15s. 1d., as shown at page 25 of the Finance Accounts. That amount does not include any sum in respect of shares drawn for repayment. The number of shares drawn and repaid in the year was 326, and the sum received in repayment was £6,464 8s. 1d., which is shown separately at page 12 of the Finance Accounts. Interest and capital payments are thus sufficiently distinguished.

  IMMORAL ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the case of three men of the name of Chrimes, who were, on 20th December, 1898, sentenced to seven and 12 years' penal servitude for a wide-spread conspiracy to charge persons with having committed crimes, with intent to extort money;

  1079
  whether the following rider of the jury has come under his notice:—
  "The jury feel that such a vile plot, even with all the ingenuity displayed in it, could only have been possible by the acceptance of such immoral advertisements by a section of the Press, religious and secular, well knowing their nature. They further express their earnest conviction that means should be taken to suppress such advertisements and the institutions from which they emanate, as they consider them direct incentives to ignorant and evil-minded women to commit crime";
  and whether he sees his way to take any steps in the direction indicated?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention has been called to this case and to the rider of the jury. In my opinion the question of dealing with indecent advertisements either by amending the Indecent Advertisements Act or otherwise, is one deserving of serious consideration, and I am giving my best attention to the subject.

  NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AT WHITEHALL.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will direct that the designs of the elevations for the new public buildings at South Kensington, and for the new Government offices at Whitehall, shall be exhibited in the Tea Room?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): According to my promise, the designs for the new public buildings shall be exhibited for the inspection of honourable Members, including those for the new science buildings at South Kensington. Those for the Art Buildings on the east side of Exhibition Road being practically those already laid before the House, I have given instructions to the architect to proceed with them, but I shall be happy to show them to my honourable Friend or to any honourable Member who may desire to see them.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACTS ORDERS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the large number of persons interested in the administration of the Factory and Workshops Acts, he can arrange that the orders and regulations made by him under those Acts, and now laid upon the Table of the House, shall be circulated along with the other Parliamentary Papers for the information of its Members?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I should be glad to make the arrangement suggested if I thought it would be of any material service to the honourable Member or others interested in Factory Orders. But in addition to the fact that these Orders are put on sale immediately they are made and are readily obtainable at a cost of usually one halfpenny each, lists of them are periodically circulated with the votes and proceedings of the House, and the substance of them is published in the London Gazette and in the Labour Gazette issued by the Board of Trade. I can also promise that if any Member of the House finds it convenient to apply to my office for a copy of any of these Orders he will be readily supplied with one.

  RULES AS TO PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the multitude of persons interested in patents, designs and trade marks, he can arrange for copies of the new and revised rules, now laid upon the Table of the House, to be distributed to Members along with the other Parliamentary Papers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Question as to the distribution of documents to Members is one for the officials of the House and not for me. I have performed my duty by laying the rules upon the Table, but I shall be glad to represent the matter to the authorities of the House, if the honourable Gentleman desires.

  DOWNPATRICK ORANGE MEETING.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that Colonel Wallace, of the North Down Militia, presided recently at a meeting of Orangemen in Downpatrick, where a man named Trew, of Belfast, made a speech inciting to acts of violence; and what action will be taken in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETAKY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The meeting referred to was presumably that held in Downpatrick on the 16th December. The meeting was held indoors, and admission to it was by ticket. The Government have no legal evidence of the language used by any of the speakers at the meeting, and it is not proposed to take any action in the matter.

  SPEECHES OF MR. TREW IN BELFAST.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the police authorities in Belfast has been directed to the persistent incitements to violence by speech and writing by a man named Trew; and if he can state what action will be taken in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The attention of the police authorities in Belfast has been directed to the language used by the individual named in the Question. They have made adequate arrangements for the protection of places of worship in Belfast, and the prevention of any breach of the peace, and it is not at present proposed to take further action in the matter.

  LUNACY ADMINISTRATION IN LONDON.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the proposed legislation for London it will be arranged that the
  1082
  affairs connected with lunacy in London be administered by the central board instead of, as at present, by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and by the London County Council; and whether, in order that the cases of imbeciles, idiots, lunatics, and those suffering from senile dementia might be properly studied, and accurate statistics compiled, he will consider the expediency of forming one board which shall have the care and control of such cases?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I think my honourable friend will see that it would not be proper for me to make any statement as to the contents of a Bill which is to be introduced by the Leader of the House.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: But as to the assimilation of the two boards?
  THE HOME SECRETARY: It is not a matter which concerns my department.

  CRETAN MEDAL.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reward the officers and men of Her Majesty's Army, who were employed during the recent disturbances in Crete, more especially those who were engaged in the fighting which took place at Candia on 6th September last?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WTNDHAM,): It has been decided to grant rewards to certain officers, non-commissioned officers and men in recognition of their services during the occupation of Crete and, specially, during the outbreak at Candia on the 6th September last. The list will be published with the least possible delay.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AND VACCINATION.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether vaccination is required of all Civil Servants, including those young persons and others who are temporarily employed in the Post Office and other departments?
  MR. HANBUEY: All candidates for admission to the permanent Civil Service and all established workmen in the Civil departments must show that they have been satisfactorily vaccinated, otherwise revaccination is required. Customs' boatmen must have been vaccinated within seven years. In the case of persons temporarily employed each department is at liberty to fix its own requirements. In the Post Office service evidence of both primary and secondary vaccination is required before employment, whether permanent or temporary, and revaccination must have taken place within the preceding seven years. The only exceptions are:—(1) Soldier candidates, in whose case vaccination is presumed; (2) sub-postmasters, and (3) persons casually employed for short periods.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Are conscientious objections entertained?
  MR. HANBURY: No, I think not.

  KHARTOUM SICK AND WOUNDED.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if an application was made by the Army Medical authorities for a hospital ship, in connection with the Khartoum expedition, in sufficient time for it to have reached Alexandria before the arrival of the sick from the front?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): An application for a hospital ship was made by the Principal Medical Officer in Egypt to the General Officer commanding the Army of occupation on June 27th. Both these officers were at that time in London. The General Officer commanding sent forward the application unofficially, adding that if on arrival in Egypt he found it necessary he would again apply through Lord Cromer. Pending the receipt of such an official application the General Officer commanding was
  1084
  given full powers to take up passages for the sick and wounded together with their medical attendants, nurses, etc., on board the P. and O., and other passenger ships passing almost daily through the Suez Canal, supplementing in this manner the accommodation afforded by the two Government transports allotted to this service. On the 14th September the General Officer Commanding applied officially by telegraph for a hospital ship, but since it would have taken five weeks to fit out and transfer such a ship to Alexandria, it was decided to adhere to the arrangements already made. Four hundred and sixty-five invalids were conveyed by six vessels between 20th September and 30th October, and all arrived in England considerably sooner than would have been the case had a hospital ship been despatched.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether in consequence of this some 60 or 70 officers and men were detained in hospital at Alexandria, with only two nurses, while suffering from enteric fever?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No complaints have reached us to that effect; but, if such a thing did occur, it was not due to the non-employment of special hospital ships. It may have been due to the accommodation at Alexandria and Cairo not being sufficiently ample for the outbreak of enteric fever, which took place some time after the finish of the campaign.

  PEMBROKESHIRE MAILS.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the attention of the Postmaster-General has been called to the frequent late delivery of letters in Pembrokeshire owing to the late running of the mail trains; and whether he would consider the advisability of introducing a Bill in Parliament giving the Post Office authorities power to run mail trains on all railways in cases where the arrangements of the companies are in their opinion inadequate?
  MR. HANBURY: Owing to the late running of the Great Western night mail train from London, the delivery of letters in Pembrokeshire is not always effected at the appointed times. On some occasions the delay has been due either to accident on the railway or to some other exceptional and unavoidable cause. The working of this train is also dependent upon the running of other trains bringing mails for South Wales, with which connections are formed at various junctions, and in view of the inconvenience which a failure of connection involves a limited detention is sometimes necessary in order to save these connections. There has, however, been loss of time which there is reason to think might with better arrangements have been prevented. The Railway Company were a short time ago urged to take measures for improving the working of the train, and greater punctuality has recently been observed. The Postmaster-General has already power to call upon railway companies to run trains for the Mail Service at hours which he may appoint, and the trains on the Great Western main lines are of this character. If passenger traffic were excluded and the trains made special for the Mail Service, the cost would be very largely increased, while the service would still be liable to occasional irregularity from the causes already mentioned.

  THE UNIDENTIFIED DROWNED.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that from recent shipwrecks many bodies have been washed up on the coast of Pembrokeshire with life belts on, but without means of identification; and whether he could issue a regulation that all life belts should have the name of the ship to which they belong printed on them, or whether he will recommend to shipowners the advisability of their adopting this plan, with a view of obtaining evidence of identification in cases of shipwreck?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: My attention has been called
  1086
  to the matter referred to in the Question. The Board of Trade are informed that in many cases it is customary to mark a vessel's name on her life belts to prevent theft, but, if the belts are covered with canvas, it has been found that long exposure to the sea often renders the marking illegible. I have no power to make any regulations on the subject, but I shall place myself in communication with the shipping interest with regard to the honourable Member's suggestion.

  VETERINARY CAPTAIN FINLAYSON.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether with regard to the case of the late Veterinary Captain Finlayson, who met with his death between the dates of his sending in his papers and of his name appearing in the Gazette, and having in view the fact that the gratuity of £800 to which he would have become entitled was thereby withheld by the Government, the Government would, allowing for the particular relief already granted, be prepared either to make this a case for special consideration owing to the painful and exceptional circumstances surrounding his death, to the deceased officer's excellent professional services; and, further, to his retirement being in compliance with orders received; or to so amend the regulations that in similar circumstances the gratuity should not be forfeited, the amended regulations being retrospective for this officer.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These gratuities to officers are not rewards for service, analogous to the deferred pay of a private soldier. They are given on retirement to produce a flow of promotion. Some date must be selected as the date of retirement, and the one most fair in all cases has been found to be the date of approval by Her Majesty. Whatever date be appointed, disappointment and even hardship on surviving relatives must occasionally arise. The existing rule has been upheld for many years past by successive Secretaries of State, and Lord Lansdowne cannot undertake to alter it. In this particular case, in

  1087
  view of the distressed condition of Veterinary Captain Finlayson's parents, a compassionate gratuity has been awarded them from a small fund at the disposal of the Secretary of State for the relief of the necessitous relatives of deceased officers.
  MR. PIRIE: May I ask you if the Government are aware that Captain Finlayson's parents do not intend to accept this compassionate gratuity in the hope that more justice will be done to them? Did not the Department contemplate paying the gratuity when Captain Finlayson was prepared to send in his papers, and would it not have been paid but for the officer's death?
  MR. WYNDHAM: But for his death, by retirement he would have been entitled to it.
  MR. PIRIE: Have his parents accepted this charity or not?
  MR. WYNDHAM:That is a matter for them.

  METROPOLITAN POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  MR. DRAGE:I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what is the number of the children at present in the Metropolitan Poor Law schools, and whether more than 60 per cent, of these children belong to the class known as "ins and outs;" whether such children are taken in and out of the schools by their parents, sometimes with the direct intention, always with the result of depriving them of their education as well as impairing their health and character; whether cases are on record of such children being taken in and out of the same workhouse 62 times within 14 months; and whether he will consider the desirability of bringing in a Bill to deal with the matter?
  The honourable Member also had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the limited powers possessed by boards of guardians for the supervision of Poor Law children after they have left school; whether the officers of the boards of guardians are only required to visit and inspect such children in their first situations, and up to the age of 16; whether the guardians can
  1088
  only interfere on evidence being given of actual cruel and illegal treatment; and whether, with the view to protect such children from the influence of undesirable relatives and unscrupulous employers, he will bring in a Bill to amend the law on the subject.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): Perhaps my honourable. Friend will allow me to answer this Question and the next on the Paper in his name at the same time. The number of children in Metropolitan Poor Law Schools, according to the latest return, is 11,479, but I am aware of no reason for supposing that anything approaching to 60 per cent, of the children belong to the class known as "ins and outs." According to the figures given in the Report of the Poor Law Schools Committee, less than 3 per cent, of the children admitted to these schools during 1893–4 were admitted more than twice. I cannot speak as to the intentions of parents in removing their children, but undoubtedly it interferes with their education. There is the case of one family, I believe, on record, where three children were moved the number of times stated. In regard to the same Question, my attention has been called to the subject referred to. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative, and with regard to the third I am advised that there may be circumstances which would enable the guardians to interfere without evidence being given of actual cruel or illegal treatment. A Bill to give boards of guardians further powers of control with respect to children was introduced last year by my honourable Friend the Member for West Bradford, and notice has been given by him of a similar Bill for this Session. This would cover the first Question raised by the honourable Member, and I will consider the other.

  ALLOWANCES FOR IRISH COUNTY OFFICERS.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury has taken any definite action with regard to the manner in which the Vote for £8,500, for allowances to Irish county officers, is to be expended in the future, having

  1089
  regard to the fact that the manner in which this Vote has hitherto been expended has been officially described by the Chief of the Treasury, Remembrancer's Office, Dublin Castle, as an anomaly, and that no adequate justification for its continuance can be alleged; and, if so, what steps; and whether it is intended in the future to check these allowances, as to the necessity for and extent of the allowances in each case, and as to the vouching of all payments by each particular individual; and if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the circulars issued by the Treasury on this subject, and a return in detail showing how the Vote was expended during the last financial year?
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury have given directions that the allowances are henceforth to be vouched for in the case of all county officers who are permanent whole time civil servants. There are, however, a few officers to whom such allowances have hitherto been paid who do not answer to that description. It is not deemed expedient to apply the rule to officers in that position, and Parliament will for the future be asked to vote for them an exclusive salary to cover their own remuneration and all expenses for assistance or other purposes. Certain circulars have already been issued to the county officers on the subject, but the detailed arrangements for vouching the allowances are not yet completely settled, and until they are it is premature to lay them before the House. The arangements will be settled in time to take effect at the beginning of the next financial year. But it is obviously impossible to show the results for the last financial year, in which they were not in force. When the system has been applied the Treasury will be in a position to judge as to the necessity for the continuance of the allowances at their present amount.

  FREE DELIVERY OF TELEGRAMS.
  MR. ENGLEDEW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General whether the Postmaster-General has considered the question of making the first three miles for the delivery of telegrams free
  1090
  to all; and if so, what decision has he come to?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of making no charge for the first three miles has, of course, been considered, but no further concession can be made.

  CASE OF MRS. BRENNAN, OF BREAFFY (IRELAND).
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mrs. Brennan, Breaffy, county Mayo, who was committed to Castlebar Gaol for contempt of court by the Vice-Chancellor in November last; whether he is aware that she held jointly with her brother, and was prepared to pay the amount due; that the landlord suggested she should submit to eviction on the understanding that another holding would be provided for her; and that the contempt of court was due to the non-fulfilment of the landlord's promise; whether the proceedings might have been taken before the local petty sessions, where Mrs. Brennan could have brought forward the facts of the case; and whether, seeing that her children are in the union, and that her husband, who has been working in England, returned with the intention of bringing her over, if released, with her family, he will recommend her release at an early date?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mrs. Brennan was committed to Castlebar Prison in October last for contempt under an Order of the Court of Chancery. The responsibility for the proceedings in such cases rests altogether with the Court, and the Executive have no power to interfere in any way. I understand that this woman's children are living with her husband and not in the workhouse as stated.
  DR. AMBROSE: Is it not the fact that the husband, who had been harvesting in England, went to Ireland with the intention of bringing his wife and children over here?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information as to that.

  SCIENCE AND ART CLASSES.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether complaints have been received by the Science and Art Department from Schools of Art or from Science and Art Classes connected with the Department to the effect that their efficiency is crippled and their existence imperilled by the competition of free classes providing advanced instruction in Science and Art, and established and maintained by the School Board for London, in contravention of Clause VI. of the Departments Directory; and whether he is aware of the statutory authority enabling school boards to charge upon the school fund any portion of the cost of instruction given to pupils who are not earning Parliamentary grants in accordance with the Minutes of the Education Department, but are registered in day or evening schools under the Department of Science and Art?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): Yes, such representations have been received. The Committee of Council on Education have always been of opinion that the school fund cannot legally be applied to supply instruction which is not under the day school or evening school Code of the Education Department. This opinion of the Committee of Council was communicated to the London School Board in a letter from the Department of Science and Art of 20th January, 1888.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the quantity of bills of exchange drawn and payable abroad, sent here for negotiation, is greatly restricted in consequence of our stamp duty being twice as large as that imposed in France and Belgium; whether he is aware that in Germany no such stamp duty is imposed, and that in the United States the war tax on those bills is less than our stamp duty, and whether he proposes to reduce the tax on trade; whether it is by his instructions that this negotiation stamp is extended to such bills when deposited as security for loans and are not negotiated, but are returned to the
  1092
  foreign owners; and if he will inquire whether the effect of such a duty, if imposed, will further divert trade from this country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is true that the revenue from foreign bill stamps has for some years been diminishing, but this is believed to be due to the adoption of the system of remitting money by means of telegraphic advices and to other causes, rather than to the rate of duty charged. I have no very recent information as to the stamp duties charged in this matter in foreign countries, but I am informed that in 1894 the duties in Belgium, France and Germany were the same as here. I have given no instruction on the matter referred to in the third paragraph. The Board of Inland Revenue are advised that the handing over of a foreign bill of exchange as security for a loan from a person resident in the United Kingdom constitutes a negotiation within the meaning of section 35 (1) of the Stamp Act, 1891, and that consequently stamp duty is chargeable in respect of such bills. There has been no alteration of the law on this point.
  SIR S. MONTAGU: Will the right honourable Gentleman make further inquiry in reference to the statement as to duties in France and Belgium, and also will he obtain the advice of the law officers of the Crown in reference to the extension mentioned in the third paragraph of his Question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not my business to interfere with the administration of the Inland Revenue Department; if they are wrong their action may be tested in Court. As to the other question of the honourable Member, I do not see why the stamp duty should not be higher here than in France and Belgium.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that the Department has been advised that the definition of negotiation under the Stamp Act was not the same as under the Bill of Exchange Act?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have stated what the Department has been advised.

  CLONES LEVEL CROSSING.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade has his attention been drawn to a resolution passed unanimously by the Clones Urban Council, county Monaghan, calling for the erection of a high level bridge over the Great Northern Railway at that town, and asking that, pending the erection of such bridge, all necessary shunting of wagons should be performed either above or below the existing level crossing; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Board of Trade have no power to order a bridge on the ground of inconvenience at the crossing.

  FOREIGN MEAT FOR BRITISH TROOPS.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office at how many military stations in Ireland are foreign beef and mutton supplied to the troops, also the amounts respectively of home-fed and foreign meat; and the number of times the present contractor at Dundalk and Enniskillen has had his meat rejected for being foreign meat and not home-fed or refrigerated?
  MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: At 31 stations, including the Curragh, only home-fed beef and mutton are supplied to the troops; at the remaining 30 stations, the contracts admit of supplies of colonial or foreign beef and mutton within fixed limits. It is impossible to state the actual amounts of home-fed and Colonial or foreign meat supplied. The contractor at Dundalk and Enniskillen has had his meat rejected on three occasions because it was frozen.

  SALISBURY PLAIN MANŒUVRES.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will agree to a return as to the terms of the contracts with Lipton and Whiteley respectively in connection with the recent manœuvres; and if he will state whether any fines or
  1094
  penalties were enforced; and, if so, on what account?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There is no objection to giving the return asked for by the honourable and gallant Member. To prevent any misconception, I may point out that, whereas Messrs. Whiteley competed against other firms for the transport contract, the War Office entered into an agreement with Messrs. Lipton without competition. In the first case, therefore, no prices can be quoted, since prices in competitive contracts are confidential; in the second, the return would give the schedule of prices which was distributed to the troops. No fines or penalties were enforced.

  DISEASE AMONG BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, out of an actual strength of 16,600 British troops proceeding on service in the recent campaign on the North-West Frontier, 1,500, or nearly 10 per cent., were incapacitated for service in the field by venereal disease; and whether the Government of India propose to take any further steps to remedy this condition of affairs?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The force, from which the 16,600 British troops were drawn for service in the recent campaign, consisted of 21,439 men. Of these 989 were rejected as unfit for service on account of venereal disease; while a further number of 492 were incapacitated during the campaign for the same reason. The total number of men known to have been thus disqualified for active service is therefore 1,481, or nearly 7 per cent., on a total strength of 21,439. The Government of India are fully aware of the importance of this matter, and have taken and are taking steps with the object of diminishing the prevalence of venereal disease among the British troops in that country.
  MAJOR RASCH: I suppose the noble Lord is aware that 16,000 and not 21,000 men were ordered from Simla to the front?
  [No Reply.]

  SKIBBEREEN QUARTER SESSIONS.
  Mr. FIELD (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the County Court litigants of Castletown Berehaven, county Cork, have to travel to Skibbereen twice a year to quarter sessions, a distance of 50 miles; and whether, seeing that the population of the Castletown Berehaven district was at the last census over 12,000, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would convenience the inhabitants of the Castletown Berehaven district by having at least one sitting per year of the County Court Judge of the West Riding of Cork at Castletown Brehaven?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that the fact is not as stated in the first paragraph. No representations appear to have been received from those locally interested in favour of the course suggested in the second paragraph; any such communication, however, if addressed to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, will have due consideration.

  SECTION 40, LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1896.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total number of estates, the number of tenants on those estates, and the net rental paid by these tenants which were in the Land Judges Court to which the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896 applied when the Act was passed; also the number of estates, the number of tenants on the estates, and the net rental paid by the tenants which had been disposed of by the Land Judge in accordance with the 40th section; and whether, considering the tardy rate of progress in applying the 40th section, the Government will endeavour to have these encumbered estates more rapidly dealt with?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No statistics are at present available which would enable the Department of the Land Judge to give the information desired in the first paragraph, and in the existing pressure of public business in the Department I see no sufficient reason for requiring this statistical in-
  1096
  formation to be prepared. With regard to the second paragraph, it appears to me that the progress made in dealing with estates under section 40 of the Act of 1896 has been satisfactory. I would refer the honourable Member to my reply to the Question put by the honourable Member for Cork on Friday last, containing some particulars as to the extent of the operations already carried out under section 40. In addition to this, many agreements to purchase have been voluntarily arrived at between the parties interested in cases where the tenants would have been entitled to the benefits of section 40—agreements which, but for the existence of that section, might not have been arrived at at all.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS ON THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the breaches of the peace which have been caused at Edmonton and Liverpool Street Stations of the Great Eastern Railway Company; whether the construction of a separate platform for workmen, and the issue of different coloured tickets available only for a single train each day, are in accordance with the Companies Acts and the general law; and whether he can induce the company to bring the disturbances to an end until a decision is given in the cases which are now pending against them for an improved service of trains?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have seen in the press reports of the proceedings referred to. I am not aware that there is any illegality in the special arrangements made by the company for the control of its different classes of traffic. I cannot "induce the company to bring the disturbances to an end." They would probably say that, as they are not caused by the company, they are unable to bring them to an end.

  CASE OF THOMAS BRADY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Brady, of

  1097
  Ballinaglera, county Leitrim, who was convicted at the last Carrick Assizes for firing a revolver at a boy named M'Hugh, and bound to the peace for two years and to come up for judgment when called on, and since then was convicted at Dowra at the suit of the Excise for carrying a gun without a licence; had he then a licence under the Arms Act, and where was it granted; and, seeing that this man is frequently in possession of firearms while in a condition that makes him a danger to the public peace, will he explain why he has never been prosecuted by the police?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not yet completed my inquiries in this case, and will ask the honourable and learned Member to postpone it for a few days.

  ROXBORO' ROAD SCHOOL, LIMERICK.
  MR. T. M. HEALT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present legal position of the Roxboro' Road School, Limerick; is the house let to a tenant; if so, under what statute; how is the rent disposed of, and by what authority; and, as the Irish Executive intervened to prevent a scheme becoming law, do they intend to take any measures to save the property for the public?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The premises of the Roxboro' Road School, Limerick, are let to the Rev. J. F. Gregg as tenant from year to year at a yearly rent of £20 under accepted proposal, dated 18th December 1879. There is no reference to any statutory power in the agreement of tenancy. Under the agreement in question the tenant is bound to keep the premises in good repair, and to yield up the same in as good condition and repair as he received them, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The rent is regularly received from the tenant, and is accumulating in the hands of the Commissioners of Education. In answer to the last paragraph, I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question put to me on the 14th July last by the honourable and learned Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As it was due to the action of the Government that this
  1098
  scheme was quashed, will they endeavour to deal with the matter by legislation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No doubt the matter is one for legislation, and is very important, but I cannot undertake to bring in a Measure.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Then let us have our own Parliament.

  BARROW FLOODS.
  MR. HAMMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, at not infrequent intervals, the River Barrow overflows its banks, to the grievous loss of riparian owners and occupiers, and to the serious detriment of the public health of many towns and villages, and that as on a former occasion the Government proposed a large expenditure for draining the valley of the Barrow, and for sinking the channel of the river, if he will use his influence to cause a new inquiry to be made with a view to the adoption of effective measures for the prevention of disastrous floods over a large area of fertile country in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I have nothing to add to my replies to previous Questions on the subject of the Barrow drainage, or to the communications addressed by me to local bodies on the same subject.

  LURGAN POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can give any information as to the cause of the delay in proceeding with the erection of a new post office in Lurgan?
  MR. HANBURY: Such high prices have been asked for suitable sites that it has not been practicable hitherto to put forward any scheme which would not involve a much larger expenditure than the amount of the post office business in the town would warrant. Recently the

  1099
  price of one of the sites has been reduced, and the Board of Public Works is considering' whether a building can be put up within the limit of cost which could be justified.

  SANDWICHMEN IN LONDON STREETS.
  MR. PICKEESGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory authority the police order prohibiting sandwichmen from perambulating the Strand, Piccadilly, and Bond Street was made; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the effect of the order has been to throw out of employment a large number of poor men who have no other means of obtaining a livelihood, and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider the question of making some alteration in the order?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The statutory authority is 5 and G William IV., cap. 50. I have no reason to suppose that the effect of police action has been to throw out of employment a large number of poor men who have no other means of obtaining a livelihood, and I do not therefore think it is necessary for me to take any steps in the matter.

  STREET PREACHING AT QUEENSTOWN.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state approximately the public cost entailed by each visit of the street preachers to Queenstown; and whether any portion of the expenditure falls upon the local rates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There have been occasional visits of the street preachers to Queenstown since June of last year, and the total cost entailed by the employment of additional police in preserving the public peace, consequent upon the visits, amounts to £34. No portion of this expenditure falls upon the local rates.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that taxes are paid by both Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, and—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

  CONFERENCE ON ANARCHISM AT ROME.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the papers relating to the recent conference at Rome, on the subject of anarchism, will be presented to the House?
  MR. BRODRICK: The conference resolved that their proceedings should be considered secret. It will therefore not be possible to lay papers on the subject. The British delegates did not vote on the final resolutions. This country is therefore not bound by the conclusions arrived at.
  MR. BRYCE: Do I understand that if any legislation is to be proposed on this matter papers relating to the conference will not be laid?
  MR. BRODRICK: I must refer the right honourable Gentleman to the First Lord of the Treasury.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce, in the course of the present Session, any Bill for the improvement of secondary education in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY,): Much important action is being taken at present with regard to secondary education in Scotland, and, while they are not prepared to say that some legislation may not be necessary, the Government do not think that it is expedient to introduce a Bill during the present Session.

  FAIR RENTS IN THE FERMOY UNION.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of fair rent applications from Fermoy Union, filed in Court before November 1896, which remained unheard until November 1897, and if all cases filed since are still pending; is he aware that this delay has the effect of forcing tenants to accept settlements out of court; and if he will ascertain from the Land Commission when the applications from Fermoy Union are likely to be dealt with?
  MR. GEEALD BALFOUR: Of the applications received from the Fermoy Union before November, 1896, 16 remained unheard in November, 1897. All cases from the union where the applications were lodged prior to 1st January, 1897, have been listed for hearing. I am informed it is probable that the list containing cases from this union will be issued in the course of next month. I have no information as to the second paragraph of the question.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS' DEATH ROLL.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of the loss of life by two platelayers on the South Eastern Railway, near Spa Road, on Wednesday, 8th instant, any scout or look-out man was posted to warn the workmen of the approach of any train whilst they were absorbed in their work; and whether he has the power to make regulations as to the posting of scouts on railways to prevent the occurrence of such accidents; and, if not, will he apply to Parliament for powers to take this and other steps to diminish the heavy death roll of railway servants?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TKSDE: No, Sir; the Board of Trade have no power to make such regulations, but such an arrangement as that suggested might very well be made the subject of regulation by railway companies themselves without legislative enactment. I have received a letter from the general manager of the South
  1102
  Eastern deploring the accident, and intimating that instructions have been given to the engineer that during the busy hours of the day the men shall cease working on the particular section of the line where the disaster occurred. He adds:
  "With reference to a look-out man, the men have had the option of having a man appointed for this duty, but have always, and do still, decline to have anyone responsible for their safety; they prefer to look out for themselves."

  RUTHIN LETTER DELIVERIES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to the serious inconvenience which is caused to the inhabitants of the borough of Ruthin by the recent alteration made in the time of the arrival of the letters for the second delivery from 1.45 p.m. to 2.31 p.m.; whether he is aware that letters dispatched to Ruthin from Chester (22 miles distant) are only delivered by first morning post at 7 a.m. and at 4.30 p.m.; and, whether he can see his way to an improvement of the postal service at Ruthin.
  MR. HANBURY: The recent alteration in the time of arrival at Ruthin of letters for the second delivery was the result of changes in the train service in North Wales, which were rendered necessary by the later arrival at Chester of the Irish day mail train. The local trains from Chester to Denbigh and Ruthin are not under the control of the Post Office, but it is understood that the present arrangement by which the midday mail reaches Ruthin at 2.31 p.m. is the only arrangement compatible with the present working of the Irish day mail train. In regard to local letters from Chester to Ruthin, it has transpired that owing to some misapprehension they have not been dispatched from Chester by the train bringing the through mails, and they consequently did not arrive in time for the 2.50 p.m. delivery. Proper instructions in the matter have now been given.

  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD.
  MR. KEAKLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what provision is made by the Metropolitan Asylums Board for the five classes of children consigned to their care; which Metropolitan Board of Guardians have availed themselves of such provision; and how many children in each class have been thus dealt with by each Board so availing itself?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Metropolitan Asylums Board have, I am informed, endeavoured to provide for children of the classes referred to, viz.: There has been great difficulty in obtaining premises for remand children owing to the fact that a special locality has to be selected, and more than one negotiation have recently fallen through, but active steps are being taken to find suitable premises. For Ophthalmic children, two sites have been purchased, one on the north, and the other on the south of the Thames, upon each of which it is intended to erect buildings to accommodate 350 children. With regard to children suffering from ringworm, the managers are now in negotiation for the acquisition of part of the property of the Sutton Schools, one of which they propose to use for this purpose. For children who, by reason of defect of intellect, cannot properly be trained in association with children in ordinary schools, the managers have provided a home for 20 girls; and 20 girls have been sent to the home by the Guardians of 10 of the London Unions. For convalescents, two sea-side homes have been provided for, one at Herne Bay for 134 children, and the other at Margate for 41 children. Two hundred and eighty-nine children have been admitted to these homes. The accommodation at Margate will be supplemented by two cottages, each to hold 25 children. Another site has been purchased on the South Coast on which to erect three houses to accommodate 25 children each. These arrangements, it is estimated, will provide for all the children requiring seaside air. All the Metropolitan Boards of Guardians, with four exceptions, have availed themselves of some of the accommodation provided by the managers.
  1104
  With regard to the last paragraph, I shall be very glad to give all the information I have, but it would take a very long time to give as an answer.

  INDIAN MAILS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Postmaster-General is aware that serious inconvenience is caused to firms, private individuals, and journals connected with India when the Indian mail arrives on Saturday, owing to the delay at the Post Office in sorting and delivering the newspapers on Saturday afternoon; and whether arrangements cannot be made to increase the staff assigned to the duty, or in some other way to insure more prompt delivery.
  MR. HANBURY: There is no delay at the Post Office in sorting and delivering newspapers brought by the Indian mail when that mail arrives on Saturday afternoon. A sufficient special force is always employed on such Saturdays. It is the practice not to send out on Saturday afternoon newspapers and other large packets for delivery to those firms whose offices are known to close before the time at which delivery could be effected, and if under any misapprehension newspapers have been kept over which might have been delivered, the Postmaster-General will be happy to give instructions for their delivery in future on receiving particulars. I may add that this is what has happened at the office in which my honourable Friend is interested.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether under Rule 17 of the County and Rural Districts Councils (Ireland) First Elections Order, 1899, providing that where there are more than four candidates one-fourth must agree to the appointment of a polling agent, it is possible, as

  1105
  happened in the urban elections, for a candidate to have four or more bogus candidates nominated in order to deprive a genuine opponent of the right to have a polling agent in the polling booth; and whether he would recommend that a discretionary power be given to the returning officer to take steps where necessary to prevent such tactics?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The provisions of Rule 17 will be modified in order to meet the objection to which attention is called in the question.

  SUNDAY POSTAL DELIVERIES AT OSSETT.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General whether the Postmaster-General is aware that a request has been made by the Ossett Town Council and the Ossett Chamber of Commerce for the re-establishment of a Sunday dispatch of letters from Ossett, and that, in reply to such request, a letter was written on the 25th October, 1898, signed "J. A. Marshall, for Secretary," in which it is stated, That the Postmaster-General is unable to give the matter favourable consideration, unless it be shown by means of a memorial that persons in receipt of not less than two-thirds of the correspondence for Ossett are in favour of the Sunday dispatch; whether this letter refers to paragraph 8 of the General Postal Regulations, published in the Post Office Guide (page 37); whether the Postmaster-General is aware that Ossett is not a rural district, but a municipal borough with a population of more than 12,000, and a separate commission of the peace; whether there is any precedent in such a case for requiring the requests of representative bodies to be supplemented by a memorial from the public; whether a memorial has since been received asking for the dispatch, and signed by upwards of 240 persons, representing the borough magistrates, Corporation, ministers of religion, legal and medical professions, and the leading residents and business firms in the borough; what means, if any, have been taken to inquire into the state-
  1106
  ment of the memorialists that they are the recipients of more than two-thirds of the correspondence in Ossett; and whether any regulation of the Department prevents the Postmaster-General giving effect to the strong wish of the memorialists that a Sunday dispatch should be made from one of the three town sub-offices in Ossett, and which office is situate within 300 yards of a railway station?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first five paragraphs is Yes. A counter-memorial has been received, showing a fairly equal division of opinion The memorialists referred to in the Question do not receive two-thirds or even one-third of the correspondence in Ossett, as proved by a count of the letters. The present regulations are based upon the recommendations of Lord Dalhousie's Committee, which followed upon a House of Commons Resolution of April 18th 1871, against extending Sunday labour in the Post Office. The Committee's Report was presented to Parliament in 1872.

  PEABODY TRUSTEES AND VACCINATION.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that large numbers of the tenants in the buildings of the Peabody Trust in London have received notice to quit unless their children are vaccinated; and whether he will use his influence with the trustees to secure from them the same respect for the conscientious convictions of their tenants as was generally extended by the proposals in the Government Bill of last year?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THF HOME DEPARTMENT: I was not aware of the incidents to which the honourable Member alludes, but I think that it is a case in which it would be clearly improper for me to interfere.

  MILITARY CANTEENS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that a new regulation has been issued regarding the sale of spirituous liquors in canteens, and that

  1107
  whereas it was formerly the case that such sale was strictly prohibited, no such restriction by the Queen's Regulations 1898 is now enforced; whether it is the case that by the same regulations as regards sergeants' messes the amounts due for issue of liquors can now at the discretion of the commanding officer be paid weekly instead of, as was formerly the case, having to be paid for on the spot, no credit being allowed; and whether a return to the former system could be made?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sale of spirituous liquors in canteens at home stations is strictly prohibited by paragraph 2 of the rules for the management of the Refreshment Branches of Garrison and Regimental Institutes 1898. These regulations have the same validity as the Queen's Regulations, as will be seen by a reference to paragraph 998 of the latter. In sergeants' messes payments for liquor can now, according to Regulations, be made weekly or on the spot, at the discretion of the commanding officer. Previously this discretion was exercised, although no rules were laid down on the matter. The honourable Member will, no doubt, recollect that weekly payments were obligatory at Aldershot.

  CAB TRAFFIC IN THE STRAND.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the police have received instructions to prevent empty cabs from driving along the Strand at a trot as well as at a walk; and, if so, whether he is aware that the deputation, lately received by him, went away under the impression that the regulation as to trotting in the Strand would be rescinded?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE von THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The instructions to the police are that they should enforce the law against loitering or plying for hire in certain streets where the congestion of traffic makes a strict observance of the law necessary in the public interest. A cabman who makes his horse trot is not ipso facto exempt from the obligations of the law. Nothing that was said to the deputation is inconsistent with this view.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will 'buses as well as cabs be prevented from plying for hire on the streets?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The present law does not apply to 'bus traffic, as to which I am seeking some further powers in the Bill I am about to introduce.

  NANA.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House as to the grounds on which the ptitions of the Chief Nana of Benin River, who has since 1894 been imprisoned at Accra, on the Gold Coast, for a reconsideration of his case, have been refused; and whether, in the event of its being considered inexpedient that he should return to his own country, arrangements can be made for his liberation under conditions enabling him to reside elsewhere in the Niger Coast Protectorate?
  MR. BRODRICK: Nana's case has been carefully considered and it has been decided that it would be unsafe to allow him to reside in the Niger Coast Protectorate. Although under police supervision, he is not imprisoned at Accra.

  THE BUFFS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the 3rd Regiment (the Buffs) have been allowed by the War Office to resume their distinctive facings and their ancient badge, of which they were deprived some years ago; why this indulgence has been granted to the Buffs; what is likely to be the cost to the nation involved by the restoration of the facings and the badge: and whether the War Office will accord a similar indulgence to other regiments which have been deprived of their title, facings, and distinctions, in cases where the regiments themselves desire the change?
  MR. WYNDHAM: This regiment has always worn buff facings; between 1881

  1109
  and 1894 white facings were supplied, but the regiment was permitted to colour them buff. Since 1894 buff facings have been supplied. The badge of the Dragon has always been worn on the cap, and, since 1894, has been placed on the collar in lieu of the Kentish Horse. These changes involved but little expense. I propose to deal with the fourth Question put by the honourable Member on the introduction of the Army Estimates.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask whether every regiment will be allowed to alter their facings as the Buffs have done?
  MR. WYNDHAM: The honourable Member will see that this is a very large question, involving policy as well as finance. I shall be glad if he will allow me to reserve my reply until the Estimates.

  UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the discomfort travellers on those metropolitan underground railways worked by steam power have to suffer owing to the prevalence of noxious gases and sulphurous coal smoke; and if the companies can be compelled, by legislation or otherwise, to mitigate this nuisance to the travelling public?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir, in 1897 I appointed a Committee to inquire into the system of ventilation of the tunnels of the Metropolitan Railway, and the report of the Committee and minutes of evidence were presented to this House in the same year (C 8684). As recently as December last, the managing director of the Metropolitan Railway informed the Board of Trade that the directors of that company, conjointly with the District Company, had secured the services of Sir J. Wolfe Barry and Mr. W. H. Preece, and instructed them to provide the necessary electric plant and appliances for the equipment of a section of the line for experimental working. I hope that these experiments
  1110
  may result in the adoption of some system of electric traction.
  MR. WEIR: Is the Sir John Wolfe Barry referred to the same as the Mr. Wolfe Barry who proposed the blow-holes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I suppose there is only one Wolfe Barry, but I do not think that the fact of his having made a report in the case mentioned by the honourable Member disqualifies him from giving advice in this case.

  DISCHARGES FROM THE NAVY.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of able seamen under 40 years of age and in good health who retired from the Navy during the year 1898, other than those discharged for misconduct; if he is able to give the average number of years those men had served in the Navy, and also the number of those men who retired from the Navy in 1898 and joined the Royal Naval Reserve; and if it is practicable to give sufficient inducements to induce a larger proportion of the trained men retiring from the Navy to join the Reserve, and to be ready to rejoin the fleet in the event of an emergency?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,)With regard to the honourable Member's first Question, the statistics required are not yet fully available for the year 1898, but for the financial year 1897–98 the figures are:—The number of A.B.'s under 40 years of age and in good health who left the Navy in 1897–98, other than those discharged for misconduct, was 178. This number is exclusive of those pensioned for long service. The number of years served by A.B.'s discharged on expiration of first engagement, or by purchase, was approximately 10 and five respectively. The number of men who joined the Royal Naval Reserve from the Royal Navy in 1898 was 35. I must remind the honourable Gentleman that all men retired from the Royal Navy on pension are, if physically fit, equally bound with the men of the

  1111
  Royal Naval Reserve to serve in the event of any emergency, and probably many others, who are neither pensioners nor Royal Naval Reserve men, would also volunteer their services if required.

  ARMY MEDICAL AND TRANSPORT SERVICES.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the alleged breakdown on many occasions of the Army Medical Service, and of the improvised civilian transport service (to augment the efficient and small Army Service Corps), during the manœuvres on Salisbury Plain last autumn, steps will be taken to place those services on a more comprehensive and efficient basis, and adequate for peace manœuvres on a large scale or for active service?
  MR. WYNDHAM: There was undoubtedly a strain during the manœuvres, but the report of the Commander-in-Chief shows that nothing deserving the name of a breakdown occurred in the medical or transport services. Certain proposals in respect both of the Army Medical Service and the Army Service Corps will be explained when the Army Estimates are brought in.

  BRENTFORD SWIMMING BATHS.
  MR. BIGWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Governmet Board whether he is aware that the Brentford District Council, having expended a large sum of money in building swimming baths, are unable to let these buildings for private use; and whether he could by order grant the necessary relief, or whether it is absolutely imperative to obtain special legislation to effect the desired purpose?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: It appears from correspondence which has taken place between the Local Government Board and the Brentford District Council that the latter are desirous of letting their swimming bath during the winter for occasional concerts and balls, and I presume that it is to this that my
  1112
  honourable Friend refers. Section 5 of the Baths and Washhouses Act, 1878, however, expressly prohibits the use for music or dancing of a swimming bath when closed, and the Local Government Board have no power to remove this restriction. Legislation would be necessary for this purpose.

  DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will by legislation this Session fix a period of twelve months after any person's decease within which period all claims by the Somerset House officials against his estate must be be made, and to put an end to all further exactions by that department against his estate after that limit of time has been passed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It would not be possible to impose any such limit upon the claims of the Crown to Death Duties as the honourable Member suggests. Many claims do not arise until long after twelve months from the testator's decease; for instance, not until the death of his widow, or other future event.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1896.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it could be arranged, in preparing for the Land Judge the next return of estates to which section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, applies, that the county in which each estate is situate could be stated in the return?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The return in the form in which it has heretofore been prepared is in strict accordance with the requirements of the Statutory Rules dated 23rd January, 1897, in relation to proceedings under the 40th section of the Act of 1896. I am informed by the Land Judge that the return could no doubt be supplemented, as suggested, but he regrets he cannot undertake to alter the form of return

  1113
  already published. Mr. Justice Ross points out that the staff of his court is but barely sufficient to meet the demands which the transaction of the ordinary public business imposes on it.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission, in connection with their intention to arrange to have two lay assistant commissioners on each sub-commission, and with a view to expediting the work of fixing fair rents generally, propose to appoint additional lay assistant commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question of the appointment of additional lay assistant commissioners is at present the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when a decision will be come to?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  LAND JUDGE'S STAFF IN IRELAND.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with the complaints as to the necessity for an increased staff in the office of the Land Judge in Ireland, the Treasury will see its way to recommend the drafting from the staffs of other Courts in Ireland of sufficient help to enable the work in the Land Court to be dealt with more expeditiously?
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg, also, to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether complaint has been made of the necessity for an increased staff in the office of the Land Judge in Ireland, owing to the great stress of business under the Land Purchase Acts; whether, for the want of a sufficient staff, considerable delays take place in the offices, with the result that the land purchase transac-
  1114
  tions are sometimes greatly protracted; and whether any increase of staff will be made to cope with the extra work?
  MR. HANBURY: Owing to representations by the Land Judge as to the insufficiency of his staff to deal with the increase of work under the Land Law Act, 1896, an inquiry has been held by the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Judges; and they, with the concurrence of the Treasury, have made an order for in creasing both the examining staff and the clerical staff of the division. I have no reason to doubt that the staff, thus revised, will be adequate to the requirements of the case. The question of filling clerkships in the Land Division by transfer from other courts is at present, I understand, under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

  MURRISK PRESENTMENT SESSIONS.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the compensation awarded by the Murrisk Presentment Sessions last September to a Mr. Harvey, for an alleged malicious burning of an empty house has yet been levied upon the district by the Grand Jury; whether the attention of the Executive in Dublin has been directed to the evidence of Sergeant Murphy, at the Sessions in question, in which he swore that, in his belief, the act of arson was commuted by some one in the owner's interest, and was not therefore a malicious deed; and whether, in case the sum of £250, awarded to Garvey by the votes of his friends in the Sessions, has not yet been levied upon the district, an inquiry will be instituted to investigate all the circumstances surrounding this alleged case of malicious injury?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative. The award of compensation to Mr. Garvey must be confirmed at the next assizes to be held in March, and it will then be open to any ratepayer to traverse the presentment before the Judge of Assizes.

  DUBLIN POOR RATES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the letter of the Under Secretary to the English Local Government Board as to the state of the inmates in the North Dublin Workhouse, and the disparity in the rates between the North and South Dublin Unions; and does he propose to take any action in this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have called for a report on this question, but not having yet received it, I will ask the honourable and learned Gentleman to repeat the Question to-morrow.

  GERMANY AND THE GOLD COAST.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations with Germany are in progress with reference to the neutral zone behind the Gold Coast; and, if so, whether he can say how soon the result may be expected; and whether the area is at present open to trade?
  MR. BRODRICK: No negotiations are at this moment in progress, but there is nothing in the Agreement at present in force to prevent trade.

  COTTON GOODS TRADE WITH MADAGASCAR.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of British cotton goods has been exported from this country to Madagascar during the last two years?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The quantities of cotton piece-goods (of British manufacture) exported from the United Kingdom to Madagascar in 1897 and 1898 were 11,973,600 yards and 521,500 yards respectively. The values were £108,080 and £4,859. In addition, cottons entered at value were exported to the value of £3,777 and £1,382 respectively in the two years.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE NEWCASTLE WEST UNION.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay by the Local Government Board in not holding an inquiry, as requested by the Newcastle West Board of Guardians, into a proposed improvement scheme under the Labourers Acts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The petition of the Newcastle Guardians was received in the office of the Local Government Board on the 12th January. Certain documents which were subsequently called for from the guardians were not received until the 1st instant. The inquiry has now been fixed for Tuesday, the 21st of March.

  SULTAN OF MAN.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Sultan of Oman has ceded or is about to cede a harbour or coaling station to France?
  MR. BRODRICK: As far as our information goes the Question must be answered in the negative.

  SMALL-POX OUTBREAK AT MIDDLESBROUGH.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an inquiry has bean made into the recent outbreak of smallpox in Middlesbrough; and, if so, when the report may be expected to be published?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: No inquiry, in the ordinary sense of the term, was made by the Local Government Board into the outbreak of small-pox in Middlesbrough of November, 1897—June, 1898. But, when the disease began to spread, a Medical Inspector was sent there by the Board to advise as to the best means of controlling the disease and of preventing its spread within the borough, and

  1117
  to the neighbouring districts. No formal report was made to the Board, though they were furnished from time to time with memoranda as to the progress of the disease and the means of prevention that were being adopted. Under these circumstances, the Board do not propose to issue any report on the outbreak; but I may mention that the Middlesbrough Medical Officer of Health in July last issued a special report on vaccination and its relation to the recent epidemic of small-pox.

  SOMERSET HOUSE.
  MR. WILLIAM AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is adequate fireproof strong-room accommodation at Somerset House for the valuable public books and documents therein; what is the nature of the books and documents preserved in such strong-rooms; up to what period are they so preserved, and whether the books and documents not kept in such strong-rooms are of any or no value; whether some of the rooms in Somerset House in which valuable registers are kept are divided by wooden partitions and lath-and-plaster walls, and whether naked lights are permitted in the galleries and passages of the building; and whether, having regard to the importance of safely preserving such public books and documents, he can give an assurance that all possible precautions are taken against fire and other dangers?
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: All applications made by the departments occupying Somerset House for strong-room accommodation have been met by my Office; and I cannot find, from inquiries which so far I have been able to make from the authorities at Somerset House, that more is considered necessary. I am informed that the strong-rooms contain the original wills and papers relating thereto, going back to the 15th century—together with the bound volumes of certified copies of Birth, Death and Marriage Registers. With regard to the third paragraph of my honourable and learned Friend's question, I am informed that no such valuable papers are stored in rooms of the
  1118
  description stated. Naked lights are used in some of the galleries and passages, but safety lamps or electric fights alone in the strong-rooms, and electric light is gradually being substituted for gas throughout. The building is very carefully guarded, and is fully equipped with fire appliances, and there are caretakers and night patrols, whilst a special fireman is employed in the Probate Registry during the night.

  AUTOMATIC RAILWAY COUPLING.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that automatic couplings are used on the American railways, and that the Legislature compels the companies to adopt them in order to prevent accidents to shunters; whether he will introduce the system into the United Kingdom; and whether he can state the number of accidents and deaths from shunting in the United Kingdom in the year 1898?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir, but I cannot introduce the American or any other system into the United Kingdom. As I have already stated in the House, I am considering whether a Bill should be introduced to place upon Railway Companies an obligation to apply some form of automatic coupler to their stock. The number of railway servants killed and injured in shunting accidents in 1898 were 129 killed and 2164 injured.

  THE SOUDAN.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Cromer is correctly reported to have stated, in a speech delivered at Omdur-man on 5th January to a number of Mahomedan sheikhs and notables, that there would be no interference whatever with their religion, and, in reply to a question from a sheikh, added that this engagement included the application of the Mahomedan Sacred Law; whether this engagement is to be understood as recognising the institution of domestic

  1119
  slavery in the Soudan, and whether the Law Courts which it is proposed to set up are to be used for the purpose of enforcing the legal rights of slaveowners against slaves; and whether he is aware that the Mahomedan Sacred Law definitely recognises the right of Mahomedans to make slaves of non-Mahomedan captives, and the right of selling and buying them, and how the recognition of such rights is to be reconciled with the clause of the Convention of 19th January prohibiting the importation and exportation of slaves?
  MR. BRODRICK: The actual words used by Lord Cromer were in Arabic, that "the Sacred Law will always be treated with the greatest respect." The Mahomedan Sacred Law is administered in Egypt proper, but it does not interfere with the Khedive's enactments prohibiting the importation and exportation of slaves. Lord Cromer intimated that a similar observance of the Mahomedan Sacred Law would prevail in the Soudan—but there is no intention of legalising slavery or using the tribunals to enforce the rights of slave owners.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how it is intended to enforce the clause of the Convention of 19th January which prohibits the importation of slaves into the Soudan, as also their exportation; whether he he is aware that, in the opinion of the late General Gordon, no effectual steps can be taken against slave raiding and the slave trade in the Soudan except by pushing the frontier as far west as the frontier of the negro tribes, that is, as far as Lake Chad; and how far west of Khartoum it is intended that the frontier shall extend?
  MR. BRODRICK: According to the 11th Article of the Soudan Agreement of the 19th of January provision is to be made by Proclamation for the enforcement of the prohibition against the importation or exportation of slaves. The frontier of the Soudan to the west of Khartoum has not yet been fixed, but the Governor-General of the Soudan will take effective measures for the prevention of slave raiding in the territories over which he has jurisdiction.

  RUSSIAN GOODS IN MANCHURIA.
  MR. MARKS (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has bound itself, by its agreement with the Russo-Chinese Bank, to charge one-third less import duty on all Russian goods entering China through Manchuria than is paid on similar products from other foreign countries landed at Chinese ports?
  MR. BRODRICK: The agreement between the Chinese Government and the Russo-Chinese Bank for the construction of the Manchurian Railway was presented to Parliament last Session under Russia No. 1, 1898, from which it will be seen that the answer to the Question is in the affirmative. Stipulations based on precisely similar lines were introduced into the Convention made between Great Britain and China in 1894, relating to the transit of goods across the Burmah Frontier into China.

  MARITIME WAR RISKS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to provide for the national insurance of maritime war risks in case of war; and whether he has yet been able to ascertain which is the Government Department to which the consideration of this matter may be properly referred?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my honourable Friend I have to say that no steps have been taken as suggested in the first paragraph As regards the second paragraph, I do not think it is a departmental matter at all, because, if it has to be considered, it must be considered by the whole Government.

  AMENDMENTS TO THE ADDRESS.
  SIR JOHN WILLIAM MACLURE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the increasing year by year of the number of Amendments to

  1121
  the Address in reply to. Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, a large number of which interfere with progress of public business at the commencement of the Session, he will consider the desirability of moving a Standing Order by which no Amendment could be moved without 40 Members being present in their places to support it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think I indicated to my honourable Friend two days ago that I did not think that the particular remedy he suggested would be likely to prove effectual. But of the reality of the evil which he desires to put an end to there can, I think, be very little doubt. I may, perhaps, appeal to the House on the subject of the Address. For many years after I came into Parliament it was almost the invariable practice to finish the Address on the first night. Sometimes it went to the second night. The Amendments proposed were formal votes of censure moved by the Opposition Front Bench and were debated with all the solemnity of such a Motion. The practice has grown up of greatly extending the subjects dealt with on the Address. I do not wish to make a complaint of that; it is the natural outcome of the evolution of our machinery. But there evidently must be limits, and in looking down the catalogue of statistics of the time taken on the Address for the last 20 years I find that in this Session, if we go on at the present rate, we shall equal or exceed the time taken on any previous occasion. Yet no one can pretend that the present is a time of great political excitement either at home or abroad. The Debate on the Address is really in process of becoming a general discussion of every topic which interests every private Member, unless it is dealt with by a Bill introduced early in the Session. Within limits I do not raise any objection to that, but there must be limits. The House must proceed to the business for which it assembles sooner or later, and I earnestly appeal to the House to assist the Government in bringing the Debate to a close to-morrow night, a day which I think it will be admitted gives adequate time for the discussion. I am very reluctant even to suggest the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule to-morrow night, but I think some such course will be necessary unless hon-
  1122
  ourable Members will co-operate with each other and with the Government to hurry on the various subjects which still remain to be dealt with on the Address.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS (Notts,): I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, in the years in which he says the Address was voted in a single day, it was not almost the invariable practice that Tuesdays and Wednesdays were left entirely uninterfered with by the Government, and that, in addition to that, Friday was also at the disposal of unofficial Members of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir. I think the honourable Gentleman is mistaken. As regards Friday, it remains open now under the existing rule in regard to Supply for precisely the kind of discussions which we are carrying on on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. I could go through the present paper and show that many of the resolutions we are asked to discuss on the Queen's Speech could come up for discussion on Supply. As regards Tuesday, my earnest desire is to keep as many Tuesdays as possible for private Members before Easter, and, I hope, longer. I mention Easter for this reason—that before Easter, which falls early this year, we must go through a great deal of financial business of great importance. That does not depend upon the whim of the Government, but upon legislative necessities; and, of course, if we are deprived by the discussion on the Address of the opportunity of obtaining the requisite number of days for dealing with that financial business before Easter, we have absolutely no choice but to take the Tuesdays to which the honourable Member referred.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to make a very strong appeal to the right honourable Gentleman not to proceed with his intention of bringing the Debate on the Address to a close on Friday night, as that would shut out the discussion of the Amendment dealing with the condition of affairs in the West of Ireland, in which a large section of the Members of the House take a keen interest. I think all will admit we are entitled to an opportunity of raising this

  1123
  question, but I see very little chance of it coming on if the Debate is to close to-morrow.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right honourable Gentleman has opened up a somewhat new prospect for us by stating that the Debate on the Address will possibly end to-morrow night. In case that prophecy is realised, can he inform us what the course of business will be next week?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Well, Sir, if we should be fortunate enough to finish the Address tomorrow night I shall on Monday move the renewal of the Sessional Order in regard to Supply and introduce the London Government Bill. I hope the discussion on that Bill will not be very long, and in that case the introduction of other Government Bills will be taken.
  MR. DILLON: Has the right honourable Gentleman definitely decided to bring the Debate on the Address to a close to-morrow night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir. I made an appeal to the House. I offered no threat. [Hear, hear.]

  PARLIAMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention 'of the Government to proceed with the appointment of the Joint Committee of both Houses to inquire into the establishments of the Houses of Parliament; and, if so, if he can state when the Committee will be appointed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand the Chairman of Committees in the other House has already given notice to move for the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the question of the Establishments of both Houses. The motion, I believe, will be taken to-morrow, and on receipt of the usual message concurrent action will be proposed here by the Government.

  LONDON WATER COMMISSION.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any indication of the probable date at which the House may expect to be in possession of any further report from the Royal Commission on the London Water question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am informed that the Commissioners are at present unable to fix any date for the presentation of their second report. There will be as little delay as possible after the taking of evidence is concluded.

  MINISTERS AS COMPANY DIRECTORS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill respecting the question of Ministers holding directorships in companies which are State-protected monopolies?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. HOBHOUSE): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Government intend in the present Session to introduce a Bill for the establishment of one valuation authority for all purposes of taxation and rating, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: We cannot undertake to introduce a Bill on that subject during this Session.

  METROPOLITAN POOR LAW CHILDREN.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there are now in Poor Law schools in the Metropolitan area any children who have passed the fourth, but have not yet passed the fifth, standard who are allowed to

  1125
  be withdrawn under the half-time system, in spite of the raising of the standard for exemption in London from the fourth to the fifth standards; and, if so, whether he will direct the attention of the London Poor Law authorities to this violation of the Law, and instruct them that any such violation of the Law must be forthwith put an end to?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I have recently been informed by the London School Board that the standard which a child must have reached in order to obtain partial exemption from school attendance in London has been raised by them to the fifth, and I have already directed the attention of the Guardians and Managers of Poor Law Schools in London to the subject so far as children in these schools are concerned.

  INDIAN EXCHANGE.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the claims of those officers who up to 1894 were admitted to the benefit of the Exchange Compensation Allowance, the payment of which was suspended by the Indian Government pending an inquiry; whether they were entitled under the rules to the compensation; and whether, as the inquiry has now been concluded, those officers whose rights were meantime held in abeyance and have since been confirmed will be paid up the arrears which have accumulated during the intervening period?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: A decision was given in November last upon the great majority of those cases to which the honourable Member's question refers. As regards those in which the decision was favourable, the Government of India are now investigating and settling the claims for arrears. Upon a comparatively small number of cases the Government of India were unable to come to a decision, and these are now under my consideration.

  SHARE TRANSFERS BY INDIAN BANKS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has come to any decision as to initiating legislation for enabling Indian Companies to open offices for the transfer and registration of shares in this country?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I have been for some time past in correspondence with the Board of Trade and the Treasury on the subject referred to in my honourable Friend's Question, but the matter is more complicated than is apparent at first sight, and I am communicating these difficulties to the Government of India.

  JONES' MONMOUTH CHARITY.
  MR. SPICER: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner if he is aware of the feeling existing at Monmouth as to the working of the Scheme of 1893 for administering Jones' Monmouth Charity; and under what conditions or limitations as to consent or mode of application or otherwise can an amending Scheme be made by the Charity Commissioners for this Charity.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON,): The Commissioners know of no feeling in opposition to the Scheme of 1893, but are aware of the existence of local opposition at Monmouth to the present application of the surplus income of Jones' Charity to the support of the system of secondary education for the County of Monmouth. That application was provided for by a Scheme established in 1894 under the provisions of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889. The apportionment of the income of Jones' Charity upon which the scheme of 1894 proceeds was made by a Scheme established in 1891. That Scheme was repeatedly published in the locality prior to its final approval, and its publication elicited no objection to the apportionment made. The Schemes in 1891 and 1894 have the effect of an Act of Parliament, and being

  1127
  made under the Endowed Schools Acts it is by the authority of Parliament alone that any alteration of the apportionment in question can be effected.

  SIR WEST RIDGEWAY.
  MR. WANKLYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the recent reports by British Consuls of the advance made by foreign merchant shipping in competition with British vessels, he can see his way to suggest to His Excellency Sir West Ridgeway, the Governor of Ceylon, that he should patronise one of the British lines of steamers calling at Colombo instead of a German ship on his journeys to and from England and elsewhere?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TUB COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not think it is my duty to give Sir West Ridgeway any advice in the matter. But, as my honourable Friend is interested in the matter, I can only report that the particular line of steamships referred to declined to take an important member of the Governor's suite, in the shape of a favourite dog.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY BANDS.
  MR. ARTHUR MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state what progress has been made with the scheme for creating a fund for providing bands for the Royal Artillery in large artillery stations at home and abroad, such as Portsmouth and Gibraltar, which was stated in 1894 by the right honourable Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman to be then under the careful consideration of the Secretary of State for War?
  MR. WYNDHAM: In view of impending changes in the Royal Artillery no decision as to the provision of bands can be given at present.

  LIMERICK POST OFFICE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaser-General, if any steps have been taken as regards the
  1128
  building of a new post office in the city of Limerick, the tenders for which have been advertised some years since?
  MR. HANBURY: It has not been found practicable to arrange reasonable terms for the acquisition of certain of the interests in the proposed new site, and it may be necessary to seek for compulsory powers to deal with them, which would further delay the matter. The tenders to which the honourable Member refers were probably replies to advertisements for a suitable site or building.

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

    EIGHTH DAY.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [7th February], "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."—(Captain Bagot.)
    Main Question again proposed.

FOREIGN IMPORTS (UNITED KINGDOM).
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"And we humbly venture to express the hope that your Majesty will direct inquiry to be made into the present large and increasing dependence of the United Kingdom on foreign imports for the necessaries of life, and the circumstances that might arise therefrom in the event of your Majesty becoming involved in war with some foreign Power or Powers, with the view of ascertaining what measures (if any) can be taken to lessen such dependence."
MR. HENRY SETON-KARR: I have placed this Amendment on the Paper in no hostile spirit to the policy of the great Party

1129
to which I have the honour to belong. In answer to the right honourable Gentleman, with regard to this Amendment, I can only say that I feel very grateful that I have been able to secure this opportunity of bringing forward a very important matter. I feel perfectly certain that, if I had not been afforded this opportunity, I should not have had any other opportunity this Session. Throughout the whole of last Session I tried to bring this subject forward, but I was unable to get an opportunity. This question is not a personal fad of my own, but it is a subject which has been largely discussed in the public press, and upon which some very important resolutions have been passed by some very important bodies in the United Kingdom. I may say that last year the Workmen's Federation, not being themselves a party organisation in the least, on two occasions passed two resolutions pressing upon Her Majesty's Government the necessity of taking some steps in this matter; and a resolution in favour of the application of such a remedy was passed by the Agricultural Union only a very short time ago. Therefore, I venture to think that it is a subject well worthy of the attention of this House. I propose to deal as shortly as possible with the facts of the case, which, as a matter of fact, are all admitted. I think the fact is admitted that we are almost entirely dependent on our foreign imports. ["No, no."] The honourable Member opposite says "No," but I submit again that it is admitted that we are almost absolutely and entirely dependent upon foreign exports in this country for our food supply, and I do not propose to weary the House by labouring that point at all. Out of every six loaves consumed in this country five are brought here over our long ocean trade routes, and four out of the five come from possibly hostile countries, over whose fiscal policy we have absolutely no control. The same argument may be applied to other agricultural produce, and almost to all articles of food consumed in this country. Why, Sir, let any honourable Member go into a grocer's shop in the City of London, and I defy him to find there a common article of food which is entirely produced in this country. A large proportion, if not every article, is, he will find, to a very large extent, brought from foreign countries. Foreign producers
1130
receive more than 160 millions sterling for the necessaries of life brought into this country. There is only one more phase of the question, and that is the uniqueness of our position. It is unique in the history of the world, and is unique in the history of our own country. There is no other country in the world which is so vulnerable in this respect as the United Kingdom is at the present moment. The countries of the Triple Alliance are practically self-supporting: France is self-supporting, and Russia and the United States are not only self-supporting, but they are the greatest wheat-producing countries in the world. In this country we never have more than three months' supply of wheat, and generally not more than one month's supply, and we are absolutely dependent upon foreign countries to feed our population of 40 millions, including a large surplus population of 14 or 15 millions. Now, we have never been in such a position before, and 40 years ago, in Cobden's time, we were practically self-supporting. Sir, I desire to argue my case upon the hypothesis of war. Of course, if the Government are prepared to guarantee universal peace, why, I have no case, and I should not trouble the House with this Amendment. But I think I am justified in arguing this case on the hypothesis of war in spite of the Peace Conference which we all hope will succeed. I want to put this point to Her Majesty's Government: I think, as reasonable business men, they are bound to consider all the risks entailed by a possible war with some great naval Power or Powers; and, on the same principle that any prudent householder insures his house against the risk by fire, so, as business men, the Government are bound to ensure the safety of our food supply against the risk of war. I can only add upon that point that, if any war comes upon this country, it will come suddenly, and when it does come it will be a very severe war, and it is absolutely necessary that the consequences should be forecast, and that we should insure beforehand against the risks of war. I should like to trouble the House with on very short quotation on the point that foreign countries are perfectly well alive to our condition. I read an extract from the "Daily Graphic" of two years ago, dated 15th April 1897. The naval

1131
correspondent of the "Daily Graphic" states:—
"Said M. de Kerjegu, the reporter on the French Estimates: 'The cause of England's greatness will be a cause of weakness to her in war. Her daily life, her essential interests, are subordinated to the arrival and departure of her merchant shipping. At the simple menace of a conflict with a great maritime Power the rates of insurance would rise to enormous figures.' The fact that we (England) import £150,000,000 worth of food annually, besides raw material, which is the food of our manufactories, is also noted by him."
Sir, we may be perfectly certain, therefore, that every great Power in the world is perfectly well aware of our position in this respect. I should like, for a moment, to refer to the position of the Government on this question. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, in a Debate which took place on the Motion which I moved on this subject nearly two years ago, accepted the Motion which I moved simply as a Navy matter, but it was not worded quite the same as this Motion, because it was urging that this question required the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Sir, the right honourable Gentleman accepted that Motion, but did it, I venture to think, upon totally inadequate grounds. He accepted it simply as the Navy question alone. I assume, therefore, that that is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, and I am strengthened in the belief, because smother Cabinet Minister, the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, made a speech the other day at Newcastle, and I allude to it because he is the only Minister who has alluded to this subject. I wish to do the right honourable Gentleman justice, but, from the conversation I have had with him in the Lobby, I understand the report of his speech accurately represents his sober reflections. I understand from that speech that he is opposed to national granaries or wheat reserves of any sort, and that we must trust entirely to the Navy for the protection of our ocean trade routes. The right honourable Gentleman also said that if we admitted the possibility of starvation we must admit the possibility of the defeat of our Navy. I may take it, then, that these are the views of Her Majesty's Government at the present time. Sir, I venture to think that that, in my
1132
humble opinion, is an additional reason why we should discuss this question. What is the logical meaning of that view? It means that the British Navy must be in a position, or is in a position, to compel all marine insurance people, all grain shippers, in time of war, to accept the ordinary rates of insurance, or else it means that we are to take no notice of war risks. It means that the British Government can compel foreign nations to send wheat and other foreign produce into this country whether they like to do so or not. It means that the British Government can control foreign nations, and prevent them reaping a tremendous financial harvest out of the necessities of the British people. That is what I take to be the logical outcome of this position, namely, that this is considered by Her Majesty's Government as a Navy question and a Navy question alone. Now, I have every faith in the British Navy, and I believe it is the best Navy the world has ever seen. I believe we have a splendid First Lord of the Admiralty, and I have absolutely implicit confidence in the right honourable Gentleman and the Government as regards the Navy. But the Navy cannot work miracles. It can only discharge its proper function, and our case is that this is not solely a naval question. It is very largely not a Navy question at all. I go further, and say that it is perfectly possible, as I shall attempt to show to the House, that famine prices and starvation might prevail in the United Kingdom although the Navy might be absolutely supreme at sea, I submit that there are many practical considerations involved in this question over which the Navy has absolutely no control. Accordingly, let me very shortly—and I desire to deal very briefly with the question—and as effectively as I can, put some instances to the House. Sir, I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government how the Navy can compel possibly hostile foreign countries to export to us wheat or any other necessaries of life of which we may stand in need? Take the case of Russia. Russia supplies us with something like one-fifth of our daily bread, which comes to us in slow sailing ships and ocean steamers. For the sake of argument, assume that we were at war with Russia. Is it reasonable to suppose that Russia, who would have absolute control of the Black Sea, so far as out-

1133
going ships are concerned, would allow her grain dealers and shippers to minister, for the time being, to the necessities of a country with which, at that time, she was engaged in war? In 1891 Russia prohibited the exportation of wheat, and it is extremely probable, and not an, unreasonable supposition at all, to suppose that, for State reasons, in case of war, she would prohibit the exportation of food supplies to this country.
MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: That prohibition in 1891 was the result of famine.
MR. SETON-KARR: I admit that that was so, but my argument is that there is no reason why she should not prohibit the exportation of wheat again. I confess that, putting myself in the position of a Russian Minister, I should strongly oppose the sending of the necessaries if life to a country with which I was at war. Here, at all events, it is quite an impossible case, and it is a case over which our Navy, strong as it is, has absolutely no control. Then I come to what I venture to think is an extremely important consideration, and that is the question of wheat speculation. Sir, I draw particular attention to our cousins across the Atlantic. If there is one thing clear it is this, that the probable outbreak of a war would be regarded by the great American capitalists as a magnificent opportunity for "cornering" the wheat market. I know something about America, and I am only stating that this one thing is dear to the heart of American commercial men, and that is a desire, if he possibly can, to "corner" a market. A single individual has handed his name down to history as a man who endeavoured to "corner" the wheat market of the world. He failed, however, but the result of his operation was to send up the price of wheat to 45s. a quarter, and I believe it went up to over 50s. a quarter once. I will put this case to the House, and I do ask the serious consideration of honourable Members to this point. Supposing again, for the sake of argument, we were involved with some great European Power in war, and our European food supplies were cut off. What an opportunity that would be for a group of American capitalists to "corner" the wheat market in order to make a gigantic profit out of our necessities! The
1134
Americans know how to create a monopoly. All they want is to get hold of an article of necessity, because they cannot do it with an article of luxury. That does not pay, because if you put the price of luxuries up people won't buy them, for they can wait till the price comes down. They know that if they can "corner" an article of common necessity the riches of the world are at their feet. Everybody knows the wheat market in America is the great market which they try to speculate in. All they want to do is to measure and gauge the supplies of wheat to the world, and if they knew the difficulties which we might be placed in in Europe they would try and "corner" the wheat market in order to make a gigantic profit out of our necessities. The Standard Oil Company is one of the most gigantic monopolies in the world, and it is controlled by some of the wealthiest individuals the world has ever seen. They command the sale of petroleum oil; they sell it to the Irish peasant and the Scotch labourer, and they have the absolute control of the oil trade of the world, because its production is limited to the wells in America, and they saw that there was a chance of obtaining a monopoly in this necessary article. Sir, I submit, and I do urge this point upon the serious attention of the House, that in the event of a European war we give ourselves away to this operation, and we offer to the American capitalists the best chance they ever had in the world of "cornering," if they chose, the American wheat supply. We have in this country 40,000,000 of wage earners, and they must have bread; and in the case of war we should have to give that group of American capitalists any price they liked for two or three months while we were engaged in a European war. I only point this out as an hypothetical case which Her Majesty's Government are bound to consider, and over which the First Lord of the Admiralty and the British Navy have absolutely no control at all. You can cover the Atlantic with ironclads and armed cruisers from Queenstown to Sandy Hook, or from the North Pole to Gibraltar, but you could not induce American capitalists to sell their grain to us unless they chose to do it. I come now to the third point over which Her Majesty's Government has no con-

1135
trol, and that is the question of marine insurance. Sir, the shipping of grain and agricultural produce to this country is a private commercial enterprise, and to imagine that grain shippers and marine insurers are going to ship grain to this country, in time of war, at moderate rates is hardly reasonable, for they do not carry on this trade for philanthropic purposes. They send the grain over here because they can make money out of it, and they will ask us the higher price, if they can get it out of us, for the necessities we want. Marine insurers, in time of war, will estimate the risk they run in pounds, shillings, and pence. Grain is sent here from Argentina and other Colonies, over long sea routes thousands of miles in length, and it comes here in slow sailing ships and steamers. I have no doubt the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has considered this question, and I have no desire to give away the exact rate we have made for convoying our mercantile marine. Now, applying the ordinary rules of common sense to this operation—I am not a sailor, and I do not speak with any authority as a sailor—we all know that it is not an easy thing for an ironclad to convoy slow sailing ships over a long sea journey, and the Atlantic Ocean is a big place. There might be some ships that would not show lights, who are on the look-out, and who could show their heels to our ironclads and snap up a convoy. Well, now, all these things are translated by the marine insurance agent into pounds, shillings, and pence, and we shall have to pay the bill. The question of marine insurance is outside the control of the Navy altogether, and it is a question which we must consider, for it is part of the risk involved. Sir, let me give to the House a very simple instance. During the Spanish-American War the Spanish fleet sailed across the Atlantic. They were lost for something like a fortnight, and nobody knew where they were. The American fleet were on the look-out for the Spanish Navy, but they never found them, and the Spanish ships managed to get into the harbour of Santiago without anybody seeing them, and without anybody knowing where they were. If a Navy can conceal itself on the Atlantic Ocean with another Navy looking out for it, how much easier would it be for commerce destroyers to
1136
conceal themselves and elude our Navy at sea, and so run up the rates of marine insurance. Sir, what does it mean to run up marine insurance very high? Of course, I do not suppose there has ever been such a blockade. Take the blockade of the Southern ports by the North fleet. I believe articles such as salt went up during the blockade to fabulous prices, such as £40 for a ton of salt. I only mention that as an instance of a way in which marine rates of insurance are estimated, and how high they can run up. I venture to think that this question of marine insurance is a subject on which we ought to have some understanding or assurance from Her Majesty's Government, because we cannot do this thing in a hurry when we are engaged in a naval war. The war will come upon us suddenly, and we have absolutely no machinery by which these rates can be paid, and they will have to be paid by the State. If they are not provided for by Her Majesty's Government out of the Imperial Exchequer they will have to be paid for by the consumers in this country. I should like to quote a statement by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place. In his speech made two years ago on my Motion he said—
"I ought now to touch on the dangers, real or supposed—and I do not minimise them—from which those remedies are intended to protect us. What are they? First, there is the danger arising from bread riots and general disorder prevailing among the wage-earning classes of the community when they found the pinch of starvation in consequence of war. I do not think there is any distinction in this matter to be drawn between one class of the community and another."
Now allow me to show him the logic of that statement. I submit that this is most certainly a class question. I do not care two straws about the well-to-do class in this situation, because they can afford to pay 10s., or even 20s., for a loaf of bread, or they can go abroad and live there until the war is over; they are not so much affected by a large rise in the price of food. But take the case of the artisan. Take the case of the 40,000,000 people to whom I have referred. If enormous prices are asked to convey food from these foreign countries, the inevitable result is that up goes the price

1137
of bread and all the other necessaries of life. I submit that it is a class question, because the poor man cannot afford to pay high prices for his food, whereas the well-to-do man can afford it. And then the right honourable Gentleman goes on to say—
"If this country goes to war, depend upon it it will only go to war if the Government of the day feels it has behind it the sentiment of the people; and if this people are resolved to go to war, I am confident that they are prepared to undergo the hardships entailed upon them by war. I do not believe that the immediate result of raising the price of grain would be to induce the general disorder which the honourable Gentleman anticipates."
Well, Sir, I quite understand how much sentiment you are going to get out of a starving man. If I had nothing to eat for three days I do not think I should have much of that sentiment about me. What did the First Lord of the Treasury say? I imagine him addressing a meeting of London artisans or Lancashire colliers, and saying to them—
"We are in a little difficulty with France and Russia, or in the East, or in Africa, and we have gone to war, and I am afraid you will have to pay very high prices for your bread and other food for two or three months. I am sure you will not mind that when you remember how righteous our cause is."
I can imagine what the London artisan would reply to that. These remarks are supposed to be addressed to a man living on £1 a week, with a wife and five children to support. That man cannot go abroad, for his work would be interfered with, and he must keep body and soul together. As regards the Lancashire collier, I should like to tell the right honourable Gentleman that I know perfectly well what he would reply. He would say—
"You may go somewhere and make as much war as you like, but you must guarantee the payment of my wages."
I wish to put this as plainly as I can, that if the Government propose to depend entirely on our Navy to keep down the price of food, I want to know how they are going to meet the commercial risks, and continue to supply the working population of this country with cheap food. What machinery or what plan have they got to meet this important practical question of administration? Sir, the Navy cannot do everything
1138
and I submit that it cannot keep down the price of marine insurance. Our working classes for the past generation have been accustomed to have food of all kinds, and of the best quality, sent from all parts of the universe at the lowest possible rate, and in the quickest possible manner, so that at the present moment we are absolutely, and entirely dependent on these sources from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in order to keep our industrial population in a fairly prosperous condition. I think we ought to have some guarantee that the bodies and souls of these people shall be kept together by the adequate provision of food during the continuance of the war. Sir, it may be asked what remedies do I suggest. Well, I have no Government office under my control, and I cannot summon expert witnesses to come and tell me all the ins and outs of, this important question. I desire, first and foremost, that the Government, should satisfy us, or at all events satisfy themselves, that they are fully armed against these contingencies. We have asked—I myself have suggested it before—that there should be an inquiry into this question. Sir, what has been the reply? The Government fall back on the usual formula that this is a question for the Navy, and for the Navy alone. ("No.") That is what they have said. That is the point which I have all along been endeavouring to prove, viz., that there are many directions in which the Navy has no control whatever. The price of food may go up. I would suggest to my right honourable Friends on the Front Bench that they should make inquiries on these points that I have endeavoured—I fear very inadequately—to put before them. I am quite prepared to suggest various directions in which I think those inquiries should go, because I do not believe that this, country will ever be kept in a satisfactory condition until we produce on our own soil more of the necessaries of life than we do at the present moment. Sir, I have not the vanity to dogmatise. I am not egotistical enough to think that an ordinary individual like myself is prepared with a ready-made, cut-and-dried solution of what I conceive to be a most important problem, but, Sir, I would very humbly suggest to Her Majesty's Government one or two remedies as to which I should like to hear their views, and the

1139
extent to which they are prepared to make some inquiry into them. In the first place I should like to see—and I believe a great many more would like to see—the Empire self-supporting in its own produce. Why should we buy wheat in Russia and the United States if we can get it equally well from Canada and other wheat-producing colonies? Of course, the only way to attain that end is by some perferential treatment of colonial produce. I would therefore ask the Government if something in this direction cannot be done, simply on the ground that our present position is a very dangerous one. Then, Sir, I should like to go further and see this country far more self-supporting at home within the confines of the United Kingdom than we are at the present moment. The House is probably aware that in Cobden's time, 40 or 50 years ago, we produced in this country about 20 million quarters of wheat, and there were over four million acres of wheat land in this country. At that time we had 14 millions population less than we have at the present moment. The four million acres of wheat land has gone down to two—it was only a million and a half a few years ago—and the amount of wheat we produce has sunk from 20 million quarters to five or six million quarters. Sir, I should like to see some endeavour made to return to the state of things which existed in Cobden's time. I may, en passant, remind the House that one of Cobden's fallacies was that by repealing the Corn Laws you would not reduce the wheat area of this country. As a matter of fact, we all know that Cobden was absolutely and entirely wrong. It has been said that we buy our wheat from abroad because we get it cheaper, i.e., we save 5s. a quarter. Suppose we increase our present rate of production of five million quarters up to 20 million quarters, we should largely reduce the danger which I have endeavoured to put before the House, and benefit to the amount of something like four millions sterling. I confess that I should like to see that amount of money spent in endeavouring to bring back to this soil the production of a greater proportion of our wheat supply. And you would have two or three other enormous advantages. In the first place, you would bring back to the land something like 240,000 more labourers, and you would
1140
add 10 millions sterling to the wages fund at home. I submit that these are material questions which are well worthy of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Then, Sir, I come, just briefly, to the question of the national granary. My honourable Friend the Member for Chester has gone very largely into this question. I believe that this, again, is a question which is well worthy of the inquiries which have been commenced. National granaries are a means for the encouragement of our home-grown wheat. I would earnestly suggest to the Government that this question ought to be inquired into by them, and tentatively tried. Why not put up a small national granary in one of our garrison towns, and see how it works, and what the cost is likely to be? Can you imagine a greater security for the national defences of this country than to feel that whatever happens, whatever American capitalists may do, whatever Russia may do, or the Argentine, or other foreign countries, we have six months' wheat safely stored in this country? Sir, my last point is the question of marine insurance in time of war. I do think that Her Majesty's Government ought to have some machinery erected beforehand to insure the consumer of this country against a high rate of marine insurance. This question is at the present moment entirely confined to merchant enterprise; the Government has nothing whatever to do with it. I submit that in time of war it might come suddenly upon us, but it cannot come suddenly upon this country without creating an extraordinary financial revolution. Let the Government consider it, therefore, beforehand, and provide some machinery by which they can guarantee the payment of the war rates on our food supply. I am afraid I have trenched too much upon the time of the House, but I venture to think that I have made out some kind of case in support of the terms of my Amendment. It is not a hostile Amendment. I earnestly desire that the House should discuss this question, and I earnestly desire to press it upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government, because the contention that it is a question for the Navy does not satisfactorily meet our point. Sir, I have only one thing more to say. I do not think that

1141
any Government could ever have a better time to make an inquiry into this subject than the present Government at the present time. They are a strong and united Government. We are enjoying a period of peace and prosperity. The Government have a strong, a united, and a loyal Party behind them. I do not want to hurt the feelings of the honourable Gentlemen opposite, but I venture to think that the Opposition are somewhat pre-occupied with their own affairs, and are not in a position to seriously embarrass Her Majesty's Government at the present time. That being so, I think this is the best possible opportunity for the Government, who have no first-class legislation to bring before this House—there is plenty of very good second-class legislation—to devote their time to what I venture to think is a very important inquiry. I therefore venture to urge it upon them, because I think it is well worthy of the attention of this country.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages to be derived from Members on the opposite side of the House seconding a Motion that is made from the other side is that it is possible to advance totally different arguments in support of the Gentleman opposite. Sir, in the first place, I may be permitted to observe that while I agree with the Amendment of my honourable Friend, I am afraid that I find myself incapable of reconciling my mind to the means by which he desires to attain the lawful end he has in view. There is one matter upon which we agree, and that is that the food supply of this country is in the main dependent upon foreign sources. That is a proposition upon which there can be no conflict of opinion on this side of the House more than on the other side. Now the question upon which there is a doubt is whether, in the event of war taking place between us and any one of the great Powers, our food supply would be jeopardised, and the means of obtaining food at reasonable prices materially interfered with. The opinion of the honourable Member who has just spoken is that it would be very greatly jeopardised. The opinion represented by the First Lord of the Treasury on the occasion of the former Debate in this House, and the opinion also represented by a very large number of other Gentle-
1142
men, is that in view of the existence of the very powerful Navy which we now enjoy, there is no reason to fear any danger arising as to the continuity or the abundance of our food supply, and that the fear entertained by the honourable Gentleman opposite may therefore be dismissed. I think it is admitted on all hands that if the view of the honourable Member be correct, i.e., that our food supply would be materially interfered with, then it would become the duty of the Government to give its attention to the solution of this problem. Now, Sir, we have no data—or no adequate data—as to what would be the effect of a war upon our commerce. The only data that we have in favour of the proposition of my honourable Friend is that of the war of the American Independence, and then our fleet was in a position of less efficiency than it is at the present moment. In that war it was proved beyond doubt that our commerce decreased no less than 37 per cent. A second instance we have was the unhappy conflict which took place from 1812 to 1814 between the United States of America and this country. At the time of the commencement of the war the United States trade was equal to the value of 50 millions. At the termination of the war the value of the United States trade fell to £4,400,000. These are two practical instances showing that a naval war strikes at the very root of the commerce of a country. Of course, the naval position was totally different then from what it is at the present moment. But there are more recent instances. The trade of Spain and the United States has been injured during the recent war between those countries, the number of American vessels which were in harbour, unable to leave port on account of the war, have been detailed to us in various public journals, and represent a very considerable percentage of their mercantile marine. Now, Sir, if it be the fact that war with a naval power is, other things being equal, calculated to interfere with our commerce, what precautions for the purpose of protection can be taken? Of course, there are such things as bringing our commodities to this country in neutral bottoms, but on the other hand, there are such things as contraband of war. It is, however, said that if there were a war with Russia, we

1143
should have our goods carried in American vessels, and no country would venture to incur the hostility of a great Power like America. Yet there are historical instances where a nation has not shrunk from entering into conflict with the combined powers of the world. I am not now contemplating the possibility of an effective blockade of the British Isles, that is absurd. I believe that even although the Federated States possessed no naval force, the United States of America were incapable of maintaining an effective blockade against the supply of the Federated States; and there is a more recent instance of the same kind of thing in the ineffectual blockade of Cuba during the Spanish and American war. But it is not a question of maintaining a blockade; it is a question of interfering with our commerce by means of fast cruisers such as those which have been advocated by Captain Mahan, and are being built by France in great numbers; vessels which sail at the rate of some 25 knots an hour, and which would undoubtedly be a source of considerable damage to our commerce. Now, Sir, how is it proposed to meet this contingency? My honourable Friend has suggested a remedy with which I am not in the smallest degree in sympathy, and that is the remedy of differential rates to our colonial possessions in contradistinction to the rates which are paid by foreign countries. I submit that that is an argument which, from the point of view of a Free Trader, cannot be entertained. My honourable Friend suggested the establishment of granaries. Now, I, for my part, am in sympathy with the proposal for the establishment of granaries, supposing it be feasible; but I feel that the honourable Member overlooks the fact that it would be very little good, from an economic point of view, establishing granaries for securing food for the people, for the political derangement which prevented you from getting food would also prevent you from getting raw material for your manufacturers. I would venture to point out to my honourable Friend that it would not only be necessary to establish granaries or emporia for corn, but also emporia for raw material. The population of the country would be in the unfortunate position of not being able to purchase corn, although there was
1144
plenty of corn to be had, because they, would not have the means to obtain it. That seems to me to be a very sufficient answer to the proposal that we should establish granaries. But, Sir, of course, there are other difficulties connected with the establishment of granaries, namely, the immense cost of building and maintaining stores, the creation of a Government monopoly with all the possibilities of corruption associated therewith. Now, Sir, it seems to me that we ought to bear in mind that there is at the present moment a lamentable condition of things in relation to agriculture in this country. It is astonishing to me that no serious attempt has been made by either side of the House to deal with this great agricultural difficulty. I do not think that the increase of allotments—and there has been a considerable increase—has been of material advantage from an economic point of view. All that has been done has been to provide cheap and permanent labour for farms, and to somewhat improve the condition of the agricultural labourer. But so far from solving the agricultural question, you have not touched the fringe of it. What is the true position with regard to agriculture from the point of view we are looking at it now? We find at the present time that the amount of corn produced in this country is on the decrease year by year, and that from 1876 to 1896 the amount of arable land decreased by two million acres. I do not venture to suggest a remedy, but I do venture to suggest, as my honourable Friend says, that it is a matter well worthy of inquiry as to whether it is not possible to check this decay of agriculture by some legislative or administrative means. I cannot help thinking that what Napoleon was attributed to have done in France might to a large extent be done in this country, and it is not impossible, I think by legislation—I do not say at once —to create, but to foster the creation of, an agricultural population. I believe that this land is not less fertile than any other European country. I believe, as has been testified to by almost every agriculturist who has written upon the subject, that the soil of this country will bear comparison with that of any other country, and therefore it seems to me that there is no reason why we should

1145
not do something, not merely to arrest the decrease of our agricultural population, but to encourage the increase of that population. There is no question that that population has been decreasing year by year, and there is no question whatever that it would be possible by judicial treatment, as has been proved by the experience of Germany and Prance, to increase the number of people deriving their livelihood from agriculture. And, Sir, if that were done by every additional person deriving his livelihood from agriculture it would be doing something to help the home market; and it is from that point of view that I do cordially second the Motion of my honourable Friend, and press upon the Government the desirability of acceding to his proposal.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think it is a little inconvenient that this matter has come on for discussion this afternoon, though it is clearly not one of those matters which come within the description given by the First Lord of matters which might conveniently be discussed on some portion of the Estimates. Only this afternoon I asked the First Lord a question with regard to one very important branch of this inquiry. I asked him to what Member of the Government we ought to address ourselves if we desired information with regard to the insurance of maritime war risks in time of war, and he informed me that no Member of the Government, no individual Member, was responsible, but that the Government at large was charged, if anybody was charged, with that question. Now, of course, that may no doubt be an answer, but I confess it does not carry the matter very much farther, and I can hardly conceive the conditions of a discussion of the Estimates in which we should be unable to discover the Minister in connection with whose salary we could raise this important point. And I do respectively submit that we deserve—I do not say I deserve, but those who are interested in this matter deserve—a different answer from that which we have received. I should like to recall the history of this question—a very important question, as some of us believe—of the insurance of war risks in time of war. It is not the first time, nor the second time, that this question has been raised.
1146
I asked a question more than one Session ago, and was told it was not a matter within the department of the Admiralty. I addressed myself to the First Lord of the Treasury, who was good enough to say that the matter was one of great importance, and he referred me to the noble Duke, the President of the Committee on Naval Defence. In pursuance of his recommendation I approached the noble Duke, who was good enough to communicate with me, and who saw me upon this matter. I sent him the whole of the information I was able to collect respecting it, and waited upon him, when he could only inform me that the Admiralty had disclaimed all connection with this matter. The War Office had also disclaimed it, but it was possible that the Board of Trade might take it under consideration, but he did not believe it. And now I am met by the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that there is absolutely no department of the Government which is responsible for the consideration of this question. I do not consider that this is a satisfactory state of things, nor do I consider it altogether a fair answer that I have received. This is not, if I may say so, a fad of my own—I should not have troubled the House with anything of the kind if it were; it is a matter which has been much discussed, on which there is a large literature already existing—there are arguments which may be good or bad, both for and against—and I think it is really reducing the position of the House of Commons almost to an absurdity to say that a matter of that kind cannot be reasonably attributed to any department of the State. Therefore, Sir, I take the opportunity which has been given by this discussion to appeal—as I cannot appeal to the Minister, I must appeal to the House. The suggestions which had been made by my honourable Friend who proposed the Amendment were varied, and I do not propose to dwell upon two or three of the suggestions that he made; but I believe that the practical difficulties of carrying out the institution of granaries are very great. I do not see the theoretical difficulty, I do not see the theoretical danger; but I do see a practical difficulty. With regard to the question of differential tariffs respecting the Colonies, I confess I am not with the

1147
honourable Member. I believe the objections to that course, plausible as it may seem, in the present state of public feeling are overwhelming, and I am not at all convinced that the plan would succeed in producing the results which the honourable Member believes it would produce. But I see none of these objections to the proposal to which I myself attach most importance—that is, the insurance by the Government in some form or another of maritime risks in time of war. I am not unaware that this question has been discussed by bodies outside this House. It has recently been discussed by a number of Gentlemen, who took an adverse view, but when I remember that these Gentlemen were all concerned in the underwriting of ships, I think that was not altogether a remarkable fact. I find that there have been discussions in the papers connected with shipping, with the carrying trade, and with the corn trade, and there is a very strong expression on the part of men who have through the whole of their lives been studying this matter, in favour of the proposal for which I now appeal for support. Let me remind the House precisely where we stand. There is information to guide us which is absolutely precise. We have a very large number of documents on the matter. We have the statement made by Captain Mahan, of the United States Navy, who, as everyone knows, has made a very close study of the commercial history of this country in time of war—no one has more closely studied it. He pointed out the danger to which this country was exposed during a period of maritime war; not the danger from the destruction of our ships in large numbers by the enemy, but danger which arises from alarm and panic among shipowners, owing to the fact that their individual ships were always liable to the chances of war. He pointed out that during the great war with France only three per cent, of our mercantile marine were actually taken prizes—two and a half an honourable Member reminds me; I thought the figure was three. That is itself an insignificant proportion of the whole mercantile marine of this country. There was not a very large mercantile fleet in those days, of course, and there would be a very large residue now supposing three per cent. were destroyed.
1148
But the circumstances were different at the beginning of the century. We were not dependent then as we are now, except only to a very small extent, on the import of our food from foreign countries. There was a state of things existing for years in which competition on the sea, except by enemy's ships which had escaped from our cruisers, was absolutely unknown. No foreign country stood there ready to take up the trade that we had dropped. It was impossible. The European blockade extended over the whole of the territory which for a time was under the control of Napoleon Bonaparte, and whatever country declared itself' hostile to this, country, either by act or expression, immediately became our enemy, and was attacked by our fleet. We know now that the circumstances are very different. We know that there are great mercantile marines rising on every side, all ready and anxious to take what we lose. We know also that there are, side by side with those commercial marines, great military marines, which have risen to a strength and increased to a number absolutely unknown, even in times when this country was exposed to its greatest risks. We know, and nobody knows better, except perhaps the First Lord of the Admiralty, than I, what is the literature which is being produced day after day in other countries, the whole of which is devoted to a scientific and careful study of the means by which this opportunity may be taken advantage of when occasion arises. I do not want to go into the literature at all. I only want to say that its character constitutes a formidable threat. I go further. I say that if the language which is contained in that literature were used by this country of any other country it would be considered an unjustifiable thing. But the threat exists, and my view is this, that if you are to leave every individual shipper with the fear that his particular consignment of goods or particular ship will be or nay be liable to be captured by the cruisers of the enemy, you will immediately produce a feeling of panic which will result in an enormous enhancement of insurance premiums. There can be no doubt about it. If the honourable Member will imagine what would occur at Lloyd's at the news of an outbreak of war, if he will apply his imagination to the scene which would then arise, I am

1149
sure he could hardly exaggerate the reality which I believe would follow. I believe that matters would eventually brighten, that they would settle down; and we should have—as we ought to have, and I believe we have—a preeminent Navy. A time would come when the balance would be, to a certain extent, restored, and our ships would be able to navigate the seas, if not undisturbed, at any rate, with a certain amount of security for certain craft under certain conditions. But on the outbreak of war there would be this sudden enhancement of insurance rates, and there is, as I believe, one way, and one way only, to guard against it, and that is by making some arrangement in time of peace, whereby people may be assured that they can continue their business, exposed, no doubt, to some risk—some risk is inevitable—but exposed to a risk which they can measure, and which, if they have enterprise, many of them, I am certain, would be prepared to face. I do not bring this matter before the House without having given it some attention. I know the proposals which have been made, and I think they divide themselves into three classes, any one of which may perhaps have something to be said for it—all of which, I believe, must have something to be said for them. The first proposal is that there should be a national insurance of all war risks, that is to say that the Government in time of peace should give the promise to shipowners that in times of war they will reimburse them the value of ship and cargo in any case where a ship is lost by act of the enemy, providing that ship has conformed to Admiralty rules and obeyed the regulations laid down for convoy and protection. The second proposal is that there should be a contribution on the part of the Government in aid of the premiums paid at Lloyd's by shippers themselves, there being, of course, a range of difference between the ordinary premium and the war premium; that the Government should make themselves responsible for the payment of additional war premium. I believe there is a good deal to be said for that, because I find that among insurers there is a reluctance to accept any plan which will put all ships, good and bad, upon the same footing, and procure the same
1150
advantage for ships that are ill-fitted and not of great commercial value as for ships of the very first class, which are well fitted and have enormous advantage in speed. The third proposal is that there should be a percentage paid by all British shipowners, and something by other shipowners also, to a fund which should be used for the purpose of reinsurance in times of war. I do not pretend to express a strong view as to the merits of any one of these proposals, but they all exist, and I think they are all serious and sufficiently definite to be made the subject of some investigation. I am not content to accept this non possumus on the part of the Government. The reply generally given is that some hole can be picked in every scheme that is proposed. That is very usual. I do not suppose that anyone in this House or out of it can come down here and propose any scheme which no other Member of the House could not pick a hole in. You can get no scheme which would cover the whole of the ground, but you can get a scheme which will closely abate the evils complained of. The Government, I know, have a position of advantage in this matter. They say—perhaps they have a right to say—that the responsibility for the safety of this country in time of war lies with them, and that they are prepared to meet that responsibility. Well, Sir, I think that that statement ought to be received with boundless caution. I will not weary the House with example after example of things which have been done now, at this moment and in a hurry, for the protection of the country in time of war, which have been advocated year after year in this House, and though the Government was, I suppose, equally responsible for, equally cognisant of, these duties, these things were not done. I could name other matters which by almost universal consent ought to be done which are not being done, and yet which are being advocated, and which I hope some day will be done; and, therefore, though no one feels more than I do that we have at the present moment a Government which is showing more readiness to face these problems, and to deal with them, than any that we have had for a long time, I do not subscribe altogether to the doctrine that we can leave this matter entirely to

1151
their decision. I think they have often told us that public opinion is necessary to them in order to carry out great changes. That is quite true; but there are some changes which they can carry out very easily by giving a little encouragement, a little help to public opinion. I hope the House will take a serious view of this matter. Much that has been said by the honourable Member that was unnecessary, and was felt by honourable Members to be unnecessary. We all of us know that there is no royal road in this matter, but we do think it would be to the advantage of the country if Ministers would frankly admit that there is a problem to be solved, and if they would give us some little encouragement to believe that they are really intent upon solving it, by something more than mere generalities or mere references to the undeniable spirit of Her Majesty's Government.
MR. W. ALLAN: Mr. Speaker, on reading the terms of this Amendment, I find that they are directed to requesting or directing an inquiry to be made into the present large and increasing dependence of the United Kingdom on foreign imports for the necessities of life, and the circumstances that might arise therefrom in the event of Her Majesty becoming involved in war with some foreign Power or Powers. Well, I think the House has departed a great deal from the terms of that Motion by discussing marine insurance. Such an undertaking as is suggested by the argument of the honourable Member who has just spoken, that marine insurance should be undertaken by the Government of this country, involves, in the first place, a very great expenditure, which naturally brings the question, Where is the money to come from to meet it? Secondly, it practically produces an underwriting department of the Government, which I do not think any Government would be quite willing 10 undertake, seeing that it would require such a large staff of assessors to value ships, and such a large staff of accountants to apply the percentages upon the value. I fail to see that any Government could undertake marine insurance in time of war. To my way of thinking, the true marine insurance of war risks in time of war lies simply in the fact that the Government of the day will
1152
give the best protection possible to the commerce of this country by having a first-class fleet and plenty of ships. It is not for me to say in what way ships should be insured in time of war. There are various plans proposed for doing that; but I think, from my knowledge of ships and steamers, that if the shipowners of this country wanted to protect their fleets or their vessels in time of war, they could raise or contribute to a shipowners' war fund. I fail to see how any Government could undertake such work. I, therefore, dismiss that ideal, a very nice and very pretty ideal, no doubt, of a Government undertaking marine insurance in time of war. I come now to the proposals which this Motion warrants; and I listened with great interest to all that has been said about home-grown wheats and the number of acres that were going out of cultivation. But what are the facts? Why cannot we grow wheat in this country to supply the inhabitants? Why cannot we do that?
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Foreign competition.
MB. W. ALLAN: Foreign competition, I hear said by the right honourable Gentleman opposite. No, Sir, it is not foreign competition at all; it is cheap lands versus dear lands. Go to Western America, and what do you get your land there for? Go to the Lothians in Scotland, and what do you pay for it there? You cannot compete. It is not foreign competition at all; it is one man producing his grain cheap, and another producing it dear. I am not a landlord, but that is my view of the matter, and I happen to have some friends who are farmers, and they cannot grow wheat, simply because they have to pay £2 to £2 10s. an acre for the land. Now, that being the case, you are brought face to face with this. We are building in this country at the present time a great many steamers called ocean tramps. These vessels carry from 5,000 to 10,000 tons of cargo. They go over to America and buy wheat there, and they land it in the market here at a price at which you cannot produce it. Very well; you have, therefore, in one instance, cheap lands, cheap grown wheat, and low freights. Great quantities of grain are brought into this

1153
country, and what is the result? We have, thanks to that, the cheap loaf, and otherwise it would be dearer. The proposer of this Motion talked, about some machinery being required, or an inquiry being made as to the provision of some machinery for the purposes of the Motion. I look at it in this way, Mr. Speaker. In a country like ours, whore we have practically no rural population of small farmers, what we have got to depend upon for our food supply is simply the keeping open of the highways of the sea for our cargo steamers by a powerful fleet. If we were under the same conditions as in France, where there are seven and a half millions of peasant proprietors, we could stand a blockade and feed ourselves as France can do at this moment. Blockade us! Why, we could not feed ourselves for six weeks, simply from the fact that we have no peasant proprietors, and all the old English yeomen have been swept off the land. There is another thing which is against us—namely, the preferential rates in this country, a point that has not been touched upon at all. You get your foreign goods brought into Liverpool, and you get them taken across to Newcastle for far less than I can get goods sent from Newcastle to Hartlepool, simply by reason of these preferential rates, and that, again, militates against our national progress. Then, again, we have the seconder of the Motion saying that if we had peasant proprietors the population would in crease, and we should have a greater supply of men for our Army and Navy. What do we find in France? There is a peasant proprietorship numbering seven and a half millions; but the population is not increasing, it is decreasing, which I think goes to prove conclusively that the mere fact of living on the soil does not tend to the increase of population. However, I look at this matter from a very serious aspect. Unquestionably, a time will come when this question will have to be forced upon some Government—how to feed the people of this country in a time of war. The mover of this Motion has moved a Motion which to my way of thinking is of paramount importance to the life and stability of the country. Whatever the result may be, whether the Government will undertake inquiry or not, I do not know—I do not care—but I say a day will come
1154
when this question, how the people of this country are to feed themselves, will be a serious question, and at the present time I can only see one way for solving it, and that is by the Government keeping open our highways by having the most powerful fleet on the face of the earth, by having the fastest ships, so that food may be brought to the people. If not, what will be the result? The result will be something terrible the moment the people of this country want food. We know what a starving people have done before, and they will do the same again. Therefore, I am in entire accord with the principle of the mover of this Motion, and with his sentiments. I think that the stronger the Navy we can keep up, the better it will be for this country.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I desire to take a small part in this discussion, and I may remind the House with great respect that when the Estimates for the Navy were brought forward in 1896 and 1897, I had a Motion down, and I was first in the ballot, dealing with the whole of this question in, as I thought, a comprehensive form, but you, Mr. Speaker, very properly ruled me out of order. So I dropped the question from that time to this, and I rejoice that my honourable Friend has taken it up. It is far better that men like my honourable Friend, who are disassociated with the Services, should bring this matter forward, and that we, as humble individuals representing the Services perhaps should say a word or two in support. At all events, the question is not new; but it is very important, and I fail to perceive that the Government can offer opposition to this most reasonable Motion, and I do hope they will accept it con amore, and promise the House that they will cause an inquiry to be made into this very serious and important and difficult subject. It is no new question, as my honourable Friend the Member for West Belfast said just now; even the proposals for a national insurance of ships' cargoes are not new. May I remind the First Lord of the Admiralty of what will surely happen if a war should come—which God forbid—during the time he should be First Lord of the Admiralty; as to what happened in the case of his predecessor, Lord Northbrook, in 1885?

1155
A deputation of shipowners then waited upon the First Lord, pressing this very question upon the Government of the day, and I am very well informed—the information is more or less confidential; I have seen correspondence on this subject—that the Government were very much exercised upon it, and they did not meet it with a direct negative; they did not attempt to ridicule the proposal. I do know they did seriously entertain it, but whether they came to any decision I do not say; but I do say that what happened to Lord Northbrook in 1885 may yet happen to any Government that is in power in these days. The position now is accentuated, and the difficulty is not less. When I was preparing to discuss this matter some years ago I was at uncommon pains to get the best information upon the subject. I am mindful of the fact that one of our most accomplished naval officers of that time, Admiral Sir George Tryon, now gone to his rest, was a very great authority upon this very difficult problem and the way in which it could be solved. I have been told by many distinguished Admirals that they could hardly sleep at nights for thinking of what might happen in regard to this matter of food supplies, and the way in which food might safely be brought to this country in time of war. The fighting of the battles is a simple matter, so long as you support a strong Navy, if the fortress is victualled. But no Government has yet seriously thought of how to victual the fortress. That is the moderate Motion which my honourable Friend now submits to the House. This is not a Party question; there is a universal consensus of opinion that this matter ought to be faced by the Government, and faced without delay. It has never yet been faced by any of the successive Governments of this country, I believe; no doubt it has been talked about, and no doubt harmonious action has been agreed upon between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty for defending certain points of the sea; and, in the event of war, co-operating squadrons will be sent to meet cargoes expected at certain points of latitude and longitude; and no doubt warning will be given by the Board of Trade to the various shipowners to rendezvous at those points from Australia and other parts from
1156
which our food supplies may arrive. All that goes without saying. I have risen to support my honourable Friend the Member for Belfast who, however, I think, went further than is reasonable on this subject of maritime insurance. I cannot go so far with him in this matter. But I do believe that the country, instead of insuring all ships' cargoes, ought to prohibit certain vessels, steam vessels of a slow speed and sailing vessels of all kinds, from leaving their ports at all in time of war. Although they may be a private source of wealth, they are at the same time a source of wealth to the nation at large, and if they are allowed to go from their ports there is bound to be a heavy loss of national wealth. I do not support a system of insuring the whole of our ships, but I do think you might legitimately entertain the proposal to insure vessels with a minimum speed of 12 to 15 knots, because, unless you do something of that kind as a guarantee against loss, I do not see how shipowners can be expected to run their ships. There are no rates to guide shipowners in the matter of insurance. We only know what was actually paid so recently as the time of the American Civil War. We know, then, that the "risk" went up to 30s. per cent, for non-blockade runners under neutral flags; but in other cases it went up from 30 per cent.; and God knows what figure it would meet the shipowners in such a way that they should safely send their vessels to sea, then you would encourage a spirit of enterprise which would tend to keep the rates of insurance down, otherwise it might mount up to 100 per cent; and God knows what figure it might not arrive at in the end. Whatever rates are paid, the expense must naturally fall upon the consumer, and therefore it is necessary that they should be kept down. My honourable Friend the Member for Gateshead believes in a strong Navy, but he did not give adequate consideration to the other part of the question. I do not want to weary the House with statistics, but we did suffer very heavy loss when we were supreme on the sea in the wars of old times. What would the loss be now, when our commerce has grown to so many millions? Nineteen hundred vessels leave our ports every day. The mind of man is unable to grasp

1157
what these figures mean, and although a strong Navy would enable you to keep certain routes open, looking forward, as I do, to the impossibility of any danger or trouble with America, I do not think there would be any serious danger of an excessive rise in the prices of food stuffs. I believe that supplies would come from America, and, I think, with a sufficient number of cruisers there would be no difficulty in guarding the Atlantic highway, and making it as safe as a turnpike road. My honourable Friend talks of convoying cargoes, but we have other work for our cruisers to do than to convoy cargoes across the high seas. Whether we have sufficient cruisers is a question to be discussed within the four walls of the Admiralty, but I do not think we have sufficient cruisers nor do I believe you think so yourselves. I do know that you will lay down more cruisers in your forthcoming naval programme, and that, to my mind, is a clear answer that the number of cruisers that we possess is not adequate in time of war. All we ask is that the Government should give an assurance to the country and the House that this matter shall receive their grave consideration. We do not expect them to lay down a policy in favour of the erection of national granaries such as was proposed in the House of Lords. When that proposal was brought forward by the late Lord Winchilsea he was admirably answered by Lord Playfair on that subject. To my mind, the proposal to establish national granaries would, if carried out, be most disastrous. In the first place, you would spend many millions in erecting these great brick edifices, and the immediate effect would be to derange the market, because when you were buying in up would go the prices, and when in a month's time you sold out, as you would have to do, the prices would come down with a run, and you would open the door to speculation of the very worst character. Many millions would have been wasted in the building of these granaries, and, in my opinion, without any good result. I would rather spend those millions on building more cruisers than in putting up these immense brick establishments for the storage of grain; besides which, if you store one thing you would necessarily have to store another, and if you erect granaries you would also
1158
have to erect places in which to store raw material in order to keep the cotton and other mills going. The problem now is infinitely worse than it was at the time of the Crimea. And it would be well to remember that fact. During the time of the Crimean war, from 1854 to 1856, the population of this country was about 28,000,000 of people, and the produce of corn grown at home was 16,000,000 of quarters on four and a half million acres. Now we have a population of 38,000,000 of people—I am giving the figures of 1895, and I am willing to admit that they are the best to go upon—and the home production of grain is only 4,500,000 of quarters on 1,500,000 acres of land; 38,000,000 of people and 4,500,000 of corn now, as against 28,000,000 of people and 16,000,000 of quarters of corn then. Therefore, Sir, it is patent to any man's mind, whether he has studied the question or not, that it is a matter to us of great importance and I think the Government would do wisely to show their sympathy with this Motion. I do not care in what form they answer the honourable Gentleman, who proposed the Amendment, but I do hope that, at all events, they will not answer him with a direct negative. The admonition of going to the ants to learn a lesson from their energy applies equally to the Government, as well as it did to the person to whom that advice was given. You can learn not only from the ants, but from the bees and the rats. Governments have been asleep over this matter. All I ask is that you shall not be asleep anylonger. The Government are in sympathy with a strong Navy; and, in the event of war, it is certain that very heavy losses must ensue, and in order to encourage the steamship owners to run the necessary risks and to keep down the rates of insurance, you will have to give your minds to this subject, either to entertain the proposal for the insurance of all ships, or the more moderate proposal of insuring every ship above a certain speed, and prohibiting every steam vessel below that rate of speed and every sailing vessel from leaving the ports.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: This has been a most singular Debate; a great number of honourable Gentlemen have spoken upon the matter, and they have

1159
all stated that in their opinion it is a most valuable subject to bring before the House; but no two of them have agreed as to the manner in which the question should be dealt with. If any good is to be done to the country by raising the question at all, it should be raised after honourable Members have come to some sort of understanding between themselves as to the scheme which they propose to press upon the Government for dealing with it.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: By a Royal Commission.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The whole business of the Board of Admiralty is to inquire into it, and if successive Boards of Admiralty have not inquired into this subject years ago, then all I can say upon the matter is, that they ought to be hanged on the outbreak of war. Indeed, the speech of the honourable and gallant Admiral shows that former Governments have inquired into the subject, and I am perfectly certain that the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty last year showed that the present Government had inquired into it. There is a little difficulty in discussing this question in the House, and I am not sure that the public raising of the question at the present moment is altogether wise. There does exist at the present moment in a particular country an idea that we are going to force them into war during the present year, and I cannot but fear that discussing this question, as to what is to be done for the protection of our food supply, may have some small bearing on that idea. It may make people continue in the foolish idea that it is our intention to force them into war. But, if we are discussing the question, we ought to discuss it with certain proposals before the House, and I submit it is useless for it to be discussed in this way, and I think it very unwise. But, the question having been raised, it does appear to me that some of us who do not agree with any of the particular remedies that are proposed, except with the general notion of a strong fleet, should say something with regard to the different proposals that have been made. The first honourable Member who brought this Amendment before the House, and
1160
who made two or three suggestions last year, should limit the question before us to a particular form. As it stands, we have all the questions affecting the internal food supply of this country raised, and if that is to be allowed, some of us might ask what is to be done with the lands which are out of cultivation, and how those lands are to be cultivated. What is to be done with the deer forests, for example? When these questions arise upon Motions of this kind, I do not think it is possible to go into them, and that we ought to confine ourselves to the more definite matters. The honourable Gentleman who seconded the Motion threw over all the arguments proposed to the House by the honourable Gentleman moving the Amendment; he made a very clever speech, but overstated altogether the facts. Then it was said by an honourable Gentleman that our case was that there would be no interference with the continuity and plentifulness of our food supply. No man in his senses would make any suggestion of that kind. There would be an interference in case of a war with another country, and still more in case of a war against a coalition; and, starting with the fact that there must be an interference with our food supply, the best method of affording protection against such interference must be a matter of opinion. The honourable Gentleman has proved at some length that it was possible for food to be made contraband in case of war. But, I am bound to say, I think the First Lord of the Treasury was right last year, when he said that this matter would be ruled by the law of strength. The honourable and gallant Admiral, though favouring the Motion, said he thought that America would feed us in times of war, and that it would do so I have no doubt. My honourable Friend the Member for Belfast brought into the Debate the question of national insurance; but it appears to me that the one thing that has been overlooked is, that in the time of war there is a transference of ships from our flag. You have to assume that there will be no transferring in our case, and that the British ships will continue to be British, in order to bring insurance into the terms of the Motion. Now, the proposal which was made by the honourable Member

1161
for Chester two years ago, and in the House of Lords by the late Lord Winchilsea, was a proposal for national granaries, and if that is the proposal which is in the minds of the honourable Members who bring forward this proposal to-night, they ought to be prepared with facts and figures in support of their contention, or else adopt some practical suggestion for the production of wheat in this country. If they want national granaries, let them say so, and if it is so, let them arm themselves with facts and figures as to the minimum food supply of this country at any one time, and not bring the question before the House in this general way. Now the honourable Gentleman the Member for St. Helens confined himself, in talking of food supplies, to wheat and flour, and the statements which he made are absolutely at variance with all the facts which I have been able to gather together from all sources in reference to this subject, and I think that we ought to have evidence as to the minimum food supply. The right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is here, and as he will probably take part in this Debate, I should just like him to answer this question, if he does speak on this subject: Was Lord Playfair correct in the facts which were stated by him in 1894 in the House of Lords, and are those facts still substantially true? At the time Lord Winchilsea stated that in some portions of the year there was only one month's supply of wheat in this country, and leaflets were issued on behalf of the national granaries scheme, stating that there was only a fortnight's supply. Now, in reply to that statement Lord Playfair said that he had official information from the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Board of Trade, upon the subject, and he informed the House of Lords that the minimum supply of this country occurred in the month of June, and in that month there was in this country a supply of wheat and flour sufficient for three months and a half. Lord Playfair pointed out that those figures only referred to wheat and flour, and did not take into consideration such cereals as barley, oats, and maize, or potatoes. Four years after that date the honourable Member for St. Helens tells us that the wheat supply of this
1162
country is only sufficient for three weeks. There is a great discrepancy there, and we certainly ought to be told whether Lord Playfair was right or wrong in his figures. It does not affect absolute starvation, but it does make this difference, that the sharpness of the pinch will be very different in the one case to what it would be in the other. If this country was going to begin a war with only three weeks' supply of wheat and flour, speculation would be rife, and prices would rise, and there would be a very much greater pinch than there would be if the supply was sufficient for three months and a half. We ought to know whether Lord Playfair was right when he said that besides the enormous amount of other food stuffs which would supplement flour at such a time, there was a three and a half months' supply, or whether the honourable Gentleman is right who says there is only a three weeks' supply of wheat and flour. The honourable Gentleman who spoke in support of a national granary scheme ought to have told us something of the cost of the system proposed to be established. The honourable Member for St. Helens talked of making an experimental trial, and this was almost the only point in which the Seconder agreed with the Mover of the Amendment. They both agreed that we ought to make some small experimental trial of this national granary scheme. But private enterprise has made experiments as to what kinds of wheat will keep, and we know something of that already. The difficulties of the scheme are that its necessity has not been proved; and, in the second place, the interference with trade involved. What the cost would be could only be arrived at when it was tried on a large scale, and I am afraid that it is impossible to make an experiment which would be of any use to the Department of the Board of Trade. When Lord Winchilsea brought forward his scheme he estimated that the cost would be 33 millions sterling at first, and afterwards that the annual expenditure would be £950,000—equal to a shilling duty per quarter on corn. I am sure that the honourable and gallant Admiral opposite could get many of the additional cruisers he wants for that 33 millions sterling and the additional expenditure of a million a year. Therefore, these honourable Members

1163
have not only to give us certain facts and figures to show the feasibility of the scheme, but calculations as to its cost, and when they have done both things they will find that it would be far better to spend the money on the fleet. Now, the general view that some of us take on this subject is that, in the event of any very grave crisis, any great war which you could contemplate, it would be enormously to the interest of the United States to feed this country. We believe that colourable transfers from the British to a neutral flag would be promoted immediately, and, although theoretically the belligerent Power would have grounds for protesting, and even for seizing the ships so transferred to a neutral flag, we do not believe that any country would at that moment take action which would bring the United States on their flank. We believe that it would be the policy not only of the United States to protect our food supplies, but that other countries that were in a similar case would take similar action. It has been said that we get large supplies of grain from Russia, but the supply from Russia is not always very large, and varies greatly in amount. The great food supply for this country must be drawn from North and South America, and, if we can get that, we need not alarm ourselves about the possibility of absolute starvation. Of course, it is the duty of the Government to consider beforehand what they shall do in certain eventualities, but I have no doubt that, as Lord Playfair said, these considerations have been present to the mind of successive Governments. Generally speaking, the objection I have to all these schemes is that they are to be considered, not as peace schemes, but as war schemes, and that they all savour of the heresy of a passive defence, that we are going to lock ourselves up as within walls, lay in a stock of food and munitions, and then defy our enemies outside. But that is not the way in which this country, if ever we are driven into war, will carry the war on. Our policy may be as pacific as may be in ordinary times, but, however pacific, when we are driven into war our policy would be an offensive one. And unless we can use our great natural advantages for the purpose of attacking and destroying our enemies,
1164
we shall never be able to force on a peace, or to conclude an honourable peace. We do not want, as a great commercial nation, to drag on a war indefinitely, but to finish it as soon as possible, and the notion of soon finishing a war by locking ourselves up is ridiculous. That will not bring the war to a close; the only way is by striking strongly at the enemy. I am entirely averse, from the war point of view, to the suggestions that have been made. I am, therefore, opposed to the Amendment, and I hope that the only effect of the discussion will be to strengthen the hands of the Admiralty.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The subject which my honourable Friend has brought before the House is a highly important one. But it is not, of course, a new one, for my honourable Friend has upon more than one occasion endeavoured to draw public attention in the House of Commons and in the country to the position of things in regard to our food supply. While I agree with the honourable Baronet opposite, that the Gentleman who seconded the Amendment and those who supported it have nearly all differed with regard to the remedies, I am not disposed to make any reflection upon the honourable Gentlemen who have so differed, because undoubtedly the matter is not only important, but full of difficulty, and one can readily understand that honourable Gentlemen may be uneasy and distressed about what they consider an unsatisfactory condition of things, and yet very largely differ as to the methods to be adopted to put an end to that state of things. My honourable Friend asks for an inquiry into this important matter, and into the various methods which have been suggested with the view of remedying what he considers the present unfortunate state of things. But, as the right honourable Baronet opposite says, although there has been no Select Committee, although there has been no Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this matter, it must not be supposed by my Friend and the House that the Government have been indifferent on the matter, and that it has not been before us and made the subject of inquiry both by the Board of Admiralty and the Board of Trade, as well as by

1165
the Board of Agriculture. There has been full official inquiry into the existing state of things, and I am glad to think that these inquiries have not led to the conclusion that the fears of my honourable Friends as to the disastrous consequences to the people of this country in case of war are at all likely to be realised. My honourable Friend who brought forward this Motion and his honourable Seconder were distressed at the fact that so small a quantity of land was under grain cultivation in this country. Well, it is true that the quantity of land cropped with grain in this country has of late years considerably decreased, but that does not at all mean that the land not under grain is not producing food. On the contrary, I am informed by the Minister for Agriculture that the land of this country was never more cultivated than it is at the present time.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No! no!
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Although the rents have gone down, and the landlords may not be satisfied, and although the price of produce may not be satisfactory to the farmers, yet, as a matter of fact, the land is still producing food as plentifully as any other land in any part of Europe.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware how much land has gone out of cultivation?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Well, that is the in formation given to me by my right honourable Friend the Minister for Agriculture. My honourable Friend also says—and it is an opinion in which we all agree—that he would be very glad if by some arrangement we could increase the supply of food stuffs to this country from the Colonies, instead of from foreign countries. But I am afraid, if in order to obtain it anything in the nature of protection were proposed, that it would be a serious departure from the policy of this country—a policy now adopted by the great bulk of the people of the country and by nearly all politicians. I am afraid that the result he desires is not likely to be attained, but if it could be effected in any other way
1166
we all would be glad. The truth is, that a strong and powerful Navy is the prime factor in the supply of food for the people of this country, and no Government would be worthy of the confidence of the people of this country that did not make the preservation of the trade routes of our food supply the principal object of its care. When it is said that a cruiser here or there belonging to a foreign enemy might interfere with the carrying trade in time of war, I acknowledge that that might be so, and the Government has recognised that there is such a danger, and that it is our duty to be so supplied with cruisers as to reduce that risk to a minimum. It must also be remembered that foreign cruisers would not be so well furnished with coal as ours would be. The honourable Gentleman said that starvation may come upon us, however supreme our Navy may be, and then in a following sentence he said that this country could never be blockaded in time of war—that even if the country could not be blockaded, it is not only possible, but extremely likely, that the price of corn would rise considerably. I admit that the price of corn would rise considerably, although I very much doubt whether that high price would be long maintained, but, so long as our country is not blockaded, we are not at all likely to meet with starvation. It must be remembered that we get corn and food supplies from every quarter of the globe, and that the high prices would attract these supplies from all parts. It must also be remembered that so long as corn is not made contraband of war it would come in neutral bottoms as freely as it ever came before. I entirely agree with the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that if any attempt were made by any belligerent foreign country to prevent the shipment of corn to this country and to make it contraband of war, that would meet with the hostility of the United States, and possibly of other neutral countries also. Between 50 and 60 per cent, of the whole of the exports of corn and flour from the United States come to this country, and is it to be supposed for a moment that the United States would remain quiescent in time of war if our enemy declared corn to be contraband of war? If, then, we start with the fact, with the assumption that

1167
corn is not contraband of war, what chance is there that we should be reduced to starvation when the corn can come in to us as freely as in time of peace so long as it comes in in neutral bottoms. Now, the remedies which the honourable Gentleman and others have proposed for a state of things which I do not believe is ever likely to arise, but if it ever did arise, are threefold. The question touched upon by my honourable Friend, who moved the Motion—of increasing the growth of corn here by means of bounties, and by a resort to protection—I do not think is within the range of practical politics. I may be excused, therefore, if I do not enter upon the well-worn arguments of my honourable Friend in regard to a protective policy. And I am sure that the House of Commons would never for a moment consent, nor would any Government consent, to inquire whether free trade is or is not good for this country. So I dismiss that remedy of my honourable Friend, although I hope he will not think it is from any want of respect for him. Then there is the proposal for a national insurance. I do not think that he has very fully explained what he means by national insurance. He has not said if the country is to bear the whole cost of the vessels and cargoes seized by the enemy, or only part of it. He has not told us whether we are to insure wheat and food supplies only. He has not told us why it should not also be applied to raw material, for it is quite certain that the ingress of raw material is as important to the country as the wheat supply. It is of vast importance that our working classes should be employed, and that they should be able to earn money to buy the food they require, and more than ever so when the food supply is likely to be raised above normal prices. Again, he has not told us whether this national insurance is to be an insurance for cargoes outwards as well as inwards. Clearly, if the nation takes upon itself the burden of insurance of cargoes inwards it must also take it for cargoes outwards. I need hardly insist on the stupendous cost which this would entail. It is estimated that the value of British vessels entered inwards and cleared outwards, and their cargoes, in 1879, came to no less than 1,090 millions sterling. The risk of loss would be enormous.
1168
My honourable and gallant Friend the Member for Eastbourne said that the risk of loss in time of war might come to as much as 100 per cent. My honourable and gallant Friend takes the extreme limit, and I am not going to work out the cost of insurance at that rate. But I will take what I think is a high rate, having regard to the facts. Assuming that we possess a large and a strong Navy, that we are able to keep our shores free from blockade, and able to protect our commerce, I would put the rate at five per cent. That would come to something like 60 millions sterling. But that is not all. Who is to manage this stupendous business? Who is to secure us from risk of fraud? Who is to take care that the sea is not covered with old rotten, worn-out ships, with comparatively valueless cargoes? My honourable Friend must know that the business of an underwriter of marine insurance is one of the most intricate, most delicate, and most difficult in the world, that it is highly paid in this country, and that the risks vary from day to day and from hour to hour. My honourable Friend seemed to think that a partial insurance might be sufficient, but how are the shares to be appropriated, and how are you to appropriate the premiums to the risk, seeing that the risk in time of war varies from day to day and from hour to hour? It is a business which the Government would be hopelessly unable to undertake; they would be liable to fraud and swindling of all kinds. I am satisfied that everyone who understands the ins-and-outs of this question of insurance must come to the conclusion that no Government in its senses would ever undertake such a gigantic business. Well, another remedy has been proposed—the remedy of storing grain in granaries. Here again there would be another addition to the responsibility of Ministers of State. This would be another gigantic burden put upon the shoulders of the Government—a burden which would lay them open to fraud of all sorts and kinds. There are difficulties of detail also which it would be impossible to overcome. How, for instance, could my honourable Friend confine the storage to wheat alone? I have enlarged on the importance of raw material. If we are going to keep our people clothed and fed, we must devise

1169
some method by which the raw material should be supplied to them to work upon. That is another large addition to the scheme, for you have not only to provide granaries, but must have warehouses filled with cotton and wool and jute, and all the other raw materials which our people need. And have you calculated how much grain would be necessary? I have seen estimates made, varying from 8 to 20 millions of quarters.
MR. SETON-KARR: Twenty million quarters.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Well, the first outlay on 20 million quarters would be no light matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake, and the storing of it and the changing of it. Moreover, there are so many different qualities of grain, and there must be some arrangement for supplying the people with the qualities they want. But there is another question I should like to ask my honourable Friend. I presume he will acknowledge that it is quite possible that in a time of general dearth, it is indeed probable, that the price of grain and wheat would rise even to a greater height than in time of war. What would you do then? Would you unload if there came a period of dearth, and the loaf went up to 8d. or 9d., or 10d. or 1s.? Would you unload that grain? And, if not, how could you defend keeping the grain stored up in the coffers of the country and the people clamouring for bread? I undertake to say that there is no Government, however independent they might desire to be politically, which could possibly resist the pressure brought to bear upon them to distribute grain, not in a time of war, but in a time of dearth. Again, at what price is the grain to be distributed? Is it to be at cost price or the market price? Clearly, if at market price, no Government would do it, for the market price would be too high. It must, then, be cost price, or, at any rate, at a moderate price. Well, what would your farmers, your dealers, who have grown grain and have got grain to sell, say if you were to compete with them in the market, and with money taken out of their own pockets, and so prevent them from getting the price
1170
they would otherwise obtain? The cost, as I have said, of either of the two operations would be enormous. It would be far better and cheaper for the country, should they be driven to it when a time of pressure came, to go into the market and buy grain dear and sell cheap, rather than attempt to set up such a gigantic business, involving such an enormous sum of money, as national insurance agents and holders of grain. I end as I began. I end as the right honourable Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean began and ended. I do not believe that if our Navy is kept up in a sufficiently strong and powerful state to protect the trade routes of the country, and if we secure our shores from being blockaded, I do not believe there is the remotest chance of starvation, although there may be a chance of high prices, which would not last for any length of time. It is, under these circumstances, that I am afraid the Government are unable to accept the Motion of my honourable Friend. I repeat, this is not a matter which has escaped the attention of the Government. It has been carefully inquired into, and I have given the results of the inquiry.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: What about Lord Playfair's figures regarding the available grain supply in the country?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The right honourable Baronet asks me about Lord Playfair's figures. I will endeavour to verify the figures quoted by my honourable and gallant Friend. I have no reason to suppose that Lord Playfair was incorrect when he said he obtained his figures from the authorities and heads of the Department. Nor have I reason to suppose that if these figures were right then they are wrong now. If the right honourable Baronet desires fuller information on the subject I shall be glad to obtain it for him.
MR. BRYCE: Mr. Speaker, everyone must agree that the food supply of this country is a matter of very great interest generally, but that is the only point on which there has been any agreement during the Debate. The Seconder of the Amendment expressly disclaimed any agreement with the Mover, except that the question was of importance, and that it was a

1171
matter for inquiry. But if an inquiry is to be set up, what line will it take? What is to be its obejct, and what suggestions are to be considered? I was struck, as the President of the Board of Trade was struck, with the fact that no two speakers agreed as to the lines on which the suggested inquiry should be conducted. A number of suggestions were put forward, but each successive speaker occupied himself in trampling down the suggestions of the speaker who preceded him, and all the suggestions were torn to pieces with laudable unanimity and impartiality by the President of the Board of Trade. The general result, therefore, is that, in the opinion of the Government, not one of these suggestions deserves any further consideration. I am not surprised at that conclusion. What were the suggestions? I will not discuss them, but will just run through them in order to show their futility. There was the idea of protective duties, but the Mover of the Amendment must know that any protective duties would fall, first of all, on the poorer classes of the community. Then there was the suggestion of preferential tariffs between ourselves and our Colonies. But Canada is already developing her wheat fields, and the imposition of a preferential tariff would not substantially increase that development. We now receive a large quantity of wheat from Canada, and there is no reason to suppose that if we were to give a preferential tariff it would meet the difficulties which the honourable Gentlemen apprehend. Then there was the question of granaries, which has been so demolished by the President of the Board of Trade that I will not refer to it further; and, lastly, there was the suggestion that the State should undertake a scheme of national marine insurance. I need not add anything to the arguments used by the President of the Board of Trade in order to show the total impracticablity of such a proposal, which would involve us in enormous risks, for the carrying out of which we have no preparation, and which would utterly destroy all those active agencies now at work, and which would continue at work even after the outbreak of war, in order to meet the changing circumstances and difficulties of the time. Most of us at one time or another have discussed this question with working
1172
men, and I think I may say that among working men conversant with the subject there is a consensus of opinion that it is utterly untenable. That being so, I ask myself whether there is the least use in entertaining the Motion. I cannot see anything to be gained by it. If there is to be an inquiry, we ought to have some idea of the lines it should take if it is to be profitable. Surely, if it is a question of such importance and danger as honourable Members assume, it ought to have engaged the attention of the last four or five Governments. I have no doubt it has obtained the attention of every Government, and that every Government will continue to consider it. It is, of course, very difficult to say what would be the effect on trade of an outbreak of war. I believe, myself, it is impossible to usefully indulge in any predictions on that subject, because everything depends on the Power with which we are at war, and the attitude of the Powers which remain neutral. It is impossible to predict all the eventualities that might arise. With reference to one principal source of our food supply, there is no doubt that the United States would continue to send us a large part of the wheat we would require. At present they send us more than half our total supply. In 1897 they sent us 61 per cent, of our wheat and flour, and we know it is one of the most important elements in the exports of the United States, and we may, therefore, assume that it would be the cardinal interest of the United States to give us every possible support that a neutral Power could give to keep that trade open. We know also that the Atlantic route is now so much reduced in time that it is comparatively easy to defend. Therefore, I share the sanguine view which I am glad the Government have taken, that there is not any great danger of famine even in the event of an outbreak of war. The question is, above all things, a naval question, and if there was to be an inquiry it ought to be conducted in private, not in public. This is the kind of inquiry which, in one form or another, has been going on for years. Of course, every branch of the Government has considered it, and I cannot see that we can advance a single step by accepting the honourable Member's Amendment, or that we can add in the least to the responsibilities which

1173
the Government acknowledge lie upon them now, and of which I am sure no British Government will ever be unmindful.
MR. DISRAELI: The President of the Board of Trade has made the astounding statement that land was now better cultivated and produced better crops than ever it did. I cannot understand such a statement from a Minister of the Crown. Why, what about the legislation in aid of agriculture passed by the present Government? I am sure the right honourable Gentleman has obtained information on the subject which is not reliable. Neither can I agree with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, that this is a question which we ought to leave to chance. Cold water has been thrown on it by the speech of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that in the discussion of this most important question, which deals with the well-being and future supplies of the greatest industrial population in the world, we get most excellent advice upon this side of the House, and nothing but cold water thrown on it on the other side. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean finds fault with the figures brought forward by my honourable Friend the Member for St. Helens, who stated that our food supply would only last three weeks. I believe that is about the time, and I have heard it stated that it is less. Then the right honourable Baronet refers to Lord Playfair's estimate of three and a half months. On what figures was that estimate based? Although I have great respect for Lord Playfair; I look with some sort of suspicion on that estimate. Will the right honourable Baronet, when war breaks out, and when the pinch of poverty and hunger reaches the mob, and when they are clamouring at his door, will he send them to Lord Playfair? This question has been treated throughout as a naval question, but I doubt if it should be regarded as a naval question altogether. After all, the elements of chance enters into naval warfare—tempests and broken boilers, for example—and is it right that the food supply of this country should be
1174
left to chance? I happened to be the proposer of a resolution at the first Lancashire and Cheshire Federation meeting, at which 200 working men were present, to the effect that the Government should be asked to put a bounty on growing wheat, or some such measure. We are told that that would be Protection, but I think the bogey of Protection in this matter should not be considered quite as much as it is. We have got a large and a very expensive fleet, which the nation has to pay for, and yet if you are asked to keep the price of wheat at a certain price—say, 40s.—we are told it is Protection, and that we would make the food of the working classes dearer. We had wheat a short time ago at 50s. a quarter, and the quartern loaf went up, and I say that if you keep wheat at 40s. you would be able to keep the quartern loaf at 4½d. My honourable Friend made some very interesting investigations, and found out the system by which the French keep wheat at about 40s., and the quartern loaf about 4½d. After all, this is a definite statement to make as to how this question should be solved, but I do not think that it should be left to chance that a great nation should in time of war have to depend on foreign provisions. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean said that our policy should be an offensive policy, but while our Navy is carrying out that policy abroad, what is to become of the nation at home? A naval campaign at the present moment might last for two or three weeks, but I venture to think that after the first 10 days the pinch of hunger would be so felt by the poor people that we would have a revolution, and all the horrors attending it. If the solution which I have brought forward be carried out, it would assist those who have land, it would assist the populations which now crowd our towns. We have been told there is no remedy for the state of affairs referred to in the Amendment, but I believe my proposal is a remedy. I certainly think that a great question like this should not be left to the chance of successful naval warfare, or even be left to wait until we are actually at war. It should be dealt with now, and then we should be able to say that we were safe at home, and safe on the high seas.
MR. YERBURGH: Mr. Speaker, I have been chiefly responsible for one of the proposals alluded to to meet this danger which I think is admitted to exist. That proposal is one for the establishment of a storage of wheat. I dealt with it fully last Session, and I do not think it necessary to elaborate it on this occasion. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has, however, challenged us to give our figures. The total cost of storing 10,000,000 quarters of wheat would, according to calculations which have been very carefully verified, amount to £21,400,000. It has also been calculated by experts that the annual working expenses would amount to £288,046, and if the capital were raised by terminable annuities at 2½ per cent., there would be a further charge of £754,530, making the total annual outlay £1,042,576. That might be met by reviving the duty of a shilling per bushel on corn, which was levied by Sir Robert Peel, and only taken off by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I notice that one of the arguments used in the Debate was that those who support the Amendment did not agree with the various proposals put before the House. Surely that would apply also to the question of Imperial defence. Take the Navy. Some advocate the construction of battleships, others that of cruisers, and even experts are not agreed as to the particular kind of battleship or cruiser which should be built. There is no necessity to refer these matters to a Committee because experts do not agree. We are agreed on one thing, and we have the country behind us, and that is that there is great danger to the interests of this country if it were involved in war under present conditions. What are the criticisms levelled at the proposal for national granaries? Two years ago I was fortunate enough to secure the assistance of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, and it nominated a Committee to consider whether my proposal would have any injurious effect on agriculture. It met 16 times, and examined 54 witnesses, all men experienced in farming, or connected with the corn interest. The evidence of those responsible men was that very grave danger existed, and many of them stated that the question of bounties was outside practical politics. That Committee
1176
came to the conclusion that there was a case for inquiry by the Government, and the members added that they were profoundly impressed by the danger disclosed by the evidence presented to them. I have already dealt with the cost of national granaries. Another objection is raised, and that is that wheat will not keep. I only hope that Gentlemen who raise these objections would read the report of the Committee, whether they agree with its recommendations or not, as it contains an enormous amount of valuable information. Sir, we can keep wheat for practically any length of time. But we are told that when we put it on the market it will disturb it. It is entirely the opposite. Matters will adjust themselves, and you will find that if you serve out the wheat in small quantities it will have no practical effect on the market. There is one more objection raised. It is that national granaries would injure the farming industry. That is not the opinion of the majority of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee. There is another point which ought to be considered. It is that at the present time a large proportion of farming capital is not invested in wheat at all, but in dairy stock, and, therefore, when we talk of injury to the farming interest we are only touching the fringe of the subject. We had most intelligent farmers before the Committee, and they all agreed that the capital formerly devoted to wheat was now largely transferred to dairy farming. Why, in past days it was to the interest of the farmers to have war—a favourite toast was, "Drink it off to the next bloody war"—now they recognise that their interests lie in peace, and I submit that any policy which would put war farther off would be to the interest of the farmers of the country. But we do contend that if we have a supply of wheat at home we will be in a stronger position in case of war. It is generally admitted that it is the policy of other countries, not being able to contend with us, to attack our colonies in the event of war, and if we are safe at home our fleet will be able to defend them. There was one extraordinary argument used by the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He objected to this proposal because it is part of what he calls a system of possible defence. I am glad if he means a

1177
general policy of possible defence. How can it be a policy of possible defence to take precautions to feed our soldiers and our population? Can anyone fight better on an empty stomach? I do not think for a moment that argument will stand the light of criticism. I regret if I have occupied the attention of the House too long, but I was only referring to the proposal for which I am myself responsible.
SIR MARK STEWART: I must congratulate the honourable Member who has just sat down for going more closely into the question of granaries, as that is a matter which really concerns the farmers' interests more than any other. Now, I must say I cannot think there is much in the argument at all. I question if any Government in the world would undertake the great responsibility that national granaries would involve, and the President of the Board of Trade has put the reasons very fairly and fully before the House, but he did make a certain statement in his speech which I am rather surprised at hearing from the Front Bench. My right honourable Friend said that there never was a time in which land was better cultivated than at present. That cannot be said to be the case. My experience is that where land is still cultivated, it is cultivated with less than half the amount of capital expenditure than formerly, and, therefore, it does not produce the same quantity and quality in crops. That is a serious statement, but it is perfectly true, and I tell my right honourable Friend, with the greatest courtesy, that if he leaves the House under that impression he is utterly misinformed. What we want is a good market for our produce. I cannot see that any storage of grain, or any of the other remedies mentioned, will give us a larger supply of wheat. I am perfectly certain that in the event of war quantities of wheat would come into this country, only we should have to pay more for it. We cannot prevent grain coming here. The high prices would press hardly on the working classes, and that would be the great drawback. As it is understood that the matter is engaging the attention of the Government, I think we may rest satisfied that it will not be forgotten, and I hope my honourable Friend will not press
1178
his Amendment to a Division after the very instructive Debate we have had.
MR. SETON-KARR: After the discussion which has taken place, and after the assurances given by the right honourable Gentleman, I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Question, "That those words be there, added," put, and negatived.
Main Question again proposed.

IRELAND (LEGISLATIVE INDEPENDENCE).
Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
"And we humbly assure Your Majesty that the establishment of popular self-government in local affairs in Ireland has intensified the demand of the people of that country for Legislative Independence, without which Ireland can never be prosperous or contented, and which, in our opinion, is, and must remain, the most urgent of all questions of domestic policy."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
MR. J. REDMOND: I hope to be able in a very brief space of time to explain to the House of Commons the motives which have induced me to move this Amendment. Indeed, the circumstances in which this question of Home Rule seem to stand at the present moment are so peculiar that I think scarcely any explanation of the moving of this Amendment is needed at all. It will be in the recollection of some Members of the House that in moving a similar Amendment at this time last year I expressed my utter disbelief in the efficacy of annual Home Rule Debates, and I said that I looked to entirely different methods to force this question once more upon the urgent attention of Parliament. But last year there were two reasons why it seemed to me absolutely essential to move an Amendment of this character. First of all, a great Measure of Local Self-Government for Ireland had been promised by the Ministry, and was about to be introduced. The fact that this Measure was accepted and welcomed by Irish Nationalists was held by certain English politicians to

1179
argue the abandonment of the national demand on the part of the Irish people, and, therefore, it was felt necessary at the commencement of last Session for us to reiterate in the most emphatic manner in our power that local self-government could never be a substitute for Home Rule, and that Ireland could never be prosperous, contented, or peaceful except by the concession of national self-government. It also seemed necessary to us to warn English politicians of all parties that the Irish people would use the new powers about to be conferred on them under the local government system as so many weapons to assist them in obtaining the realization of their demand. It further seemed to some of us, in the second place, in view of the uncertain, unsatisfactory, unofficial declarations of many leading Liberal politicians upon this question, that it was necessary to endeavour, if we could, to extract from responsible leaders of the Liberal Party in this House some clear and authoritative pronouncement upon this subject—some such pronouncement as would enable Ireland to see precisely where she stood and enable the Irish people to gauge the exact position of that Liberal alliance to preserve which Mr. Parnell was sacrificed, and from which Ireland has obtained so little. We wanted to ascertain how far it would be well for her that that alliance should be continued in the future. In addition to that, it seemed advisable to us to make an effort to learn whether, as a matter of fact, the political ground in Ireland had been so cleared by recent developments on this question as to facilitate a re-union of the Nationalist forces in Ireland on the basis of complete independence of all political parties in this House. If these reasons seem sufficient to justify the moving of a Motion such as this last year, I venture to say that no one will deny the absolute necessity for moving it this year. Many things have happened since this time last year. The Local Government Act, for example, has come into operation, some of the new popularly-elected bodies have already been created, and the rest of them will be elected in the course of a very few weeks. The alliance subsisting between the Liberal Party and the Nationalist forces in Ireland has, during the year which has passed, been practically re-
1180
pudiated on a score of Liberal platforms, in a score of great leading organs of Liberal public opinion in this country, and by a score of Liberal leaders. The doctrine has been pronounced that, before Home Rule can be again regarded as within the range of practical polities for the Liberal Party, some years must be allowed to elapse to enable English Liberals to see whether, after all, the demand for legislative independence has not been satisfied by the concession of parish and county councils. Under these circumstances the Amendment such as I now have the honour to move seems quite essential in the interests of Home Rule. Let me ask the House for just one brief moment to consider, so far as the Local Government Act has worked in Ireland, what indication there is that anyone, either a Home Ruler or a Unionist, regards that Act as anything at all in the nature of a substitute for Home Rule. Elections have already taken place in the cities and towns of Ireland, and throughout the south-west and east, and in some parts of the north, overwhelming Nationalist majorities have been elected. And the very first act of all these bodies has been to make a formal declaration of their adhesion to the principle of national self-government, meaning thereby legislative independence. Already from the working of this Act, so far as it has gone, it is perfectly clear that the great masses of the Irish people are determined to work it in whatever way seems most likely to them to promote the interests of Home Rule in the future. On this point there is no difference of opinion at all among the various sections of the Nationalist Party, although it is true there are differences of view as to how best to use the Act for that purpose. For example, some Nationalists hold the view that the best way to utilise local government for the purpose of Home Rule is to take care that no one is elected upon any of these bodies who is not an avowed Homo Ruler, no matter what his other qualifications, and no matter how strong the Nationalist majorities upon those bodies may be. Others take the view which I have myself expressed in this House, and which I have expressed more than once in Ire land, that once a Home Rule majority on these county councils is secured, these men should, as far as possible, be

1181
selected upon their merits, apart from questions of religion and politics. But mark, Sir, the object we have in view is the same, viz., to use this Local Government Bill as best we can to further Home Rule. Those who would exclude every non-Home Ruler from election do so in fear lest by their election politicians in this country might be led to believe that the Irish people were weakening in their demand for Home Rule; while those, on the other hand, who, like myself, would gladly see a certain proportion of capable men, even if they be Unionists, elected upon these bodies, do so in the belief that by being associated with this work they may come to know the masses of the people better, to better understand them, to better recognise their good sense and business capabilities, and thus find that their great objection to Home Rule—their distrust of the people—would vanish into thin air. I believe that this process is going on in Ireland at the present moment; I believe there are many men who have been Unionists in Ireland in the past, and in the recent past, who are turning their thoughts in the direction of a future when they may be able to work hand in hand with the masses of their fellow countrymen, and when they may be able to welcome the widening bonds of freedom for Ireland generally. If that process goes on, as I believe it will, then the result to the future of Ireland cannot but be good. I do not desire to argue which of these two points is right. The one point I wish to make is this, that the object which all sections have in view is the same, that all sections, whether they think non-Home Rulers should be excluded from these councils or not, are united in their desire to use this Local Government Act as best they can to advance the interests of Home Rule. I am bound to say that whatever hesitation or doubt as to the effect of the Local Government Act on Home Rule may be entertained by right honourable Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, I am bound, in all candour, to admit that there is no delusion on this subject among right honourable Gentlemen opposite. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House and the Chief Secretary for Ireland have both spoken upon this question quite recently, and the words that they have used are so remarkable
1182
and have created so strong an impression in Ireland that I do not scruple to read a few passages from their speeches. What did the Leader of the House say in Manchester the other day? He said, "I know there are some persons who tell you that Home Rule is dead in Ireland. I wish I could believe that was true. Remember Home Rule is intertwined with Irish aspirations. The Irish people did not wake up one morning to find themselves Home Rulers. They did not date the birth of their affection from some Monday in 1886 with the same precision as one put down on his diary the birth of a child. They had not, in theological language, "found salvation one morning. Their aspirations have been of such long growth that they cannot and will not die in a day." I quote these words in order to show that whoever else may be under a misapprehension, the right honourable Gentleman himself does not cherish any such delusion. I would not be going too far if I said that his words were appreciated in Ireland as words which showed that he recognised the deep and intense reality of this national sentiment. The Chief Secretary also spoke a few days ago on this question, and he, too, made it clear that he entertained no delusion as to the effect of this Local Government Bill; on the contrary, and this is most remarkable, he admitted that the ordinary moderate and sensible working of this Act, which he anticipated in Ireland, would remove from English Home Rulers' minds one of the strongest arguments which they have entertained against Home Rule, viz., the belief that the Irish people, highly qualified as they admittedly are for the exercise of the arts of government in every other land on the earth, are unfit to rule themselves in their own country. Having said so much, let me turn for a moment to the declarations on this question which have been made during the Recess by the leaders of the Opposition. Last year the then Leader of the Opposition professed to find in a certain phrase in the Amendment which I moved an excuse for voting against it. He also made the excuse for refraining from giving any pledge whatever as to the future relations of his party with the question of Home Rule. Because the phrase "Independent Parliament" appeared in my Amendment the then Leader of the Opposition thought

1183
he had found a valid excuse for voting against it. I confess I thought at the time that the objection of the right honourable Gentleman was a rather paltry quibble. Does anyone pretend to doubt that we Irish Nationalists have always held that any Irish Parliament that is established in our own country must be in its own sphere, and in the discharge of its own functions, independent of interference—independent of the mischievous and ignorant interference of this Imperial Parliament? Mr. Parnell, whose demands it was said last year I had outstepped, repeatedly declared that in the Irish Parliament to be created there should be no veto except the veto of the Crown, which should be exercised there as in England, on constitutional principles, and in conformity with the wishes of the Irish Ministers of the Sovereign.
MR. DILLON: Can you give the date of that?
MR. J. REDMOND: That declaration was made repeatedly by Mr. Parnell, and the last time he made it was at Water-ford. He made it as far back as the year 1880, if my recollection serves me right, in the City of Cork. If I had imagined that anybody would have questioned it, I would have brought the dates down to the House. I am surprised that the honourable Member asks for the date, for I have quoted it in his presence at least a dozen times. I will give him another authority. I do not know whether Mr. Gladstone's words will carry more weight, but I find that he repeatedly used the term "independent" with reference to the Parliament he was proposing to create in 1886 and in 1893. On the 10th May, 1886, Mr. Gladstone said that the Irish Legislature would be practically an independent body in the regular exercise of its functions. And on the 7th of the following month he said the Irish Legislature would have a real and practical independent management of its own affairs. That being so, I sincerely hope that even with the promptings which he has received, the right honourable Gentleman the new Leader of the Opposition, if he speaks in this Debate, as I am sure he will, will not make any particular phrase which may be used by me, either in my Amendment or in my speech, an excuse for withholding what I ask from him—a frank and manly answer to the
1184
question which we feel it our duty to address to him, recognising, as I am sure the right honourable Gentleman must do, that in the interests of his own Party, just as much as in the interests of Ireland, it is essential that there should be no more room for further misunderstanding or recrimination. The speech which the right honourable Gentleman made on the first night of the Session was listened to with sympathy and admiration by everyone. It was certainly listened to, in addition, with interest and curiosity, but I fear it must have been heard by Irishmen with deep disappointment. He dealt in that speech with every conceivable subject of foreign and domestic policy except Ireland—truly he may be said to have surveyed the world from China to Peru, China, Russia, France, and Germany all in turn engaged his attention. He dealt with the subjects in the Queen's Speech and those excluded from it, with the affairs of the Empire, with the interests of England, and with the needs of Scotland. All these things in turn came under his critical observation. But of Ireland, her sorrows, her wrongs, and her needs, we did not hear a single syllable from the right honourable Gentleman. Possibly he may have been reserving himself for this Motion; if so, he now has his opportunity. It may be asked what exactly it is that we want to know. I will tell the House. We want to know from the future Leader of the Liberal party in this House what his view is as to the alliance which has existed between a large section of the Nationalists of Ireland and the Liberal party. We want to know does that alliance still exist; if it does exist, upon what conditions? There have been during the Recess many interesting speeches upon this very point from men of the highest authority in the Liberal Party. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton solemnly declared that the alliance was at an end. Is that so? May I be allowed to quote one or two sentences from the speech of the right honourable Gentleman? He said that this year the alliance had been dissolved, not by the Liberal party, but by the Irish, and he did not blame them for it. If they thought that their interests would be best served by being absolutely independent of English parties they had

1185
a perfect right to that opinion. But if the alliance was dissolved on both sides they could not maintain obligations as against either; if one were released from them, the other must be. He was not surprised at the dissolution of the alliance; there was a difference of opinion between the bulk of the Irish Members and the English and Scotch Liberals on the question of education. He also said we must go back in politics to the old lines. His opinion was that there was a much stronger Conservative feeling in Ireland than Liberal. They would welcome the support of the Irish Members in the future, but if they would not give their support to the Liberal party, then they must do without it. The Local Government Act must be fairly, fully, and completely tried before they would reconsider the question of any further change in the government of Ireland.
SIR H. FOWLEE: Read the exact words. I did not say that.
MR. J. REDMOND: The right honourable Gentleman, I am sure, does not mean to accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting him. I am reading exactly from the report which is in my hands. Here are the exact words: "The Local Government Bill should be fully, fairly, and completely tried before they would reconsider the question of any further change in the government of Ireland."
SIR H. FOWLER: I quite appreciate the position of the honourable and learned Gentleman, and I am sure he would not wish to misrepresent what I said. The report from which he is quoting is not a verbatim nor an accurate report. I will tell the honourable and learned Gentleman now—it will probably save him and me trouble—exactly what I did say. I said, after having quoted the honourable Member's own words with reference to the Local Government Act, and also the words of some of his colleagues, that it was a great experiment that was about to be tried, and that many questions would be raised as to the manner in which the experiment would be carried out. Having said that and expressed a very friendly feeling towards the experiment, I uttered these words: "I venture to express the opinion that the constituencies of Great
1186
Britain will require that this experiment should be fully, fairly, and completely tried before they will reconsider the question of any change in the government of Ireland." I was not speaking for the Liberal party. I was expressing my own opinion as to what the constituencies of Great Britain would require.
MR. J. REDMOND: I suppose the right honourable Gentleman was also expressing his own opinion as to what would be the proper course for him to take. I certainly would not deliberately misquote the right honourable Gentleman's words. I quoted from a report in the newspapers, and as far as I can see the explanation now given only carries me to the second sentence which I was going to quote, and which, from my point of view, is quite as serious as the first. The right honourable Gentleman, according to the report which I have in my hands, went on to say that it was of no use shutting their eyes to the fact that they could not carry Home Rule with the consent of the constituencies of England and Scotland. As we have the consent of the constituencies of Scotland, of course, that means we cannot carry it with the consent of the majority of the constituencies of England, which is simply a reiteration of Lord Rosebery's predominant partner theory, and which is regarded by me, and by the Irish people generally, as a postponement of Home Rule for all practical purposes for the immediate future. Is that a correct account of what the right honourable Gentleman said? He says he was only speaking for himself. The reason I quoted him was not that I imagined he took upon himself to speak for the Liberal party, but because I wanted to put it to the Leader of the Liberal party, and to ask him does he endorse a declaration which amounts to this, that it is practically impossible for the Liberal party to carry Home Rule until a majority of the English constituencies agree, and that the English constituencies cannot be expected to agree until the Local Government Act has been fully and fairly tried, which must necessarily be a matter of some years. The right honourable Gentleman states that the alliance has been dissolved. Is that so? If it is so, then I, for my part, heartily rejoice at it. Ireland obtained nothing from the alliance but dis-

1187
appointment, heart-burning, and dissensions. To preserve it a great Irishman was sacrificed, and I am profoundly convinced that Ireland can never again become united, respected, or powerful except on the basis of absolute independence of English parties in this House. I will not deal further with the speech of the right honourable Gentleman except to say that the position which he has taken up is an absolute reversal of the policy of Mr. Gladstone, and so long as it remains the attitude of the Liberal Party, if it is declared to be their attitude tonight, so long will it be impossible for them to return to power in this House by Irish votes, and I leave it to the party-managers to conjecture how soon they are likely to return to power without Irish votes. But I have a higher authority than the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The new Leader of the Opposition has himself spoken quite recently upon this question. According to a report in The Times of 7th of December last he delivered a speech at Dunfermline in which he said:—
"The Liberal Party were neither blind, deaf, nor idiotic. They must take facts as they found them. Two heroic attempts had been made within the last few years to carry out Home Rule. They had failed, though sustained by the genius and enthusiasm of Mr. Gladstone. Could they shut their eyes to the fact that the preponderating opinion in England was opposed to Home Rule, and that a third attempt in the present circumstances to pass it would really mean a third failure? What would be gained by going on kicking against a stone wall?"
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Read a little more.
MR. J. REDMOND: I have read all I have got. The Times report stops there. I have read one connected passage verbatim from The Times.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Times does not give it all.
MR. J. REDMOND: I have stated I was reading from The Times' report. I have not the magical power at my command to know what the right honourable Gentleman said except through the medium of the Press, and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will be thankful if I give him the opportunity of showing that the report published in
1188
The Times, and commented upon for so many weeks, was entirely wrong.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The honourable Gentleman will, perhaps, allow me to follow the example of my right honourable Friend and supplement the quotation. I said that in the present circumstances it was kicking against a stone wall. I was speaking of the proposal some people make that we should go on, if I may use a homely word, hammering at this subject at the present time, which seems to be the theory of the honourable Member himself. Then I went on to say the time might come, and that sooner than many people expected, when the stone wall would be loosened by the action of other influences, and it might crumble even of itself, or something to that effect. I said that if we had a little patience—it may be a short spell of patience—the stone wall might crumble of itself.
MR. J. REDMOND: The right honourable Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I do not think his addition to the quotation I read has improved his position on this question. He says there is a stone wall, and that it is of no use going on kicking against it. He hopes, and this is the only addition he makes, he expresses a pious hope that some day or other, if we live long enough, other influences may loosen the stones in the wall—other influences outside the action of the Liberal Party—and when this convenient gap is made he will be valiant enough to go through it. The speech of the right honourable Gentleman is the predominant partner speech of Lord Rosebery over again. Lord Rosebery spoke about the predominant partner, the right honourable Gentleman speaks about the predominant opinion in England, and says it must be converted, not before Home Rule is carried, but before any further attempt is made to carry it. He speaks, indeed, of the third attempt. In other words, England, Scotland, and Ireland may be united in support of Home Rule; those countries may, as they did in 1893, return a substantial majority in favour of Home Rule, but yet the stone wall will remain, and no third attempt is to be made by the Liberal Party to carry this Measure so long as the preponderating opinion in England is against it. Might I suggest

1189
there are other words in which this determination of the right honourable Gentleman might be put? Does it not amount to this—that the Liberal Party will never again propose a Home Rule Bill unless it has a majority which is independent of the votes of Irish Nationalists in this House. If that be so, then I think that contingency is likely to arrive with the Greek kalends, and it amounts to an absolute abandonment by the right honourable Gentleman of the position of the Liberal Party as defined by Mr. Gladstone—a complete and, I venture to say, shameful repudiation of their pledges to the Irish people. In my view, the time has arrived for plain speaking. If that be the view of the Liberal Party, let them say so frankly and officially, and then we shall know where we stand. My Amendment is not merely a declaration in favour of the Home Rule principle. It is also a declaration that Home Rule is the most urgent of all questions of domestic reform, and therefore must be dealt with first. That surely was an essential condition of the alliance entered into between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell. It surely was an essential condition of the alliance when we were told that the highest interest of Ireland was to support the Liberal Party. And if I understand aright the declaration of the right honourable Gentleman, that declaration, at any rate, has gone to the winds. That, at any rate, I say was the position of Mr. Gladstone, and was the programme and platform of the Liberal Party when the Irish alliance was entered upon, and it was on the faith of the condition that Home Rule should have the foremost place in the programme of the Liberal Party that the Irish people—to their great sorrow, as I believe they now realise—consented to abandon the great man who had extracted that alliance from the Liberal Party. We want to know what is now the position of the Liberal Party on this question. We want to know whether the right honourable Gentleman stands by his words at Dunfermline, as reported in The Times, and amplified by himself to-day. If so, is that the true mind of the Liberal Party? If so, then, for my part, I do not fear the result which this declaration may have either upon Ireland or her cause, for I believe it will lead to a great revival of national enthusiasm and activity in that country.
1190
The Irish people have been too often in the past deceived and betrayed by English political parties to lose heart now. They have been for some years past learning afresh in pain and disappointment the lesson that is written large on every page of their history—that for the achievement of their rights and liberties they must trust not to the benevolence of English politicians, but to their own determination and self-sacrifice and union. If there is a new period of struggle, suffering, and sacrifice before us, then I believe the Irish people will face the issue cheerfully, as they well know that the cause they were advocating does not depend upon the fickle and fair-weather friendship of apostles of expediency like the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, but upon something sounder, surer, and deeper—namely, upon the national sentiment of the country, which is the soul of the nation and which they know can never die. I beg to move the Amendment.
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
MR. J. P. HAYDEN: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the Amendment proposed by my honourable Friend, I do not think it necessary to delay the House at any great length. With regard to the first portion of the proposition, that the Local Government Act has intensified the feeling of the Irish people for self-government, I am able to bear my personal testimony to that fact, because during the last couple of months I have met, in connection with the working of the Local Government Act, a large number of people, in two or three counties at least in Ireland, who have always believed in the right of Ireland to national self-government. That belief is, if possible, though I think it is hardly possible, very much stronger since the concession of Local Government was made last Session. On the other hand, I do not know, from personal contact with many who have been previously Unionist in Ireland, of any growth of opinion in the opposite direction. In some instances, indeed, the opposition to National rights is nominal, or, at least, in many cases is not what it was formerly. There are many landlords in

1191
Ireland who formerly might have been classed as strong Unionists, but these men are now looking forward to seeking election at the hands of the people upon the new district and county councils, and the landlords themselves have acknowledged that Ireland is as well able and as much entitled to manage her own affairs as this country. In other cases, they have boldly declared in favour of self-government. I know two or three instances in which this was the case, and there have been other cases, again, in which these people, though still not declaring themselves in favour of legitimate independence for Ireland, have recognised that if the majority of the Irish people continue to insist upon this claim for independence, it ought to be given to them by this Parliament. Their opposition is, as I have said, by no means what it used to be. The fact that the Land Question is partly on its way to a settlement by the creation of peasant proprietors has taken away from many the great cause which has previously existed in favour of the Union. Then it is seen also that local administrative power which has been exercised in Ireland all through the centuries has now been taken away from the landlords, and that no longer have they any interest in looking towards this Parliament for the maintenance of their power in the country. In some cases where they are unable to declare, along with the majority of their countrymen, in favour of Home Rule, they have intimated in their addresses to the electors that, at least, if they are not able to support in the councils any motion in favour of Home Rule, they will not offer any opposition, as they believe that the wishes of the people upon such matters should be heard in those councils. There is no class in Ireland—at least in these Provinces—that does not acknowledge the right of the people to work the councils established by the Act of last Session for the advancement of the National cause, and where candidates do not feel themselves justified in declaring their intention to support such declarations, they at least state to the electors beforehand their belief in the desire of the Irish people to work the councils for such objects, and that in no case will they thwart the wishes of the people in this matter. Now, this is a fact which shows the unmistakable trend of public opinion
1192
in Ireland, and it proves that whilst the old National spirit has been maintained by the majority, it is growing and spreading amongst the minority, and those who really believe in the ultimate realisation of the dreams of Irishmen for self-government regard this fact with great satisfaction, for they believe that if there were once a practically united Ireland in favour of Home Rule, this Parliament would be powerless any longer to refuse the demand of the country. We agree also with the second part of the proposition, namely, that this is the most urgent claim that could come before this Parliament. This was recognised for some years by the Liberal Party. During the past few years they seem to have departed from that principle. Now, as long as there is dissatisfaction in such a large and important part of this realm as Ireland, as long as this demand exists unceasingly, as long as neither concession nor coercion can put down this feeling in the country, it must remain one at least of the most urgent that can claim the attention of this House. That being so, it is hard for us to realise why Members of this House, who are sent here by Great Britain, and who believe, as they say, as strongly as we do, in the right of Ireland to self-government, should depart from the policy adopted by the late Mr. Gladstone. We look with surprise at the declaration made by Liberal Members that the Local Government Act is an experiment. I do not think that the statement has been made by any of the authors of the Act, because work done last Session can never be undone by this House. The Act is now in existence in the country; it is now part of the Statutes of the land, and no Minister, no Government, no Party, can ever repeal it. Avowedly, it was not brought in as an experiment to see whether the Irish people are fit for the full Measure. The manner in which the elections were carried out in the cities and towns of Ireland proves without question that the people of Ireland are willing and able to carry out any system of Local or National Government with credit to the country, and that they are determined to carry out this or any other Act given to them for any purpose in order to advance their National cause. That in the majority of cases the councils are overwhelmingly National is an admitted fact. That the new councils in

1193
the counties and rural districts will likewise be overwhelmingly National, everyone who has the slightest knowledge of the country must know. That they mean to work the Act for the advancement of the Home Rule cause is admitted now by everyone who has observed the actions of the people. In Ireland, as my honourable Friend pointed out, amongst some sections of Nationalists there is a slight difference of opinion as to whether men differing from the majority of the people should be elected on these councils. Now, whilst there is that slight difference between sections, as has been pointed out, there is absolutely no difference of opinion amongst other sections in Ireland as to the ultimate aim that should be observed by Nationalists in supporting the Act. They are all agreed, though differing slightly as to the methods, that the Act should be worked in order to advance the interests of Home Rule. Some say that the councils should be composed entirely of Nationalists; some say that the majority of the councils should be Nationalists, and that in every case councils should be prepared to raise their voice—or rather the voice of those who elected them—upon every National question that from time to time comes up, and especially upon the question of legislative independence. The representation of the minority and of all classes on the councils should be secured, so that representatives of the minority who may be elected may be brought into close and daily contact with the representatives of the majority, and convinced that the people of Ireland are capable of efficiently carrying out not only the complicated system of local government but of administering the affairs of the entire country. They believe that the Members of the minority who are thus brought into contact with the majority of their countrymen, whom previously, perhaps, they distrusted, will shortly be converted to the idea that Ireland is not only a nation, but that she is a nation fit and capable and deserving of legislative independence. I will not, Mr. Speaker, trouble the House with any further observations. No one will deny, I think, that the existence of the Local Government Act in Ireland has undoubtedly intensified the national desire, and the national feeling, and that it has, if possible, made this far more urgent a case
1194
to bring before this House than it has been, perhaps, at any previous time. I have pleasure, therefore, in seconding the Amendment.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any section of this House can complain of the action of the honourable and learned Member for Waterford in raising this question at this time. The uncertainty which seems to exist among Members of the Liberal Party concerning the position that Home Rule should occupy in this country is ample justification for the honourable Member testing the question in this House, and seeking to draw from the new and distinguished Leader of that Party an opinion on this question, which is vital to the Irish people. I think, Sir, that it must strike the House that there has been considerable difference of opinion on the part of the mover and the seconder of this Amendment in regard to the way in which the new Local Government Act will operate in Ireland. It has been suggested, on the one hand, that the Nationalists should put forth all their strength, in order that only Nationalists should be returned to the district and county councils; on the other hand, an enticing prospect has been held out that the Unionist Members, who by some unexplained means would get into these councils, would be so converted by the amiability and affability of their colleagues that their views would be changed, and they would become Home Rulers. It is also asserted that there is a growth of opinion in favour of Home Rule among Unionists in Ireland. That I most emphatically deny. We are told to-night in no uncertain way what the object of these district and county councils will be. We are told that nothing will satisfy but Home Rule, and that when the district and county councils are elected the members will rush at once into the council chambers, take off their hats, and cry out for Home Rule. The prospect altogether is not a happy one for those who desire to see councils elected which would develop practically the material prosperity of the country. We are told that questions of roads, bridges, infirmaries, and the like are immaterial considerations for the great patriots of this noble land, and that the objects of those elected to

1195
those councils is to put Home Rule in the front. I, for one, cordially supported the Bill for the local government of Ireland, and entertained a hope that Irishmen would take advantage of it to prove themselves capable of managing their own affairs. We are told that the lesson we are to learn from this gift of local self-government to Ireland is that they will set everything on one side, and do nothing for the country until they have got Home Rule, I shall be happy to be mistaken on this point, and to be informed that this wave of insanity is going to recede. I shall be proud to learn that they are desirous of developing the best interests of the country. I had no intention to take part in this Debate, but having risen I desire most emphatically to protest against this Amendment on the part of the section of the people of Ulster, to which I belong. Since I entered the House of Commons, 30 years ago, I have never hesitated, in the best interests of Ireland, to protest against this idle dream. We desire to see the material progress and prosperity of Ireland, and because we do so we are anxious that it should continue to be an integral part of this great Empire. The Unionists of Ireland heartily co-operate with their fellow subjects in promoting the best interests of the country; but they are resolutely determined to do everything possible to prevent the severing of that link which binds us to Great Britain, and to maintain the integrity of the British Empire.
MR. HALDANE: Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member for South Belfast referred in the beginning of his speech with some complacency to the remarks which had fallen from the honourable Member for Waterford. I confess that, speaking for myself, I am not surprised at the complacency of the honourable Member's tone, because I was in some difficulty in understanding what the precise object was of the speech and Motion of the Honourable Member for Waterford. If the honourable Member desires to make co-operation with the members of the Liberal Party difficult upon this subject, I cannot help thinking that he selected the best possible means of doing it. The honourable Member inserted into his motion the word "independent," which increases the difficulties, but the honourable Member was not content with that. Upon this, again, he
1196
made a sort of apologia for the right honourable Gentleman, the Leader of the House, and the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He praised the sincerity of their utterances, and contrasted what they had said with what he was pleased to characterise as a great falling off and a great going back of the Liberal Party. Well, I will speak for myself. I was one of those who had the honour to vote for both Bills brought in by Mr. Gladstone. I in no way go back on that vote. If these Bills were reintroduced under the same conditions and circumstances and as part of the same policy, I should vote for them with all my heart again. I am as strong a Home Ruler as ever I was, and I believe that my frame of mind represents that of most of those with whom I have the honour to associate myself. Not content with drawing invidious contrasts between Unionist leaders, of whose Administrations he seems to come forward as a prophet instead of the assailant, the honourable Member for Waterford brings forward this Amendment—and, I ask, with what object? He has introduced into it language the meaning of which is, to say the least, as explained by himself, ambiguous. I listened to get a definition of what he meant by "independent"—to get something which would throw light on what was in the mind of the honourable Member. I listened to various platitudinous utterances about the interference of the Imperial Parliament with Irish legislation. Does anybody suppose that the granting of Home Rule in any shape or form should be accompanied by any constant interference? I think the object of Home Rule was that Ireland should be free from interference with its affairs, which I believe would be administered satisfactorily by the people to whom they would be entrusted. But that was not the purpose for which the honourable Member introduced this word into his Amendment. I had the privilege of listening to the speech of the honourable Member for Waterford last year, when he brought forward a similar motion, though somewhat varying in language, but to the same effect as the Motion which is now before the House. He then brought out more clearly than he has to-night what was the real meaning of this Motion. He told us on that occasion that the scheme which had been introduced by Mr. Parnell was a

1197
scheme which did not represent the real desires of the Irish people; that the scheme was a compromise, and what he meant by the introduction of the word "independence" was a Parliament which should be quite outside even the theoretical control of the British Party. I listened to the speech of the honourable Member most closely and most carefully, and I found that he explained that this word meant something more than mere general non-interference in the legislative affairs of the country. I found that he wanted the establishment of a Party in Ireland, in which the British Party should in no sense, even theoretically, be supreme. Now, I should like to ask the honourable Member for Waterford, if he were here, a question. The honourable Member asked many questions of my right honourable Friend, who, no doubt, will answer them in due time, but if I might put a simple question to the honourable Gentleman, which he may answer in the course of the Debate, I would ask him, what is his attitude, not to the Liberal Party, but to Mr. Parnell? Does he, or does he not, accept the scheme of Home Rule which Mr. Parnell put forward, and to which he pledged, not only himself, but the whole of the Nationalist Party That did not ask for the complete independence of which the honourable Gentleman has just spoken to-night. What he means by this Motion is to lay down something new to what Mr. Parnell meant. Now a Parliament constituted like that to which Mr. Parnell referred would in a measure be independent from interference from the legislature here, but it would not be independent in the sense of the speeches of the honourable Member for Waterford last year and to-night, and when the honourable Member introduces this new phrase I want to know whether he is advocating the scheme which Mr. Parnell advocated or not. If he is introducing such a scheme, why does he introduce those new words? If this Motion is to be so amended as to make for the Home Rule to which I am pledged—not merely by paper pledges—but in which I am a firm believer, then I will gladly support it, but if he will not so amend it then I cannot help drawing the inference that this Motion has been framed in the way in which it has been, and these
1198
words have been introduced to sow dissension as to what is meant by Home Rule, not only amongst the honourable Members with whom he sits, but between the Liberal Party and those representatives of Irish constituencies with whom they are in complete accord. Now, so much for the Motion. Until I have had it explained, and until I know whether or not I am going to be asked to go further than I intend, I shall not vote for the Motion. But the honourable Member has raised, as he is quite entitled to, the general question in this House, and I want to say a few words upon it, definitive of the position which I occupy, and in which I conceive this question to stand. At the end of 1885, Mr. Gladstone became convinced that the system under which Ireland was governed had not been a success, and with the extension of the franchise he found it was no longer possible, and that the affairs of Ireland required an alteration in the system of the Government. He recognised that the mode of Government in Ireland had been a failure—I should not be in order or I could refer to a Motion, which comes later in the paper, upon the Address, which contains facts and figures which we might consider here—a population diminished from 8,000,000 to four and a half millions, agricultural industry falling away, the area under cultivation being diminished by many acres, the people disagreeing more and more with the Government which they ought to look upon with feelings of affection. All these facts point to a failure in our system of governing Ireland, and that was, I take it, the foundation of the appeal Mr. Gladstone made to this country. But there was another thing which was in Mr. Gladstone's mind, and which is in the minds of some of us at the present time: We have extended the franchise again and again, and always get a solid adverse Irish vote; then how can you hope to continue to govern Ireland under the present system? The present majority of 140 is not a state of things which will continue for ever, and sooner or later you will have two Parties put under the temptation of bidding for Irish support. There are no higher motives than those which were in the mind of one of the purest-minded English statesmen who

1199
ever sat in Dublin Castle—I mean Lord Carnarvon—and which brought him to the opinion that it was impossible to conduct affairs in Ireland unless some radical change in the system of Government was made. I do not want to go back into past history, but I believe that the time will come when the balance of the two parties will be more equal. Then, in whatever form you debate it, you will be brought face to face with circumstances which will make it necessary for you to reconsider the whole situation, and you will wish at the time that the whole question had been dealt with as one too grave for Party Government. That was Mr. Gladstone's wish, but the desire that he expressed was a desire that was not responded to. I venture to think that the Party, whether Unionist or Liberal, will gain a great glory who will bring to some satisfactory settlement a question which disturbs our Debates, and destroys the efficiency of Parliament, and which will never be settled until we have brought about a change with which four-fifths of the representatives of Ireland are content. Now, Mr. Speaker, at present circumstances appear to me to point to this, that we are nearing more and more something like the old crisis. First of all, I will refer to the remarkable convergence of opinion on the financial relations question, which has brought about a remarkable obliteration of political differences between Home Rulers and Unionists, who are united to defend the claim of Ireland to financial claim. A claim which can only be supported on one footing, that Ireland is to be treated as a nation: a unit, a place which has its own national life, and is entitled to sever itself from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the basis which underlies the financial question and the Home Rule policy, and which has brought together men like the honourable and gallant Member who sits opposite, who league themselves with Nationalist Members for that purpose. There is another question with which the Government are face to face of great gravity, and that is Local Government are face to face of great cast the result of this legislation. I do not profess to be able to follow the policy of the honourable Gentleman the Member for Waterford, who says that
1200
his aim is to bring together the landlord party and associate them with the Nationalist Party.
MR. J. REDMOND: I never mentioned a word about the landlords.
MR. HALDANE: Well, Unionists; it comes to pretty much the same thing. In the three provinces where the voice of the honourable Member is heard it comes very much to the same thing. His policy is to associate the Unionist with the Nationalist in the County Councils, and bring them together to advocate the policy of an independent Parliament It seems to me to be an odd policy, but the fact remains, whether through his instrumentality or some other, the Unionist landlord party in three provinces in Ireland are sitting very closely side by side with people of different political opinions, and the Government for the first time is face to face with this: hitherto the landlords of Ireland have been pretty well indifferent as to what the views of the Irish representatives in Parliament were. They had their local affairs in their own hands, and it did not trouble them very much. But now you have a different situation. You have the landlord—the Unionist—party in Ireland fighting for their lives on the County Councils, and what will happen is what always does happen when that occurs. The landlords are showing signs already of combining upon this question of local government as they combined on the question of financial relations. You have got the spectacle of men sitting and working together who never combined and worked together before. It is astonishing, compared with what they did before; and the result is that the Government is face to face with this combination, which it has never had to face before, and which is making the government of Ireland under the existing system yet more difficult than it is today. Then there is a third question with which the Government is face to face. I, for one, shall never in this House raise my voice in the least to embarrass the First Lord of the Treasury in the most courageous and high-minded attempt which he made the other day to take a step towards the settlement of the problem of higher education in Ireland. That seemed to me to be the act of a

1201
statesman—a statesman who went beyond the trammels of Party in order to attain an end which he thought a just end. But whatever be the merit of this question, the result of it is unmistakable. You have got this—you have got a new grievance upon which the Irish people are united, but which apparently—it is premature to speak—the Government are not ready to approach with any immediate legislative solution. There, again, Mr. Speaker, you have got a third factor with which the Government is face to face, and which makes still more difficult the pursuit of the policy which, as long ago as 1885, Mr. Gladstone declared to be no longer possible to be pursued effectively with an extended franchise. If we dispute over the terms of Bills; if we begin at the wrong end by quibbling over the word "independent,"—bring it up in such a way as to create divisions between people who have worked together, unnecessarily and without any apparent reason—then I venture to think that those who bring forward such motions will only work the end of the Party opposite. But if we apply our minds to finding out what underlies this policy of Home Rule, and define our duty in accordance with the principle which underlies it, I venture to think we shall at last have the chance of making some progress. Mr. Gladstone clothed his policy in two Bills. Those Bills were in the form in which, having regard to the time and circumstances, it seemed to Mr. Gladstone best to deal with his policy. Mr. Gladstone thought it necessary to accomplish a great reform which he had in view as far as possible at a stroke—as far as possible—and, with his great genius, he thought there was at least a chance that the people of this country would be converted to that policy; a forecast the truth of which was verified by the fact that that which had been predicted as impossible had become-possible and the Home Rule Bill passed through all its stages in this House. But the policy of Mr. Gladstone was, I believe, much larger than the particular form in which it was clothed. That particular form meant not only that things were to be done at once, but it meant finality. I have always recognised that there was something to be said against that notion of finality; that notion that you shall go so far and no farther, which was characteristic, and
1202
necessarily characteristic, of Mr. Gladstone's scheme, which sought to accomplish everything at once. It was not so that we dealt, and dealt successfully, with matters in our Colonies; in the Colonies the problem has been solved by granting the most complete system of self-government, a system of self-government which was given in the case of many of them step by step and bit by bit. I think there is nothing more striking than the way in which, I will not say honourable Gentlemen opposits, but their predecessors in office, differed from those who sit upon this side of the House in regarding ever manifestation of the spirit of nationality as evidence of a spirit of rebellion, and in refusing to recognise that there was safety as well as justice in the policy of entrusting people who were dependent with the management of their own affairs. It was by neglect of that that we lost some of the most important of our American Colonies. It was by recognition of that that the Government of Lord Melbourne, a little more than 60 years ago, solved the problem in Lower Canada, and made Quebec to-day one of the most contented and pacific portions of Her Majesty's Dominions. Between us and honourable Members who hold to the contrary view there is a great gulf fixed upon this question. Now, underneath Mr. Gladstone's policy there lay the recognition of this principle, the recognition of trusting people whom we trusted with the franchise with the management of their own affairs. But I am bound to say that I think Mr. Gladstone's notion of finality, Mr. Gladstone's notion of Bills which should do everything at once, and once and for all, was not necessarily the only form in which this policy should proceed. I think if you could proceed step by step, giving to the people of Ireland something, building upon that foundation which the Government—and I say it to their credit, because I think it has been a tremendous step—have afforded by the Local Government Act of last Session, by adding to that you could do something more, if you could go on building until your edifice becomes more and more complete, you would find that you would progress more and more easily as the people of this country become more and more convinced that it can be done safely, that it can be done securely, and so, bearing fruit, your labours would

1203
have a chance at least of resulting in the pacific government of Ireland by the representatives of the Irish people themselves. That is a policy which I believe to be a possible one for clothing the great principle which underlay Mr. Gladstone's two measures. It is a point of view from which the matter, perhaps, has not been contemplated, but I am not sure that it is not the way in which this matter will work out. I for my part decline to discuss the form in which the Home Rule principle is to be applied. I decline at this moment to discuss the question whether it is this Bill or that Bill. I notice that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, addressing his constituents the other day, advised them to put to any candidate on the Liberal side who stood on the platform the question "Will you vote for the Home Rule Bill of 1893 if it is introduced again?" If anybody asked me that question, I should ask him upon what common basis we were to meet and discuss the question. Is he, the right honourable Gentleman who favours those who put questions of that sort, in favour of the policy of giving to the people of Ireland control of their own affairs? Are the people who put this question themselves prepared to support the principle which was accepted, I believe, by the Liberal Party once and for all in 1886, which, whether in the form of the Bills of 1893 or 1886 was the same, and which, adopted to the circumstances of the time, must continue to be the policy of the Liberal Party if the problem of the government of Ireland is to be successfully solved? Now, Sir, that seems to me to be at the very root of this question at the present time. That seems to me to be the real point, the real substance, of what it is that we have to deal with just now. Those who believe in the principle will be prepared to give it effect. Why, then, a Bill such as the Bills of 1886 and 1893, or some other Bill adopted to the circumstances of the time, will be prepared to carry out their aim and object, which is to hand over to the people of Ireland in the fullest way the control of their own affairs. We wish to have as little interference with affairs in Ireland as we have with the House of Keys in the Isle of Man, or with the Legislative Assembly in Jersey. These are bodies which are subject to the
1204
control of this Parliament, with which we do not interfere, because we know that "no interference" is the best policy, the policy which has been justified by its fruit. To that we look forward. We are facing a problem which we have faced, and successfully faced, elsewhere, We are facing a problem which, wherever we have not courageously faced it, has led to failure in other parts of the world. I for one am told that the Irish, as a whole, are in favour of separation. My answer is, "Yes; and that is why I vote for Home Rule." It is because there is a desire for separation in Ireland—a not unnatural desire—for separation, a desire which is the inevitable outcome of the circumstances under which the people live. But when anybody asks me to pledge myself at this moment to some particular Bill, to give the details of some Bill, for which at some future time, under some future circumstances, I should be prepared to work, I say, "No." I am not sure that the time may not arrive when I shall find the honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh working side by side with honourable Members here for the cause of extending the self-government of Ireland by some very large measure which he will be advocating as zealously as he advocated financial relations and other matters. Well, Sir, we will judge when the time comes how we are to work. Meantime, I for one refuse to vote for the Motion of the honourable Member for Waterford, because I believe it to be a mischievous Motion— because I believe it to be a most mischievous Motion—because I believe it to be a Motion inconsistent with the declarations of the Party whose policy it professes to support, because I believe that it only seeks to sow strife between myself and other Members representing Ireland, and because I believe the main effect of its being brought forward is to assist and bolster up the system of government which he himself professes to be anxious to get rid of, and as to which we ought to have a common purpose. Holding these views. I would venture humbly to suggest to the honourable Member for Waterford that if he wishes to get an answer to this question which he says he is so anxious to receive an answer to; if he doubts the sincerity of the declarations of the Liberal Party, of people who have

1205
worked for the cause which he has at heart, of people who have spent their energies and their majorities in trying to get a Home Rule Bill through Parliament—if the honourable Member wishes to get a satisfactory answer to this question, then that he will direct himself to putting his Motion in such a form that we can vote for it.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Sir, I think one peculiarity must strike everybody in the House, and that is that in the speeches made on this Amendment there has not been an attack upon Her Majesty's Government; the attack has been by one section of gentlemen opposite upon the other; and therefore, Sir, under ordinary circumstances I should not have tried to mix myself up in what, naturally to me, is a very interesting family quarrel. But, Sir, I look upon this Debate as one of very great importance. I think, Sir, it will clear the air; I think it will bring before the country the exact position which Home Rule occupies in the public mind; and I look upon that as a matter of great importance. As for the speech of the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down, I can only say that if I was an Irish Nationalist I do not think I should look upon it with absolute satisfaction. He says he has got one eye on the Isle of Man and the other on Jersey, and he would vote for some Home Rule Bill at some time which is suitable to the circumstances. That renders the Home Rule Bill, I think, very uncertain; there is a possibility that it may be postponed ad infinitum. Now, Sir, the honourable and learned Gentleman also flatters himself with the fact that I and some of my colleagues have poined most cordially with honourable Gentlemen opposite—and I hope to do so again—on a matter which seems to me to be an injustice done to Ireland by this country. That shows to him that there is some tendency on our part to embrace the Nationalist cause. Well, Sir, he need not distress himself upon that point. There is just as much probability of my becoming a Home Ruler from the fact that I have had the honour of sitting with honourable Gentlemen opposite as there is of the honourable Member for Waterford joining the Orange organisation because I happened to sit in the same room with him. Sir, we have sat together upon those occa-
1206
sions most cordially. In former times, when financial inequalities were to be redressed in Ireland, it was invariably done, with the hearty concurrence of honourable Gentlemen opposite; by taking money out of one Irishman's pocket and putting it into another Irishman's pocket. Naturally we very much objected to that method of redress; but when it comes to a question of injustice on the part of Great Britain to Ireland, why, all Irishmen are agreed. Therefore, Sir, I think I have said enough about the speech of the honourable and learned Gentleman. He has left me absolutely in the dark as to what lie intends to do. He has not said that when he next stands before the electors of his Division he will place Home Rule M the forefront. He has not told us that is the main-plank upon which he, as a Liberal, intends to stand, and, therefore, as he has not done that, I do not think his speech can tend to comfort the hearts of the honourable Gentlemen opposite. Now, Sir, what is of vast interest to me in this Debate is this: it places the position of the Home Rule question fairly before the House and before the country. I think no one can fail to be struck by the amazing difference that we have seen in this Home Rule Debate in comparison with what happened in years gone by. We have none of the excitement; the floors are not occupied by chairs for Members coming to hear a great policy set forth. It is more a Debate of an academic character. Sir, I differ entirely from the honourable Gentleman for Waterford, and it is on a point of essential difference. I have never looked upon Home Rule in itself as a great question. From his point of view it is; from my point of view it is not. Home Rule is the embodiment of that dislike of English rule, and I think I might say almost of any rule, which, in the language of my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House, is entwined around the hearts of the Irish people. Sir, to make Home Rule a great question it requires a great man; and, Sir, I do not believe that the Home Rule question would ever have become a great and patent factor in British politics had it not been for two men who in their way were of great and masterful ability—Mr. Gladstone and the late Mr. Parnell. These

1207
two men combined and raised this question to a position in the forefront of British polities, and it became really for the first time, and I hope it may be for the last time, a really great political question, which divided the political parties of this country by almost an impassable gulf; more so, perhaps, than any question that has risen up in our time. Sir, these two men are gone, and there are no others to take their place. There is no man at the present moment; and although, of course, I admit the great ability of honourable Gentlemen who sit opposite, I think they will admit themselves that there is no man at the present moment alive who is capable of raising up this fallen question and making it one of political importance. Therefore, Sir, I do not intend to discuss the Home Rule question itself at all. I have spoken often in the House upon it. I have heard the honourable and learned Gentleman who has just spoken make almost the same speech any time before; appealing to the feelings of a people about whom he knows nothing, and suggesting courses which we ought to take which no Irishman would ever think of walking in. But what interests me, Sir, in this Debate is that it brings out the real position that Home Rule now occupies. Now, Sir, I conceive that to an Irish Unionist Home Rule at the present moment exactly occupies the position in which I like to see it. It has got its feet around the neck of the Radical Party. They would like to cast off this Old Man of the Sea, but they cannot, wriggle as they may. Sir, when I looked at that front Opposition Bench, as I did almost with sorrow, when the honourable Member for Waterford was making that brilliant speech to which we all listened with attention, it put me in mind of a very painful scene which I recollect happened to me in my early childhood. I and other unhappy victims were brought to a dentist's, and I remember we heard the horrid creature behind who told us to open our mouths, and we knew if we did he would have our teeth out on the spot. That is the operation the honourable Member for Waterford desires to perform. All his speech was directed to trying to open the mouths of the silent Gentlemen who sit on the seat above the Gangway. I
1208
have not seen any sign upon their countenance of a desire to burst forth into an eloquent Home Rule speech. What I say is this, they may remain silent if they please, but I say they owe it to this House, and they owe it not only to their own followers, but to the country, that they should explain the attitude that they intend to take. Some of them have spoken, I admit, in the country. There is the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Wolver hampton, to whose speech allusion has been already made, and the right honourable Baronet the Member for Berwick, whom I see in his place. Now, those two speeches I have given attention to, and if I were asked to describe those speeches I should say that those speeches indicated that those two right honourable Gentlemen simply meant to show that they were sick of Home Rule. I think that exactly and aptly describes the nature and character of those speeches. They described them selves as in the state of contemplation. Whether they are to be considered to be Home Rulers or not depends altogether upon the effect upon their minds of the action of the Irish district and Irish county councils. They did not inform us, and I suppose the honourable Gentleman opposite from Ireland will re member this, how long they intend to remain in contemplation. But, Sir, we are undoubtedly impressed—I am, at any rate—with the fact that they are heartily sick of Home Rule. I have often observed in crossing the Channel that if you see a passenger become contemplative it is a sign that the sea does not agree with him. And so I should like to know from those two right honourable Gentlemen how they are going to get this impression from the county councils in Ireland which is ultimately to determine whether they are going to remain Home Rulers or not. If the Irish county councils, as apparently will be the case, are to be elected entirety on a political basis—and that has been forced on by honourable Gentlemen opposite, I do not blame them —if that is so, if the Unionist minority in Ireland is to be entirely excluded from the district councils and the county councils in all countries where the Nationalists are in a predominance—
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What will North Armagh do?
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: North Armagh shows what a fair-minded county it is by electing me—if these councils are elected of nothing but Nationalists, will that affect the minds of the right honourable Gentlemen, and induce them to return to the fold from which they have strayed? On the other hand, if the county councils carry on their business in, I may say, a desultory manner, in the sort of manner indicated by an interesting occurrence at Limerick, where the Mayor of Limerick, Mr. Daly, had to appeal to "the enemies of the people" to avoid the attentions of his own followers, what will happen? Now, I should like to ask those two right honourable Gentlemen what effect that has on their minds. What I want to get at is, when they are contemplating, how will this contemplation affect them, and why? Then again, to show the great interest taken at the present moment in the new local government by the people in the Irish counties, an occurrence the other day at Donegal struck me very much. This shows the intense interest suddenly aroused by the Local Government Bill. At the Road Sessions last December in Donegal the deputy county surveyor refused to certify the work done on the roads. He did not for this reason, that no work had been done. This was looked upon by the road contractors as a monstrous injustice. Instead of arguing with him as they would have done in former times they made for him. The deputy-surveyor, being a nimble man, flew out through the window like a comet, pursued by the road contractors. He fell on the roof and then jumped into the street, followed by the road contractors. He then ran for two miles along the railway and got into the station, and so escaped. Now, many of these road contractors will probably be members of the county council. I do not know what the deputy-surveyor will do, but I should like to know the effect it has had on the minds of the two right honourable Gentlemen. Will it induce these two right honourable Gentlemen to try again for Home Rule? That, of course, remains to be proved. I said, years ago, to this House, and I remember I was met with great dis-
1210
approbation by honourable Gentlemen opposite: I said I did not believe, and I don't believe now, that the Radical Party were animated by honest convictions when they became Home Rulers.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Now, just wait a moment, and I think the honourable Gentleman will see I have some reason for what I have said. I remember reading a speech of Mr. Gladstone's in which he said that under certain circumstances the Liberal Party was not to be trusted, and that if the Nationalist Members had the power either of keeping them in office or turning them out of office, they might surrender to the Nationalists. Now, Mr. Gladstone was a man of great insight into human nature, and the remarkable thing about this is that this prophecy uttered by Mr. Gladstone in regard to the Party he led has been absolutely justified by his son. If the House will allow me, I will read what the right honourable Gentleman said the other day about the Radical Party. What I say does not matter, perhaps, but what a Liberal says about the Radical Party does matter. Now, this is what the right honourable Member for Leeds, West, said, the other day; it is an extract from the Leeds: Mercury of 20th October. Of course, I know that honourable Gentlemen opposite do change their opinions very quickly, but I suppose that, since October, they remain pretty much what they were. The right honourable Member for Leeds, West, said:—"We are in a great minority now, but things are looking up in the constituencies. Our electoral experiences have been extremely satisfactory. We have done better in the by-elections than we have done during the last 30 years. If we could get to close quarters—" (great laughter)—I am glad to think honourable Gentlemen opposite are happy—"within the next year or two—putting aside the question of whether it is desirable—the result would be the return of the Liberals and Tories in pretty equal numbers. I do not think we would get a large majority, we might even be just in a minority, but probably the balance would be pretty even. And in the centre would be our friends the 80 Irish Nationalists. They would sit

1211
in the centre of the balance and see Lord Salisbury at one end, perhaps, and Sir William Haroourt at the other. They would simply say 'Now, my friends, you see how you are situated; you may be in a position of considerable elevation and prosperity, or, on the other hand, you may be very much depressed, and sitting on the ground. We can send either of you up or down, as the occasion requires. The occasion requires Home Rule; which of you will give it to us. Lord Salisbury and Sir William Harcourt will have to look at each other and take their measure, and I do not think there will be any doubt about the position of Sir William Harcourt. He will say we are Home Rulers; we stick to Home Rule, and we are prepared to give you Home Rule in full measure. I think that will be good enough for the Nationalists, and up will go Sir William Harcourt and down will go Lord Salisbury. If Lord Salisbury also says I am ready to give you Home Rule, there will then be healthy competition. The Irish Nationalists would have to see which would give them most, and that is a matter of business. "Sir, that is what I have been saying all these years. The honourable Gentlemen below the gangway thoroughly agree with me. The honourable Gentlemen above the gangway, in 1886 bought their votes by paying them in a Home Rule Bill—a Bill which was not honoured in the end.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: They were bought by the Home Rule Bill. They were perfectly right in making what bargain they could, but that is just what I have said so many times. On the other hand, the right honourable Gentlemen opposite said, in this House, that they were convinced, in their own minds, that they had done the best thing for Ireland and the Empire. But here we have the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Leeds saying that it was "a matter of business. Of course it was a matter of business, and if the time should ever come again for those right honourable Gentlemen above the Gangway to see their way to make Home Rule the first plank in their platform they would do so without a moment's hesitation.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: And so would you!
ANOTHER HONOURABLE MEMBER: You only want a bribe, that is all.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: That, of course, is a matter of opinion. The honourable Gentleman has a perfect right to have any opinion he may choose, that I am capable of doing this or that, but he has got to prove that I have already done it. No kind of bribes have been offered by honourable Members opposite, to our Party in Ireland. We were once told that our sands were running out, and our time was getting short, and that if we refused the offer Mr. Gladstone made to us in his Bill, it would never be repeated. Although it was a bribe of a very high character, we rejected it with the scorn it deserved. And my friends and colleagues on this side of the House have the right to say, therefore, that our past, at any rate, does not justify the prophecies of the honourable Gentlemen opposite. I say we have a right 'to ask the right honourable Gentlemen opposite to give the country some indication as to the position they intend to take UJD on this question. If the giving to Ireland a Parliament and a Government entirely separated from the House of Commons —if that is to be a question at all, it is the greatest question we can conceive; it is a tremendous constitutional experiment which ought to be placed in the very forefront of the programme of any Party. Now I am afraid we won't learn very much from the speeches of the right honourable Gentlemen opposite, to-night, for I did not believe, and I do not now, that in the majority of cases, at any rate, conviction ever touched the minds of the right honourable Gentlemen opposite. The Leader of the Opposition has told us that he "found salvation."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps the right honourable and gallant Gentleman will allow me to remind him that I have denied half-a-dozen times or more that I ever used the phrase.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The right honourable Gentleman may not have used the phrase, but he appears to have sat very comfortably under it. We have a right to ask, in the House of

1213
Commons, the Leader of a great Party, on a great Constitutional Question, whether he sticks to his guns? Is he still in the same mind as when Mr. Gladstone brought in his last Home Rule Bill? If he is of that opinion, if he believes, as he believed then, and as his Party believed, that Ireland cannot be governed under our laws, then, I say, it is his business, as Leader of a great Party, to say that this great constitutional question, which is absolutely necessary for the good of Ireland, and the welfare of the Empire, is to be the first plank in his Party platform. You cannot treat such a Bill as a Sanitary Bill. Either it is a great truth or it is not. If it is a great truth it ought to be in the forefront of the programme. If it is not a great truth then they ought to throw it away and confess that they made a mistake, and have discovered that the whole thing is a sham. I do not know whether we shall mollify the silence of the Front Opposition Bench, or whether the appeal of the honourable Member for Waterford will have the effect of getting some definite declaration from them as to their future policy in regard to Home Rule. That I do not know. But we have a right to ask, not from a Party, but from an imperial point of view. We have a right to know, and the honourable Gentlemen opposite have a right to know, what stand the right honourable Gentlemen are going to take on Home Rule. I look to Home Rule as having done one good thing, at any rate, and I am very thankful for it. It has shattered the Radical Party. And the reason is that that Party never were bound to Home Rule by sincere convictions. Sir, if they had been convinced of the greatness and the justice of the cause, the fact that they were in a minority in the country would never have prevented them going on to the end. I was a Member of this House a great number of years ago, and I remember that, Session after Session, a Bill was brought in to establish the ballot, and that Party was in a great minority. But the men who were in that minority were not afraid to trust to what they believed was the justice of their cause, and they confronted the great majority, and ultimately won the day. And why did they win the day? Because those men knew and were convinced of the truth of
1214
their cause. But when a party shilly-shallies on a great constitutional question, like this, no wonder they are broken up. If you do not believe in it, tell the House of Commons and the country so. If you do believe in it, then join hands again, and let the "union of hearts" again take place. But do give us a definite policy which we can deal with in the country, and which can be attacked, and not an evanescent, india-rubber policy which disappears with the touch. Now, that is one good thing Home Rule has done. I will do honourable Gentlemen from Ireland the credit of saying that the cant about the "union of hearts" never came from below the Gangway. With them it was always a condition of the union, and it was a "union of hearts" so long as they got all they wanted and gave nothing in return. That was the union, and it was not a union called for by the greatness and the truth of the cause, but it was a sort of mercantile transaction which did not lend itself to sentiment. Sir, I am glad that we have had this opportunity, at any rate, of appealing to the House and to the country, and I believe that, whatever the cry, this thing will never happen again. Home Rule will never again be draped before the country in the tinsel garments prepared for it by right honourable Gentlemen opposite, but it will stand on its own merits or demerits. It stands now naked and alone, and it will thus be judged by the British people, and I have no fear whatever of the result. One great argument in favour of Home Rule was that you could not govern Ireland unless you gave her what she asked for. Why, Sir, there is no more peaceful part of Her Majesty's dominions to-day than Ireland. We were told that a resolute policy meant tyranny and oppression in Ireland. My right honourable Friend the present Leader of the House has bombarded the Irish people not with shells and bullets, but with light railways and seed potatoes. And what has been the result? Why, you have a peaceful country anxiously looking for favours to come, and this expectant attitude is one which eminently suits the Irish character. I venture to say that if my right honourable Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to go over now to the west, south, or northwest of Ireland with Home Rule in one hand and a light railway in the other, I

1215
know that the people would jump at the light railway.
MR. J. C. FLYNN: How many votes did you get in exchange for these light railways?
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I never offered the bribe, so that is not the point. Well, Sir, honourable Members from Ireland are now under one great difficulty. The question is—Is Ireland a peaceful country, or is it not?
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, unfortunately.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am glad that I have drawn that confession from the honourable Member, for it proves what I was going to say, and that is that the great difficulty which honourable Gentlemen opposite are in, including the honourable Member for East Clare, is this, that they cannot work up the Irish people now as they could in former times.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am very sorry to interrupt the right honourable and candid Gentleman, but, as he has mentioned me by name, I desire to say that what my exclamation meant was this: it has been unfortunately proved now, as always, that when the Irish people are peaceful they get nothing but taunts, and that, if they want to get any substantial benefit, they have to resort to disturbance. The honourable Gentleman has said that my difficulty is that I cannot disturb the country. Does he challenge me to go and disturb the county of Clare?
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Well, the honourable Member might do that with impunity, because I do not live in the county of Clare. The difficulty which honourable Gentlemen are in at the present moment in order to create, from their own point of view, a demand for Home Rule and make it a really great question, is that they must get the Irish people thoroughly on their own side on that subject. I live in Ireland, and, as far as I know, Home Rule is hardly ever mentioned there. The difficulty they are in is this, that, so long as Home Rule meant making short work of the landlords and giving their property to other people, undoubtedly it was an extremely popular Measure in Ireland. But the Pill of my right honourable Friend the Secretary for Ireland in 1881 has taken off most of the landlords' skins, and the Bill of the Leader of the House has scraped of nearly all the rest; so really
1216
there is very little left to induce Irishmen to abandon the present form of government and adopt a new one. Therefore, I think it is extremely improbable that any effort made by the honourable Member for Clare, or anybody else, to get up excitement in Ireland upon Home Rule has any chance of success.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will have a good try.
COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Well, I wish the honourable Member joy of his effort, for if anybody could do it I believe the honourable Member could. Therefore, Sir, Home Rule at the present moment, to my mind, is not a grave question, either in this House or in Ireland. It is true that it is not dead, and there are 80 highly lively specimens of Home Rulers in this House to show that it is not dead, and who would be an entire mistake, because they are ready at any moment to arrange with any political party who desire to get those 80 votes in exchange for Home Rule; and I am not blaming them in the least. Therefore, Home Rule is not dead, in the real sense, in this country. But, Sir, Home Rule, to my mind, in Ireland has got very small vitality; therefore, I do not fear it as a great power. It gives me unqualified satisfaction that we have had the opportunity in this Debate of laying before this country the present position of what was at one time a great question, but which in our time will never be in a stronger position than we see it to-night.
SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: Mr. Speaker, we have had from the right honourable Gentleman, as usual, a long, racy, and amusing speech. I am afraid that in following him I shall neither be long, racy, nor amusing. During the greater part of that speech I was entirely at a loss to discover what the object of it was, because it appeared to me to have the very smallest connection with the Amendment now before the House. But at last the right honourable Gentleman let fall an expression which explained to us his motive, and that was to mollify the silence of the front Opposition Bench. But the right honourable Gentleman, is not a person that I should have thought very likely to mollify anything or anybody, and I can assure him that the silence of the front Opposition Bench would have been broken more than three-quarters of an hour ago if it had

1217
not been that I saw from the impatient indications of the right honourable Gentleman that he was very anxious to speak. There is only one phrase which the right honourable Gentleman let fall to which I take exception. "His opinions we well know, for we have heard them before, and we shall hear them again. But he said of us, of myself, and those who sit near me, and of my political friends, that we never had any sincere convictions in this matter. Well, the right honourable Gentleman, I believe, is also a gallant Gentleman, and I ask him whether it is a very suitable thing for anyone owning the epithet of "gallant" to make so slanderous an accusation against a body of public men who have every right to claim the same good appreciation of their countrymen as the right honourable Gentleman. Well, Sir, I now come to the Amendment of the honourable Member for Waterford, and I find that it is—as, indeed, he himself said—practically a repetition of the Amendment which he moved on a similar occasion last year. On that occasion the position of the Party with, which I am connected was fully and clearly stated by my right honourable Friend the Member for Monmouth, and I might really leave the case as he left it without adding a word to that clear statement. The only change that I observe in the Amendment of any importance is that whereas last year the honourable Member put words in his Amendment to the effect that the carrying of the Local Government Bill was likely to increase the demand of the people of Ireland for legislative independence, he now asks us to affirm that the establishment of popular self-government in Ireland has intensified the demand of the people for legislative independence. Now, Sir, I cannot help thinking that that is a very subsidiary, but still a decided objection I take, to the Amendment. None, of us are in a position to deny that the establishment of county councils and parish councils has intensified the desire of the Irish people for independence. I have always held, and still hold, that it is extremely likely to have that effect. I feel certain that it will have the effect not only of increasing the demand, but of intensifying the title of the Irish people to the larger powers of self-government which we proposed to be a party to giving them. But to say that it has intensified
1218
that feeling before even the county councils have been elected is, I think, inviting us to assert a thing which we cannot possibly be aware of of our own knowledge. But that, of course, Sir, is a comparatively small point, but still worthy of being noted. There is one element of difference now between the present Amendment and that of last year, and it seems to me to be an important one, and that is that it does not arise in Ireland. I am referring to what my honourable and learned Friend behind me spoke of in connection with the association of honourable Members from Ireland of all shades of opinion for the prosecution of certain public objects. I am speaking of events which have happened in this House and in this Parliament; and those events are the passing, with the exuberant assent of the landlord party and with the full acquiescence of the House of Lords, of that great democratic Measure of last year. Surely that marks a most notable Surely that marks a most notable stage in the progress of self-government in Ireland. Because, what have we been hearing year after year during the twelve years of the controversy? What has been one of the arguments most strongly enforced, especially upon the people of England and Scotland? It has been the danger of entrusting to a people so unfitted for the exercise of such powers, the powers of local self-government. We have been told that not in Ulster only, but still more largely amongst the scattered communities in the west of Ireland, they would be left at the mercy of the Catholic majority amongst whom they lived, and, therefore, they would be subjected to unfair treatment by them. The feelings of the people of this country were roused, or an attempt was made to rouse them, on this subject, and now we see the, very men who use that argument as against Home Rule, readily and joyfully, so far as I can see, conferring full powers over their, local affairs on those same men whom they have been declaring were unfit for the exercise of those duties. And let it not be said that those powers have only been given with reference to the small everyday concerns of life, and that that does not constitute so great a danger as when minorities are left at the mercy of majorities in the larger affairs of national politics. That at least cannot be urged

1219
by the right honourable Gentleman opposite in the face of the publicly expressed, and very wisely expressed, opinion of Lord Salisbury, which has been so much quoted, that it is precisely in those small and every-day affairs where the eye of public opinion is not very strongly upon them, that the danger, if any danger at all, exists of tyranny and oppression. I consider that the unreality of these alleged apprehensions has been approved by the conduct of the honourable Gentlemen opposite last year. They passed a Measure giving, as we were glad to see, great democratic powers to the Irish people. They introduced no safeguards such as the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House, thought necessary, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the Bill he then brought before the House. This disposes of the very apprehensions of which so much was made. It is a huge step in advance, which I gladly note, and which I believe makes strongly in the direction of the ultimate attainment of the policy of Home Rule; but that is the only difference that I can see between the position last year and the position this year. Now, Sir, we must ask ourselves what is the object of the honourable Member in moving this Amendment? What was his object in moving it last year, and what is his object in repeating it this year? He puts forward a proposal, and he knows when he does so that so far as the Liberal Party is concerned they must Tote against that proposal. We are the only Party in this island who have been friendly to Irish self-government—I mean to Irish national self-government—and the honourable Member seeks by this Amendment to accomplish the feat of showing his hostility to the only friend of the cause which he professes to be desirous of advancing. I can assure him that there are many among us—with very few exceptions, I may say all of us—whom even his strange tactics can estrange from the Irish policy which for the last 12 years we have continuously advocated—
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Oh, Lord!
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And this, indeed, only shows how strong must be our fidelity when it stands so severe a strain. Our judgment as to the ultimate necessity of adopting the solution of devolution and autonomy in
1220
Ireland remains absolutely unchanged. The honourable Member asked me one or two questions. I do not know exactly what title he has to do so, but as I have nothing to conceal from him in the world, I am very willing to answer any question he chooses to put. He quoted a speech that I made to my constituents, and he asked me how the Liberal Party, according to my idea, stands towards Home Rule now. The Liberal Party stands towards Home Rule as it stood before. What I said in a speech to my constituents on the occasion to which he referred I repeat again now. We are practical men, and are men of common sense. He apparently invites us to go on year after year, passing resolutions of this sort, which do not advance the cause one whit, and he invites us also to promise and pledge ourselves before the world that whatever the situation may be, or whatever the circumstances may be, this question of Home Rule shall be the very first subject with which we shall deal when we have an opportunity of dealing with any subject. Now the honourable Gentleman knows perfectly well the conditions of public life, and the instruments with which we work in public life. The Liberal Party was described by its great Leader as a great instrument for progress. It is a great instrument for progress, and the question is, how are we best to use that great instrument. The honourable Member's idea of doing it best is to exhaust the patience of all members of this Party by continuously striving to attain what is unattainable—[Ministerial Cheers]—I mean that which for the moment is unattainable—or, as I said in the words which have been quoted, kicking against a stone wall; whereas, in the meantime, all other questions, however urgent they may be to the Liberal Party, deeply affecting their own interests, and their own conceptions of public policy, are to be pushed on one side. So far from that being the most direct and straight way to help Home Rule, I think that is the very way to hinder it. Our way is to retain—and so long as I have any connection with the Liberal Party, I shall endeavour to retain—the force and energy of the Liberal Party, and be ready to apply it, when opportunity offers, to such subjects as it seems most likely to be

1221
capable of being applied to. Our principles are well known, and the only question that remains is as to the method of their application. As to the most effective method of their application, we have the right to retain our judgment. That right I am not willing to surrender either to the honourable Member for Waterford, or to any honourable Friend behind him, who is strongly in favour of any particular reform, because, as I say, the best way to accomplish success in legislative reform is to apply your forces at the proper moment in the right direction. The honourable Member asked me whether the alliance with the Irish Party still continues. Yes, Sir, the alliance in community of object, and in willingness to co-operate, continues as much as it ever did. There never was, so far as I ever heard, any formal alliance, but the alliance in the sense of sympathy, and the desire to co-operate, remains with us as strong as ever it was. In criticising the honourable Member's Amendment, I may be permitted to recite the objections that I take to the substance of it. The honourable Member himself knows perfectly well what those objections are. He speaks of an independent Parliament, and he quotes to-night some expression of Mr. Gladstone, where he used the word "independent." I daresay he did, but if Mr. Gladstone had been here he would have asked what the context was, what the occasion was, and in what sense the word "Independent" was used. It is no use standing upon mere words, because it is known to all the world that we have always refused to agree to what is known as an independent Parliament. We have brought in two Bills, both of them sedulously and explicitly guarding this idea of an independent Parliament. My right honourable Friend, the Member for Montrose, who is a friend of Home Eule if anyone is, spoke of one of those Bills as "saturated with supremacy," and the Leader whom the honourable Gentleman professes' to revere, and of course sincerely reveres, again and again said that he accepted those conditions to the full. Therefore, we cannot accept the Amendment of the honourable Member, and I am bound to say that if that word were not there I should not vote, and I am sure my honourable Friends could not vote for it, because he says that the question is, and must remain, the most urgent
1222
question of domestic policy. That gives this question of Home Rule the priority of which I have been speaking. Now, priority may be said to be the resultant of urgency and possibility, and priority is not a common thing that can be assigned to any question in politics in advance. The circumstances for the moment must determine the priority, and if this is true of fresh questions, how much more is it true of this question, which has known two attempts to deal with it in legislation? We rejoice that we made those attempts, and we are ready to make them again so soon as circumstances are favourable. [Laughter.] The honourable Gentlemen who laugh appear to think that circumstances are favourable when we have a majority of 140 against us, and are utterly unable to do anything for it except pass such a resolution as this, if it was in itself acceptable. The honourable Member for Waterford knows the difficulties which caused our failures before. There is no one who can more effectually contribute to the removal of those difficulties than the honourable Member. There is no one who has it more in his power to increase those difficulties. It is for him to make the choice as to which course he shall follow As for us, we must decline to accept the Amendment he has proposed for the reasons which were stated last year fully by my right honourable Friend the Member for Monmouth, and which I have shortly referred to to-night, because we find the Amendment to be inconsistent with the convictions and plain declarations which have guided our conduct from the first of the controversy on this great Irish question.
MR. CLANCY: The right honourable Gentleman has asked What was the object with which this Amendment was moved. I shall endeavour very briefly to state at least one of the objects with which it was moved, if the right honourable Gentleman will kindly give me his attention. It; has been the opinion of a section of the Irish Nationalist Members with whom I have acted that the alliance which has existed between several sections of the Irish Nationalist Members and the Liberal Party of England during the last few years, has been productive of harm, instead of good, to Irish1 legislation. I will not enter into any

1223
reasons for that opinion, because I do not want to make more than a bare assertion. We believe that this alliance has resulted in postponing the advent of Home Rule to Ireland, and we have always believed since that fact first began to appear that the first thing to do in order to restore Home Rule to the position which it formerly occupied was to secure that the Irish Nationalist representatives in this House should be absolutely independent of any English Party. After the speech which we have heard to-night, that object will be accomplished from this hour forward. The right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down was asked a very plain question by my honourable and learned Friend for Waterford. He was asked as to the principal point in the Amendment, as to the position Home Rule occupies at present in the programme of the Liberal Party. One of the honourable Members who succeeded him said that before he answered that question he would like to ask my honourable and learned Friend what attitude he maintains towards Home Rule as proposed in former years. Sir, that question fades into insignificance after the speech of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down. It is entirely immaterial now to know what are Ms views upon the precise measures of Home Rule which Ireland would accept in view of the fact that he himself has to-night indicated that any sort of Home Rule at all is no feature of the Liberal Party's programme, and, in fact, gave no sort of clear answer whatever, or indicated what his Party will do when they have the power to do anything upon the question of Home Rule. The right honourable Gentleman had his attention particularly directed to the main point of the Amendment by a quotation of his own speech in Scotland a short time ago. He was asked in very plain terms whether he still stood, or whether he did not still stand, by that famous passage in his Scottish speech, in which he spoke of a "stone wall." I regret to say that we have still to ask him that question, for we have got no light whatever upon that point. The right honourable Gentleman, as I said before, must have known what he was called upon to speak about, and I draw again attention to the fact that he has passed by the main point
1224
of the whole Debate, the main point raised by this Amendment, and he has apparently made up his mind that neither now nor at any time in the future, so far as we can see, will he give us any light upon that point. The right honourable Gentleman's position is now a very curious one, and it is also the attitude of the Liberal Party. The right honourable Gentleman may be regarded, with respect to Home Rule, as sitting down before a stone wall and waiting for somebody to lift him over. I do not think that that is a very dignified attitude, in the first place, for the Leader of a great Party, which has pledged itself again and again during the last 10 or 12 years to this great principle, and I venture to say that it is unworthy even of the traditions of the Liberal Party itself. Unless I am wrong in my history, and I think I am not, the Liberal Party in England, since 1832, never had a majority in England itself for carrying any great reforms, never possessed during those years the authority of the predominant partner; but they did not sit down when they met with obstacles and say, "We are before a stone wall, and there is no use in battering our heads against it." They never said, "We had better sit down and wait before this stone wall." The right honourable Gentleman has, in this matter, disregarded the history of his own Party, and he has also disregarded the traditions of his great Leader who has passed away. The right honourable Gentleman tonight ridiculed the idea of the Irish Nationalist Members, that everything else should wait until Home Rule was granted to Ireland, by which I presume that he means that, so far as the Liberal Party is concerned, Home Rule must wait. That is the opinion of the Leader, and I wish to draw the attention of Irish Nationalist Members to the fact—and that is my reason for quoting it—that those were not the grounds upon which Mr. Gladstone advocated Home Rule. Mr. Gladstone advocated Home Rule on two grounds, one of which was that the question could not wait—that the question was of supreme importance—that it was necessary to settle it before any other question, and for this, reason amongst others, that as long as it remained unsettled the greater would, be the strain upon England in conse-

1225
quence of refusing the just demand of Ireland in this respect; and it must be admitted that from 1885 to 1892 Mr. Gladstone did keep the subject of Home Rule in front, and did make it the first Measure of each of the Governments which he formed during those years, and therefore I say that the right honourable Gentleman who now occupies his place in this House, in ridiculing the notion that everything must wait for Home Rule, disregards and discards the policy of his late Leader, and renounces the traditions of his own Party. It seems to me that the Liberal Party, after all, is pursuing a very foolish game, and I want to give them a little bit of friendly advice. They think at present, what they have thought for many years, that by getting up a Newcastle programme and mixing up a whole lot of Measures together, they can carry the country with them; but my opinion is, and I believe it is the opinion of many Liberals in the country, that the only policy upon which they have ever united for the last 15 or 20 years has been the policy of Home Rule, and I believe that in the future it will be the only policy upon which they ever can unite. I want to know on what they are going to the country at the next election. What horse are they going to ride? What programme or policy are they going to put before the country if they do not put Home Rule? I wonder whether it is Mr. Kensit and his programme. The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition perhaps is going to take up the question of the reform of the Church of England, and I suppose if he does that he will give effect to the doctrines of Mr. Kensit. If he does, I fancy he will have a very tough job before him, an even tougher job than the Home Rule is. Is he going to take up the question of Temperance Reform? Well, I would like to see the result upon the Liberal Party of another campaign for Temperance Reform. Again I ask, on what grounds is the Liberal Party going to ride to victory? In my opinion, and I have had some experience in England previous to 1890, there is one question, and one question only, upon which the Liberal Party will unite, and that is the question which they are now turning their back upon. I rejoice at the speech that the right honourable Gentleman
1226
has made to-night. I believe and hope that the effect of that speech will be to put an end to this disastrous Liberal alliance, from which Ireland has suffered so much. I hope that after to-night we shall hear no more of that alliance, because I believe that the sooner the Irish Nationalist Members of this House become the avowed opponents of each British Party in this House, the sooner we shall restore Home Rule again to the condition which it occupied for many years past. I suppose the right honourable Gentleman expects, by the speech which he has delivered to-night, and by the ambiguous policy which he has announced, to win a triumph at the next election, and he spoke to-night of the possibility of being in a position to act independently of any Irish Party. I would like to know how he has arrived at that rosy idea of the future. There is at present a majority of 140 against us. He has to win absolutely 70 seats in England only before he comes to a level with his opponents. Well, Sir, I must confess that, for one, I am not struck with the idea of his being able to act independently of any Irish Party—indeed, I rather fancy that when he has won his 70 seats he will be very much in want of Irish assistance. Supposing he was on an equality, supposing that he was in a majority, as he hopes to be, he would have to win at least 100 seats in England and Scotland in order to be able to do anything, and I say that without Irish assistance and without a policy in accordance with the sentiments and wishes of the Irish nation, a policy which he does not apparently approve of, and does not apparently possess, he will never be able to accomplish his purpose. All I can say is this—that every Irish Nationalist Member who remembers the time before 1885, when the Irish Nationalist Members were a strong minority, will welcome the return of a time like that in which their hands were raised against every Party, and when they were ready to sacrifice any English interest for the sake of Ireland. Several years have elapsed since then, and I am afraid that Irish Members have got it into their heads that because we are in a minority we are therefore powerless. There are Members, however, in the House who remember very well what we were able to do from 1878 to 1885. When the late

1227
Mr. Parnell began his campaign he was in an exceedingly small minority, but before 10 years elapsed one Party offered us a nostrum and the other Party offered us the Home Rule Bill of 1886. I believe, for one, that the best thing that can happen to the Irish cause will be to relegate ourselves to the position in this House which our predecessors occupied for many years; that is, the position of practical political outcasts, ready and able to use our position and our power against either Party in turn, and I say candidly to your faces that until you can give way to the just demands of Ireland, neither of you will ever have peace in this House, or out of it. I rejoice at the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, and I agree in thinking that it must clear the air. I think that after to-night it will be impossible to pretend that the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House has not practically abandoned the policy of Home Rule. I say that he has openly and actually abandoned the policy of Home Rule. He, forsooth, asked us what our attitude was on the question of the Home Rule Bills of 1886 to 1892. What does it matter what our opinions are on this question, if he will not say what he will do in regard to any Home Rule Bill at all? He will neither tell us what sort of a Home Rule Bill we are going to get, nor will he tell us what he will do when he gets into power, and it will be a foolish section of Irish Nationalists which will pin its faith to the Leader of the Opposition after the speech he has made tonight. I should have preferred, of course, if the right honourable Gentleman had again avowed the policy of Mr. Gladstone. The policy of Mr. Gladstone was clear and plain. He said rightly that Home Rule was the most urgent of our domestic questions. He said it was the most urgent because it was necessary for Ireland and necessary for England. He put it first in his programme of 1885 and again in 1892, and now, forsooth, that policy is abandoned because the right honourable Gentleman and his followers have met with two defeats! Is that the way in which they treated the question of reform when it was fought 60 years ago? What would have been said to the Liberal Leaders of 60 years ago if the Reform Bill of 1832, which was rejected twice, had been abandoned by them for ever? What would
1228
have been thought of them if they had said in regard to that Bill, "Oh, there is a stone wall in front of us, and we had better sit down and wait until someone pulls it down"? Was that the policy of Sir Robert Peel in carrying Free Trade? What would have been said of Sir Robert Peel if, after meeting with two defeats or three or six defeats, he had abandoned the policy to which he had consecrated his time? What would have happened had he done so? It is impossible to conceive what would have been said of Mr. Gladstone if he had said, on the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, "Oh, here is a stone wall, which I can't get over, and I must wait until it is pulled down"? That was not the policy of Mr. Gladstone. If I may say so, he took the pickaxe himself and opened a hole in the wall in order to get through it. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Liberal Party to-night has actually and openly abandoned the policy of Home Rule, and the people of Ireland know it, and all I can say is this, that if we have achieved no other result, I regard that as strongly important and highly gratifying in itself, because for the first time in some years it opens up an opportunity for the Irish Nationalists to combine to make an assault upon this Parliament, and demand by every means in their power—by battling against one Party or the other—to attain the principal object and the desires of the Irish nation.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: The honourable Member who has just sat down has spoken as if we on this side of the House had definitely abandoned Home Rule, or as if the speech of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had indicated that that was the intention of the Liberal Party. I think that certainly is not a policy which will commend itself to us. I do not in the least believe that that was the intention of the right honourable Gentleman, and certainly it is not a policy that would commend itself to the Liberal Party in the House or in the country. Nothing is gained by bandying charges of this kind, either between one side of the House and the other, on between different sections of the same side. What we want is to get at the facts and realities, and to have done with shams and accusations. Holding that

1229
view, I confess that I think that it is not quite clear to some of us on this side of the House that we ought to vote against this Amendment. No doubt it is to a certain extent ambiguous, and I think that its phraseology offers a certain amount of difference which it would have been better to avoid, but I do not, for my own part, see anything in the terms of it which need prevent any honest and thorough going Home Ruler, who believes in Home Rule in the sense in which Mr. Gladstone believed in it, and the sense in which I believe in it and the great mass of the Liberal Party also, from supporting it. I was last year one of a small body of Liberals who voted for a similar Amendment, brought forward by the honourable and learned Member. I did so just on the same grounds as I shall do again, namely, because I understand that the phrase "legislative independence" means nothing more than our old friend, Home Rule, as understood by Mr. Gladstone and as accepted by Mr. Parnell. If the honourable and learned Member the Member for Waterford means anything more than that, he ought to tell us so. He has not told us that it meant anything more. On the contrary, he quoted various extracts from Mr. Gladstone's speeches, in which Mr. Gladstone made use of the term "legislative independence." I believe Mr. Gladstone, in using those words, always attached to them the qualifying phrase, "practical," and spoke of "the practical legislative independence." That is what he meant by his Home Rule Bill, and that is all that can be meant by any Home Rule Bill passed by this House. I think that is sufficiently obvious. This House cannot divest itself of its power to control its offspring. It cannot part with its supreme authority, unless there is a complete severance of relations between the two countries. I think we have heard a little too much of this terrible word "independence," which means nothing more than we all mean when We speak of Home Rule.
MR. J. REDMOND: Hear, hear.
MR. C. P. SCOTT: I am glad to hear that the honourable Member for Water-ford assents to that proposition, and as he assents to it, I think we may claim the Votes of several Gentlemen, and especially that of the Member for Haddington, who has expressly stated that if
1230
"legislative independence" means nothing more than Home Rule, the Liberal Party in this House would be bound to vote for it. Then there is the question of urgency. I cannot understand how any Liberal can regard this question as otherwise than urgent. I cannot understand how any person could commit himself to a change so enormous, so far-reaching, so disastrous if it fails, and so pregnant with infinite good if it succeeds, if he does not regard its position as most urgent. To bring up a question of this kind and then to treat it as a matter of minor importance, is, in my opinion, simply trifling with it. We all regard this question as urgent. I believe that every man on this side of the House regards it as a Measure of a most urgent character. I believe that our readiness to make Home Rule the law of the land is limited wholly and solely by our power to do it. We are not ashamed to be in a minority. We have been in a minority before, and other Parties have been in a minority; but we should be ashamed of ourselves if we abandoned our principles in any way or in any degree whatever. It is one thing to say that a Measure is urgent, and another to say exactly what steps are to be taken to pass that Measure into law. I think we may assure the honourable Member for Waterford that the moment the Liberal Party has behind it a sufficient strength to carry this great reform into effect, it will leave no stone unturned to do so. But I do not think that we ought to wait whistling for the wind. It is our duty to keep this question steadily before the country, to urge it in season and out of season, and to make it clearly understood by everybody whom it might concern, that the moment we have the power to carry Home Rule we shall do so. If that is not the case, if we treat the matter as simply one of a dozen reforms which we shall carry in whatever order we think proper, and just at our convenience, then I think Members on the other side of the House will have a just right to reproach us. If we went to the country on a dozen other issues, and were successful, and then brought forward a Measure of Home Rule, our opponents would have a good right to tell us that we had got our majority on other matters, and that they were entitled to regard the verdict of the country as in no

1231
sense one in favour of Home Rule. For these reasons I hope a good many Liberals will vote for the Amendment. I do not believe that the Liberal Party has deviated, or means to deviate, one single inch from the principle to which we have so solemnly committed ourselves, and, holding that view so strongly as I do, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
MR. DALZIEL: I only rise to express in a few sentences the reasons why I cannot vote for the Amendment of the honourable Member for Waterford. When the honourable Member expresses to us how sincere and honest he is in this matter, he ought surely to extend the same credit to other members. He has to-night, in his usual eloquent fashion, called for pledges from the Leaders of the Opposition as to their intentions in regard to Home Rule, and, almost in the same breath (as he has also done on platforms throughout the country) he expresses his utter want of confidence in anything the Liberal Leaders may say or do. What does the honourable Member mean by inviting declarations as to what the Liberal Leaders are going to do? If his policy is to embarrass the Liberal Leaders, then I can understand him. Is that it? If his policy is to do his best to injure the Liberal Party, I can understand it. Is that it? If his policy is a matter of self-advertisement for the small Party he leads, I can also understand him.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Nobody is a better judge of self-advertisement than the honourable Member.
MR. DALZIEL: I have seldom, Mr. Speaker, had a compliment which I valued so much as that, because it is from a Gentleman who is a high authority on the subject. Is it possible that the action of the honourable Member for Waterford is dictated by a desire to embarrass his colleagues in the representation of Ireland? What I venture to point out is this, that in my judgment those of us who have consistently in season and out of season, voted for Home Rule—[Oh! Oh!]—Yes, I have voted for Home Rule and Home Rule all round. Perhaps the honourable Member will vote for it himself. That is not the question which is before the House. The question is, What does the honourable Member mean by asking for declarations which, if given, he would not believe,
1232
and would not attach any value to? Let the honourable Member speak for himself. Will he support the Liberal Party? Will he work for its return to power? He says he will support Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill if brought forward again. Very well. Then I ask the honourable Gentleman, Will he support the Liberal Party, and of course he will not answer that question. And for the same reason he does not want a reply from the Leader of the Opposition. The Amendment asks for an independent Irish Parliament. I for one will never give a vote as long as I live for an independent Irish Parliament. So long as I am able, I will oppose such a demand to the utmost of my power. I have voted for Home Rule—for a subordinate Home Rule Parliament—to this House, and in that measure, this House gave up no particle of its power. I voted for that measure because I believed it was consistent, and because the authority of this House remained untouched. It retained every power it ever possessed, and would have continued to do so even if Mr. Gladstone's Bill had been passed. That is a matter of fact. It retained complete control over Irish legislation, and as far as I am concerned, I will oppose any other Bill which even suggests the possibility of an independent Irish legislative body. Mr. Gladstone's Bill is the only possible Bill which can be brought forward on this subject, and I thoroughly believe that there is no constituency in this country in which a man of either party on this side of the House could get 200 voters to support him if he advocated an independent Irish Parliament. I oppose this resolution for the further, and, perhaps, better, reason that I see no purpose in supporting it. The honourable Member asks us to say that this is to be the first and most urgent question. The honourable Member is wrong in saying that. He asks us to go on ploughing the sands, and till this question is settled we are not to have the power of dealing with anything in any way at all. But, Sir, we are not in possession. It is the duty of the Government to declare its policy. We heard to-night remarks concerning Cobden, and Bright, and Peel, and that they did not give up the question of reform and other matters after being defeated once or twice. But why did they not give up? Because the men in whose cause they pleaded stood by

1233
them; because they did not harass those who were working for them; because they did not exhaust their ingenuity in seeking for methods by which to injure their own cause. They did not treacherously attack their friends when they should have been engaged in bringing their guns to bear upon the enemy. No, Sir, that was not the calibre of the men who supported Cobden, and Bright, and Peel. We are as much Home Rulers as we were before, no more and no less, and if the honourable Member for Waterford has confidence in the Liberal Party—which I presume he must have, or he would not have wasted so much time in asking for specific declarations—I beg him to give to that Party, and to its Leaders, some loyalty, and to cease from embarrassing the only Party which has shown its willingness to bring to a successful issue the cause which he professes to have so much at heart.
MR. MADDISON: I do not wish to stand more than two or three minutes between the House and the next speaker, but I wish to say a word or two as to the view which I believe is held by the great mass of the organised workers and industrial classes in this country. I have fought three elections, and have been beaten twice. I was a Home Ruler first, and a Home Ruler last. I was a Home Ruler in spite of the fact that my Irish friends opposed me on the Education question. I said then, as I say to-night, that I firmly believe with all my heart in Home Rule, and I shall support it though every Irishman in Brightside is against me. But, holding those views, I wish to be emphatic upon one point. I will not trouble about the question of an independent Parliament—I will leave that to statesmen to discuss—but I am very much concerned with the concluding portion of the Amendment, especially as employed and interpreted by the honourable Member for Waterford, "and must remain the most urgent of all questions of domestic policy." Now, Sir, I listened with intense interest and anxiety to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, because, to speak quite plainly, there have been one or two members of our Party, and distinguished members too, who appear to me not to have been very sound on the question of Home Rule, and it was for that reason that I
1234
listened with so much interest to the declaration of the Leader of the Opposition; and I say here to-night that that declaration satisfies me, and I go further and say to the honourable Gentleman from Ireland, and the Labour Members of this House, and especially to those Gentlemen who are brought into direct contact with the organised workers—If you say that Home Rule shall be the first item in the programme of the Liberal Party, under any and every condition, all I can say is that that means the rejection of Home Rule by the industrial classes in this country. Let Home Rule by all means be one of the planks, and I shall not object. If I thought for one moment that this was a question as to the Liberal Party ratting on this point, I would go into the lobby with the honourable Member for Waterford; but when I think of the misery that exists in this country—
MR. FIELD: And Ireland too.
MR. MADDISON: When I think of the daily life of the masses of people in this country, of the men who toil hard for the bare necessities of life, and when in the face of that state of things I am asked as a British Radical to go to them and say Home Rule must come first, and that they must wait for Old Age Pensions, and for other badly wanted industrial reforms, then I say distinctly that that must simply mean failure to the cause of Home Rule. I have only to add this, that I am grieved beyond measure that after a Party such as that which sits on this side of the House has incurred great losses by its espousal of the cause of Home Rule, now that it is in a minority, now that it will take all our efforts to get a majority—aye, and we shall get it—that the honourable Members for Ireland, with whose views in the main I am in accord, and I desire and long that the national aspirations of Ireland shall be dealt with on the lines laid down by Mr. Gladstone, should play deliberately into the hands of the Tories, and thus defeat the cause they have at heart. In conclusion, all I can say is this, that, whatever may be the result, I am a Home Ruler. I don't want Home Rule merely in this House, I want it in Ireland, and I shall vote against the Amendment, not because it is for Home Rule, but because it represents a policy of mistrust, which can only end in disaster to Home Rule.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not desire, Sir, to stand between the House and Division; but I wish to make a few observations upon the subject before the House. This Amendment was introduced for the purpose of getting some declarations from the Leaders of the Liberal Party as to what their position towards Home Rule would be when they came into power. We have had a declaration from the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and then, somewhat to our astonishment, when we looked for further declaration from some other Leader of the Liberal Party, we were treated to a speech from the honourable Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. We all know that the Liberal Party is in a somewhat distracted and disjointed condition, but I have yet to learn that the Party is in such a sorry plight as to acknowledge for one of their Leaders the Member for Kirkcaldy. The honourable Gentlemen introduced a remark into his speech with reference to the honourable Gentleman who moved this Amendment—a remark of a somewhat offensive character. In discharge of what we consider to be our duty, this Amendment was introduced, and the honourable Member for Kirkcaldy was good enough to say that the mover of the Amendment was actuated by motives of self-advertisement.
MR. DALZIEL: I had no intention of being offensive.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am aware that the honourable Gentleman had no intention of being offensive, but then there are some natures which never do know when they are offensive, and I leave the honourable Gentleman by saying that I am perfectly certain that the Members of this House will not be so ready as he is to charge the honourable Gentlemen who bring forward such an Amendment as this with motives of so base a character as that of self-advertisement. The honourable Gentleman who last spoke, the Member for Brightside, representing as he does the working men of this country—[No! No!]—well, who represents a portion of the working men of this country—
MR. STEADMAN: And the best portion.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, I admit that; and I am bound to say that if anything were wanted
1236
to prove to a conclusion the charge which we have made that Home Rule has been practically put on one side by the Liberal Party, the speech of the honourable Gentleman has given the additional proof. He said that Old Age Pensions were not to wait for Home Rule, and the other industrial questions were not to wait for Home Rule. I have every sympathy with those Measures, and I agree that they are urgently needed in England; but I remember Mr. Gladstone was the man who said, and who pointed it out to the Liberal Party, that the greatest argument in favour of Home Rule was that needed measures of reform for the working classes would have to wait whilst Home Rule blocked the way, and that no substantial progress could be made with those Measures. That is the view Mr. Gladstone took of Home Rule, and that is the view we take. The Leader of the Opposition says he will vote against this Amendment. He asked what title we had to either bring it forward, or to make any demands upon him. Our title is the title given to us by our constituents, the Irish Nationalists; and I tell him that in voting against this Amendment upon some quibble—some word—he is doing that which, in my opinion, is dishonourable and unworthy—
MR. SPEAKER: That is not Parliamentary language, and I must ask the honourable Member to withdraw the expression.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I quite understand, Sir, that the expression was out of order. It was not my intention to charge the right honourable Gentleman with personal dishonour for a single moment. What I meant to say was that it will be regarded in Ireland as a breach of the pledge given by the Liberal Party on this question of Home Rule, and I can only say that it is not the first time, and as I read the past history of my country it will not be the last time, that the Irish people will have relied upon English promises and will have been utterly deceived by those promises.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 300.—(Division List No. 11.)

AYES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Gibney, James

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.)

Gilhooly, James

O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hammond, John (Carlow)

O'Kelly, James

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Carew, James Laurence

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Pinkerton, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hogan, James Francis

Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

Crilly, Daniel

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Daly, James

Kilbride, Denis

Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)

Donelan, Captain A.

Labouchere, Henry

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Engledew, Charles John

Macaleese, Daniel

Ffrench, Peter

Molloy, Bernard Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Field, William (Dublin)

Morris, Samuel

Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. William Redmond

Flynn, James Christopher

Murnaghan, George

Fox, Dr. Joseph Francis

O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)

NOES.

Allen, W. (Nc.-under-Lyme)

Charrington, Spencer

Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Chelsea, Viscount

Gretton, John

Allsopp, Hon. George

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Clough, Walter Owen

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Arnold, Alfred

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Griffiths, Ellis J.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Arrol, Sir William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H.

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord Geo.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man.)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Ohas. Seale-

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds)

Curzon, Viscount

Heath, James

Banbury, Frederick George

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Heaton, John Henniker

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Dalziel, James Henry

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S. (Hunts)

Davenport, W. Bromley

Helder, Augustus

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Bartley, George C. T.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hobhouse, Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brstl)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

Doxford, William Theodore

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Beckett, Ernest William

Drage, Geoffrey

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Bethell, Commander

Duckworth, James

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Biddulph, Michael

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Bigwood, James

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Bill, Charles

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Billson, Alfred

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Birrell, Augustine

Ellis, Thos. E. (Merionethsh.)

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn. Sir U.

Bond, Edward

Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

Bousfield, William Robert

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Broadhurst, Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kitson, Sir James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lafone, Alfred

Brymer, William Ernest

Flower, Ernest

Lambert, George

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Folkestone, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn)

Burt, Thomas

Forster, Henry William

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Butcher, John George

Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Galloway, William Johnson

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Caldwell, James

Gedge, Sydney

Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Carlile, William Walter

Gilliat, John Saunders

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Carson, Rt. Hn. Edward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Leng, Sir John

Causton, Richard Knight

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Som'rs't)

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (StGrge's)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Lowe, Francis William

Channing, Francis Allston

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lowles, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Green, Walford D. (W'dns'bury)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

1238

1239

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Penn, John

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Pilkington, Richard

Stevenson, Francis S.

Macdona, John Cumming

Pirie, Duncan V.

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Maclure, Sir John William

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Plunkett, Rt. Hn, Horace Curzon

Strauss, Arthur

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

Price, Robert John

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

M'Killop, James

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Maddison, Fred

Purvis, Robert

Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUniv.)

Malcolm, Ian

Pym, C. Guy

Tennant, Harold John

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Thomas, Alfred (Gl'm'rg'n, E.)

Marks, Henry Hananel

Reckitt, Harold James

Thorburn, Walter

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Thorburn, Percy M.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Rentoul, James Alexander

Valentia, Viscount

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. John

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l)

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Rickett, J. Compton

Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

More, Robert Jasper

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Round, James

Weir, James Galloway

Morrell, George Herbert

Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Moss, Samuel

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Mount, William George

Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Whitaker, Thomas Palmer

Murray, Rt Hn A. Gr'h'm (Bute)

Schwann, Charles E.

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, Sir John Archibald

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wilson, John (Govan)

Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Woods, Samuel

Oldroyd, Mark

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Wyndham, George

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Souttar, Robinson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—

Paulton, James Mellor

Spicer, Albert

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlingt'n)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Main Question again proposed.
And, it being after Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

APPOINTMENT.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, 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.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of 17 Members.
  The Commitee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. James Bailey, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Richard Cavendish, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Thomas Curran, Mr. Dalziel, Sir Horatio Davies, Mr. Duncombe, Major-General Goldsworthy, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lafone, Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Macdona, Mr.
  1240
  P. J. Power, Mr. William Redmond, and Lord Stanley.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

NEW BILL.
Bill to amend section one of the The Poor Law Act, 1889, and section four of the Poor Law (Apprentices, etc.) Act, 1851, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Flower, Sir Harry Bemrose, Mr. Drage, Mr. Davitt, Captain Greville, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Alfred Hutton, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Harry Samuel, and Mr. Samuel Smith; presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
Houese adjourned at Fifteen miuntes past Twelve of the Clock.

Preamble
The LORD MAGNAGHTEN—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.
Several Lords took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Presented and read first time.
  LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented and read first time; and referred to the Examiners.
  CATHCART'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Witnesses ordered to attend on the Second Reading of the Bill.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Correspondence relating to the public finance and resources of the Island of Jamaica.
  INDIA (FAMINE).
  Report of the Indian Famine Commission, 1898.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  I. Miscellaneous Series: No. 494. Brazil: A journey to the diamond fields of Minas Geraes, and remarks on the Province of Minas Graes; No. 495. Den mark: Commercial education.
  II. Annual Series: No. 2205. Import trade of the Hawaiian Islands for the year 1897.

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1854–94.
  Tenth Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission; with appendix.

  TREATY SERIES No. 2. (1899).
  Exchange of Notes extending to Cyprus the provisional modus vivendi between the United Kingdom and Belgium pending the conclusion of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the two countries, 25th November 1898.
  Presented (by command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LUNACY.
  Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made and the number of patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ended 31st December 1898.
  METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACTS, 1866 TO 1898.
  Report by the Board of Agriculture of the proceedings under the Acts during the year ended the 31st December 1898.
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Returns from Clerks of the Crown and Peace of number of persons committed for trial in 1898.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) (GENERAL ORDERS).
  Five General Orders issued between the 28th May 1898 and the 17th January 1899.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition for repeal of; of the Guardians of the Garstang Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BILLS ORDERED FOR SECOND READING.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
    PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
    To be read second time to-morrow.

MOVEMENTS OF HER MAJESTY'S WARSHIPS.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government if directions could be given that Her Majesty's ships, or at least some of the smaller ones, should visit the Channel Islands more frequently. Before putting the question I should like to say a few words in explanation. Your Lordships are doubtless aware that the Channel Islands are surrounded by one mass of rooks and Shoals, and that there is a tremendous rise and fall of the tide. This renders the navigation of the seas and the channels around these islands very intricate and dangerous. Now, my Lords, though our Admiralty charts are as good and correct as you can possibly find, and although there are no men in the world better able to use them than our naval officers, still, the knowledge obtained from charts and from sailing directions is not in any way to be compared to that gained by cruising round the coast and acquiring a personal acquaintance with the position of the various dangers of the channels, the sets of the tide, the land-marks and the sea-marks. This knowledge, my Lords, I am afraid our naval officers have had very little
1060
chance of acquiring in the Channel Islands. The French naval officers have had every opportunity, and they have made the most of it. Our war vessels have been very seldom seen round the islands, whereas the French warships are constantly cruising there, and they have been noticed going through these very intricate channels steaming at a speed which proved that those on board must have had a most intimate knowledge of all the dangers in the vicinity. I was talking to the master of a Jersey vessel a short time ago, and he told me when he was in Boulogne last summer, one of his crew, a Frenchman, got into trouble with the authorities through not having his papers, authorising him to ship in a foreign vessel, correct. The French official spoke to the master on the subject, and commenced to find fault with him for not seeing that this man's papers were in order. The master said, "Oh, that is no business of mine. You forget that where I come from we are free." "Oh, yes, I know that," said the French official, "but, all the same these islands ought to belong to France." Now, my Lords, I think that will show you the feeling in France as regards these islands. So far as the islanders themselves are concerned, their feelings are just the other way; they have no wish to belong to France. But during the last uncertainty there was a strong feeling of insecurity experienced by the islanders. In fact, one Jersey man told mo that he wrote to his wife, telling her, in case war was declared, to at once leave Jersey and come over to England, and let their goods and belongings take care of themselves. This state of uncertainty, my Lords, I think was mainly due to the islanders seeing so very much of the French vessels and so very little of the English vessels. I would remind your Lordships that the islands are close to one of the principal French naval ports—namely Cherbourg. They are facing a whole lot of small harbours in the Gulf of St. Malo. The French put a great deal of faith and dependence in their torpedo boats, and it is only a matter of a few hours for them to reach the French shore at Poole, Guernsey. Unforunately, the islands have not good harbours, with the exception of Poole, where the small vessels I have in my mind—the torpedo boat destroyers

1061
—could easily and safely lie. Our torpedo boats would also be able to lie in the swatchway in St. Heliers. I think, had war unfortunately been declared last year, our naval officers would have been under serious disadvantages had they been required to operate in those waters against a foe who, in addition to having very excellent charts, possess good local knowledge of the vicinity. I think we ought at least to give our naval officers a chance of acquiring that local knowledge which our neighbours on the other side of the Channel have enabled their naval officers to obtain, and with that view I beg to ask the Question of which I have given notice.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, in reply to the question of the noble Lord, I regret I am unable to follow him in that technical knowledge and geographical knowledge which he has displayed with regard to the Channel Islands. I can only answer the question which he has placed on the Paper. I am instructed, on behalf of the Admiralty, to inform the noble Lord that Her Majesty's gunboat, "Raven," is stationed in the Channel Islands permanently. Moreover, in 1896 the Training Squadron, consisting of four ships, paid a visit extending from the 9th to the 18th of June, and have paid annual visits since. The noble Lord expressed some regret that torpedo boat destroyers were not seen frequently in the neighbourhood of the Channel Islands. I beg to inform him, on behalf of the Admiralty, that torpedo boat destroyers atached to the Portsmouth command have paid the following visits to the Channel Islands: two in June, three in August, four in September, and six in October; and that further visits will be arranged for in due course.

ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS IN BUENOS AYRES.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask a question as to the alleged ill-treatment of British subjects in Buenos Ayres, cases of which I will give to your Lordships. The Secretary of the Merchant Service Guild, a body formed to look after the interests of the masters and officers of the Mercantile Marine,
1062
received from the Guild's agent in Buenos Ayres a statement made by he Master of the s.s. "Greylands." In this statement—dated 4th July, 1898—it was set forth that two firemen, one a Belgian, and the other a Frenchman, had been for several days drinking ashore. They came on board drunk, and caused disturbances, assaulting the carpenter and watchman. On 28th May, about 7 p.m., Captain Symonds (master of the s.s. "Greylands") sent for the police. The second mate, who went for them, returned, saying that they would not come without an order from the British Consulate. The Consulate would not have been open until Monday morning. The two men came on board again on Sunday afternoon and created another disturbance, one of them striking the cook with a knuckle-duster and cutting his face open. They both went aft to the cabin door and threatened the first mate, saying that they would throw him into the dock. The same evening—Sunday—Captain Symonds states that he sent again for the police, but could not get them. About midnight the two men came on board again, and one, who had a knife, dragged the boatswain out of his bed and threatened to kill him, the other going into the forecastle and assaulting other members of the crew with a knuckle-duster. The watchman went aft and called the first mate, who came forward with the second mate and the steward to quell the disturbance. The two men fought desperately, and both were somewhat mauled before one was secured and placed in irons. The other man escaped ashore and made a report to the authorities, who then came on board without any order from the British Consul and arrested the first and second mate, the steward, the cook, and the boatswain. Captain Symonds states that he went up the same morning and paid 100 dollars to have them released. The next morning the authorities sent an order for the five of them to appear at the office of the Captain of the Port, and when they got there they were locked up, the authorities stating that one of the two firemen was severely injured and in the hospital, and subsequently stated that he was dead. To show how false such a statement was, the captain states that the man who was said to be in the hospital came on Board

1063
and packed his bag. He was prevented from taking it ashore, but went himself and deserted the ship. The other man took his bag and deserted also. On Wednesday the authorities went on board and arrested the ship's watchman, an able seaman, and the carpenter, and locked them up with the others, seven in all—the first mate, the second male, the cook, the steward, the carpenter, the watchman, and the able seaman—on the strength of the report of the two firemen who had already caused so much disturbance on board. The British Consul stated that he could do nothing, and Captain Symonds asks—
"Is it possible that the British Flag is not more protected than this, and are British subjects to be arrested and detained in this manner without any redress? To-day I have been to Palermo, and seen the men in prison there. They have nothing but the bare stone floor to sleep on, and only one rough blanket each, and no change of clothes except what they get from outside. The effect on the second mate is terrible already, and unless he is quickly removed I fear he will soon be dead."
Well, my Lords, on the receipt of the letter containing the statements that I have just made to your Lordships, the Secretary of the Merchant Service Guild communicated with Her Majesty's Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office communicated with the Legation, and this was the reply—
"Foreign Office,
"13th August, 1898.
"The Secretary, the Merchant Service Guild.
"Sir,—I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., relative to the arrest of seven members of the crew of the s.s. 'Greylands" at Buenos Ayres. The case has been brought to his Lordship's notice, and Mr. Thornton, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at that capital, was instructed to inquire into the case. A telegram has just been received from him reporting that these men are charged with a serious assault, and are awaiting trial in prison. Bail has been allowed, but is not forthcoming. Mr. Thornton has taken the opinion of an eminent lawyer, who states that all the proceedings are strictly legal, and that the delay in trying the prisoners is due to pressure of cases in the Criminal Court. Mr. Thornton states that the acting Consul of Buenos Ayres has taken all possible steps to expedite the proceedings, and that the prisoners will be tried shortly. He adds that the prisoners are well treated.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
"(Signed) FRANCIS BERTIE."
1064
Now, my Lords, dealing first with the statement that bail was allowed, but not forthcoming, if your Lordships will for a moment consider the case you will see how unlikely it would be for bail to be offered. These seven unfortunate subjects of Her Majesty not only were in prison, but had lost their situations. The master of the "Greylands" had to sail, and to fill up their places with others. Had bail been given, these men would have been on the street, and in self-preservation would have had to take the first berth that was offered them. No date was fixed for the trial, and they could not possibly arrange to surrender to their bail. Of course, this was well known to the British residents in Buenos Ayres, who naturally did not wish to lose their money. I now come to the second part of Mr. Thornton's letter, in which he says that he had obtained the opinion of an eminent counsel, who stated that the proceedings were legal. I do not know anything about that, my Lords, but I would remind your Lordships that when these two drunken firemen created a disturbance the captain of the "Greylands" sent, in self-defence, for the assistance of the police, who refused to come. He was obliged to order these two men to be ironed, which he was justified in doing. You may imagine that two men mad with drink would make a desperate resistance, and would not get off without some marks. One escaped, and on his application the police boarded the "Greylands" and arrested the first and second officers, the steward, the cook, and the boatswain; the latter three being, you may say, under officers and holding positions of trust on board. They took these men off to gaol, and in the morning the captain had to pay 100 dollars to get them released, which sum, as I will show you, was pocketed by one of the officials. Afterwards they were rearrested on board, together with two others, and imprisoned for four and a half months. Now, my Lords, the reason given by Mr. Thornton for the delay in trying these men was the pressure of cases in the Criminal Court. With your permission, I will read you an extract from a letter addressed by a British resident in Buenos Ayres to the Editor of the Times of Argentina. I must tell you, my

1065
Lords, that so much, indignation was aroused amongst the shipping community in Buenos Ayres in consequence of the imprisonment of these seven men, that the ship masters of that port appointed a Committee of 15 of them to see what they could do for these unfortunate men. An application was, it seems, made to the Legation as to how the case was progressing, and the answer they received was to the effect that the Fiscal Judge was indisposed and could not attend to the matter at the time. The British resident who wrote to the Times of Argentina, after commenting on the unfairness of the proceedings, goes on to say—
"I do not pretend to any knowledge on the mysteries of diplomacy, but I have always thought that when the Legation of any country takes a complaint in hand it is because it has the authority to do so, and the Minister would present the case to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and thus bring it to a head at once, and without any delay. Our Minister, however, seems to adopt a different course. Why I cannot see. This is not the first time the Office over the door of which hangs the escutcheon of the British Legation has shown its weakness in matters pertaining to its jurisdiction. I am sure that I am not the only British subject in Buenos Ayres who feels indignant at the want of energy sometimes shown by Her Majesty's representatives in this city when acts of injustice have been committed towards British subjects, and I am also not the only man who thinks that if the matter were properly laid before Dr. Alcorta, Minister of Argentina's Foreign Affairs, the case would receive prompt and immediate attention, be the Fiscal Judge indisposed or not. I have also read in your paper that the Consul here states that the men are properly treated, and that the second officer was never ill. I have spoken to the gentleman who saw the prisoners on behalf of the captains, and can contradict that statement, and, moreover, can add that if the captain's assistance had not been forthcoming the life of that officer might have been in danger. I can also prove that at the second officer's request, 5 dollars 40 cents were spent for him in medicines, and that the prisoners were without beds until the Consul paid for and supplied five beds for the seven men in the prison, and that they were not brought until the captains protested to the Consulate against the ill-usage of the prisoners."
I will now come, my Lords, to the last part of Mr. Thornton's letter. He adds that the prisoners were well treated. I presume that Mr. Thornton did not visit the prisoners, and did not speak from personal knowledge. I imagine ho must have got his information from the Consul, or from someone in the Consulate. Your Lordships will be able
1066
to judge for yourselves whether they were well treated or badly treated from the statement of Mr. Walter B. Ness, the second officer of the "Greylands." After giving his experiences in the endeavour which was made to quell the disturbance caused on the "Greylands" by the two firemen, Mr. Ness goes on to say—
"After leaving the ship to give evidence, we were taken to the Captain of the Port, made to sign our names, and were immediately locked up in the calabass, a little, dirty, smelling hole, with a lot of half-naked, filthy natives, while the two firemen were set at liberty. At eight o'clock on Monday morning we were released on the captain paying a fine of 100 dollars, which we found out afterwards was pocketed by one of the officials. The following morning we were presented with a summons each, but first took the ship out to the roads, where a competent man was placed aboard, and the mate, steward, 'bosun, carpenter, cook, ship's watchman, and myself were taken to the Prefecture Maritime, where we gave our evidence and were immediately imprisoned. While imprisoned there I suffered very much from a severe cold, for which I had medicine brought me from outside. Altogether we were imprisoned there about three or four weeks, when we were taken, to the Departimenta, where we suffered great privations, the whole seven of us being thrust into a small cell, with bare stone floor and walls, and iron shutters to the windows. To add to our dscomfort, there was a great heap of half-putrefied bones and meat in one corner, while the stone floor was simply covered with vermin. For food we got two small rolls of bread, two plates of macaroni soup, and two pieces of meat called 'toomba,' which even a hungry dog would have found it a hard job to get away with. This treatment lasted for six days, during which time, what with lying on the cold, bare, and very often damp stone floor, we were all more or less in a state of collapse. For myself, I was shivering and coughing the whole day and night, and often had a hard job to eat the miserable and not too clean pittance that was thrown to us. From the Departimenta we were taken up to Palermo, where, if our miseries were decreased in one way, they were certainly increased in many others. Here—owing to a report that the fireman the 'bosun' had beaten had succumbed to his injuries in the hospital—we were put in the salon where murderers are tried. There were 32 of us in this room, and a more cutthroat, dirty class I never want to see again. Here, certainly, everything was kept clean, and the food was increased by the addition of another roll of bread in the morning, with something which very much resembled hot rusty water, called coffee; but, no matter what it was, we were very glad of any extras. Here we still had the bare stone floor for our beds, and after a week or two here—if it had not been for the kindness of Captain Deacon in sending us up each a bed, together with our blankets and clothes—it would have fared very badly with us, I myself being completely broken down. Now, I saw a letter in the Times

1067
of Argentina, stating that the prisoners of the s.s. 'Greylands' had every comfort in prison, tobacco even being allowed them, and all they were in want of was their liberty. The person who wrote that had very little idea of the comforts of prison life. Tobacco was allowed us when we had the money to buy it, and our liberty was certainly no minor consideration. Altogether, I must say that the four months and a half I had of gaol life with robbers, murderers, and all the worst imaginable characters for my companions day by day, and the suffering and shame I endured during that time, is enough to make any Englishman's blood boil."
I must tell your Lordships that the captains amongst themselves made a subscription for these unfortunate men while they were in prison. As your Lordships doubtless know, ship-masters have not very much money to spare, and therefore the amount collected could not have been very large, and it had to last these seven men for four and a half months. My Lords, that is all I have to say about the "Greylands" case, but I think your Lordships will agree with me that if the statement made by Mr. Ness and the former statements are true, there has been great injustice done towards some of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, my Lords, I will take the case of the steamer "Isleworth," which recently arrived at La Plata from Bahia Blanca. It appears that two firemen of the ship, while in an intoxicated condition, claimed some money from the captain over and above their wages, and, meeting with a refusal, became unruly to such an extent that the master found it necessary to put them in irons, as they threatened to kill him before he left the River Plate. The captain lodged a complaint at the British Consulate at Bahia Blanca, and requested that the men should be imprisoned by his order. The Consul, however, refused to do anything, and, moreover, refused to give the captain his papers if he sailed with the men in irons. The captain protested to the American Consul at that port. I cannot tell your Lordships what happened at that interview, but the result of it was that the "Isleworth," with the men still in irons, sailed for La Plata without the Consular papers. These papers, however, were sent on by rail to La Plata, which looks as if the Consul or acting Consul, or whoever was in the Consulate at the time, had realised that he had made a mistake. This does not deal exactly with ill-treatment of British sub-
1068
jects, but it bears out the complaints which have been made by various ship masters as to the way in which they are being treated by Her Majesty's Consuls in the Argentine. I will now take the last case received, that of the ss. "Ivydene." The following letter is addressed to the Secretary of the Merchant Service Guild, and is dated from Monte Video, 18th January 1898—
"Enclosed please find a copy of entry in official log, which Mr. Deacon, agent for the Merchant Service Guild at Buenos Ayres, advised me to forward to you, and you have my sanction to use it as you please. I intend to publish it in the American newspapers. I consider the general treatment of ship masters by the port officials and police at Buenos Ayres is a disgrace to us as Englishmen, and the general opinion of ship masters is that no satisfaction is to be got by applying to our Consul, and I have grave fears that some day a crew will be making a stand, and then it will be Englishmen with revolvers against police and swords. Somebody will get hurt. As the commander refused to read the entry in the log, I made a copy, and sent it to him by letter, so he is made acquainted with it. Just before sailing I heard that a chief engineer had been arrested on board and dragged to prison because a drunken man said he struck him."
This is signed by Mr. W. J. Kilburn, and the copy of the entry in the official log of the ss. "Ivydene," at Buenos Ayres, dated 1 a.m., 1st January 1889, is as follows—
"This is to certify that at 1 a.m. a stranger came on board, and began a disturbance amongst the crew, and was put on shore. Afterwards, J. Donald, ordinary seaman, who was drunk, began a disturbance, and wished to fight, and whilst some of the crew were taking him forward the police on shore blew their whistles, and 15 or more of them jumped on board, greatly excited, with drawn swords, and began knocking the crew about, securing J. Donald, ordinary seaman, and C. Piens, fireman, and by force dragged them on shore. I (the master) was on the bridge when the police first appeared, and from there protested to the man who appeared to be in charge of the police against their interference. The police, then seeing H. Sohl, fireman, on the other side of the deck, and alone, rushed across and dragged him on shore, notwithstanding that I (the master) stood at the gangway, and protested against the arrest. It was only by a supreme effort and good discipline amongst officers and crew that stopped an attempt at rescue, in which some would have been hurt, if not killed. The second mate, Mr. Williams, brought the British Ensign, which we spread across the gangway, thus preventing further arrests. We hereby

1069
protest against the action of the port authorities in coming on board like a gang of infuriated pirates, and arresting three of the crew, and dragging them ashore to prison in the manner aforesaid."
This entry is signed by W. J. Kilburn, master; J. W. Rigby, first mate; E. Williams, second mate; A. Leighton, third mate; J. W. Graham, first engineer; C. Tinn, second engineer; and W. Wright, third engineer. Captain Kilburn also states that he went on board Her Majesty's ship "Beagle" with the official log, and that, without reading the entry, the commander referred him to the British Consul. He went there, and was informed, he says, that the port authorities had a perfect right to board his ship as they had done, and that he had better pay the fine, which he did, amounting to 60 dollars for the three men, who had been 39 hours confined in a prison. Now, my Lords, some time ago, the master of a vessel at Liverpool summoned one of his crew for neglect of duty and using foul language. He got a conviction for the neglect of duty, but the magistrate's clerk informed the Bench that they had no power to convict for bad language, as the ship was his home, and he could use what language he liked in his home. If that is the law, then these men were taken from their home, imprisoned for 39 hours, one for being drunk, I presume, and the others for no reason whatever, and then each of them fined 20 dollars. My Lords, these 10 men—seven from the "Grey-lands," and three from the "Ivydene"—were not arrested for any offence committed on shore. They were dragged from their ships, and dragged from under the shelter of the British Flag, an insult to which neither France nor Germany would submit. I think your your Lordships will agree with me that if the statements I have read to you are true, then these ten British subjects have been infamously ill-treated. Again, if these statements are true, Her Majesty's representatives at Buenos Ayres have been grossly negligent, and have not given that attention to the interests of Her Majesty's subjects that they have a right to expect. Or, on the other hand, if these statements are not true, then Her Majesty's representatives have been grossly libelled, and those men who have signed their names to these statements should be severely punished. I think it
1070
is a case that requires the fullest investigation, and I hope the noble Marquess at the head of the Government will see his way to having a full and public inquiry. These cases are not like some which are connected with the Board of Trade, where it is nearly impossible to get officers of the Merchant Service to give evidence, for reasons that I stated to your Lordships last year. But here you have all these officers to give evidence, and, if necessary, a good number of the crews of these vessels can be found, and in addition there are 15 ship masters who could be called who were in Buenos Ayres at the time, and who have full knowledge of what took place. I would also ask the Admiralty to request the commanding officer of Her Majesty's ship "Beagle" to give his reasons for not reading the entry made in the official log and making a note of it, which I am under the impression it was his duty to do. My Lords, I now beg to ask the question of which I have given notice.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, I readily admit that every sympathy and every assistance is due to subjects of Her Majesty who receive ill-treatment at the hands of any foreign jurisdiction. But I am bound to say that the noble Lord would have pursued a more regular course if he had communicated the matters of which he has complained to the Foreign Office before laying them before this House. I have never heard of two of these vessels before—the "Ivydene" and the "Isle-worth"—and the result is that the noble Lord comes here and makes very grave charges against Her Majesty's servants abroad, without giving us the slightest opportunity of ascertaining what the facts are, or whether there is anything to be said on the other side or not.
LORD MUSKERRY: I only received the information yesterday.
THE PRIME MINISTER: I think you might have referred it to the Foreign Office first. We have heard of the "Grey lands" case, but we have not heard of the "Isleworth" or the "Ivydene" cases, neither have we heard of

1071
the obscure Liverpool case in which the clerk to the magistrates at Liverpool seems to have used some very unauthorised expressions. I submit that in such matters, before we make a complaint to the Argentine Government, we must ascertain whether we have ground for it. What we have a right to demand from any foreign Government is that, in administering their law, they shall administer it equally, so that Her Majesty's subjects shall not be in any worse position than their own subjects, or the subjects of any foreign Power. We have not a right to demand of them that they shall administer the same law that we administer, and we have not a, right to demand that their gaols shall be as agreeable as our own gaols. What we have a right to demand is that there shall be no disadvantage in dealing with Her Majesty's subjects compared to the treatment measured out to the natives of the land. The noble Lord will observe, if he considers the story which he has unfolded, that there are always two sides to each case; one side I may, for shortness, describe as the side of the firemen, who always appear to have been the assailants, and the other the side of the crew. The firemen, in the view of the noble Lord, were always drunk, and misbehaved themselves generally, and the crew were patient martyrs, who defended themselves only to the utmost verge of necessity, and yet the local authorities have always taken the side of firemen and not the side of the crew. Her Majesty's representative, as far as I know or can observe, seems rather to have leaned in the same direction; and I gather that the commander of one of Her Majesty's ships showed very improper partiality for the view of the firemen. Now, in the case of the "Greylands," it is the representation of the noble Lord—and I have no doubt his most sincere belief—that the firemen were frightfully drunk, and came on board and gratuitously assaulted the sailors. What means have we of ascertaining and deciding between these two statements? I have no doubt, if you were to consult the firemen, they would say that the facts were exactly opposite. But we do know that one of the firemen was so ill-treated and battered that he was
1072
nearly dying, and was thought to have died. That is not an absolute presumption, but it is an indication that probably there was violence on the other side. Further, we have the statement that a distinguished lawyer was consulted on the spot, and he said that all the proceedings were perfectly regular. Of course he may have been entirely deceived, but, at all events, it is a presumption on the side of the firemen. There is a circumstance, however, which I think the noble Lord does not know, but which has been conveyed to me. At the end of the four and a half months, a most improper period of detention, I admit, these men, representing the crew side of the case, were tried and condemned by the Court to three months' imprisonment; but because they had been in prison for four and a half months no further punishment was inflicted on them, and they were at once released. The fact that the regular Court of Argentina, after hearing the evidence, condemned the crew and acquitted the firemen, must be allowed to be a considerable presumption in favour of the firemen and against the crew. I quite admit that this presumption may be repelled. I think we ought to be allowed to ask Her Majesty's representative on the spot what he has to say in regard to this case, and whether the matter presents itself to him in precisely the same light as it presents itself to the noble Lord. We should be very glad if Ave could always assume that every complaint made by a British captain was entirely justified, and that the people who deny it were wrong; but our knowledge of the wickedness of this evil world does not allow us to accept that patriotic doctrine. Before venturing to appeal to a foreign Government to set aside the action of their own Courts and condemn the action of their own officers we must go into the matter very carefully to ascertain really on which side the blame ought to be placed. I fear that even such an inquiry would not be very satisfactory. When a ship is at port, and all those who are engaged in her management are enjoying themselves, some will enjoy themselves too much, and very serious conflicts will arise;

1073
but when you come to examine into these conflicts you will be so bewildered by counter statements on one side and the other, that you will not be able to determine on which side the blame lies. This is not a case in which any native of Argentina has been preferred to a British subject. It is a case in which people who, for the time at least, were British subjects, quarrelled amongst themselves. It is a case in which the authorities had to interfere because the peace was being openly broken. All the cases mentioned by the noble Lord came into that category, and they were dealt with according to the law of the country. No irregularities seem to have been committed, and I readily admit that the Argentine law is very much worse than ours, and their gaols are much to be condemned in comparison with ours; but I do not see the international ground that we have for complaining of the treatment British subjects have received, when in reality it is only the decision as between two sets of British subjects as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong. We shall be very glad to receive from the noble Lord any statement which he may have to make, so that it may be communicated to Her Majesty's Consul on the spot, in order to receive from him and from the local authorities such observations as they may think right to make. When we receive them we shall be glad to submit them to the noble Lord for his judgment, but in the meantime I feel bound to say that it is not a case for interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I would like to point out to the noble Marquess that I only read statements which had been submitted to me. I do not say they are true. They are signed by masters of British vessels and officers of British vessels, but as to their correctness I have no means of judging.
House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Five of the clock.