reported Her Majesty's Speech [see page 1], and read it to the House.

I think all will agree that the Speech from the Throne gives pledges for the continuance of that Radical and progressive policy so dear to the Liberal Party, and for which the majority of this House has striven so hard and so unceasingly during the last Session under the leadership of the greatest of our countrymen. I cannot mention the name of the right hon. Member for Midlothian without condoling with the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Pencil who have lost so great a chief and one whose tact and unparalleled experience in Parliamentary matters it is impossible to equal. Put we, his Party, feel his loss not only on account of the great eloquence with which the right hon. Gentleman thrilled this House, not only on account of the influence that he cast over us and the whole country with his master mind, but perhaps we shall feel more keenly the loss of one who had so much tenacity of purpose and such an unswerving fidelity to all the principles and great measures adopted by the Liberal Party, and the loss will also be felt deeply by many Members like myself, whose earliest recollections are connected with the kindness and geniality of the great statesman. There is a blank left by the retirement of our late Leader which no mortal man can ever fill. The Speech from the Throne is his policy. It is the programme that that great statesman enunciated as the Leader and mouthpiece of the Liberal Party at Newcastle, and the best tribute we as a Party can pay to him is to fight for the cause he supported, and to carry the banner which he upheld to victory in the future. While affection to our late Leader loads us in that direction, our duties and pledges to our constituents urge us in the same way, and I greet with pleasure the first measure mentioned in the Queen's Speech, which will be the one, perhaps, that he would take the greatest interest in, because it affects that country for which he laboured so unceasingly, and for whose welfare he sacrificed so much of his life. I refer to the measure to deal with the sad case of the evicted tenants in Ireland. I greet it with pleasure, not only because in itself it embodies a great and good principle, but, because I believe that it is the only measure that can maintain that satisfactory condition in Ireland which has been reached at the present moment until the great Home Rule Bill becomes law. [Opposition laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, and may rest their hopes on the desertion of the present Prime Minister from that cause, but I would recommend them to read the speech which Lord Rosebery made to his Party this afternoon. Before entering further into the legislation proposed in the programme, I must say a word or two on the able way in which the foreign affairs of the country have been conducted under the statesmen who have had the management of them. We have already overcome the difficulties connected with the Chinese frontier on the side of Burmah. We have gone far in our negotiations in a friendly way—and that alone is a great thing—with Russia as to the definition of our frontier in Central Asia; the United States are carrying out the mandates of the arbitrators with reference to the Behring's Sea fisheries, and I trust that in the delicate matter of the collision of our forces with those of a friendly nation in West Africa the same amount of success will attend the efforts of those who have these subjects to deal with. I regret to say there is a necessity for a huge expenditure in providing for the defence of the Empire, but I may add that most of us on this side are prepared to support that expenditure. But to return to the legislation proposed to be undertaken this Session. Besides the measure affecting Ireland, there is a promise of most important Bills dealing with labour questions—with the Factory Acts, the Mines Regulation Acts, and with the provision of a Board of Conciliation for the settlement of labour disputes. I will not detain the House by referring to these important measures affecting labour, because, although I take great interest in them, I am to be followed by one who has had a life's experience of the working classes, and whose study throughout his life has been labour questions. I regret, however, that the measure which was passed in this House during the last Session was not made law, and that there is not included in the programme a Bill restricting labour in mines to eight hours a day. Perhaps the measure most desired throughout the country is a Registration Bill—not a Registration Bill such as the Duke of Devonshire seems to think any Registration Bill must be, not a gerrymandering Bill, but a real, honest Registration Bill, which shall remove some of the grievances that now exist, even if it does not do more than put an end to the practice of disfranchising for two years a man who removes his home and deprive rate-compounding owners of property of the power of disfranchising their tenants. It will be hard for hon. Gentlemen opposite to refuse their support to a Bill which will give votes to the classes already enfranchised by getting rid of the difficulties which tend to keep the men off the Register. There is a measure perhaps more keenly desired throughout the country, but which I cannot hope to see gentlemen opposite join in supporting—a measure for preventing the mere fact of a man's holding property giving him extra votes. The Liberal Party are delighted to see that a man shall no longer be qualified by mere leisure and property for repeating the expression of his opinion at the ballot-boxes and so often overriding the wishes of the locality. But beyond these Bills there was a Bill for dealing with the liquor traffic. [Ironical Opposition cheers.] I am pleased to note that gentlemen opposite greet the mention of that measure with such pleasure, for I hope they will then support it. No Member of the House will be slow to support a Bill to give to Scotland that which has been got with such difficulty and labour for England—a Local Government Bill. Then there is the Bill for the disestablishment of the Scotch Church; and on this subject I should like to say that, although I live far removed from Scotland, I have always heard—and nobody seems to be able to contradict it—that the only thing that keeps the great Churches in Scotland apart is the fact of there being an Establishment. I rejoice to see a measure for the equalisation of rates in London, not only because it is good for London, but because it carries out the best principles of the Poor Law of l834, and does away with a remnant of an ancient abuse—putting the heaviest burden on those least able to bear it. The Speech also foreshadows a measure which I think will be greeted with joy by agriculturists throughout the country—a measure to divide rates between occupier and owner, which will at least give to those who are employed in agriculture a less share of the burdens that they now have to pay. Lastly, I must express satisfaction that among the first of the Government measures will be one for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales—a Church which has ceased to be a National Church, a Church which has no right to be called a National Institution, and which only remains to bring hatred on the Church of England, of which it is so decrepit and decayed a member. [Opposition laughter] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may dissent from that statement, but it certainly is a fact that the majority of the Welsh people look upon it as a very unimportant and un-National Institution. The programme before us is one which, from a Radical point of view, is good, and if it is carried I am sure most of us will be satisfied. I quite recognise the great difficulties that the Government and the Party have before them. But I believe those difficulties are over-estimated. Gentlemen opposite may do something towards helping in this work. In view of the necessities of their Party at the elections which they expect so soon, and which they so ardently desire, they would do well to use their best abilities in trying to influence their friends elsewhere to counsels of moderation and forbearance. Beyond these difficulties there is the difficulty of having lost our Leader. Against that I put the fact that we have still an unbroken Party. We have still sitting on the Treasury Bench the most Radical Government that ever sat there. We have still two great Leaders who are quite able to cope with the difficulties before them. We have in this House one whose eloquence and faculties of leadership have been evinced over and over again. While for our Leader in the country we have a brilliant statesman—a man tried in the highest office—a man who has successfully dealt with the most intricate and delicate negotiations—a man who is honoured and respected and admired by the working classes—a man also who has shown great capabilities of leadership in another assembly in this great Metropolis. With such men, with such a united front, and with such a cause, I not only feel that this House will accept the programme, but that when the time comes to consult the country the masses of the country will turn with scorn upon the false Radicals and the self-styled friends of the people who dare stand aside or oppose those measures of democracy and progress which we so heartily desire. I have to apologise to gentlemen opposite for having made, perhaps, too much of a Party speech. I can only give as an excuse the present anxiety of Parties and my inexperience in dealing with these subjects as anything but a Party man. I thank the House very much for the attention with which it has listened to me, and I beg to move this Address in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech—

"That 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 thank Your Majesty for the most Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

In rising to second the Address of Thanks to Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Speech, perhaps the House will permit mo to express my appreciation of the very distinguished compliment and honour which the Government have conferred upon me in asking me to discharge this duty, in the performance of which I am sure, from my own past experience of the House, that I shall be granted its fullest and most complete indulgence. This, I believe I am correct in saying, is the first occasion on which an hon. Member occupying a humble position in life similar to that which occupy has been called upon to discharge such it duty. J attach considerable importance to this fact, not merely on account of the personal compliment which to me it involves—and that, Sir, is not without its interests and influence upon my mind—but more because of the principle which is involved in the incident itself. It is a guarantee, as I take it, that as far as this House is concerned equality of privilege and opportunity should no longer be limited by considerations of birth or social distinction, and, as such, I attach considerable importance to it. I think I may also be permitted to thank the Government for the compliment which they have paid to my class through me in asking me to discharge this duty. I hope also that I may regard the departure which the Government have made in this respect as a guarantee of their sympathy with progressive legislation. Reference has already been made to the sympathetic views of the Prime Minister (the Earl of Rosebery) on social and democratic questions. He has already given evidence elsewhere of his sympathy with the masses, and, with Lord Rosebery as Prime Minister, and with, as Leader of this House, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), who for the past 20 years or more has been one of the truest and most faithful friends whom the industrial classes have been able to count upon in Parliament, I hope I may take this now departure as a guarantee that they are determined to maintain a progressive and democratic policy in social and domestic affairs, and can assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if that be so, be may confidently rely upon the cordial and loyal support of all his friends not only in this House but also in the country. It must, I think, be a matter of profound congratulation to learn from Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech that her relations with Foreign Powers continue to be of a cordial and friendly character. When we remember the vastness of her dominions, and take into account the diversity of the character and temperament of her subjects scattered here, there, and everywhere amongst the nations of the earth, and involving liabilities and responsibilities which may at any moment lead to serious complications and breaches of the peace, we cannot but express our profound congratulations to Her Majesty that her relations with Foreign Powers continue to be amicable and satisfactory. Many people seem to think that working men take no interest in foreign policy or foreign affairs. That is a very great delusion. They take the keenest and the most watchful interest in these things, but I may be permitted to say on their behalf that they are not particularly in love with what is sometimes termed a "Jingo" policy. "Defence, not defiance" is the policy which they approve, and the Government may rely upon this—that if there were any attempt to resort to what has been termed a spirited foreign policy, they must calculate at the outset upon the his strenuous and most uncompromising opposition from the industrial classes in the country. This, however, is, I think, a contingency most remote. With regard to domestic affairs, it is also some satisfaction to us to know that by the administration of the ordinary law in Ireland agrarian crime has been reduced to the lowest point which has been reached within the last 15 years. That, in my judgment, is conclusive evidence of the wisdom of the policy which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government in relation to Ireland. It is a demonstration, in my opinion, that a policy based upon considerations of clemency, justice, and impartiality will rarely, if ever, require to be strengthened and supported by repressive legislation in order to secure the maintenance of law and order. I think that in the comparatively tranquil and peaceful condition of Ireland is to be found the strongest possible justification of the policy of the Government in regard to that country. The measure promised in Her Majesty's Speech dealing with the case of the evicted tenants in Ireland is one which, I hope, will receive the sympathetic consideration of all Parties in the House. It is to be hoped that a reasonable settlement will be arrived at on this vexed and perplexing question, and that such settlement may prove an additional guarantee for the future peace and tranquillity of that unfortunate country. The question of registration will also command our attention during the Session. That is a matter of great and urgent necessity. There is no class in the community which suffers more on account of the anomalies of our present Registration Laws than the industrial class. They, as a rule, are a migratory class. The precariousness and uncertainty of their employment compels them to change from time to time their place of residence, and such change of residence not infrequently results in long periods of disfranchisement, and loss of political rights. I maintain that that is a condition of things which ought not to continue. The system of plural voting which obtains often leads to a majority of the residents in a constituency being overruled by those whose only interest in the district is derived from the revenue which they gain from their investments in it. That ought not to be considered sufficient to give a man additional rights and privileges. I agree with the sentiment uttered by my hon. Friend, to the effect that wealth and social position ought not to carry with it additional political advantages. I will mention to the House an incident that has occurred in my own history since I became a Member of this House. Five years ago I was compelled to remove from my place of residence to another house which offered greater facilities for the effective discharge of my duty to my constituents and as a citizen, but in doing so I suffered this great disability—that I was disfranchised as a Parliamentary voter for a period of 17 months. While I had the honour of being permitted to take part hero in the making of the laws which were to be observed by myself and by my countrymen, yet if an election had occurred in the constituency in which I was residing during those 17 months I should not have been permitted to vote for the candidate of my choice. That is a ridiculously absurd and anomalous condition of things which ought not to continue. I therefore rejoice that we have promise in the Queen's Speech of a measure of reform of our Registration Law which will carry with it at the same time the principle of "One Man One Vote." Measures are also promised relating to Ecclesiastical Establishments in Wales and Scotland. On these questions I will not do more than to add that it seems to me these measures are dictated or demanded not merely as a matter of justice to Nonconformists, but as essential to true Christian progress; and I am sure of this—that they are anxiously looked for by the great majority of Welsh and Scotch people. Measures are promised for the equalisation of rates in London, for the extension of local government in Scotland, and on the question of local control of the liquor traffic. These are matters of importance to London, to Scotland, and to the people of the entire Kingdom. The measure for the local control of the liquor traffic is one in which my constituents take a very deep and profound interest, and we are very grateful indeed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having courageously taken up this question, and I sincerely hope that he may be able to make satisfactory progress with it during the present Session. I am afraid I have troubled the House at too great length; hut if it will bear with me but for a few minutes longer, I will say a word or two on the last paragraph in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech—the one which deals with labour questions, in which I am very deeply and closely interested. And here, Sir, I should be wanting in frankness if I did not express my regret at the omission of any reference in the Speech 1o the Employers' Liability Bill. That is the question which is agitating the mind of the working classes at the present time perhaps to a greater degree than any other question. I could not help feeling, having regard to the way in which this measure was dealt with in the last Session of Parliament, that we were about to commit a similar mistake in our treatment of labour questions which was made in relation to the question of Ireland in past years. The Representatives of the Irish people in this House—the men who were in the closest touch and sympathy with their race—stood up in their places and besought the House to do certain things and not to do other things upon which it was bent. They were like men crying in the wilderness. You turned a deaf ear to their appeals, no matter how sincerely they were uttered. The result was most disastrous. The result is a, matter of history, and, therefore, need not be repeated by me on this occasion. I fear we are very likely, from what took place last Session in relation to the Employers' Liability Bill, to commit a similar error or mistake in our treatment of labour questions. I do not claim ex- ceptional right to speak in these matters. I claim, with my colleagues, to be closely associated with large Organisations of working men. I claim on their behalf, and on my own, to speak in their name, to voice their opinions in this House; and I regret to say that last Session, although one and all of the 14 Labour Representatives here who are closely connected with Labour Organisations appealed to you to pass the Employers' Liability Hill, our appeal was rejected. [Opposition cries of "No!"] Yes; you turned a deaf ear to it. ["No, no!"] I beg pardon of hon. Gentlemen who say "no." The result (dearly shows that they turned a deaf ear to our cry. [Cries of "No, no!"] You and your friends in another place. You mutilated and destroyed the Bill; and for what? For Party purposes. ["No, no!"] Why, what is it we are told now by some of the leading men of the Unionist Party? We are told that if a Unionist Government be returned to power at the next Election they will consider it their duty to place in the forefront of their programme an amendment of the Employers' Liability Hill. [Opposition cheers.] I am glad to hear you cheer that, but it would have been better if you had waited until I had finished my sentence. We are told that they will consider it their duty to introduce an Employers' Liability Bill at least as good—[Cheers, and cries of "A great deal better!"]—no, not better, but at least as good as that of last Session. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham when I say "not better." A declaration such as this may do for Party purposes in the country, but, to my mind, it is anything hut an evidence of high-minded statesmanship. Well, the measure having been lost in the last Session it now devolves upon us—and we accept the duty—to give unmistakable evidence to the country and to the House of Lords that neither they nor the Party opposite shall ever be permitted to carry a measure to amend the Employers' Liability Bill through this House which embodies as one of its provisions a contracting out clause. As I have said, I regret the omission of all allusion to this Bill in the Queen's Speech. I am certain of this—from the able, vigorous, and courageous way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary defended this measure in all its stages last Session—that there is no attempt to withdraw from the position which the Government then took up in relation to this matter. We prefer to wait until we can carry a measure without a contracting-out clause rather than pass one in the mutilated form in which hon. Gentlemen opposite endeavoured to force it upon us last Session. The measures which are promised for the promotion of conciliation in labour disputes, for the amendment of the Factory and Mines Acts, and for the reform of the procedure of inquiry into fatal accidents in Scotland, are all measures of wide and deep interest to the industrial classes. They all tend in the direction of promoting the safety and well-being of those who toil in our factories, our workshops, and mines. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very wisely—if he will permit me to say so—a few months ago appointed a Committee of Experts to inquire into the conditions of labour under which men—and women also—are compelled to work in our chemical and alkali works. The Report of that Committee shows to what an alarming extent many of these operatives suffer in consequence of the noxious gases which they inhale in the discharge of their duties in the chemical and alkali works, and I hope that the measure which he is about to introduce will receive careful consideration from the House, and that we shall endeavour with all possible speed to carry it to a successful issue. Social questions at the present moment are occupying the mind of politicians and all political Parties. In that circumstance I see a very hopeful sign of the times. The social ferment and agitation which we are compelled to witness from day to day is but the outcome of a higher intelligence amongst the people. It is the necessary corollary and logical outcome of an extended franchise, and is based upon an honourable ambition on the part of the toilers to surround themselves and their families with more healthy and comfortable conditions of life. As such, it seems to me it must be fostered and encouraged by us. If this House is wise it will give a sympathetic consideration to the cry of the working classes, and do all in its power to mitigate the hardships to which they are at times subject. I am not a revolutionist in this sense: I do not advocate extreme measures; I am opposed to all violent methods of procedure in endeavouring to obtain social reform. In my judgment, he is not a friend of the working man who gives such cowardly and foolish advice. But, at the same time, we must take warning by what has taken place in the Sister Isle. Wise and timely concessions will do much to calm the temper and the passions of the toiling masses, and will do much to promote the peace and goodwill amongst the people of this Empire. It is because I believe the measures which are foreshadowed in the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty will tend in this direction that I have the greatest possible pleasure in seconding the Address of Thanks.

I am sure the House will have heard with great satisfaction the manner in which the two hon. Gentlemen who have just sat down have discharged a task which, for my own part, I have always thought one of exceptional difficulty and delicacy. Neither of the two hon. Gentlemen is a stranger to us. Both, I am glad to think, have on previous occasions taken part in the Debates of this House, and the House has listened to both, and especially to the manly utterances of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address, with marked satisfaction on many previous occasions. I feel, as the House will readily understand, but little disposed on an occasion such as this to play the critic even to the smallest extent, though I may say that perhaps parts of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address was couched in terms slightly more controversial than has been usual on such occasions. I listened with great interest but some surprise to a passage in the speech of each of the hon. Gentlemen which seemed to me rather more appropriate to an Amendment on the Address, for I noticed that the Mover of the Address expressed great regret that the Eight Hours Bill was not included among the measures mentioned in the Speech—a Bill which I may say the Seconder has a rooted objection to; while the Seconder, so it seemed to me, devoted not the least interesting and im- pressive part of his most able speech to a discussion of the general policy which ought to animate the House and the Party to which he belongs with reference to a measure which has not made its appearance in the Speech from the Throne, But the hon. Gentleman will well understand that I do not wish to press these small details, and I am sine I only express the general view of the House when I thank them for the speeches they have delivered. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman who moved the Address I think only met the just expectations of Members when he alluded in very feeling terms to the great change which has taken place in the constitution of the Government—a change, I regret to say, necessarily reflected in the genera, proceedings of this House. J do not suppose that any such change has taken place in the personnel of this House, or any such loss been incurred to the general distinction and brilliancy of our proceedings as that which the Government opposite, and we, in our measure, must deplore—namely, the retirement of the late Prime Minister from the responsible post which he has so long and so brilliantly filled with so much distinction. For my own part, I can hardly imagine the House of Commons deprived of the services of that light hon. Gentleman who has so long occupied the very front rank on one side or the oilier among those who lead in our Debates. Long before, or before many of us who have now entered middle life were even born, the right hon. Gentleman was a Cabinet Minister, and already the centre of many hopes and many prophecies of success which have since been most brilliantly fulfilled. I believe the number of gentlemen who were in the House before I joined it is now a, comparatively small and dwindling band: but before that date the right hon. Gentleman had been Prime Minister of England for four years. He has been, within the memory of every single individual whom I am now addressing, ever since they entered the House, the great example of all that is most splendid and most brilliant in the conduct of Parliamentary debate and in the use of every species of Parliamentary eloquence: and, leaving all questions of Party politics on one side, deferring or, rather, putting out of view any attempt to estimate the great public career, of which the most active part, I should imagine, has now drawn to a close, I feel that every Member of this House owes to the late Prime Minister a debt of personal and public gratitude in that he has maintained, through all the great Parliamentary and social changes, the high standard of public life which he learned to admire in a different age, and that he has continued to uphold the great traditions of the House of Commons, with which, I believe, no small part of the dignity and the utility of this Assembly is inseparably bound up. I pass from this subject to what is more directly germane to the present occasion—namely, the contents of the Speech from the Throne, in answer to which we are now asked to vote the Address. The Mover of the Address appeared, I thought, at one part of his speech to feel some anxiety lest we should be under a, misapprehension that with the change which has recently taken place was involved some alteration of the policy of that Party of which the hon Gentleman is a Member. I do not think any such suspicion has ever crossed the mind of any of us who sit on this side of the House. There has, undoubtedly, been a change in the name of the firm, but the business is conducted as usual. Even before we had the advantage of hearing the Speech from the Throne we never for a moment conceived that the retirement of the late Prime Minister would carry with it consequences affecting the general policy of the Party which has been so long led by him. But if any such suspicion had ever occurred to any gentleman they would certainly be entirely dissipated by the character of the Speech from the Throne. That Speech is a reflection—I will not say a detailed reflection or repetition, but in the main a repetition—of the Speech of last year; and such changes as there are in it have their natural explanation in the changed circumstances of the present Session. The first part of the Speech, which deals with foreign and colonial matters, need not long detain us. This part appears to me, I will confess, more remarkable for what it, does not say than for what it does say—for the omission of topics to which I should have anticipated some allusion would have been made, topics which are important, and which, I think, should have been dealt with by those who framed the Queen's Speech. The Government, in framing the Speech, have had very clearly in mind the existence of Europe, America, and Central Asia, but I notice with surprise that there is not the slightest reference to Eastern Asia or to any portion of Africa. Both Eastern Asia and Africa have been the scenes of very remarkable and interesting events upon which we have some right to desire information, and to which we fully expected that some reference would he made in the Queen's Speech. In South Africa a war—not a war on a very great scale, not an important war, but nevertheless a war—has been carried through, and, I am glad to say, conducted to a successful issue. We should have liked to know something about the settlement, something about the arrangements which the Colonial Office proposes in regard to Matabeleland. East Africa presents a problem of even greater difficulty and intricacy. If I remember rightly, no less than two Commissions of Inquiry have been issued by the Government into the affairs of East Africa—one in connection with the railway and one in connection with the expedition of that eminent public servant who was so soon called away from the service of his country; and in the case of neither of the Reports of these Commissioners, so far as I am aware, have we the slightest intimation of what their contents are, or what course the Government means to pursue in regard to them. We have been promised Papers; the promise has not been fulfilled. We are at this moment absolutely in the dark as to what view the Government take in regard to Uganda; what steps they mean to take to preserve the dominion and supremacy of the British flag and power in that district; and, in general terms, what their policy there is. Rumours have reached us, but I do not attach much value to them, that even the Cabinet themselves have never been able to come to an agreement upon the subject. Very likely that is not the fact; but if they have come to any agreement on the matter, let them tell us what it is, and let them inform us not only what they mean to do, but why they mean to do it, and what is the basis of facts upon which they mean to found their policy in that country for the future. But if the silence about East Africa is singular, surely the silence about Siam is still more singular. I think the Government will not think I am making an undue claim when I say that the Opposition have been anxiously careful not to embarrass the Government during the course of negotiations, the delicacy of which we fully recognise. But I understand that these negotiations are now at an end, and that no question is pending between France and Siam except a comparatively trifling question concerning the trial of certain persons. In these circumstances, I am not aware of any sufficient reason why Papers should be further delayed. We have been given to understand that the delay which has occurred in settling the boundaries of the buffer State in the Upper Mekong has been due to climatic reasons which make it impossible for the Boundary Commissioners to make their investigations until later in the year. This, however, is a comparatively subsidiary question; the centre of the whole problem, so far as this country is concerned, depends not so much upon the buffer State on the North-East of Siam as upon the position which Siam itself is to occupy between the French and British dominions. The French, as I understand, have declared explicitly that they have no interests hostile to the independence of Siam. I hail that declaration with satisfaction, and I wish to know whether the Government entertain any hope of carrying out any arrangement by which France and England should mutually agree to protect the rights of Siam, and to constitute it a really efficient buffer State between two Powers, which, of all Powers in the world, ought specially to avoid all unnecessary causes of friction and disagreement. On these subjects I trust the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will give us, if not full information, at all events the hope and prospect of full information being soon forthcoming. My next duty is to do what probably none of my predecessors in the post which I am now filling have ever bad occasion to do—namely, to comment on the paragraph which deals with the Estimates. Hitherto that paragraph has been regarded as one of the commonplaces of Speeches from the Throne. The old form of the sentence ran somewhat in this way—

"The Estimates for the Public Service of the year will be laid before you, and they will be prepared with all due regard to economy."

I observe that on this occasion the reference to economy has slipped out, and that the expression "provision for the defence of the Empire" has come in. I hail it with unqualified satisfaction as a recognition of that which we impressed upon the Government in November or December last—a fact which they then appeared to have learned very imperfectly—namely, that there was an immediate necessity for increased naval expenditure, and I gather that they have learned the lesson which we endeavoured to teach them with great success. I say this in no controversial spirit. The Government are, I hope, prepared to carry out the policy which we recommended to them, and we trust that when the Naval Estimates are laid before us all anxieties may be laid at rest, and that the Government realise that their primary duty is to see that the Fleets of this country shall be raised to that level of strength below which our national honour and even our national safety can be but imperfectly preserved. I now come to the part of the Speech which deals with internal affairs. The first paragraph of this section of the Speech says—

"The recent improvement in the stale of Ireland has been continuous and marked, and agrarian crime has been reduced under the administration of the ordinary law to the lowest point which has been reached for the last 15 years."

As the House knows, I have no very profound belief in statistics, unless they are supplemented and confirmed by other sources of information. Undoubtedly, however, the information which reaches me from Ireland leads me to believe that her present condition in regard to agrarian crime has not been presented in too rosy a light by the Irish Secretary, and that the condition of Ireland in reality is such as all of us must view with the utmost satisfaction. So far there is no controversy between us, but I confess that I see in the words "ordinary law," which occur in this paragraph, something in the nature of a challenge to gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House. I never had the slightest objection to taking up challenges, and I am quite ready to take up this one. If the implication of that paragraph has been rightly comprehended, the Irish Secretary, who, I suppose, is responsible for the wording of it, would have us believe that the condition of Ireland is due, firstly, to the law dicing enforced, and, secondly, to the fact that the law so enforced was the ordinary law. I am not sure that I quite agree with either of these points. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that among the complicated factors which control the condition of Ireland the administration of the law is only one. The Chief Secretary has had at his back an advantage which none of his predecessors have had. He has had at his back a powerful Party and organisation who have used their whole strength and influence and all the resources at their command to make the ask of the right hon. Gentleman an easy one, and to diminish as far as possible the condition of agrarian disturbance, out of which agrarian crime arises. Well, that has nothing to do with the administration of the ordinary law. It is a political accident; or rather it is the result of political design, which is not necessarily of a permanent character. We have, in fact, no right to believe, either from the history of Ireland in the past or from the declarations of Irishmen in the present, that there will be a continuation of this happy state of things. I believe that one distinguished Member of the Irish Party who support the Chief Secretary has declared that in a certain contingency there will be an agrarian agitation of such a character and magnitude as to throw in the shade all previous agitations: and an agrarian agitation of that kind, should it succeed, as to which I may express a passing doubt, must have the result of greatly increasing the amount of agrarian crime with which the Government have to deal. Then the Government have had the great advantage of a most prosperous and plentiful harvest. I will not dwell upon that; the advantages of it are well-known to everybody who, like the right hon. Gentleman, is responsible for the government of Ireland. No farmer anxious to avoid bankruptcy has ever studied the weather with more anxious care than I did when I occupied the Chief Secretary's position, or than he does himself, I am sure. But the right hon. Gentle- man appears to lay down the proposition that he has not only reduced crime under the ordinary law, but that it is because he has used the ordinary law that crime has been reduced. That is not a proposition which will hold water for a moment. The difference between the Criminal Law of Ireland as I desire to see it, and as the right hon. Gentleman maintains it, may be said to depend upon two points alone—secret inquiry and change of venue. The right hon. Gentleman was glad enough to exercise the power of secret inquiry under the Explosives Act when he could do it. He only objects to its use in connection with crimes which are really not less dastardly and dangerous to the community than those associated with dynamite. I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the change of venue is an improvement in the machinery of the law which he actually enjoys during those months of the year when he can try crimes at the Winter Assizes, and we have to consider not how justice is performed at the Winter Assizes, where there is a natural or spontaneous change of venue, but how justice is executed when crime is tried at the ordinary Assizes, where no change of venue is possible. I hope we shall hear whether there is some special reason now why justice in agrarian cases is likely to be done by an ordinary jury in the district where a crime has been committed. I have never been able to follow the right hon. Gentleman's practice as regards the Winter Assizes, or to see why he tries some cases there and some at the ordinary Assizes. For instance, I have never been able to understand why he tried the case of three gentlemen, Members of this House, not at the Winter Assizes, where, if they had been guilty, they might have been convicted, but at the Spring Assizes, where, whether guilty or not, it was quite certain they would be acquitted. I recollect that when it was my unhappy lot also to have to prosecute Members of Parliament the doctrine then laid down by gentlemen opposed to me was that it was really an outrage upon the Representatives of the people. When I had to prosecute Members of Parliament, we did, I confess, attempt to bring them before a tribunal which would find them guilty if the evidence went against them; but the right hon. Gentleman has taken care that a Member of Parliament when tried shall be acquitted. I must say that the "ordinary law," as thus administered, does not appear to me to be a better machinery for obtaining justice than the law with change of venue, Special Jury, and secret inquiry, which I should like to see established in Ireland.I pass from that to the paragraphs in the Queen's Speech which deal with legislation. The first of these paragraphs touches upon a measure which is intended to restore, as I understand it, the evicted tenants to their holdings. The phrasing of the Speech is as follows:—

"The condition, however, of a considerable body of evicted tenants in that country requires early attention, and a measure will be submitted to you with a view to a reasonable settlement of a question deeply affecting the well-being of Ireland."

We have now reached the year 1894, and I think it was in the year 1892 that the Chief Secretary, in a letter to a friend of mine, a Member of this House, told us that in this matter of evicted tenants he meant business. The least you can do when you meant business in 1892 is to put your measure in the Queen's Speech of 1894, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has only fulfilled general expectation when he gave this measure a prominent place—I may say the most prominent place—in the Speech from the Throne. Sir, I shall reserve, naturally, any comments upon the proposals to be submitted to us until we see them in their definite form; but I will express a hope that the word "reasonable" before "settlement," in the paragraph in the Queen's Speech relating to evicted tenants, is not a mere otiose epithet; but that the settlement will be an actual settlement, dealing with the real question at issue. I ought to warn the Government that, so far as I am at present advised, I still think our original scheme, embodied in the Act of 1891, which smoothed away the technical difficulties that might have prevented an arrangement between landlord and tenant, was a wise one. I think if the Government are going to ask us to vote public money, which, even in the present flourishing state of the public finances, is probably not over plentiful; if they are going to ask us to vote public money for the purpose of rewarding those who have admittedly been used as instruments of a political plan of campaign—money which might have been devoted for the benefit of tenants who are certainly not less deserving, and who have endeavoured to the best of their ability to carry out their legal engagements, and have never been the slaves or instruments of any organisation whatever—then I think we shall look at the proposals of the Government with a very critical suspicion. I should think it a very serious menace to the future tranquillity of Ireland if we were to allow the people in that country to imbibe the lesson that as often as they thought desirable to got up a land agitation for their own purposes we were to see them out of the mess in which they had got, and especially do I think that lesson ill-timed and fraught with peril to the future when I know we are at this moment threatened by leading politicians in Ireland with a renewal of that very agitation in consequence of which these men have been turned out of their farms. I do not mean to argue as to a proposal I have not got before me, but I thought it only fair to the Government to let them know the spirit—assuredly not a hostile spirit—in which I view this very difficult question of the evicted tenants in Ireland. It will not be necessary for me to say anything about the paragraph which deals with registration and plural voting; but I have always observed that when the Party opposite get into any difficulty in reference to their substantial measures for the benefit of the community, they immediately set themselves to work to manipulate the machinery by which Members are returned to this House. I think there is very apt to be a great waste of time in looking so much at the machinery, and in mending it, when the machinery itself is never allowed to do anything. If you are to deal with this question, you ought, at any rate, to deal with it impartially, and not deal with one anomaly and leave another untouched. You should endeavour to make this House a faithful reflex of public opinion with regard to every class and country, and until you do that we shall not be convinced that the Party opposite approach this question in the spirit of reformers, and not in the spirit of gentlemen with an anxious eye to the next Election. There are only three other measures, two of them in the Queen's Speech, to which I shall refer. They all, though different, have something in common. They all threaten, while unsettling, great interests. The first is the Local Veto Pill, the second the Welsh Disestablishment Pill, and the third the Scotch Disestablishment Bill. I have been favoured during the last few weeks with two or three letters a day, accompanied by resolutions, couched in precisely identical terms, passed by meetings that have been called to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the promise he appears to have given that the Local Veto Pill should be the most prominent Bill of the Session. I have no recollection of seeing the promise myself, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has given rise to a widespread expectation of that kind I gather that from the resolutions of the Temperance Party, which is a highly organised body, seeing that it has expressed its views so spontaneously in such identical language. I hope the Government will either do it or drop it. It is not fair upon the threatened interests that this sword of Damocles should be kept hanging over their heads. I think a somewhat similar criticism may be passed upon the measures dealing with the Welsh and Scotch Church Establishments. These are great historical Institutions, whose history is rooted in our past, and they are no mere survivals of the past, but are at this moment living, vital organisations, powerful for good. Why are you to hamper their efforts by keeping them in doubt Session after Session? It is not fair to them; it is not just, and I can assure the Government that the way in which they are treating the Church of Scotland at this moment is one which will be resented by the people of that country. The Mover and Seconder of the Address appear to think that the people of Scotland are only anxious to be disburdened of their Church. I take a very different view. I am not going to say who is right or who is wrong; I am not going to argue for or against Disestablishment, or to discuss the merits of the question; but I say that this is not a Pill which should be stuck away in the last paragraph of the Queen's Speech among the ruck of other measures which you do not mean to pass—which you only mean to use as an advertisement, and which, while they are so used, disturb these great organisations and hamper their efforts. I might use a similar criticism in regard to a measure that is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. The Mover of the Address was very anxious to free the present Prime Minister from the imputation that he was a luke-warm adherent of Home Rule. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his labours in that respect were entirely unnecessary. Nobody doubts for a moment that the present Prime Minister is a zealous adherent of Home Rule. I believe there are some who have seized upon some ill-considered phrase used by Lord Rosebery with reference to the late Bill, and have founded upon that some conjectural edifice as to what his views were. We do not conduct public life in this country in that manner. Lord Rosebery joined the present Government in 1892 as a Government formed on the basis of Home Rule, which had Homo Rule for its central point, and a precise point dividing Parties in this House. Lord Rosebery is well acquainted with the traditions of political life in this country, and is a Scotch gentleman of the highest honour, and that Lord Rosebery, when in 1892 he joined the Home Rule Administration, cherished any secret doubts on the subject is a thing which there are none of his friends or of his political opponents who will not agree in repudiating. We admit fully that in this and in other respects no change of policy is to be anticipated from the change of personnel in the Government. I, for one, should he the last to suggest that any cooling in the zeal of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for Home Rule was likely to occur in consequence of the great change which has recently taken place in their ranks. But that is not the point to which J wish to call the attention of the House. The point is this: Is it fair by Ireland, still more is it fair by England and Scotland, that this question should still be hung up? Last year it was brought forward, discussed, and rejected. How long do you mean to allow that rejection to pass unmodified by a decision one way or the other by the country? I indulge in no prophecy as to what the verdict of the country will be. I know too little about the springs which animate the political machine to express a confident opinion, and I have seen too many prophets shamed in their prophecies to venture myself to join their ranks. But whatever the result might be of an election really called to decide upon this question of Home Rule, I say it would be better than the present condition of suspense. Think what yon are doing in Ireland; think what you are doing in England and in Scotland. In Ireland from day to day no man knows, except so far as he himself may make a forecast of the political future, whether he is to be ruled by an Imperial Parliament or by an Irish Parliament; he knows not whether the Laud Laws are to be settled within these walls or whether they are to be handed over to gentlemen who sit below the Gangway. Indecision and doubt must necessarily be cast over every transaction in land, and, indeed, in the tenure of any property whatever; and is it fair to Ireland, is it fair to a country, which of all countries in the world has suffered from want of security, that we should deliberately perpetuate this want of security by our own wanton action? If it is injurious to Ireland I maintain that it is not less injurious to England and to Scotland. It is not a good thing that the electors of this country should have perpetually hanging over them a question connected, not with social legislation in regard to which the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address made such an eloquent appeal—an appeal to which every heart on both sides of the House should be responsive—and that their attention should be deliberately withdrawn from those questions by the course you have taken, and should be turned to Constitutional issues which, whether they be fraught with all the harm we anticipate, must, at any rate, be barren of good for the great mass of the community of this country. I would earnestly press upon the Government that, if they feel that from want of Parliamentary time, or from some inherent weakness in their own ranks, or because they doubt that they have behind them that force of public opinion which is absolutely required to carry through a measure of this kind, whether for these reasons or any other, they are not strong enough to bring this question to a satisfactory conclusion in this Parliament on their own terms, their duty to Ireland, to Scotland, and to England alike calls upon them to put an end to this period of unrest and suspense, and to give once and for all to the people of this country upon a clear, definite, and precise issue the power of saying whether they will or will not carry out the schemes which were laid before them and discussed in the course of the last Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker,—After a life of over 25 years spent in the House of Commons, I have had so much experience of its generous instincts that I am sure that, standing here to-night upon this occasion, I shall not appeal in vain to its indulgence. I am well assured that at this moment there is but one thought that tills every mind and every heart in this House. To miss from amongst our proceedings tonight that noble and famous figure which, longer than the memory, I think, of any man now listening to me can extend, has been the chiefest ornament and the most prevailing power in the House of Commons, is a sad and a solemn reflection. At such a time I know that all eves are "idly bent on him who follows next." We feel, I am sure, all of us, without distinction of Party, that the glory of this House has suffered the greatest diminution it could have endured. We recognise that we have lost, from among us a great source of life and of light, which illuminated and exalted our proceedings above the level of ordinary men. I know that what I can only call this "dark eclipse" is viewed with regret by all who sit in every part of this House, and that no man will refuse to that great Member of Parliament whom we have lost a tribute of admiration and of respect. For us who sit upon this side of the House, to whom he was the glorious and venerated Chief of a devoted Party, our feelings I can only describe as those of distress akin to dismay. For myself, and for my colleagues, I can hardly trust myself to speak of one who was to us the kindest and most constant friend. It is not for one who, with unequal steps, follows in the path that he has trodden to attempt to estimate the place which he occupied in this House, or that which he will occupy in the history of this country. The place that he occupied in this House it is superfluous as it would be impos- sible, for me to attempt to estimate. It is unnecessary; for you yourselves, whom I have the honour to address, have seen, and heard, and felt, far better than any words can paint, what the late Prime Minister was to this House of Commons. We shall never again see anything which is simile aut secundum. If I may borrow a fine phrase of his own, we are painfully conscious of the fate that awaits those who, with unequal hand, attempt to guide the chariot of the sun. We cannot furnish forth that inexhaustible knowledge, that mature experience, those unfailing resources, that splendid eloquence, that fire which kindled passion and which roused enthusiasm, which prevailed as much by sympathy as by reason. But, at least this, I think, I may be permitted to say—that we may take as our great example what the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in his generous passing recognition of this great statesman, has dealt, and properly dealt, with as one of the greatest features of that great character—I speak of that dignified demeanour towards his opponents as well as his supporters, that stately and old-world courtesy, diversified at times by the pleasant humour we so well recollect, which in the midst of the fiercest struggles of Party raised the tone and maintained the reputation of the House of Commons, and has left us a most perfect model of what is due to (his Assembly from those who have the responsibility of guiding its actions. As Mr. Gladstone—permit me to use the name—occupied during his long and honoured life the first place in the House of Commons, so, I think, will his memory remain for ever amongst its greatest traditions. And now, Sir, we have to turn to the ordinary business of the time, and I must make some remarks on what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He said that there was no change of policy on the part of the present Government. Well, Sir, that was a perfectly accurate statement, and it did not require the acuteness and perception of the right hon. Gentleman, I think, to make that assumption. There is no change of policy. There is a change, it is true, in men, which we deeply deplore. We desire to carry on the same policy on the same principles as those which animated this Party under its late Leader. The right hon. Gentleman says we have repeated the Speech of last year. Yes, Sir, we have repeated the Speech of last, year, because the Speech of last year contained the policy of the Party, and will continue to contain it until we have achieved the objects we contemplate, and it depends very much upon the right hon. Gentleman—if he will permit me to say so—to shorten the number of topics in that Speech by allowing us to carry some of them into law. Therefore, in the matter of repetition, I must hold him and his friends largely responsible. I am extremely anxious to-night to introduce as few controversial topics as I can. The right hon. Gentleman in his comments said there was nothing in the Speech about Africa; but that was not perfectly accurate. There is a paragraph in the Speech referring to some unhappy incidents which took place in West Africa, which we hope will reach a satisfactory settlement. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that, there is no statement with reference to Uganda. That is perfectly true. The lamented death of the late Sir Gerald Portal, a man of great, promise, who, the country had a right to expect, would distinguish himself in the future as in the past, has prevented us from arriving as soon as we had expected at a final decision on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman said he had heard rumours of disagreements in the Cabinet in regard to that matter. Well, Sir, there are many rumours. The right hon. Gentleman surely has had sufficient experience of rumours of disagreements in the Cabinet to know not to put too much faith in them. I am happy to assure him that there has been no disagreement in the Cabinet upon that subject. We recognise our duty, and we are willing and ready to announce it as soon as we are able to do so, but we are not in a position to announce it to-night. Then, as regards Siam, I would rather leave that matter in the experienced and capable hands of the Under Secretary than attempt to expound at, second-hand a very delicate matter of negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman, dealing with the paragraph relating to the Estimates, commented upon the absence of the word "economy." I have commented upon the absence of that word for a great many years. I had no notion that the right hon. Gentleman was so advanced in age as to remember the time when economy was mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

Oh, yes, all the years of the late Government.

I think the noble Lord is mistaken, but I will not dispute the point with him now. At all events, the facts do not correspond with it, and certainly it is a very long time since the House of Commons has attempted any feats of economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may hold out some prospect of reform in that respect. I confess I see little chance of it. The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase which I think he afterwards modified—that he had taught us a lesson on the subject of the Navy. I venture to reject that. He has taught us no lesson at all. We have always held, and hold as strongly as any other Party, that the supremacy of the British Navy should be maintained. We held that language last November, and the Returns which have been published prove the accuracy of our statement, that the supremacy of the British Navy at, this moment is unquestioned and unquestionable. We are prepared to take such measures as shall maintain that condition of the British Navy in the future. That is a statement which we made last November, and which, I believe, will be justified by the Estimates that will be laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman then turned to a topic which I may call peculiarly his own—I mean the social and criminal condition of the Irish people. That is a matter in which he takes a strong personal interest, and on which, therefore, he is entitled to speak. He does not deny that the condition of Ireland is good—far better than it has been at former times—but he questions the causes of the improvement. He says my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has peculiar advantages. Yes, Sir, he has peculiar advantages, because he enjoys to a greater degree the confidence of the Irish people. That is the only thing which is likely to improve the condition of Ireland. If you have a Government or a Governor who enjoys the confidence of the people you will find the condition of its social and criminal statistics far better than you are likely to find them under a system of coercion. I am not going into this question of Ireland, but the condition of Ireland may, I believe, be shortly stated in a single sentence. The condition of Ireland under the law of coercion was a condition of disturbance; under a Government of conciliation it has been a condition of comparative tranquillity and peace. That is better, I think, than all speculation upon Winter or Summer Assizes. That is a satisfactory account of why the condition of Ireland is very different now from what it was under the previous Administration. I am unwilling to detain the House at great length, and I am not going to discuss the Bills which are mentioned in the Queen's Speech, as if I did I should raise collateral issues which I do not desire to do now. But the right hon. Gentleman in his comments on the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech adopted a very singular line of argument. He said—"Is this Bill going to be the first Bill? If it is not, you mean to drop it." And so he goes on with each Bill in succession—the Local Veto Bill, the Home Rule Bill, and the Disestablishment Bill. He says that because they do not stand first we do not intend to pass them, and we have no sincere desire to carry them into law. What is our experience of attempting to carry these Bills into law? We put them forward; we intend to carry them; but whether we do so or not depends on the manner in which they are treated first in the House of Commons and then in the House of Lords. If you have a system of protracted discussion so as to consume the whole time of the House of Commons in a manner that, whereas an ordinary Session could fairly deal with three or four of these Bills, you intend to spend the whole time on a single Bill so as to shut out all the rest, by what right do you come to us and say—"When you put these Bills in the Queen's Speech you do not intend to pass them." That is taking advantage, as the lawyers say, of your own wrong. It is you who, first of all in this House and another Assembly in another place, who take care as far as they can to prevent the progress of these measures. I repudiate altogether that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I say that these are measures to which we are sin- cerely attached and which we are sincerely determined to push to an issue, and if we do not carry them this year we will carry them next, and if not next, then the year after that. You ask us when we are going to appeal to the country. I will tell you: When we have placed before the country the whole plan and scheme of the Liberal Party. When we have placed the country in a position to judge what has been the course of either Party in the House of Commons with reference to this plan, and what has been the conduct of the House of Lords with regard to it. That is the time when we mean to go to the country, and that is the issue we intend to put before it. When this Parliament was elected, this Government came into Office upon a distinct statement of the whole plan, beginning with Home Rule, going on to Disestablishment, and including the Local Veto Bill and the other Bills which are enumerated in the Speech from the Throne. That was what we placed before the country. You denounced it, but the country pronounced in our favour and against you. It is the mandate of this Parliament to carry that plan and that scheme into execution. When the House of Commons rejects these schemes, then, of course, you will be justified in condemning us, and if the country joins you, then you will succeed; but as long as we have the support of the majority of this House of Commons for the plan which was laid before the country at the last Election, and approved by a popular majority, we shall proceed continuously with that plan, in good report and evil report, and we shall use every means at our disposal to promote those measures and to carry them through this House. What may be done with them in another place is not our concern. The responsibility for that conduct will be ultimately judged of by the country. Our task is a plain, a direct, and a simple one—to proceed as far and as well as we can with the measures to which we have pledged ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman says—"How unfair it is to Ireland that you should hang up Home Rule. "Ah! Sir, Home Rule hung up has been a far better thing than coercion enacted. What has improved the condition of Ireland? What has led to that better feeling which the right hon. Gen- tleman admits to exist? It is the faith and the hope which exists in the breasts of the Irish people that the great Liberal Party is true to their faith and will adhere to their pledges, and that they will do all that in them lies to give effect to that policy of self-government to Ireland which is the great legacy our great Leader has left to us. You talk of Ireland being injured by Home Rule being hung up. No doubt, I believe, Ireland would have been benefited if Home Rule had passed, but the hope and the belief that Home Rule is coming—

When?

That, Sir, does not depend upon me alone. The hon. Member who asked me that question can himself, if he chooses, very much aid in that decision. If he will help us we will help him. We have done much to help him and his friends, and I think we have some right to expect that they, in their turn, will help us. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, does not seriously mean to impute to us any insincerity of purpose. He may believe that we shall not succeed; I am sure he will do his best to ensure our failure. That I do not doubt. Of that I do not complain; but do not let him charge us with having brought in those measures without a sincere and an honest desire to promote them to the best of our ability. I am sorry for having for a moment gone into more or less controversial topics. Before I sit down there is one matter of business which in my position I ought to bring before the House. This Debate, which has been so well opened by my hon. Friend the Mover of the Address in his excellent speech, and by my hon. Friend the Seconder, who made a speech which I am quite sure found an echo in the hearts and in the admiration of hon. Members in all parts of the House, is one which I am bound to tell the House—the House, of course, being masters of the situation—we have very little time to prolong. I will just state the bare figures of the time which is at our disposal. It is curious enough that very similar circumstances to those in which we find ourselves occurred in the year 1868, when Lord Derby resigned on March 5, and Mr. Disraeli succeeded him as Prime Minister. On March 31 the financial business of the House must be completed; and on that occasion when the new Government came in every facility was given to it for passing the financial business. I observe that at that time the Navy Estimates were taken on March 20 without discussion—time, of course, being provided afterwards for their full and adequate consideration. The Navy Estimates were at that time taken without a statement. We do not propose to do exactly that—I only allude to the fact in order that hon. Members may see what measures the House of Commons took at that time under circumstances of pressure. What we must do before March 31 is this: There are the Votes in Supply—15 Civil Service and Supplementary Votes—the Army Votes, men and pay, and the Navy Votes, men and pay. There is the Vote on Account—Civil Services and Revenue Departments. Then the Ways and Means Bill must be passed by a certain time, and the Royal Assent must be given and the signature of Her Majesty obtained. The only way—and I lay this before the House, because it is entirely for the House to deal with the matter—we have to suggest is to call upon the House to keep on to-day with the Queen's Speech, and we hope that the House will be disposed to conclude the Debate upon it to-morrow. On Wednesday we shall have to ask for the whole time of the House up to Easter. I am sure that the House will not, under the circumstances, refuse that demand.

Up to Easter or up to March 31?

I do not know the distinction—March 31. Then we propose to take the Army Votes on Friday, and to give Monday and Tuesday—

What will be taken on Thursday?

The Supplementary Votes. On Friday we propose to take the Army Votes, and on Monday the Navy Votes—to move the Speaker out of the Chair—and on Tuesday, to take the Navy Votes for men and pay—of course, providing that an opportunity shall be given afterwards to discuss questions which may arise on those matters. It is necessary to get these Votes in order to get the Ways and Means Bill through. On Wednes- day we should have the Report of Supply, and the Ways and Means Bill would be introduced. Now, L can make what I think under the circumstances hon. Members will admit is an agreeable announcement to the greater number of them. It is that if the Ways and Means Bill is taken, as it usually is taken—and there is no reason to think that there will be a departure now from that course—as a consent Bill, then the attendance of a great part of the House will not be necessary in all the stages of the Ways and Means Bill. It will, of course, fall upon us to keep a quorum for passing the Ways and Means Bill, but the greater part of the House will be released from attendance. The Ways and Means Bill would be introduced on Wednesday, and then, I suppose, most of the House might be released. On Thursday it would be read a second time, and on Saturday we must have the Bill in Committee. On the Monday it would be read a third time in the House of Commons—that is Easter Monday; then it must go to receive the Queen's signature at Florence. [Cries of "The House of Lords!"] Oh, yes. At all events, they have not yet thrown out our Money Bills. I dare say that may come in time; but they have not yet begun to do that, although, with a little practice, they may do so. The Bill will pass through all its stages in the Lords on Monday, the 26th. Then it is proposed to obtain the Royal Assent on Thursday, the 29th. That is the course which the Government have to suggest, if the House are willing to agree to these arrangements, or to something corresponding to them. We shall, of course, take no contentious business of any kind between Wednesday, the 21st, and Thursday, the 29th. Between these dates the greater part of the House would be relieved from attendance while the financial business was going on. It has been suggested to me that there an; matters which it might be desired to discuss in the time that is left. Among these is the subject of Indian finance, and there are other subjects for which I will endeavour to find time early after Easter. I will also endeavour to reserve a day for the discussion of the question of Uganda. I only throw out these matters for the consideration of the House, and I am not endeavouring to bind them to anything. But I would like the House to consider these matters that we may proceed with the least inconvenience to all parties.

What of the Vote on Account?

I do not know what day can be taken for the Vote on Account, but I will mention the matter again. I thank the House for the indulgence they have extended to me in allowing me to make this statement.

To clear up the matter I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am right in understanding the position of the Government to be this—that they will take no controversial business of any kind other than Supply before Easter or before the 29th March? Will the Government take care when we are away during those days of Easter week that no Private Bill legislation shall be submitted, and that, in fact, the House will only meet for the formal business of passing the necessary stages of the Ways and Means Bill? Further, will the right hon. Gentleman pledge himself to find time for discussing those questions which legitimately arise upon the Estimates or upon the Queen's Speech some time after Easter, in consequence of our having to give up the time before Easter which is necessary to carry through the financial business of the House? When I say no controversial business I include the First Readings of the Government Bills, which have always been made the occasion more or less of important debate.

I wish also to interpose a question. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he hoped the House would shorten discussion owing to the stress in which the Government are placed, and that in return the Government would take care that Members were granted time for fuller discussion which might be required on chose Votes—I do not mean the Supplementary Estimates, but the great Votes. Do I rightly understand that?

That is so.

Then will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say what opportunities the Government will afford for further discussion?

I cannot state the exact date. I cannot accept exactly the very large and roving commission of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that all controversial questions must not be raised, because I cannot tell what those questions are. I said that certainly, as regarded the Navy, we should take the earliest opportunity of making the statement. On the former occasion in 1868, when the Vote for the Navy was taken on the 21st of March, the statement on the Estimates was not made until the 11th of May. I do not contemplate anything of that kind, but I think the Navy Estimates ought to be taken on the earliest possible day. I said, also, I desired to arrange for a discussion with reference to Uganda. Then, with regard to Indian finance, I have already mentioned that that is a subject which it is very proper should be considered at an early date. I cannot specify the particular date, but I desire that the earliest opportunity should be given for its discussion.

said that, as he made an interjection in the course of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, perhaps it was right and due to him and to the House that he should briefly state why he so interrupted the right hon. Gentleman. He must confess that, for his part, he thought the Leader of the Opposition had given to the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of speaking frankly and clearly upon this question of Home Rule for Ireland, and of stating what position it would occupy in the future legislation of the Party. He thought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was disappointing in the extreme, and he thought it was ail the more disappointing because of the hopes that had been raised by certain other speeches and declarations which they had heard had been delivered in another place that day. They were told there was no change in the attitude of the Liberal Party towards Home Rule; but in the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the hanging up of Home Rule had been better for Ireland than when Home Rule was agitated, he noticed a very distinct change in the policy of the right hon. Gentleman who sat on the Treasury Bench. Perhaps it was best that hon. Members opposite, no matter how safe they might themselves feel as to the policy of the Liberal Party, should know the truth as a section of the Irish people saw these facts. What were they taught during all the days of the right hon. Gentleman whose loss to this House Irish Members of all shades of opinion, he thought, would join in deploring? No matter whether he was in opposition or at the head of a Government, the Irish Members always felt that there was in Mr. Gladstone a sympathy for Ireland, a sympathy with those suffering from oppression wherever they were found, in whatever country in the world it might be. It was a remarkable thing that while Mr. Gladstone led the Liberal Party he always declared that the question of Home Rule was urgent, that it overshadowed all other questions, that it blocked the way, and that it was by the removal of the Irish question from this position that the co-operation of the Irish Members would be obtained towards the settlement of those questions for which the right hon. Gentleman asked their assistance. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt), for his own Party and especially for Ireland, would be undertaking a very dangerous experiment if he were to continue in the belief that, because Ireland was peaceful while she was expecting Home Rule during the past years, the state of peace would continue in Ireland if the policy of hanging up Home Rule to the end of their programme of legislation was to be persisted in by the right hon. Gentleman and those who were responsible with him in the government of the country. They had heard a great deal of the peaceful condition of the people of Ireland. What he was amazed at was that the declaration of the improved condition of Ireland was not followed up by the fulfilment of one of the earliest pledges given by the Liberal Party—that the moment they succeeded to the Government of the country they would reverse the policy of their predecessors. The very first act the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said to which the Party would direct their attention would be the repeal of the Coercion Act. The Coercion Act might be in abeyance, but the position of the Irish Members and of the Irish people was this—that the Act, which was used as an instrument against one class in Ireland, still existed in that country, and was still there for any political Party to take up. Was the Liberal Party going to go on in this form, and to leave the Irish people, who had hoped so much and believed in them, who had worked and made sacrifices in their cause, when the day of trouble came to the Liberal Party, to the tender mercies of those who passed the Coercion Act and worked it so unsparingly? It was a mistake to attribute to them a desire to free the hands of the Government unduly. They had made no demand that Home Rule should be in the programme of the Liberal Party for the present Session. But he gathered from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he held out no hope of a renewal of Home Rule, no hope that Home Rule was to be again introduced into this House until the fight between the two Houses upon every item of their legislative programme had been fought out.

I must have expressed myself very badly if J conveyed anything of the kind. I was speaking exclusively of the present Session, and I think the hon. Member must surely have misunderstood me.

said, he was sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman's interruption scarcely carried him a bit further; but, even now, from him or from anybody on the Treasury Bench who would follow him in the course of that evening, they would be perfectly prepared and extremely glad to accept a, declaration that if Home Rule was not to be introduced in the present Session of Parliament when was it to be introduced? That was the point of his interruption, and the important question. They did not ask that it should be introduced now—this year—but they asked when it was to be introduced, if they continued to delude the people of Ireland with the hope, and set their Representatives to work with them in loyal union with regard to English measures, and deferred the realisation of their hopes until they had passed all their English measures, he would tell them that, so far from cementing an union of hearts between Ireland and the Liberal Government, they would be creating in Ireland more bitterness and opposition and more hatred of their Party than was ever felt before.

said, he desired to understand from the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any statement was to be made on the introduction of the Evicted Tenants Bill. He thought it was highly desirable on a Bill of this character, of which they knew so little, there should be some statement on the introduction of the Bill, so as to let them know what were, at all events, the salient facts of the question. He also desired information on another point. Towards the close of the last Session the Chief Secretary was good enough to promise to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Irish Land Acts. This was a matter, as the Chief Secretary knew, which was attracting a great deal of attention in every part of the country and in which the Irish tenants were very much interested. He should be glad to know if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some information as to when he proposed to nominate that Committee. The early weeks of the Session were always golden weeks for work of this kind, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would allow nothing to interfere with the nomination of the Committee.

said, he heard with great pleasure the largo number of Rills which were announced in the Queen's Speech, but what he was rather concerned to know was whether the Government contemplated any reform of the procedure of the House which would give them reasonable expectations that these Bills might be carried through all the stages in this House? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember that the reason why many measures were not carried through in the past Session was owing partly to the action of another place and partly to the action of this Assembly—owing to the enormous amount of time which was taken up on the Committee stage of several Bills. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear that in mind, and that he would see that it was not an unwise or an unreasonable suggestion that the Committee stage of all Bills, or at all events of the majority of Bills, should be remitted to a Grand Committee, leaving this House free to deal with the Second Reading and Report stage of the various Bills.

said, he deeply regretted to intrude in the discussion, but he thought it would be a surprise to the House that there was no reference at all in Her Majesty's Speech to a very important measure affecting the hours of labour. He did not think there was any question upon which the attention of the working classes and of Members of that House was more centred than on the question of the hours of labour. It would be remembered that in the mouth of May last they carried the Second Reading of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill by a majority of 79, and there was a very strong feeling of regret and disappointment that this measure was not at all referred to, either directly or indirectly, in the Speech from the Throne. He thought the Leader of the House ought to give some assurance to that large section of men that he and some of his colleagues represented as to the action the Government intended to take with regard to this Bill. Three weeks or a month ago this question was under the consideration of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and they unanimously resolved that, if this matter was not referred to in the Queen's Speech, either he or some other supporter of the Bill should move an Amendment to the Speech. He should be very sorry to have to take that course, but he could not see what other remedy they had at their disposal if they did not get some assurance from the Government that they would deal with the question and give them an undertaking that this measure, at all events, should be passed into law. The miners were very determined about the Bill, and he hoped they would hear that the Government would take it over and pass it into law this Session.

said, he rose to move an Amendment to the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. It would be remembered that at the commencement of last Session he handed in an Amendment to the Address, but he gave way in order to facilitate a discussion upon the woeful condition of agriculture, and he contented himself with seconding a somewhat similar Motion made by the hon. Member for South West Ham. They divided the House and carried into the Lobby with them the greater portion of the Members on this side of the House; and considering that the condition of the country had gone from bad to worse, and that the state of employment had become increasingly worse than it was then, it could not fail to have struck every Member with the utmost astonishment that the Government should have put into the mouth of the Sovereign no reference whatever to the state of trade and agriculture, no expression of sympathy with the want of employment, and no measure foreshadowed which might amend that state of affairs. Representing as he did an industrial constituency, he could not allow this opportunity to pass of calling attention to the state of affairs in the industrial districts, and of asking the Government why they had omitted any reference to this condition of things in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and of expressing astonishment that the hon. Member for Wansbeck, who held an official position in the Trades Union Congress, in seconding the Address, made no reference whatever to the lamentable condition of employment in the country, he consented to second an Address in answer to a Speech which was so conspicuously silent upon the industrial question. The Amendment which he proposed to move was as follows:—

"That this House desires humbly to represent to Your Majesty that the depressed condition of trade and agriculture, the reduction in wages, the number of artizans and labourers out of employment, and the continued immigration of pauper aliens to augment the labour competition, call for the immediate attention of Parliament."

Whatever the merits or demerits of the measures that the Government told them they intended to propose, it was absolutely certain that not one of them, or all of them together, would provide work and wages for one single individual in this country who was at present out of employment. One was at a loss to know the cause of such an omission from Her Majesty's Speech. It must arise from one of two reasons—either the Government were absolutely indifferent to the state of industrial affairs or they were ignorant of the present condition of the country. There was no Member of the House who was off the Treasury Bench who did not know the great suffering there had been during the past 18 months, and it would be necessary for him very briefly to set the condition of affairs before the Government in order that they might hear from their lips whether they had any remedy to propose in order to remove such a, condition of things, He would not do this by any abstract theories of his own, but he would do so from official publications, and more especially those issued by the Board of Trade, or else he would call such an impartial authority on trade matters as The Economist. In a recent issue of The Economist, in a review of the state of commercial affairs in the year 1893, these expressions were used—

"Industrial activity and enterprise has shrunk in almost every direction. The output from the shipbuilding yards fell off by 273,000 tons from 1892, and by 50 per cent, in steam tonnage and 44 per cent, in total tonnage from 1889. The exports of British and Irish produce and manufactures fell off by £8,500,000 compared to 1892. by £29,000,000compared to 1891, and by no less than £45,000,000 compared to 1890. Yarns and textiles lost £3,400.000; metal exports. £2,100,000 between 1893 and 1892; and of the £18,000,000 decline in imports nearly £11,000,000 was in reduced purchase of raw material for manufacture. The shipments of bar iron, hoops, and wire were 205,000 tons less than 10 years before—namely, in 1883: 200 tin-plate mills were stopped for want of orders, and compared to 1891 there was a reduced shipment of 69,000 tons of tin-plate, and a drop of 5s. 6d. in the prices obtained."

But bad as this record was it would be infinitely worse if there were any statistics available from which they could gauge the state of the home trade. The authority from which he quoted just now stated—

"That it must be doubted whether our home trade is as well sustained as our foreign trade, and there are unfortunately no statistics which furnish the measure of the value of our internal trade. But this we do know, that 1893 proved infinitely worse to the farmers over a greater part of England than any of the disastrous years preceding it."

They all knew the suffering which had been caused by the coal strike, and which was caused by the necessity in which coalowners found themselves of reducing the 40 per cent, increase in wages given in the years 1887 and 1888. They knew also that the applications for new capital had never been so small as they were in 1893 since 1876, and that they were no less than £129,000,000 sterling behind the applications of 1889. He held in his hands the last issue of The Labour Gazette, and he certainly thought that if hon. Members would read that journal they would speedily arrive at an exact understanding of the serious condition of affairs in many industrial centres. The Labour Gazette speaks of—

"The iron and steel trades being exceptionally depressed in South Wales, of cutlers being very short of work front various causes mainly connected with foreign trade,"

and says that 1,507 Trade Unionist branches in engineering, building, printing', bookbinding, furnishing, and wood-making, with a membership of 190,000, describe trade in January last as "dull to very bad." The result of this condition of affairs had been that month after mouth in 1893 from 10 to 7 per cent, of the Trade Unionists making Returns to the Labour Department were unemployed, and at the end of January last there were, 246,803 Trade Unionists, mostly heads of families, unemployed, out of the total of 353,000, or 7 per cent, of the whole, against 1·5 per cent, in the winter of 1889–90, and 28 trades out of 37 were still returned as bad. But, if those were the figures regarding Trades Unionists how infinitely worse must be the condition of those who were not members of Trades Unions, but who were ranked among the unskilled members of the industrial population! They could only arrive at the figures as regarded want of employment among unskilled labourers indirectly, and they were driven, in the dearth of statistics at the Board of Trade or elsewhere concerning home industries, to the Returns of pauperism. No less than 342,680 persons were relieved from the Poor Rates in one day in the middle of January last in certain selected districts of England and Wales—districts selected not by himself, but by the Local Government Board. In Central London no less than 475 per 10,000 of the population were paupers, and in all London and West Ham on one day in the second week of January there were 120,000, less eight, in December, 1893, the number of persons relieved was larger than in any year since 1872, and larger than any year between 1857 and 1865. On the same day in January, 1894, in other districts of England, no less than 164,000 persons were official paupers, beside 33,000 in Scotland and 25,000 in Ireland; and of the 1,043 persons who applied in the course of the month for employment at the Labour Bureaux at Chelsea, Battersea, and St. Pancras work could only be possibly found by 256. It was absolutely necessary for one to give the facts and reasons for proposing such an Amendment to the Address, and it was astonishing that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the President of the Local Government Board, if they had had the slightest knowledge of the condition of things being recorded by their several Departments, could have joined in a Queen's Speech which expressed no word of sympathy with such a state of things, which hold out no hope whatever of alleviative measures, and which gave not the smallest indication that Parliament intended to devote one single moment of time this Session to the depressed condition of either trade or agriculture. Great injury was likely to be done to the cause of the unemployed by violent speeches; but the best remedy for disaffection, and for that popular ferment of which there were too many signs at the present day, was surely the full and adequate employment of the people at fair and reasonable wages. Belief works might be suggested, but it was not those works that people wanted. Belief works and works undertaken by Public Bodies were at best but temporary, make-shift, extravagant, and pauperising expedients, doing quite as much harm to the people as they did good. They only touched, as the Lord Mayor of London said in a recent letter—

"The fringe of an infinitesimal portion of the tremendous problem of the unemployed."

The remedy to be effective must go far deeper. It must go at once to the root of the whole matter—to the root of the causes which enabled their foreign competitors to gain on them daily more and more in the home as in the neutral markets. It was no part of his duty as a private Member to propose a remedy. He brought this matter before the House as representing an industrial constituency grievously suffering under the present state of affairs, and it was the primary duty of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, associated with the President of the Board of Trade, to provide for the welfare and the employment of the people. The absorption of the time of the House of Commons by measures not dealing with this matter could only aggravate the evil instead of doing good. He admitted that it was difficult to find a remedy, but still gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, in their individual and collective wisdom, ought to be able to find a remedy for the condition of things which existed in the country at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther) had devoted much time to the study of the question of the immigration of pauper aliens and to searching for a remedy for the present condition of affairs. Nor did the right hon. Gentleman stand alone in this. A Select Committee sat in 1888 and 1889 and made some strong recommendations pointing to the necessity of legislation in the future to cope with the evil. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking to a deputation of unemployed working men on the 4th December, said the time had come when something must be done. He (Colonel Howard Vincent) submitted to the Government and the House that the time for legislation contemplated by the Select Committee had more than arrived, and that it was the bounden duty of the Government to devote special attention to the subject. Nor was he alone in this view. The noble Earl who now held the position of Prime Minister—and whom he ventured to say every Englishman, not only in that House, but throughout the Empire, was glad to sec in that position—said on the 14th November, 1893, at the Royal Colonial Institute—

"If a labouring class predominates in a particular State, and can only see in the influx of emigration a lowering of its own wages and of its own means of comfort, you cannot greatly blame them if they oppose that immigration. They see their own homes more comfortable by keeping competition out, and therefore they are determined to do so. If there is one certainty in the world it is this—that with the growth of emigration and with the continual closing of the confines of States to the destitute emigrants of other countries, there is no country in the world that will not be compelled to consider its position, and possibly reconsider its position, with regard to pauper immigration unless it wishes permanently to degrade the status and, condition of its own working classes."

Was it the wish of Her Majesty's Government

"to degrade the status and condition of its own working classes."

He did not suggest it for a single moment, but with the words of the Prime Minister before him he asked how could they have composed the Speech from the Throne without suggesting a remedy for the state of affairs described as tending "to degrade the status and condition" of the working classes of the country? When their own working men were by the hundred without means of earning an honest livelihood, it seemed to him nothing less than criminal to make their situation worse by allowing over 33,000 aliens to come in mainly for sojourn in the single year 1893. Had the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade examined into the Returns in regard to aliens recently laid on the Table? If so, he would have noticed that over 5,000 came in in November, December, and January, representing a considerable increase over the number for the corresponding period of last year. Why should they continue to receive these pauper aliens when the distress of their own people was so great? Charity began at home; and when in England and Wales at the end of last November they found 726,951 paupers—or 66,000 more than at the same date in 1891—it was time they looked to reducing the number of their own paupers instead of augmenting them from the Continent. It was not difficult to find a remedy. The Member for West Birmingham had stated that the great cure was to find new markets, and there would he few who would disagree with him. What had the Government done to find new markets for the industries of this country? Was there any reference to this subject in the Speech? Was there a, single word indicating where the manufacturers of this country, shut out increasingly as they were from foreign States, could possibly find those markets which were even denied them at home? Was there one word in Her Majesty's Speech relating to Siam or Uganda, or indicating in the smallest degree that Her Majesty's Government were alive to the permanent necessity of finding new markets to replace those markets which were closed to our great manufacturing industries? Opportunity was not lack- ing. Canada, Australia, and South Africa had formulated a distinct invitation to Her Majesty's Government. The Dominion of Canada had twice spoken by its Legislature its loyal feeling to the Mother Country, and resisted all overtures from the United States to enter into a commercial union. A high commercial authority, speaking of Canada, said—

"The Dominion is becoming as time passes a more valuable customer, and it is true in our case that trade follows the flag."

It rested wholly with Her Majesty's Government and with the House to bring about a better state of affairs. The Canadian Parliament had declared its readiness, if the Government should free their hands, to put lighter duties upon British goods than upon foreign goods. At this very moment Ministerial Representatives of Australia were in Loudon laying before the Government distinct propositions, not to say entreaties, to take measures to develop Imperial trade and to increase the output of British goods in colonial markets. He asked Her Majesty's Government whether these gentlemen were to be sent, back to their colonies with mere empty compliments? Was the Government going to do nothing for our colonial trade, or to facilitate that Imperial commerce wherein lay the best remedy for the present depression? It was not a question of Canada and Australia alone. It was perfectly well known that the Cape Government was well disposed towards this question, and Mr. Rhodes himself was even more anxious than anybody else perhaps to do something to increase British trade with the object of holding the Empire together. The other day the President of the Board of Trade of Toronto pointed out the great advantage which the imposition of such a, tariff as he had mentioned would afford to the colonies and also to the manufacturers of Great Britain. He (Colonel Howard Vincent) earnestly asked the House to give attention to this industrial matter, which lay at the very root of the social happiness and the commercial prosperity of the country. He moved this Amendment in no Party spirit whatever, and he trusted that he had said nothing which could be interpreted as being of a Party character. He earnestly hoped the Government would show their sympathy with the subject by accepting the Amendment. If he were compelled to divide the House he hoped for the support of every hon. Member, whether English, Welsh, Scotch, or Irish, who had the welfare of the industrial population at heart. It was quite impossible for any Member to go about among his constituents, whether in town or country, without being struck with the enormous amount of distress and want of employment that existed, and he hoped that some portion of the time of this Session might be devoted to the consideration of the industrial position of the country, and to the framing of measures calculated to give encouragement to those who were at present without employment, to bring food to homes where no food was to be found now save at the cost of the public rates, and to enable all persons in the country to earn an honest and decent livelihood.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he had peculiar means of making himself acquainted with the question of the importation of pauper aliens, because the docks at Tilbury were in his constituency. A year ago one line alone deposited something like 180 a week of these pauper foreigners at Tilbury Docks. Of course, they did not stop at Tilbury; they came up to London, where they drove down wages and swamped the labour market. Something like 180,000 of these individuals were landed in England every year. Eighty thousand of them wore supposed to be en route to America, but practically nothing like that number went to America, and it was found in the East End of London that the worse class of those foreigners remained in England, whilst the better class went to America. This sort of thing was not allowed in any other civilised country in the world. No other country would allow pauper foreigners to be dumped upon its shores. In America two Acts had been passed, the Aliens Immigration Act and the Aliens Contract Act, which absolutely prohibited the landing of pauper foreigners. A similar state of the law prevailed in Hamburg, in Canada, and in our Australian Colonies. He could not understand why the Government should not do something in the same direction. The present Government always had a very keen eye to the main chance, and he failed to comprehend why they had not attempted to pass a Bill which would be so popular with the electors as a measure of this kind would be. Turning to the question of agriculture in the Eastern Counties, he had several times troubled the House with details upon the subject, which was connected very intimately with that part of the country in which he lived and which he represented. If hon. Members would read the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture and would particularly study the evidence of Mr. Hunter Pringle they would, he was told, see that something like one-third of the stretch of country lying between Erith Marshes and the North Sea was out of cultivation—that was to say, was not under the plough. It was under rough grass, and might possibly support a few sheep for two or three months in the year. To show the disadvantage of such a state of things he might mention that, whereas one labourer would be needed to look after eight acres which were under cultivation, a single labourer was sufficient to look after 80 or 100 acres which were under rough grass. The result was that laud went out of cultivation, and labourers were driven out of the country districts and swamped the labour market. He did not think that the depression in agriculture was the fault of the Liberal Government, but he did think that the Government might have given the agriculturists a few words of sympathy in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Various suggestions had been made with a view to remedying the present state of things. The hon. Member for the Wood-bridge Division (Mr. Everett) thought that salvation lay in bi-metallism; whilst another hon. Member advocated the placing of labourers on the laud; and the Member for the Harborough Division (Mr. Logan) thought that the Agricultural Holdings Act should be enlarged and improved. He (Major Rasch) did not think these things would be of any real practical use. He thought, however, that the Agricultural Holdings Act should be enlarged, as was suggested at a mass meeting held under the presidency of Mr. C. W. Gray, at the Chelmsford Corn Exchange on Friday last, so that the yearly tenant might be allowed to sell his hay and straw without putting an equivalent upon the laud, whilst a man who was not a yearly tenant might be allowed to sell half his hay and straw without putting' an equivalent on the land. Why could not the Government also bring in a Bill for the redemption of tithe based upon the Ashbourne Act, which had done so much good in Ireland? There was also the great question of local taxation to be considered. The Government had done something to increase taxation by the passing of their Local Government Act of last Session, and it was surely only fair that they should now do something to reduce it, or, at all events, to equalise it. The people in the agricultural districts did not ask for grants in aid because they knew such grants only meant putting 1s. into a man's pocket with one hand and taking 1s. 6d. out of it with the other. But they did ask for a real sweeping reform of local taxation.

expressed regret that there was in the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne no allusion whatever, except one, to trade, industrial, and social questions. No one could look at the present state of industry in this country without feeling that in most of its aspects there was need not only for consideration but for action, if action were possible He could not altogether agree with his hon. Friend in the remedies he had suggested, but he sympathised with his statement of regret that the Queen's Speech should have been marred by very important omissions. Of the want of employment he thought there could be no question. The Trade Union Returns of the Board of Trade showed that last month 7 per cent, of the men in the skilled trades were unemployed, and every Member of Parliament must have had experience of being appealed to by numbers of people not for charity but for work. The other day he himself received communications from a constituent, and was also waited upon by a deputation of lithographers, who, of course, represented a very skilled trade, and who pointed out to him that the walls of the Metropolis were plastered with largo placards bearing the imprint of New York. This was it lamentable fact, and if it indicated that we were losing the control of that which ought to be a source of great industrial employment it was extremely to be regretted, and ought to be remedied if at all possible. He was bound to congratulate his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) on the fact that he had not lost sight of one of the very great causes of the loss of industry by this country, as was shown by the reference in the Queen's Speech to conciliation. Speaking as he did from experience of one town in which last year there were two great strikes or lock-outs, he (Sir A. Rollit) was able to say that very large amounts of trade were unnecessarily and frequently wantonly driven from this country owing to industrial disputes. He welcomed the promise of this Bill, as in the closing hours of last Session he had endeavoured to introduce some process of conciliation, and he was satisfied that if that principle were applied they had a most effective remedy for many of their present evils. Though they might regret that the Rill of the right hon. Gentleman did not go further, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wise, to some extent, in tentatively limiting its provisions, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman adopted the principle that it should be voluntary, that he recognised the necessity of early intervention so its to combat any difference that might have taken place before it had reached an acute stage, and because it often became necessary to determine at an early stage what those who struck or who were locked out really wanted. What was really wanted was very often ill-defined, and if it could be put in more precise language it would often be capable of much easier solution. If that could be done they brought to bear public opinion, which was really, though it had no legal sanction, a most formidable weapon for eliminating right from wrong, and by supporting the right putting an end to most unfortunate differences, He, should heartily sup- port the Conciliation Bill, as he had done last Session. He believed that had the Bill for defining employers' liability been passed, it would have put an end to some of the disputes that arose. Our industrial institutions could only be founded on good relations between employer and employed, and so strongly did he feel that there were at present inequalities to be redressed that he was convinced the first day of the Session ought to have seen some allusion to, if not the re-introduction of, that Bill, and he cordially re-echoed the Seconder of the Address, that it was an omission that they must almost reprobate. Then he should have liked to have seen, believing as he did that the want of facilities for distributing employment was one great cause of the wants of employment, some allusion to the defective state of the law at present, some allusion to the defect that was alleged to exist in Corporations and Vestries not having the power to establish Labour Bureaux. They did it in some cases with great advantage; but if, as had been alleged in this House, there was any doubt as to their power in that direction, that doubt ought to be removed, because no one could have any doubt as to its advantage who had any experience of these bureaux for employment that were conducted at the Mansion House and through the London Chamber of Commerce. There were allusions in the Queen's Speech to all parts of the world except one which he should have thought would have been first mentioned—namely, Africa. He noticed the advantage of arbitration was mentioned, and the necessity to commerce of peace, which was most true: but who could forget the possible effect of Africa; who could close his eyes to the fact that this was the great field in which we might establish new markets? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons would agree that if there was one subject on which the minds of all classes were fixed at this time it was the Report of that most able servant now lost to the State—he meant the Report of Sir Gerald Portal in reference to Uganda. He hoped the Report would not long be delayed, and that they would soon have the views and recommendations contained in it which were based on knowledge and experience. With reference to the question of pauper aliens, he did not desire that subject to be exaggerated, as it often was, and he thought there was something to be said on each side. If emigration were restricted many avenues might be closed to our own people; but all nations, except ours, seemed to be agreed that it was undesirable that mere pauper aliens should be lauded in foreign countries. The great objection of that was not only undue competition, and hence a large amount of sweating, but the reduction of the standard of living which produced a great social evil. He thought it was a subject well worthy consideration, and might be one that demanded legislation, but the statistics and other considerations must be first most carefully examined, for they had often been misrepresented. He had only one word more to say, and that was, to regret above all the omission of one matter which would have had the effect of removing great industrial defects in our country, of adding to its trade, of arming us for competition, and placing our legislation on a much better basis. Last Session he moved at an early period a Resolution which declared that—

"In the opinion of the House of Commons, railway rates had been most injurious to trade; and that the subject demanded the prompt and effective intervention of the Government."

He heartily thanked the President of the Board of Trade for consenting to the appointment of the Committee for which he himself had asked, and he knew that the right hon. Gentleman had never lost interest in that subject; but he did ask consideration of the importance of the subject itself, how the cost of transport was almost the chief element in these days of industrial competition, and how the feeling was universal that those excessive rates were disastrous both to commerce and to the Railway Companies themselves; and remembering that the Committee sat for a great part of the Session and found that the rates had been most excessive, he was surprised there was no word of indication either of the importance of this subject or the necessity and want of that prompt and effective legislation which Parliament demanded, and which would have a very great effect on trade and employment. He might say a similar word on the subject of sea fisheries. Again, a Committee which he had moved and carried had sat and declared that legislation was necessary to prevent the depletion of our seas. They needed greater scientific appliances for examination; and yet, though this great question was not only a trade question, and also a food and diet question, but a source from which the sailors came who manned our fleet, who were the backbone of our Marine and Royal Naval Reserve, no word was said in the Queen's Speech. He regretted, too, that there was no word about technical education. In some measure from the lack of technical education, especially in the vital matter of design and applied design, they found this great City of London placarded with large lithographs bearing that New York imprint. Something might be done in the direction of technical education by making the London University a teaching as well as an examining College. Yet here, again, there was no mention of the Report of the Commission. These were matters which, under one general phrase expressing sympathy for the want of employment and encouragement in providing means for securing it in a greater degree for the benefit of all classes, might have been introduced. He supported the Amendment as a protest against what he could not help thinking had been a matter of great neglect on a subject of the most vital import, to employers and to the masses of the people.

said, that the Amendment which had been moved by the Member for Central Sheffield had, as that hon. Member had said, been brought forward in no controversial spirit, but simply as a question to which the attention of the House ought to be directed. For his own part, he confessed he felt some regret on reading the Queen's Speech to find there was no allusion to agricultural depression. He represented one of the districts of Essex, a county which had suffered almost more than any other in England from this depression, and he felt that in alluding to the topic he was dealing with no Party matter. Another Essex Member seconded this Amendment, and there was one other Member who sat on the other side of the House who would also have supported the Amendment had he been alive to do so. Hut he regretted to say that death, as the result of an unfortunate accident, had deprived them of the services of the hon. Member, whose loss would be felt exceedingly by every one in Essex, no matter to which Party he belonged. A map had recently been prepared by one of the Sub-Commissioners belonging to the Commission now sitting on the condition of agriculture which showed the amount of land wholly or partially out of cultivation in the Essex district. From that it appeared that between the Thames and the Blackwater there was an enormous amount of land which was entirely, or almost entirely, out, of cultivation. In face of such a fact it was most natural to say that there must be something wrong somewhere, this land being close to London and suitable for wheat or beans. Another matter which affected the agricultural interest was the question of railway rates. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, equally with themselves, felt deep sympathy with the agriculturists in their depression, and also sympathy with the condition of trade and the unemployed. But, after all, it would have been unfortunate that in the Speech there should have been placed words of sympathy unless there was a prospect of that sympathy faking some practical shape; and he quite perceived that in regard to agriculture there was considerable difficulty in legislating. He believed most hon. Members thought they know of a cure for this depression, but they all disagreed as to what that particular cure was. He thought that, one remedy was that there should be better market facilities afforded, both in the country districts and in London itself. It had always seemed to him that the condition of the London markets was anything but satisfactory, and a great deal must be done by establishing markets in various towns which should be in communication by telephone and telegraph with the London markets. He believed the object of the Government in appointing the Agricultural Commission was that the various remedies and suggestions should be inquired into and something done. The Commission had been sitting for a long time; it had taken a deal of evidence, and he heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say it had done nothing. That was strictly true; but they must remember that the Commission had a mass of evidence to deal with, and they had not yet been able to move in the direction of remedies. Agriculturists would be glad when they did suggest remedies; and, for his part, he should very much have liked to see an Interim Report stating the facts which had been already elicited. Of course, it was impossible for the Government to propose any legislation until that Commission had reported, and he hoped the Commission would report as speedily as they could, and if they disagreed as to the remedies that they would disagree in such a way as to leave the responsibility to the Government. What they wanted to know was the exact state of agriculture, and then the Government must propose some remedies. As to railway rates, they were intimately connected with agriculture. It was complained that foreign agricultural produce could be brought to this country by steam very cheaply, and then the Railway Companies brought it from the ports to the various towns at equally cheap rates. The companies urged that this produce was collected for them, and given to them in large quantities. That was true; but, at the same time, it was a great hardship upon the English agriculturist that he was not able to have his goods collected, and then sent by the Railway Companies in a similarly cheap way. He recognised that the President of the Board of Trade had already given some assistance in this matter, and he hoped he would do more. A Resolution had been unanimously passed by the House declaring that these high rates were prejudicial to trade, and required to be altered. A Committee of the House had inquired into the question of railway rates. It had reported, and that Report now required consideration. He quite understood the difficulty in proposing at this early period of the Session any legislation on a matter which required such serious consideration, but the House was entitled to ask that the matter should receive the careful attention of the President of the Board of Trade. They desired for the agriculturist and trading community that there should, by legislation, be established some cheap and possible tribunal which could decide as to whether a rate was reasonable or not reasonable. As to the Amendment, he desired to ask the Mover and Seconder whether they thought any useful purpose would be served by carrying it to a Division. Upon the plain facts of the case there was really no division of opinion in the House. All Parties sympathised with the depression, and were anxious that remedies should be found. But he would observe that to take a Division meant a censure on the Government, which the Mover of the Amendment disclaimed and under these circumstances, he would ask the hon. Gentleman not to go to a Division.

, as a Representative of Irish labour, desired for a few moments to intervene in the Debate. He considered, with the gentlemen who had raised this discussion, that it was remarkable that in Her Most Gracious Majesty's Speech the cause of labour did not receive some notice. It was quite evident to those who studied the social conditions of the country that the working classes were the mainstay of its prosperity, and it was therefore strange that the right hon. Gentleman who had prepared Her Majesty's Speech should have overlooked the fact that there was a lamentable want of employment over the length and breadth of the country. In this matter the policy of the Government seemed to be that of masterly inactivity. We had in this country nothing approaching the system which existed in most Continental countries, whereby labour could be removed from one place to another in accordance with the necessities of the case. The Homo Government had apparently not come to that state of perfection as regarded labour. In these countries the people were crowding into towns whilst the laud was idle. In addition to this we had food importations pouring in from all parts of the world. In 1886 £28,500,000 of food products were imported into this country, and in 1892 nearly £125,000,000. Yet, in face of these facts, hon. Gentlemen who owned land expected routs to be paid and commerce to be prosperous whilst all the time the Government were blind to this extraordinary position of affairs, which was really the kernel to the nation's prosperity. They ought to strive to get the people back to the land, and to grant allotments to the working men in which to use their spare time and labour. The Government were responsible for many other mistakes. He found that in 1892 over £43,000,000 of manufactured articles were imported into the Three Kingdoms; of textiles, over £28,000,000 being so imported. There was a preferential rate given to nearly every class of foreign goods brought into the country, and that was a great and most unfair disadvantage to the home manufacturer and producer. He believed in Free Trade, but he did not believe in protection for the foreigner at the expense of the native producer. The Merchandise Marks Act was at present a Statute existing on paper only. He believed it might be made useful and beneficial to the trade of the country, but it was not made applicable to the purposes for which it was passed, and was by no means enforced to the extent it ought to be. He had sent a newspaper the other day to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, which contained a very remarkable statement. It was to the effect that the produce of German convict labour was imported into this country, while thousands of our own artizans were starving for want of work. Was it not the duty of a, Government to have regard to facts like these? The President of the Board of Trade appeared to think that he (Mr. Field) was joking, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was in earnest. Whether the Government was Liberal or Conservative the time was coming when it would have to consider these matters that were exercising the brains of the working men of the country or go out of Office. Another thing to be borne in mind was that technical education was fostered in foreign countries far more than it was here. We were 100 years behind such countries as France, Belgium, and Germany in this respect. Then, as to strikes, we had a great deal to learn from foreign countries. There were far fewer strikes on the Continent than in this country. Why was that? Because on the Continent the Government had organised Conciliation Boards to meet emergencies, and did not allow matters to drift into commercial war before endeavouring to bring about peace. They seemed to be asleep in the country. Trade was leaving us, our artizans were not employed, and matters had drifted into a state of chaos. With regard to labour bureaux, he did not see why we should not have them here as they had them in Franco and elsewhere. The President of the Board of Trade might say that all these were matters of detail, but it was attention to matters of detail which made Governments perfect, and enabled them to face foreign competition. He trusted this Debate would bring the Government to a sense of their responsibility in approaching this question.

said, he shared very strongly the regret expressed by hon. Members that there had been no mention made of these matters in the Queen's Speech. He did not ask for Protection, believing it to be dead and gone. ["No, no!"] Yes: in the ordinary sense of the word, and for the reason that they had more consumers—more mouths to feed—than they had producers; and the greater number always won the victory at elections, He did not believe in Protection, nor did he believe that Protection would be necessary if other proper measures were adopted. The great burden on agriculture was the crushing amount of rates and the extremely unfair difference in taxation, relatively, between real and personal property. In most parishes the assessment came to about 20 per cent, on the value of the land, and in some cases where the tithe had not fallen as much as the value it amounted to 50 per cent. The tax on personalty was only 3 per cent. If a, man had £5,000 a year in land, he would have to pay £1,000 a year in local taxation, and perhaps a good deal more, whereas if he had £5,000 a year in personalty, he would only pay 3 per cent, on it plus the local taxation on the house he lived in, or about £60—£210 a year in all. He believed that if there was a, fair readjustment of local taxation agriculture might be again made to flourish in this country, and that in this direction the real remedy for the present distress was to be found. Personalty at the present day exceeded realty by five or six to one, so that one-sixth of the wealth of the country paid 20 per cent, in taxation and the other five-sixths paid only 3 per cent. The distribution, therefore, was not equal and not what it ought to be. Why should not the man with £5,000 a year personalty pay as much for the maintenance of the poor, for the maintenance of the roads he used, and for police protection as the man with £5,000 a year realty? This was a very serious question. The subject of the prosperity of agriculture concerned more millions of working men in the country than the prosperity of any other industry, and they would do more to bring about a restoration of that prosperity by a fair readjustment of local taxation than by any other step they could take.

joined in the expression of regret that the Government had not referred in the Address to the question of the unemployed or to the depression in trade. But though he joined in that expression of regret, he could not support the Amendment, because in that Amendment there was a special emphasis laid on the question of the immigration of the foreign pauper, and the Mover of it had pointed to the exclusion of the foreign pauper as a remedy for the unemployed difficulty. For his own part, he believed the immigration of the foreign pauper had really little to do with the present condition of labour in this country. Indeed, he was confident, from his knowledge of the state of things in the East End of Loudon, that if they excluded every foreign pauper immigrant to-morrow, they would have done nothing for the solution of the question of unemployed labour, and for that reason he could not consent to vote against the Government. Thefacts were simple, though the problem that sprung out of them was probably as intricate and as difficult as any problem this country ever had to face. They had on the one hand a vast amount of unemployed capital, and on the other a vast amount—an unknown amount—of unemployed labour, and they had also a large amount of raw material. They had at their baud the factors that produced wealth, and yet, for some reason or other, the country was unable to make use of them. He did not believe they would ever solve either the question of depression of trade or of unemployed labour until they found why it was that with the factors of wealth placed at their disposal they were unable to create it. The conditions under which capital was used were the same as those having reference to the employment of labour. They had capital competing for use in precisely the same way as they had labour competing for employment,, and unless they could see a means by which capital and labour could he brought together, they would never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion of the present difficulty. There had been suggestions made to the effect that the unemployed problem really sprang from the condition of agriculture. There could be no question that if agriculture could be made prosperous it would do a great deal towards absorbing the unemployed labour of the country, but the cause of the depression in agriculture seemed to him precisely the same as that of the general depression of the country. The view had been advanced that they had to increase the power of demand by altering the currency of the country. That had been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, but he (Mr. Macdonald) confessed that if the alteration of the currency tended to alter the prices of commodities, he could not for the life of him see how the alteration could in the slightest degree affect the actual demand for labour or for commodities. But he had risen for the purpose of saying that he would be contented if the Government would promise to bring in a popular Budget, because there was no remedy which was so likely to improve the trade of this country as the removal as far as possible of taxation from the shoulders of the poor to the shoulders of the richer members of the community. What they had to do was to increase the power of the poorer classes to demand commodities, and to check the enormous saving powers which were given under existing conditions to those who possessed large incomes. If the Government did not promise improvements in this direction it was possible that another opportunity would arise to divide on an Amendment more in accordance with his own view, and he should certainly divide on that.

said, he rose to support the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Dodd) in the appeal he had made to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see that in regard to the question of railway rates the interests of British farmers were safeguarded, and that there was a tribunal established to say whether rates were reasonable or not. He joined in the tribute paid to the late Member for Romford, whose untimely death was to be deplored. Everyone would admit that he was a most diligent Member, and took the greatest interest in the proceedings of the House. With regard to the Amendment before the House, he thanked the hon. Member for Sheffield for introducing it; and heartily agreed with those who deplored the omission from the Queen's Speech of the subject of the depression in agriculture. He regretted that nothing had been heard on the subject from the Mover or Seconder of the Address, or from the Leader of the House. They all knew that that depression existed in a very extreme degree, and they knew it had reached a very acute crisis in the wheat-growing counties, and he was sure that in saying this the Minister for Agriculture, whom he saw opposite, would not disagree with him. The Government, as they knew, had appointed a, Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and it was to be hoped that the investigation would soon terminate. A great deal of evidence had been taken by the previous Commission, appointed in 1878, and he strongly felt that it was not so much further evidence of the existence of depression that they required as some remedies for the improvement of the existing state of things. He thought that more of the recommendations of the previous Commission should have been carried out before this. The charge for the indoor poor, for instance, might have been made an Imperial rather than a local one, and that facilities should have been given for the redemption of tithe on equitable terms. He trusted that in the near future something would be done to lighten local burdens. There wore many ways in which the Government could alleviate the agricultural depression that now existed if they set their hands to the task, and be called upon the Minister for Agriculture to explain the omission in the Queen's Speech.

said, there was one subject germane to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Howard Vincent) which had not been referred to in the course of the Debate. It was a subject which the American people thought to be a great cause of the depreciation in prices in that country, and they had already taken steps to remedy it by bringing forward Bills in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. He referred to the practice of speculating in produce. It was alleged with considerable force of argument that the result of speculating in wheat, for instance, was to create an entirely false price for that article—that though the value of wheat as it reached the consumer was the same, the Clearing House in New York fixed an artificial price which was telegraphed all over the world, and regulated the English producer in the English market irrespective of whether the price was remunerative or not. A gentleman who was thoroughly acquainted with this subject, and who had written a book upon it, had been summoned to give evidence before the Royal Commission; therefore the subject would be brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, whether he had devoted attention to it as yet or not And not only was the price of wheat affected in this way, but the price of silver too, which, of course, affected other industries besides agriculture. The price of silver had not fallen through the breaking of the Latin compact—it was years after the demonetization of silver that the fall took place. It was to be traced first to "corners" in America, and afterwards to the action of speculators. He would suggest that the Government should take a leaf out of the book of the American Legislature, and introduce legislation directed against "time bargains" in produce. Should the subject be dealt with in the Report of the Royal Commission, so as to make it clear that these "time bargains," on produce had a material effect on the English grower, he thought they ought to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that it was a matter worthy the attention of the Government.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for the Central Division of Sheffield had moved his Amendment in a very thin House, and had mainly addressed his speech to him (Mr. Mun- della). Had the hon. Gentleman done him the honour of giving him notice of what were to be the terms of his Amendment he might have been better prepared to answer the remarkable statistics and arguments he had addressed to the House. He was bound to say that some of them were startling. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had asked them to say something about "time bargains" and "futures." It was true that a Bill dealing with the subject had been introduced into the American Senate, but it had never become law. Mr. W. H. Smith had paid some attention to the subject, and when appealed to with reference to it had said that if time bargains were left alone they would cure themselves. Mr. W. H. Smith had been wise in what he had said. The House, he thought, would have been startled if the Government had said in the Queen's Speech that they proposed to bring in a Bill to prevent time bargains in future. He did not know what would happen in, say, Liverpool, or what would be said of an attempt to deal with ships arriving there with corn. He thought the less they interfered with trade the bettor. The more they lightened the springs of industry by making the burdens lighter and leaving men to find out the best methods themselves the better it would be. In the Amendment which had been moved there was enough for a Queen's Speech itself. His hon. Friend enumerated a number of measures in moving his Amendment sufficient to comprise such a Speech, and other speakers had urged the adoption of as many measures as would form the subject of legislation for a whole Parliament. He himself did not profess to speak—it would be presumption on his part to speak—with any authority on the depression of agriculture; but he carefully watched all the Returns and Reports and the effects of measures for the benefit of agriculture, and this he did know, that, although we had great depression in this country, it was no less in France. He thought it was even worse in that country. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division (Mr. Chaplin) were present he should appeal to him, because he had investigated the state of things in France, and had found the agricultural depression very great. It was the same in Germany, and there was a struggle now going on in the Reichstag about it. It was the same in Austria-Hungary. It was the same, or even worse, in America. Again, take the Australian Colonies, and what were the conditions there? Notwithstanding that they had in Australia land almost at a nominal value, the last Reports showed that there had been such a large influx of the unemployed from Australia to the Cape that the authorities at the Cape were warning Australia and all the Colonies not to encourage emigration to the Cape, because there was no employment for them there, and if they went there they would find great distress. His hon. Friend had been making a journey not quite round the world, but half round it, and he should like to know where he had found prosperity.

In the West Indies.

The British West Indies?

Yes.

Jamaica, I suppose?

Yes.

Jamaica, where they were growing fruits for the American markets, where the negroes had got possession of the land, and cut it up into small patches for growing fruits of all kinds for the American markets. He believed that was really the ground of the prosperity in the West Indies. He (Mr. Mundella) had read some of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speeches with regard to his journey partly round the world, and more dismal reading it would be hard to find. Instead of finding people trading in South America and the Brazils, he had found them lighting. He seemed to have found no prosperity anywhere, and to-night he had not given them the slightest glimpse of any measure which, if introduced by the Government, would be likely to cure the depression of trade or agriculture. He had thrown out some rather dark hints about Protection, but nothing more. What, be should like to ask the hon. Member, had Protection done for agriculture anywhere? What had Protection done for America? In America, although they had enormous balances in the Exchequer, what was the condition of industry according to the description of Chauncey Depew in a recent article? Many of the mills were now closed, and many were working short time; whilst in the mining districts there was such a state of things as no English workman would tolerate, the men working half-time, and two sets of hands being employed in order that two sols of families might live, and the truck system prevailing to an extent that was novel experienced in this country at any period. No; the British workman was better off, after all, than the American workman, and this country had no conception of the suffering there had been for some time among the working classes in America. With respect to agriculture, a complaint was made last Session that the Queen's Speech was not specific enough with reference to agricultural depression. The Prime Minister then proposed that there should be a Committee of the House to inquire into the matter, but that offer was refused. At last the Government took on themselves to appoint a Royal Commission—and a very good Commission—who were making most valuable and exhaustive inquiries. It was said that the Commission had as yet done nothing, but how a Commission which had only sat six months, and which had such a large subject to deal with, could have done more he failed to see. He was a member of the Labour Commission which had been sitting for three years and had not yet reported.

Why not?

said, that anyone who asked that question could not understand the enormity of the subjects to be dealt with. If the hon. Member wished for further information he had better address himself to the Chairman of the Commission. With respect to the depressed condition of our industries, the hon. Member spoke of a fall in the Returns, and took great care to put this fall on the Government.

Hear, hear!

said, the hon. Member cheered that, and when he went to his constituents he put the whole re- sponsibility for the depression of trade on the Liberal Government. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] No doubt that was very amusing. It was all very well for the country, but they knew better in that House, and the hon. Member knew better himself. Every falling-off of £5,000,000 in our exports caused depression, and every increase of £5,000,000 made a considerable increase in the amount of employment and prosperity. What had happened since 1890? There bad been a falling-off in our exports of nearly £45,000,000 from the highest-point we had ever reached, but £30,000,000 of that fell off before the present Government came into power.

It was because you were coming.

said, he had heard some bold excuses in his life, but that exceeded anything he had over heard. Coming events sometimes cast their shadows before, but not two years before. Was it because the present Government were coming in in August, 1892, that the Baring crisis occurred in the autumn of 1890? Was it because the present Government were coming in in 1892 that the exports of British and Irish products fell off by £17,000,000 in 1891, and then fell off another £13,000,000 before the late Government left Office, making a total falling-off of £30,000,000 under the late and £15,000,000 under the present Government? They all regretted this falling-off, but it was not fair to use such arguments as the hon. Member had used and to mislead working men on these questions. It was not creditable to go on to platforms in the country with an untruth in their mouths. The proper way to deal with working men was to try to tell them the truth. The hon. Member had referred to The Labour Gazette, which was an admirable organ the like of which was not published in any other part of the world, but he was sorry to say the hon. Member did not read it.

I do read it.

said, that being the ease, he was sorry to find that the hon. Member did not understand it. One thing or the other. If the hon. Member would look at the general summary in the first article on the first page of the last number of The Labour Gazette he would find the following passage:—

"The Returns received by the Labour Department for January point to an appreciable improvement in the state of employment during the month, and the general outlook is more hopeful than for some time past. The Returns from Trade Societies show a diminution in the proportion of unemployed members at the end of January, as compared both with the previous month and with the corresponding period of last year."

The article went on to show exactly in what proportion the improvement was apparent. A Return made by 37 Trade Societies showed that out of 353,000 men 7 per cent. were in receipt of unemployed benefit in January, as compared with 7·9 per cent, in December last.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly read the figures respecting the unemployed? Will be read straight on?

I am reading straight on. In the 23 Societies from which Returns were also received in January, 1893, the percentage of unemployed was 7·7 last month as compared with 9·9 on the corresponding date last year, so that it is 20 per cent, better than at the same time last year.

I am very loth to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but as be refers so often to me I am bound to. He has compared last mouth's figures with those of 1889, when only 1·5 were unemployed.

said, that would not do. The hon. Gentleman had said nothing about 1889, but bad stated that the want of employment was worse than last year. As a matter of fact, it was 20 per cent bettor, and there was an improvement in trade generally. The hon. Gentleman bad said that there bad been a great reduction in wages. He (Mr. Mundella) rejoiced to believe that, on the whole, England had never passed through a time of depression with fewer reductions of wages than there bad been during the last three years. Whether this was due to the state of organisation among the working classes or to a better feeling betwixt employers and employed he would not say, but he was certain that never had England during his lifetime passed through a period of such depression with such small reductions in wages. There was no reduction during the coal strike of last year. The 40 per cent. had been maintained, and throughout the mining districts there had been an increase, and not a reduction, in wages. The Labour Gazette showed that this was the case. On page 34 of the last number it would be found that about 110,000 miners had during the mouth received a rise in wages. About 90,000 Welsh miners had had their wages raised under the sliding scale, whilst 20,000 Northumberland miners bad also received an increase.

asked whether it was not a fact that where the sliding scale operated the wages were reduced during the early part of the year, and that the increase meant only a return to the former condition of things?

said, that supposing that was the case, he was only showing that there had been increases rather than decreases during recent months. As to the shipbuilding industry, the first page of The Labour Gazette showed that the unemployed members of Unions had fallen from 17 per cent, to 13·8 per cent. If there had been any industry which had been subjected to vast expansion in recent years it had been the shipbuilding industry. Shipbuilders had not erred in building too little, but had rather erred in building too much. There had been an excess of production over the requirements, and the growth of British shipping had been one of the marvels of our industry. As to the number of artizans and labourers out of work, be thought the House must see that, so far from going from bad to worse, we had gone through a period of intense depression, which was slowly mending. He was afraid it was but slowly; but, taking it for all in all, the condition of the British workman was as good as that of any other workman in the world. Recent inquiries showed that the length of the working day and the low rates of wages in Germany were so remarkable that it was very difficult indeed for England to hold her own in competition with that country. He was assured last month, also, by the highest authorities that France had not shown such a period of severe depression and misery for more than half a century as during the past year. As to agriculture, hon. Members were aware that France had increased the duties on grain. Monsieur Lesage, a peasant proprietor, in opposing the imposition of the higher duties only a short time ago, said those duties were unjust and inhuman, and he drew a deplorable contrast between agriculture and wages 20 years ago and 10 years ago and their condition now, stating that at the present time wages averaged less than half their former rate. The effect of the increased duty on wheat in Franco was to impose on the bread consumers a tax of 720,000 francs a year. When one was acquainted with the burden of taxation in France and the enormous loads which had to be carried in every branch of agriculture, the effect of the additional taxation on broad must be frightful. It must be borne in mind that the French labourer ate very little else but bread. The average consumption of wheat in France was nine bushels per head, as against six bushels per head in England. The result was that a duty of nearly £3 per annum had been imposed upon every family in France for bread. There was only one more point to which he wished to refer—namely, the continued immigration of pauper aliens. He had been very glad to hear the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. J. A. Macdonald). His hon. Friend, who bad thoroughly investigated the question, had expressed the opinion that pauper aliens did not affect the industrial problem in East London, and he (Mr. Mundella) thought that was becoming more and more apparent to every one who investigated the question. The term "pauper aliens" was a misnomer. The aliens wore not paupers, and the remarkable fact was that they never became paupers.

They take the wages of Englishmen.

said, they did not take the wages of Englishmen. On the contrary, the evidence given before the Labour Commission was that they started and developed new industries, such as the shoddy slipper industry in Yorkshire. As a matter of fact, England had fewer aliens than almost any other nation in Europe. For every alien in England there were five in France. An hon. Member opposite had said that we were the only nation that did not keep aliens out. He (Mr. Mundella) could only say that, aided by the present Prime Minister (Lord Rosebery), he had done everything in his power to make it, known throughout Europe, and especially in Poland and Russia, that there was no room for aliens in this country.

said, his remark was that England did not keep mere pauper aliens out as other nations did, by legislation, so as to prevent their coining on the rates.

said, they might get a taste of such legislation themselves if they did, and then who would be the sufferers? The recent Census had shown that in Great Britain there were less than 200,000 aliens, whilst France had nearly 1,100,000. He appealed to the House to say whether it was necessary, under these circumstances, to bring in a Bill on the subject? The late Government knew better than to do it. They were pressed very much by their supporters on the subject, but they very wisely refrained from doing it, and he was quite sure that the present Government would have to look very carefully into the question before they ventured to do it. In a Report made to the United States Government it had boon shown that during the last 10 years the United States had received over 400,000 foreign Jews. He thought he had answered the whole of the points raised, and it was only because he did not wish to weary the House that he had not gone into them at greater length. Although these matters were not all put into the Queen's Speech, they were by no means overlooked. Did hon. Members want them to put all their goods into the shop window? The Bill with regard to railway rates was prepared; but hon. Gentlemen would understand that he had to submit it to the Law Officers of the Crown and to the Lord Chancellor, and he hoped to have it introduced and referred to the Grand Committee on Trade before Easter. He could promise the House that there should be no delay in proceeding with the Bill so far as he was concerned, and that, the Government would not fall short of any pledges they had made.

said, he, for one, must confess that he had listened with feeling's of disappointment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government could not he expected to put all their goods into the shop window. He was expecting that the right hon. Gentleman would go on to say that if they only waited a little while, and, as it were, allowed him to arrange his counter, he would find some measure which would be of advantage both to the commercial and agricultural communities. Not only had the President of the Board of Trade not allowed them to hope that much, but he had distinctly told them that nothing was to be done in the way of legislation, and he had gone round the world in order to show how little could be done by legislation to obtain the object sought. One word upon the subject of the alien immigrant. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had quoted statistics, but he did not quote the Returns for January, 1894. Why was that? Because they had been withheld from Parliament. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No.] Yes, they had been withheld from Parliament. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to deny his statement. The Return did not reach him, and he thought it was through some inadvertence. He made personal inquiry at the Vote Office, and he was told that the Returns had not been furnished for distribution. He dared say the right hon. Gentleman would make a note of that.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question upon the Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman had been quoting statistics, and he (Mr. J. Lowther) had directed his attention to these suppressed Returns. The latest Returns he had before him on this subject were those of 1893, and they showed a marked increase in the arrivals of aliens who desired to make this country their home. The right hon. Gentleman differed very widely from the present Prime Minister upon the subject of alien immigration. The right hon. Gentleman had heard the Member for Central Sheffield quote a speech delivered by the Prime Minister upon the subject of alien immigration, in which he recognised the fact that a system of immigration which brought large numbers of workpeople into competition with native industry was a state of affairs which would be calculated to raise very grave industrial disturbance and would demand consideration in any country in which they occurred. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had actually boldly announced himself as an advocate of free trade in sweating. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No.] That was what his statement actually amounted to. He had told them, in effect, that not only did not alien immigration deprive Englishmen of their employment, but that it was actually an advantage to the industry of the country. He should like to see him argue that out with a deputation of working men. He himself had had interviews on the subject, and it had been shown to him that thousands of working men were kept out of employment by foreigners, and that thousands on thousands were landed on these shores to take up employment which our own people were unable to obtain.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had complained that the numbers of alien immigrants who arrived in this country in January last had not been included in the Return which had been furnished to hon. Members, but he would find the figures fully set forth in The Labour Gazette.

said, it would not be respectful to the House that he should detain it while he endeavoured to master the right hon. Gentleman's journalistic venture which he had taken so many opportunities that evening of exploiting, but it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had made his statement at second-hand. He thought that he was fully justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman who represented the great Trade Department of the country saw no objection to the continuance of this alien immigration, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman had held out no hope that legislation on the subject would be initiated by Her Majesty's Government, who were perfectly satisfied with things as they were. When he himself had spoken upon this question he had always taken care to state that nothing could be further from his wish than to foster racial or religions animosity. He, however, did not think it right that the charitable contributions of the wealthy Jewish community should be expended in supporting here the paupers of foreign nations. In his opinion, public feeling was fully ripe for comprehensive legislation upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the legislative action of the United States with regard to this question, but it should be remembered that that legislation was prohibitive as regarded the immigration of many classes of persons, and that there was a strong popular movement in favour of curtailing undesirable immigration. He trusted that when the subject of alien immigration was raised in that House in a more definite form they would receive a more satisfactory reply from the Government than the right hon. Gentleman had given them that night. He thought, however, that the hon. and gallant Member would be wise in not taking the sense of the House upon the subject on that occasion. As to the more general question that had been raised by the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member—namely, that which related to the unemployed—the right hon. Gentleman had delivered himself of an old lecture of the Cobden Club. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that every corner of the world except Great Britain was Protectionist. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to a speech that had been delivered in the French Assembly in favour of Free Trade; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to look at the Division List on the occasion, because had he done so he would have found that the great majority of the French Members—about two to one—had voted in favour of Protectionist views. The proposed new tariff of the United States was much more protective than anything that would ever have been suggested by an English Protectionist, and the elections showed that there was no popular sympathy with Free Trade. But Protection was not, the only remedy suggested to the Government. Another suggestion was that there should he a more close commercial connection be- tween the Mother Country and the Colonies, on a preferential basis—a commercial union which would enclose one-fifth of the whole surface of the earth and which would remove inducements to the colonists to foster trade outside the British Empire. Opinion on the subject of Free Trade was being merely modified in this country, and measures to promote a truly Imperial policy would be much more welcomed by the people than Bills to promote electoral arrangements and Party objects, which did not commend themselves to those who had at heart the good of all classes in this country.

said, they had had an interesting discussion upon this Amendment, and he hoped they might now come to a decision upon it, as he had already pointed out how limited the time of the House was. He always listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman, who was clear and incisive in his opinions and constant in his convictions, and who generally managed to lift the veil and to reveal what others more prudently concealed. The true meaning of the Amendment had been made known; the British had been exhibited as the only Free Traders in the world. The object of the Amendment was to obtain from the House of Commons a declaration in favour of a return to Protection. Well, nothing could be more clear than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Protectionist Governments found that the dose of Protection did not satisfy, but had to be doubled. That had happened in a neighbouring country where they had high duties on corn and the food of the people. At the present time the duty on corn there was 13s. or 14s. a quarter, and the agricultural interest still declared it to be wholly insufficient. He would not argue the question of Free Trade and Protection with the right hon. Gentleman at that moment. Most hon. Members had made up their minds on the subject on one side or the other, and the great majority of the people of the country had also made up their minds. At all events, Her Majesty's Government had no hesitation on the question, and, regarding the Resolution as one in favour of Protection, they would vote against it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the present Prime Minister. He would refer him to the late Conservative Prime Minister, who had more than once stated to his Party that a return to Protection in this country was impossible. That was an issue which was very plain on the present occasion, and certainly the Party on the Government side of the House would give no vote which would favour the idea of a return to Protection. No doubt when the right hon. Gentleman was the Leader of a great Protectionist majority in the House of Commons he would be able to give effect to his views, but he would suggest that for the present the House might leave the discussion of the question and come to a decision upon the Resolution.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pursued a method with which they were very familiar. It was not the first time they had heard him telling them that a particular vote was to be construed in an unnatural sense, and that they were to go into the Lobby not upon the question they were discussing and had to decide, but upon some esoteric question which the right hon. Gentleman evolved from his inner consciousness. They were told this was a question of Protection. In his view, it did not affect the question of Protection at all. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Amendment was moved. It stated that the House desired to represent that the depressed condition of trade and agriculture, the reduction of wages, the largo numbers of artizans and labourers out of employment, and the immigration of aliens were matters for the immediate attention of Parliament. Where was there a word relating to the question of Protection? It was very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman and the other Members of the Government to ignore altogether all reference to want of employment and these other matters contained in the Amendment. He thought if they looked at this question from the point of view of the interests of Party there was nothing they could wish better than that the Government should treat it in this manner, hut it was their duty to look at the facts and to do what could be done in order to remedy the existing state of things. There was a large number of unemployed, and it was more and more difficult to get work even in places where the most favourable con- ditions prevailed. He would take Liverpool, for instance. He had recently been told that in Liverpool for years past the times were never known to be so bad and so much want of employment to prevail. The question of the want of employment was the first and foremost raised by the Amendment. Then there was the question of pauper immigration. What ever the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade might think, this wits a serious thing for consideration; They were told there would be Occasion at some future time for dealing and speaking more fully upon it, and he did not propose to pursue it now. But there was one question which had been alluded to by the President of the Board of Trade, and that was his principal reason for rising—that was, the method in which he proposed to deal with this great question of the railway rates. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that he (Mr. Tomlinson) was a member of a deputation which waited upon him in regard to the subject some time ago. It was, perhaps, no Information to him that that deputation went away very scantily satisfied with the remarks he made; and he was very sorry that that night his declarations did not point to any satisfactory settlement. What he said was that the Government intended to bring in a Bill on the lines of the Report of the Select Committee.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that the Bill would fully satisfy the recommendations of the Committee.

said, the question they had to consider was not whether' the Bill satisfied the recommendations at the Select Committee, but whether it was satisfactory to the country. What he was coming to was this—the right hon. Gentleman talked about referring that Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade before Easter. There was only one way in which that could be done, and that was by taking the Second Reading without discussion. If the Bill went to a Grand Committee before Easter they could not have any discussion in that House, and that was a mode of dealing with important questions against which he must protest. It was idle to minimise the importance of it. Then the Resolution dealt with agricultural depression as well as with trade depression. He was one of those who thought, that the excessive proportion of railway rates levied upon the agricultural produce of this country was one factor which materially contributed to that depression. He protested again against the idea that the Standing Committee on Trade should be treated as equivalent to a Second Reading Debate as well as the Committee stage. If the Government considered their Bills of importance they ought to be allowed to be debated in the House of Commons as well as by a Grand Committee He should endeavour, with the support of other Members, to prevent any Bill of so much importance from being smuggled through the House.

said, be must, express the indignation which he felt at finding that the appeals made to the Minister for Agriculture were addressed to deaf ears. They agriculturists did not think that so important a subject as that of agriculture ought to be treated in the House of Commons with a laugh and a sneer from the Minister who was supposed to represent its interests. It must be the absolute opinion of everybody who knew anything of it that their question was not a petty one, nor a fictitious or bogus one. They were very much in earnest, and were endeavouring to press upon that House that the condition of agriculture was such as required ten times more attention than even the matters mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. He did not want to see time wasted upon matters which did not immediately affect the welfare of the country. At the same time, they knew perfectly well that their interest and industry must take its part and share with the other industries and interests of the country. They did not demand any excessive share of attention. They did not ask for any royal road to relief, but they thought it was not too much to ask that there should be some expression which showed that the Government were awake to the situation. They had had nothing in the miserable months of the last Session to help them. He knew it was impossible for the Minister for Agriculture not to shadow forth any great scheme, but he thought that some little should be done to relieve the pressure which bore upon them at this moment. He did not know that they ought to treat the matter from an electioneering point of view; but if they did so, he would tell the Minister for Agriculture that he would take nothing by his policy of silence, which might be construed into a policy of indifference. ["Oh!"] That was an accustomed sound to hear from urban Members when a, rural Member was speaking, but cheap sneers did not help them. If the real interests of the country were taken into consideration it would be found that the interests represented by the agricultural Members was largely in excess of that, represented by those who had jeered at, him at, that moment. He was willing that it should go forth to the country that while the urban Members jeered him, they on that side of the House at all events wore anxious to make it clear that there some interest was taken in the industry of agriculture. He would like to urge that, although this Amendment might deal principally with the depression of trade, there did exist also a depression in agriculture at least as deep and severe. Such a state of things should not be disregarded by the Government because it affected other branches of industry, and he thought they had a right, considering that they had been struggling for years to try and better their position, to expect that any practical and responsible Government should preface the work of the Session with at least some indication of their wish to do what could be done to relieve their depression and help them in their necessity.

said, he could not allow these remarks to pass unanswered. It was absolutely untrue to say that the present Government had taken no interest in agriculture during the past year, as was suggested by the hon. Member. The sympathy of the Government was as deep in that direction as that, of any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. They had exhibited their sympathy with agricultural depression by every means in their power, and although he had listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the hon. Member he had failed to gather what remedies he proposed. If there were any remedies for the present regrettable position, hon. Members opposite who represented the agricultural interest in that House had kept those remedies most unpatriotically locked in the depths of their own breasts. They were told that something must be done, but the right hon. Gentleman had told them he had not the slightest idea what that something was.

I did not say I had no idea. I suggested that the right hon. Gentleman had no idea.

, continuing, said, so far as he knew, every suggestion made from the opposite side had been carried out. There was no royal method of bringing about a restoration of agricultural prosperity. Agricultural depression existed quite as much in other countries as at home—quite as much in France, Austria-Hungary, and elsewhere in America nearly 4,000,000 acres of wheat had gone out of cultivation. In these circumstances, what was it that hon. Members wished the Government to do, and what did he accuse them of? As far as the Government were concerned, they thoroughly recognised the lamentable position of agriculture in some parts of the country; but it was not the same all over Great Britain. In Scotland this year the harvest had been above the average; and in Ireland the harvest had been one of the best on record. While admitting, therefore, that on the whole the present state of agriculture was not a satisfactory one, he recommended the hon. Member to turn to the prices, where he would find that with the exception of wheat agriculturists were not so badly off as last year. Barley had increased in price, and oats also showed a small increase; and viewing the country as a whole, they were not worse off' in this country than in other countries. The Government had given the most anxious consideration to the subject in the past, and any practical suggestion to benefit the agricultural interest would be considered with a desire and anxiety to give effect to it.

said, be rose to vindicate his hon. Friends behind him from the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture. Surely no one who was really interested in the agriculture of the country could be surprised that hon. Members on either side of the House should rise and express their amazement that in the Gracious Speech from the Throne not one single word had been directed to the extremely deplorable condition of that interest. What was the reply of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? He says—"True it may be that your agricultural condition is depressed, but we are no worse off than foreign countries." Did he not know that the depression in every foreign country was worse, if possible, than it was at home? Surely, then, that was no answer to the entire neglect of the agricultural interest shown in the Speech addressed to the House of Commons that night. His hon. Friend pointed out that a Royal Commission had been appointed; and that reminded him of the course pursued by the Government in the last Session. When they met last Session, the depression being the same as now, they wore informed that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the depression, and to propose such remedies as might in their judgment be available. What was the course pursued by the Government? The desire of those sitting on that side of the House was that they might have a day or half a day, or only a few hours, to consider and discuss this question. What was the reply of the Government? "We won't give you an hour." That was the encouragement they received from the Government at that time. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture told them that, with the exception of wheat, prices were better, and he quoted the prices of barley; but when, and where, and in what markets?

said, that what he had stated was information contained in Retunrs to the Board of Agriculture.

What kind and what character of barley was this? They always had good prices for the best samples of barley; but how many good samples were there in this country? Under exceptional circumstances there might be no great cause for complaint; but if they went beyond that, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult indeed to support the statement that, with the exception of the prices of wheat, the prices of agricultural produce at the present time were generally more satisfactory—

This last year?

Than last year, when they were already in the depths of depression, and were suffering more than ever before. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to that. The right hon. Gentleman asked his hon. Friends to point to a single suggestion in support of the agricultural interest which had not met with a favourable reception from the Government. Last year they pointed out that what agriculture was really suffering from was the great fall in the prices of agricultural produce of every kind, and on that side of the House they suggested to the right hon. Gentleman what was the proper remedy. In their opinion, the fall in prices was duo to monetary causes. That was one of the suggestions they made. Had that met with a favourable reception? It had been pointed out that if the Government could not accept that proposition they could do something in the way of considering whether it was not possible to remove from the land the great burden of rates which fell upon it so unjustly and heavily. If the Government could not accept the proposal in regard to monetary changes, they might consider whether it was not possible to relieve the land from the rates which fell most heavily upon it. How were they met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? "If you will divest yourselves of any idea of relief from the question of bimetallism, and if you will point out how the taxation necessary to relieve the rates is to be raised without affecting other people, then you can enter," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "on the work of your Committee with some prospect of success." He could only say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer "Thank you for nothing." One of the objections which they on that side of the House took to the appointment of the Commission at that time was that whenever they might attempt to raise the question of agricultural depression the fact that the Commission had been appointed would be thrown in their teeth, and it would furnish the Government with an excuse to do nothing for the agricultural interest until the Commission had made its Report.

said, they were offered a Committee last summer, but (showing the amount of confidence the Government had in the proposition they were placing before the House) Members interested in this question were not given an hour during the whole of that Debate. At last, when the Committee was appointed, it was too late in the Session for any useful result to follow from its labours. Legislation on the important subject of agricultural depression should not be indefinitely postponed. Prices were never lower than at this moment in every branch of agriculture. Grain, mutton, beef, and other products were certainly lower than they were last year; and what farmers complained of was that their products were handicapped in the markets by the extraordinary railway rates. The efforts of the Government in regard to railway rates had not been successful, as the new rates were not one bit better than the old ones. He wanted to know what was the moaning of all this legislation foretold in the Queen's Speech. Was it really intended for the good of the country, or was it merely for Party purposes that all these sensational matters had been put into the Speech of Her Gracious Majesty? It was to be hoped, when the promised Committee was formed, that something tangible would come of it; that the Government would not, run away from their guns, but would come up to the scratch and introduce some useful legislation upon this important subject, which should no longer be put off.

said, the Leader of the House had attempted to draw a, red herring across their path by talking about Protection and Free Trade, it was not a question of Protection or Free Trade. That was not what they complained about on that side of the House. What they did complain about was that the Government had introduced into the Queen's Speech the promise that they would bring in at an early date various measures, all of them, in his opinion, relating to very trivial matters indeed when compared with those needed legislative reforms upon which, he con- tended, the future prosperity of the country depended. So far as he could see, the Government intended to ignore altogether those great reforms which affected, not a class, but the material prosperity of the community as a whole. They had omitted altogether to recognise or mention the depression existing from which the labouring population and capitalists alike suffered so severely. Whatever considerations might influence the action of the Government in the future he gave his fellow-countrymen credit for possessing sufficient sagacity to recognise those who looked after their interests and those who failed to do so. Heroic remedies were not wanted for the depression in agriculture and commerce. What they required was to get higher prices for products—prices which would remunerate the capitalist and pay the labourer. Blame was not cast on the Government for not telling them how all this was to be brought about, but they were blameable for having altogether failed in the Queen's Speech to make any mention of the lamentable depression existing at present in both agriculture and trade.

said, that all the foreign countries which the President of the Board of Trade had pictured as being so distressed were gold standard countries, were countries which, instead of keeping their Mints open to both the precious metals as formerly, had excluded the use of one of them, and had so contracted the currency and forced down prices. If they wanted a remedy for the continuing and deepening depression, they must along with free ports have free Mints. The heavy agricultural depression which unhappily existed in this country to a degree which had left many parts of it not far from general bankruptcy extended not only to most of the European countries, but to our Colonies and to the United States, and the cause of the depression was the fall in prices, which fall was abundantly explained by the great rise in the value of that one commodity (gold) by which the prices of all the others were measured. Protection had never brought prosperity to agriculture, but the periods of agricultural prosperity in the past had always been periods of expanding currency; while agricultural and industrial depression had always been coincident with contracting currency. Those countries which had by legislation, instead of keeping their Mints open as they used to be to both the precious metals, excluded one form of currency had contracted their currency and so forced down prices. The fall in prices swept away the employers' profit and led to loss of employment to the workmen and the depreciation of property which was now seen everywhere among individuals and nations. All those consequences followed naturally from the contraction of the currency. It was impossible at so late an hour to detain the House by going into this greatest of all questions now before the world, but he had ventured to point out the plain cause of the trouble and that the remedy for it was free Mints. People in this country had no objection to moneys of either gold or silver, and a free supply of both should be afforded.

said, the Minister for Agriculture had asked for suggestions of remedies, and he would suggest as one remedy for the present agricultural depression that the President of the Board of Agriculture should try the effect of marking foreign and colonial meat imported into this country, so that people might get home-produced meat when they paid for it. He had quite lately heard of a butcher who professed to a customer that he did not sell frozen mutton, but who was subsequently proved to be a large purchaser of that commodity from a wholesale purveyor. Why not pass a measure analogous to the Merchandise Marks Act for the purpose of preventing the fraudulent sale of foreign meat as English? Remedial legislation on this subject was demanded unanimously by the farmers of the country, for there could not be the slightest doubt that when butchers were asked for home-grown beef and mutton, foreign or colonial meat was palmed off by them on the public. The fact was abundantly proved before the Commission which sat on the subject, and the practice was most unfair both to the public and the producer. The remedy he suggested was universally demanded by the farmers at every meeting they attended, and it was high time some legislation should be passed on the subject.

said, that before the Debate closed he desired to draw particular attention to one subject which he thought ought not to pass without some comment. Her Majesty's Speech proposed for the consideration of the House a great number of topics. There were six paragraphs in which notice was given of the introduction of large measures, several of which were likely to cause very prolonged discussion. Indeed, it was very doubtful whether many of them would come before Parliament in the form of Bills, and still more doubtful whether they would pass into law. He thought that when a subject was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne which deeply touched the interests of a great number of people, and created in the minds of those whose interests were attacked a sense of cruel wrong, it was most unjust that such a subject should be submitted in successive; years and that Parliament should have no opportunity of dealing with it. He referred especially at that moment to the announcement that a measure would be introduced dealing with the Established Church in Scotland and in Wales. Preference in this case was given to Wales, and he did not suppose that his fellow-countrymen would feel any great amount of jealousy at the fact. He had no doubt that even an attack on the Church in Wales would cause a great deal of inconvenience to Her Majesty's Government. But it was intolerable that an Institution distinct initself—so ancient, so venerable, and so useful as the Church of Scotland—should be menaced in successive years, apparently only with the effect and intention of disturbing the minds of the people and of satisfying pledges that had been given. It was well understood last Session what were the reasons for proposing the Disestablishment of the Church in Scotland. A certain number of votes had to be secured. He would not say there wore 30 pieces of silver, but there were 30 votes or more to be got by selling the Church. There was a certain Party to be conciliated and a certain number of votes to be procured for Home Rule by that means. The proposal of Disestablishment, however, was not a straightforward one. It was a means of delay and of paralyzing the operations of the Church in the parishes as they became successively vacant, preparing it, no doubt, for extinction in time to come, and in the meantime merely giving it a deadly wound. The proposal did not go further last Session than its announcement, and he did not know whether the Government expected to go any further with it this year. At all events, they had not indicated any such intention; but he could tell them that when they gave notice of any Bill on the subject it would meet with determined opposition in its initial and every subsequent stage. Such a measure was not to be lightly introduced on the ground of more political expediency and for the purpose of satisfying a certain number of votes. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said "No, no!"

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, I was merely speaking to my hon. Friend near me.

said, that possibly the right hon. Gentleman was better engaged than in listening to him. But he would never accuse the right hon. Gentleman of such a motive. The right hon. Gentleman was a Scotchman himself, and he knew that in Scotland there were feelings on this subject as strong as he had described, and he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were dealing with the subject he would give it adequate consideration. For the maintenance of the Scottish Church he was not ashamed to quote the old argument that it was an integral part of the Treaty of Union. It was one of the conditions upon which Scotland surrendered its independent Parliament, and he was quoting the opinion of great men who had said that this compact could not be dissolved without the consent of the parties to the Treaty of Union. They had been met with the argument, which was hardly worthy of those who put it forward, that there had been an expression on the part of the Representatives of the majority of the people of Scotland in favour of Disestablishment. Was there any expression of opinion in favour of Disestablishment by the people of Scotland at the last General Election? It was absolutely impossible for the Government with any consistency to pretend it. They quoted the majority of the Representatives of Scotland last Session in support of Home Rule; and if the majority of the Representatives of Scotland were elected last Session as advocates for Home Rule, the verdict of the Election was certainly not taken on the question of Disestablishment. It was impossible to quote this precious majority over and over again in support of every sort of fad and theory. He desired, with all seriousness and earnestness, to state his conviction of the deep sense of injustice that would be done to Scotland by a hurried decision on this question, and to protest against the assumption that the majority of the people of Scotland were in favour of this measure. The majority of the people of Scotland belonged to the Established Church. It was approved by a large majority of the people of Scotland, and it was perfectly certain that many members of the Nonconformist Bodies were entirely opposed to the disestablishment of the Church. It was certain, also, that the Roman Catholic Body was opposed to Disestablishment. The venerable Archbishop of St. Andrew's had stated that it would be a national misfortune if the Established Church were done away with, for—though he did not agree with its doc-trines—he recognised that it formed a solid barrier against infidelity. Let the Government propose this measure by all means, but let them take the verdict of the people of Scotland upon it. The more the people of Scotland had brought home to them that the Government policy was to rob them of the endowments which they had enjoyed from time immemorial, the more they would revolt against such a robbery, and would show their sense of that injustice and of that spoliation by recording their votes in a sense most unfavourable to the Government that proposed it. The late Prime Minister knew something of the effect of a Disestablishment policy in Midlothian, for his majority, which in 1885 was 4,700, was in 1892 reduced to the odd-hundred, because of his support of that policy. He believed that the attachment to the Old Church and to the cause of the national endowment of religion which had made itself felt in Midlothian would, if the opinion of the country were taken on the subject, be found to exist throughout the whole of Scotland. This was a matter which could not be lightly dealt with, and would not be lightly dealt with, so far as his influence and that of those who valued National Institutions extended. It was a matter which should be fought to the utmost, for it was bound up with the deepest interests of Scotland. It was one thing to disestablish a Church where it represented a small minority, as in Ireland, but it was very different in Scotland, where nine-tenths of the people were Presbyterians. It was impossible to rob the Church without ascertaining the sentiments of the people by some process more real than any the Government had attempted or contemplated. He thought it was monstrous that the Government should threaten this Church in successive years without stating their intentions in regard to it. "One Man One Vote" and similar questions were matters which might disturb them for a year or two, and which could be decided without touching the vital interests of the people; but the Christian Church was matter of another moment. To treat a Christian Church as if it was a matter of no moment or an ephemeral Institution that it might suit their convenience to maintain one day and do away with the next was unworthy of statesmen or those who had the best interests of the people at heart. The Government dare not test this question frankly and fully before the people of Scotland, because they knew that if they did they would be in a minority. They dared not test Home Rule in such a sense, still less dared they test the disestablishment of the Church. He could not believe that the Prime Minister could be so indifferent to the opinions of his country as to be careless about an Institution so important as the Church. He appealed to the House to set its face against this trifling with a great National Institution, for which the Scottish people had made such great sacrifices. The Scottish people were not a people who were deficient in sentiment, and they could show when they were deeply moved. Each year since this question had been mooted it had excited great attention, and he told the Government that if they were seriously menacing the Church of Scotland they would arouse in that country a feeling far deeper than they had ever experienced before. There were various ways in which the question of Disestablishment might be dealt with, but the worst way of all was by trifling with it, by proposing in the Queen's Speech a measure which they did not see their way to introduce. They knew they had no more chance of carrying Disestablishment in the present Session than they had of carrying Home Rule. Therefore, why should the Government parade the question in this way? He would remind the House that it was the fault of a British Government, of which the late Prime Minister was a Member, that the Church of Scotland was broken up, the ill-omened advice given to the Government of Sir Robert Peel to reject the strong desire of Scotland for liberty of choice as to ministers leading to the great disruption of 1843. It was this House which did the mischief then, and why should this House further illtreat that Church which it had so greatly wronged? At the present day there were great numbers of the descendants of those who struck for freedom in 1843 who would scorn to take part in any measure for the destruction of the National Establishment. The Government must be prepared, if they were now going to deal with the Church of Scotland, for an opposition as great as must be raised when so ancient an Institution, and one so vitally bound up with the history of Scotland, was attacked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to submit a question to the Government upon a matter concerning the rights of Members and the Business of the House. In the course of the evening I tendered to the Clerk Assistant at the Table a Notice showing that I desired my name should be included to-morrow in the Ballot for the introduction of Bills. The Clerk Assistant informed me that I should add to my name the title of the Bill I proposed to introduce. He does not appear to be aware of the unbroken practice of the House, almost from time immemorial, with regard to the Bills introduced on the first day of the Session. Several Members put down their names for the Ballot, but they do not state the title of their Bills until their names are drawn and read out in the House. Every Member of the House is interested in more than one Bill—he would be of very narrow sympathies and intelligence were it otherwise—and the effect of the settled rule and practice of the House is this: that if a Bill in which an hon. Member is concerned obtains a place, his name is called, and he could give notice of another Bill. But under the new system and the somewhat irregular manner in which it was introduced tonight many Members may give notice of the same Bill, and when an hon. Member is called upon and fixes a day for the Second Reading of that Bill, all the other Members who are drawn lose their days. That is a fundamental change in the rights of Members of the House. That is a change that can only be accomplished by a ruling of the House. The matter has already been considered by two Committees of the House, and these Committees held that the procedure with regard to the introduction of Bills could only be disposed of by an Order of the House itself, and they recommended that the matter was one which the House only should deal with. I believe this proceeding on the part of the Clerk Assistant has been taken in pursuance of a proposal or a scheme put forward by Mr. Speaker upon his sole authority. When Mr. Speaker made the proposal I respectfully stated that the alteration ought to be made by a vote of the House itself, and pointed out to him that under the proposed now system if 20 Members gave notice of the same Bill 19 of them would find when their names were called that they had lost their chance at the Ballot. The action of the Assistant Clerk would have the effect of depriving us of the chance of the Ballot this year. Many of my hon. Friends near me handed in Notices at the Table to-night, but the Assistant Clerk returned some of them and said that he would give the others to some servants of the House to be disposed of in some other manner.

Order, order! It is now 12 o'clock, and the Motion has lapsed.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry is out of Order?

No; but when it is 12 o'clock it is my duty to call attention to the fact that a Motion for Adjournment lapses. Since 12 o'clock this Motion has been made again, and the hon. Gentleman is now in Order.

I wish to ask, Sir, in virtue of what authority has this change been made? There are Standing Orders concerning the introduction of Bills. If the Standing Orders are not adequate let them be altered by a vote of the House. The powers of Mr. Speaker are already large enough, and I, for one, shall not consent that the rights of Members shall be altered in the manner proposed. The only information I was able to obtain on the matter is contained in a Blue Paper which is available in the Vote Office. It states—

"Ballot for the introduction of Bills. Mr. Speaker proposes to save the time of the House,"

and then follows a description of his scheme. It is clear that the whole scheme on which the Clerks are proceeding is the scheme of Mr. Speaker. I protest against any alteration in the procedure or any limitation of the rights of Members of the House at the pleasure or at the suggestion of any functionary, however high or capable he may be, and I acknowledge at once the capability of Mr. Speaker. I hold, and I think my hon. Friends will hold, that any Bill proceeded with in this House, not in virtue of a Standing Order, but in virtue of a suggestion or proposal of Mr. Speaker, is an invalid Bill. We shall take occasion to press that view on the House, and we shall take occasion to invite the opinion of the House that Mr. Speaker is not entitled to interfere with the rights of Members in this way. That can only be done by a vote of the House. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether the Government have sanctioned this proceeding, and in what mode they intend to submit the action of Mr. Speaker to the judgment of the House?

I am sure that the House will not desire this question to be decided in the absence of Mr. Speaker, whose indisposition we all regret. So far as my own knowledge of this matter goes, it is very limited. I remember a question being put to Mr. Speaker in the House on the subject, and it was put on the ground of the convenience of the House. I did not understand Mr. Speaker to lay down any new Rule upon the subject at all. Some observations were made about the practice which has grown up, about which there is a variety of opinion—that is to say, a combination of a number of gentlemen who desire to obtain precedence for particular Bills. I confess that I have never objected to that practice, because it secures Bills in which a large number of hon. Members are interested being introduced. For present purposes, however, the only question seems to me to be to inquire what is the lawful practice according to the established Rules, and that we cannot properly do in the absence of Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied that Mr. Speaker will tell us on his return that he had no desire to alter the Rules of the House except at the expressed wish of the House. As to whether the alteration is within the Rules of the House, I do not venture an opinion. Certainly my own view would be in accordance with that of the hon. Member opposite. In the old days, perhaps, combinations among Members did not exist, but I fail to see how the existence of such combinations could alter the law on the subject. Undoubtedly up to now an hon. Member was not called upon to name his Bill until he had ballotted. On the Whole, however, I think that hon. Members will agree with me that it will be better to wait until the return of Mr. Speaker before we proceed to discuss the matter further.

I think the advice that has been given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, that we should wait until the return of Mr. Speaker before discussing this question further, is wise and sound. We can hardly decide in the absence of Mr. Speaker what would be the proper course to be taken with regard to a modification of the Rules of the House. I may say, however, that this matter was brought under the attention of Mr. Speaker on a former occasion. No doubt great inconvenience and waste of time prevailed under the old system of ballotting, and it was suggested that the ballotting should take place in a Committee Room upstairs. The hon. Member for Kerry at the time pointed out that if this plan were carried into effect the result would be that the combinations of which the hon. Gentleman has spoken would be impossible. Mr. Speaker's reply was that that practice was not in accordance with the ancient usages of the House.

I also pointed out that, apart from the combination, if an hon. Member put down his name for a particular Bill, and if another Member, who put down that Bill also was first called, the second Member would find that his day would be lost.

I had forgotten that the hon. Gentleman had made that additional point, but I am sure he will agree that his objection was based substantially on the ground that the proposed alteration would prevent those combinations which we have known during the last few years. Mr. Speaker remarked that the practice which the hon. Member for North Kerry said would be imperilled was not a practice in accordance with the ancient usages of this House. When the Leader of the House holds that there is much to be said in favour of a plan which gives precedence to Bills in which a large number of Members are interested, the question arises whether that which is so held to be desirable is attained in the best way by these loose methods of organisation which give an advantage to those who are organised as against those who are not so organised. That is a matter which can be debated if it comes up for discussion. But it would be better to defer the discussion till we have Mr. Speaker in the Chair. The solo object Mr. Speaker has in view is the convenience of the House, and he can have no desire to run counter to the traditions which have hitherto regulated our proceedings.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester was not going to include the Irish Party in those "cruel organisations" which had been referred to in another place. He very much regretted the cause of Mr. Speaker's absence, but with very great respect to him he would submit that this was a matter with which Mr. Speaker had nothing whatever to do. Mr. Speaker had no more authority to alter the law of Parliament than the humblest Member who sat in it. In 1886 he made a proposal in connection with the introduction of Bills that the practice of calling a Member before the Bar of the House, and the Member walking, bowing, up the floor of the House, should be abolished, and he was told that that practice could not be dispensed with without a Standing Order. If they could not dispense with bowing and scraping without a Standing Order, how could they abrogate the rights of Members, which was practically what the new Rule would do? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had suggested that they should wait for the return of Mr. Speaker, which he hoped would be speedy. he would agree to that if the Ballot was postponed in the meantime. He would say for himself that, in his judgment, whenever the Liberal Party were in Office there was a constant tendency of officials to make proposals affecting Irish Members which they would not dare to make when the Tories were in power. The officials relied upon their acquiescence or silence, or something of that kind when the Liberals were in Office, but when the Tories were in Office they never attempted it. This was a question which affected the Irish Members in a most vital degree. They were only 80 at most, while the other Parties in the House were each about 300 strong. It was hinted that they were highly organised. Was it their fault that if the other Parties in the House, who had a Government of their own countrymen, and were present on the spot in their own land, and were rich and well equipped, were badly organised that the Irish Party were to be denied the use of the only method by which through 10 or 15 years they had advanced their cause? The proposal was put forward, forsooth, to save the time of the House. Nobody was more anxious to save the time of the House than he was, and he was willing to admit that the system of having the Ballot in the House might perhaps be altered; but be would submit that no more loose or irregular way of altering the law of Parliament had ever been attempted than the way that was taken in the present instance. The document setting forth the change was not even signed by Mr. Speaker. It said that "Mr. Speaker proposes." Mr. Speaker had no power of proposal, and he was quite sure that if Mr. Speaker, who had so often extended his protection to Irish Members, knew how strong a feeling was created by the matter, he would be the last person in the world to enforce it in that way. It might do to give Mr. Speaker power to make a change where all Parties acquiesced; but if there was any objection to the proposal, and Mr. Speaker was allowed to make the change, it would be reducing him to the position of the American Speaker, who was merely a member of a Party organisation, which it was most undesirable he should be. He felt glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his first night as Loader of the House had thrown out amicable proposals. His hon. Friends would never have taken up the time of the House if they had been received in a proper spirit; but they were told by the Clerks at the Table that their notices were waste paper, and that they would be given to the servants of the House. That was not the way to treat a body of 80 men, and their protest was made in a respectful, formal, and Parliamentary manner. It had been so received by the Government, and he was sure that had Mr. Speaker been in the Chair he would have been the first to recognise this. He thanked Mr. Deputy Speaker for the opportunity he had afforded them to debate this matter, and he was sure that a change could be made which would accommodate the general views prevailing in that and every quarter of the House.

said, they ought to have it made quite clear whether the Ballot was to be postponed or not.

Unquestionably the arrangement suggested was for the convenience of the House, but it has given rise to some misunderstanding. Of course, the taking of the Ballot outside the House is a departure from the Rules; but it is acquiesced in for convenience, and with no intention on the part of anyone to deprive any Member of the rights he possesses. The only solution I can see is to revert to the Ballot in the House, and to abandon this particular method against which complaint has been made. I will therefore suggest that it might be better to take the Ballot on Thursday. I believe that this will remove the difficulty, though I should have preferred to see Mr. Speaker present, in order that he might render the House his assistance.

I ask the Government to take into consideration the fact that a large number of my hon. Friends have gone home. I think the right hon. Gentleman should at least give ample notice to all those who are concerned, so that those hon. Members who have accepted the procedure provided by Mr. Speaker should not find themselves aggrieved.

I think that the best way would be for the subject to be mentioned again before Public Business to-morrow, when every hon. Member will have an opportunity of considering the question. It will be necessary to propose a Motion to this effect:—

"That no Notice for Leave to bring in Bills shall be handed in before Thursday next,"

because otherwise the ancient right of Members to move Notices of Bills would arise to-morrow, and cut out any people who were not in the House.

asked whether the Notices already handed in had been rejected?

They were rejected, but I understand that they were kept.

Mine was not kept; it was given back to me.

Mine was not kept, because it was rejected at the Table.

The Ballot took place outside the House subject to the new Rule, but the whole matter can come up on the Notice of Motion tomorrow, and be discussed. I may also take occasion to say that I will propose a Motion to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule to-morrow night in the hope that, if the House is so disposed, it may finish the Debate on the Address.

said, he had handed in a Notice at the Table of a Bill for the amendment of the Labourers (Ireland) Act with regard to allotments, a matter which he had been prosecuting for a couple of years. He had handed in that Notice in the usual form; but he was told that it was absolutely out of Order, and that he would have to go out and alter it before it could be accepted at the Table. He should say that he never felt so insulted in all his life.