My Lord Mayor of Dublin, what have you there?

I have a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Dublin, which states that several persons, convicted very many years ago upon charges connected with insurrectionary movements in Ireland, were sentenced to imprisonment for life, and after a long series of years, are still confined in penal servitude; that these persons were tried and convicted under circumstances unfavourable to the calm and impartial consideration of their cases, and the possession of explosives was in many instances the element most used to obtain their conviction and aggravate their sentences—sentences very much more severe than those inflicted upon other persons unconnected with any Irish movement, and more recently convicted under the Explosives Act of much more aggravated offences, but sentenced only to short terms of imprisonment and now released; that the almost universal opinion of the Irish people is that, whatever may have been the offences of these persons the punishment they have received is more than ample, and the offences being distinctly of a political character, the prolongation of the punishment will be received as an exhibition of vengeance and a manifestation of race-hatred unworthy of a great nation and a civilised Government. We therefore pray in the name of justice, and for the sake of mercy, and with a view to remove a just cause of discontent among the Irish people, that as these persons, convicted of political offences, guilty though they may have been have been subjected to emple punishment, the sentences inflicted upon them should now be re-considered with a view to their complete remission at an early date; believing that such action if followed by a generous measure of amnesty would remove the impession that the prolongation of punishment would create, that these prisoners are treated with exceptional harshness because they are Irishmen; and would have a most beneficial effect on the minds and feelings of Her Majesty's Irish subjects, and largely conduce to the preservation of peace and order in Ireland.

Let the Petition be brought to the Table. This was accordingly done, and the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs withdrew.

presented a Petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Limerick, in favour of the release of the Irish political prisoners, which on the motion of the hon. Member was read by the Clerk at the Table.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any action has been taken by that Department, on the report of Messrs. Berrington and Davy, in regard to the system of apprenticing boys to the fishing trade; and whether he will present any Papers on the subject to Parliament?

Yes, Sir. The form of Indenture under which the Fishing Apprentices are bound has been amended, and I will lay on the Table copies of the new Instructions which have recently been given to the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Grimsby, and of the communications which have been made on the subject of those Instructions to the Superintendents at the other Apprentice Ports, and to the Public Bodies interested in the question. I understand from my right hon. Friend that a Circular will also be issued by the Local Government Board to Boards of Guardians with reference to this matter.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, and, if so, when, it is intended to introduce a Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Gresham Commission in reference to the University of London?

The Government propose shortly to introduce a Bill in reference to the University of London in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now state what arrangement, if any, he has come to with the Board of Trade for the regulation of the Trade in Imported Meat, and for the protection of customers against the fraudulent sale of such meat under British description.

Since the hon. Baronet last interrogated me on this subject, the Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, 1894, has become law. From the representations made to me it appeared doubtful whether the provisions of that Act were fully known to those concerned, and I have accordingly issued an Explanatory Circular on the subject to the various Chambers of Agriculture, Agricultural Societies, and Farmers' Clubs throughout Great Britain. I have certainly no wish that the Act should remain a dead letter so long as any legitimate ground for complaint on the part of home-producers remains; and I will do my best to secure that any cases of fraudulent misrepresentation of the place of origin of agricultural produce, which may be brought to my notice, are dealt with as they deserve.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, if, as an outcome of the present Conference of Australasian Premiers, the various Australasian Colonies should decide upon a Federal Constitution, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to introduce an Act for the purpose of enabling such a Federal Constitution being established?

The question is hypothetical; and Her Majesty's Government cannot state the exact course that they would pursue in the event of the Australian Colonies approaching them on the question of Federation. But this may be said at once that Her Majesty's Government are favourably inclined to the idea of Inter-Australian Federation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain whether it is true that the United States and the German Governments have introduced Bills to put down gambling in fictitious wheat contracts; whether he is aware that the United States Sub-Committees Private Official Report to the Senate on agricultural depression gave gambling in wheat as one of the causes of the artificial fall in prices; whether he would cause copies of the Bills, if introduced, to be laid upon the Table of the House, or the Library of the House; whether they had received any communication from the Governments of the United States, Russia, France, Germany, or any other European country, in reference to such legislation; and, whether they proposed to take any steps to co-operate with foreign Powers in regard to an understanding on this important international question?

Copies of these Bills are not at present in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin and Washington are being instructed to obtain copies of them.

Will the hon. Baronet also oblige by obtaining a copy of a Bill which, I understand, has been introduced by the Belgian Government?

Yes, Sir, if the hon. Member will give me a reference to it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can state the annual revenue and expenditure in connection with the telephone service between London and Paris; whether the telephone is in constant use and worked without cessation, or whether there are long intervals during which it is idle; and, whether he can see his way to make the rate 3s. for three minutes' conversation, instead of 8s. as at present?

During the business hours of the day the telephone to Paris is in constant use, and I think there can be no doubt that it thoroughly meets a public demand on the part of the classes whose business is facilitated by such a means of communication. The charge is a subject of international agreement, and I do not see my way at present to propose any reduction.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the expenditure and the revenue?

It is so mixed up with the general telephone service of the country that it is difficult to state them separately; but I will give some facts to the hon. Member afterwards.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether large numbers of letters are stolen from pillar-boxes; whether he is aware that several mechanical checks which entirely prevent such thefts have been invented, but rejected by the Post Office Department; and whether he will personally examine these inventions, and adopt that which may appear to be effectual for the object in view?

There is no reason to suppose that large numbers of letters are stolen from Post Office pillar letterboxes. I am aware that many suggestions for mechanical appliances to prevent letters from being taken out of pillar letter-boxes have been examined by the Post Office, but none has been found which would effectually secure the object in view or be free from serious objections.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with regard to the fact that when a ½ d. stamp is, by inadvertence, neglected to be placed on an Inland post card the charge of 2d. is made on its delivery, whether there is any reason why a fine of 1½ d. on the delivery of ½ d. post card, although recognised by the Postal Union in the case of Foreign and Colonial postage, should not be reduced in our Inland postage?

A charge of 2d. on the delivery of an unpaid inland card, which, if prepaid, might have been, transmitted for ½ d., may appear high, but, as I explained in replying to a question from the hon. Member for Canterbury on the 7th inst., prepayment is necessary to constitute a card a post card. When posted unstamped, the card can, under the regulations of the Postal Union, only be dealt with as an unpaid letter, and, in my judgment, it is convenient to apply to Inland post cards, the rules which are enforced throughout the Union in the case of International post cards. I may add that, in other countries where the privilege of using private cards has been conceded, the, unstamped card is treated, as it is treated here, as an unpaid letter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet, received a copy of the resolution passed at the meeting of the City Commissioners of Sewers (the local authority for the City) on the 5th inst., asking him to consent to the draft agreements with the Telephone Companies being sent to a Select Committee for consideration; and whether he is aware that, as a matter of business, the City of London is more interested in this question than any other part of the United Kingdom?

Since the hon. Member's question was put on the Notice Paper a copy of the resolution in question has reached me. I am, of course, aware that the question of the telephones must be of great interest to the City of London as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can consent to the matter being referred to a Select Committee?

I am sorry I can add nothing to what I have already said. The Government consider it is a matter settled by the late Government, and it would not be fair to reopen the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lord Clanricarde, at the last Killi-more Petty Sessions, prosecuted an evicted tenant named Matthew Donohue, for trespass of one sheep on the lands of Heathlawn, in County Galway; and that the Magistrates ordered the defendant to pay £2 as a fine and £1 costs, being double the amount of the value of the sheep; and whether he will consider the expediency of advising the remission of the sentence?

I am informed by the Constabulary that the Magistrates fined Donohue two pence (not £2 as stated in the question) for the trespass of the sheep, and awarded £1 costs on the application of the prosecuting solicitor. I am advised that the Lord Lieutenant has no power to order a remission of the costs in the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a fine of £1 costs is illegal and contrary to the Statute?

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact of a fire having taken place in the Liverpool Small Pox Hospital, on or about 30th January, and that, the City Fire Brigade having extinguished the fire, it was thereupon insisted that the Fire Superintendent and his 14 men must be, and they were, vaccinated before leaving; and by what law, or by whose authority, was the vaccination enforced?

The Local Government Board are informed that it was strongly suggested that the officers of the fire brigade who were on duty on the occasion of the fire at the Parkhill Small Pox Hospital should be re-vaccinated in consequence of the serious risk of small pox being contracted by persons who had not been vaccinated or had been improperly vaccinated. The Board are informed that no compulsion was or could be exercised in the matter, that none of the men objected to the operation, and, further, that upwards of 50 policemen who had been in contact with the firemen came of their own free will and asked to be vaccinated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many trained Cavalry horses in all, and how many over five years of age, are on the establishment in England and Wales as attached to the 10 regiments of Cavalry of the Line and 11 depots stationed in England and Wales; how many officers, warrant officers, and men there are in the same regiments and depots; whether the effective strength of horses on the British establishment is virtually the same now as it was 20 years ago, in spite of the great increase in the establishment of men in that period and the great increase of horses attached to the Infantry and Army Service Corps; and whether, in consequence, the horses attached to the Household Cavalry, and to the Cavalry of the Line, Royal Horse Artillery, and Royal Artillery, on the Home establishment, taken together, have decreased within that period?

There are 3,712 public horses belonging to the 10 regiments of Cavalry of the Line and 11 depots stationed in England and Wales. Of these 306 rank as untrained, and 351 are under five years of age. There are 7,019 officers and men in the same corps, but 269 of these are officers, nearly all of whom have private horses. The establishment of horses for all arms on the British establishment, which includes the Colonies, is 268 below that of 1875. For the Household Cavalry, Cavalry of the Line, and Royal Artillery, taken together, serving at home, which is not the same thing as the British establishment, the decrease since 1875 is 2182. It is to be observed, however, the Artillery have now 253 more horses in Egypt and Natal than in 1875. The Cavalry have 258 more horses than in 1875, but 647 of their horses are in Egypt and South Africa; and 54 horses which used to be shown as Cavalry are now shown, where they are used, at the Royal Military College. This accounts for 954—of the apparent decrease the remainder is mainly accounted for by the decrease of Royal Horse Artillery effected some few years ago, and by other Artillery changes.

asked whether there were not 13,000 Cavalry Troopers on the strength of the Establishment, and only 8,000 horses on which to mount them?

replied that he could not say. He could not accept figures he had had no opportunity of revising.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board have received resolutions passed recently by the Mohill Board of Guardians, and also by the Rynn Dispensary Committee, requiring Dr. Pentland, the medical officer for Rynn Dispensary District, to reside within his district; and, whether he can state what steps the Local Government Board intend to take to compel this gentleman to reside within his district the same as other Dispensary Medical Officers in Ireland are required to do?

Resolutions of the nature indicated have been received by the Local Government Board. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he addressed a question to me on the subject of the residence of Dr. Pentland in May last. Inquiries on the spot were subsequently made into the facts of the case by the Board's Medical Inspector, who stated that Dr. Pentland has a residence at Dromod within his district, where he lives and where all messages are taken in and kept for him when out on duty. This gentleman has also a house in Mohill, where part of his family reside; but the Inspector is of opinion that his residence in Dromod is actual residence within his dispensary district, and, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, Dr. Pentland complies with their rules as to residence.

asked whether the Chief Secretary had acted on the report of the Inspector or on the resolution passed?

I think it would be better if my hon. Friend would bring before me any inconvenience he can show has arisen.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it has been brought to his notice that a considerable part of Howth Harbour, frequented by yachts, fishing boats, and trading steamers, is filling fast, and will soon cease to be of use; and whether there is any fund available for the purpose of dredging the harbour?

From the position of Howth Harbour some slight accumulation of deposit must necessarily take place, but the effects of the last dredging operations, which were completed only three years ago at an expense of over £8,000, are such that the harbour will for many years amply suffice for accommodating all the trade of the port. Yachts of moderate draft can and do use the eastern side of the harbour in considerable numbers, but racing craft drawing over eight feet might no doubt take the ground at low water of spring tides. For such yachts, however, the neighbouring harbour of Kingstown is at all times available. I am not aware that there is any fund available for the purpose of dredging the harbour beyond the maintenance charge which is borne on the Votes—namely £926 for the current year.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether the painting work in connection with post offices at Shrewsbury has been let by contract, and whether the workmen, or any of them employed during the last four months in such work, have been paid wages below the rate of wages usually paid for such work in the locality, or below the wages generally accepted as current in the trade for competent workmen; and whether, having regard to the Resolution of this House of the 13th of February, 1891, the Government will take any steps in regard to the matter?

This is a question which concerns my Department. The Board of Works have only small and occasional amounts of work at Shrewsbury. Such work as there is, like the painting of the post office, is performed by one of the principal tradesmen in the town, on a schedule of prices. From inquiries made, it appears that the prices paid to the contractor, which were fixed some years ago, are scarcely sufficient to enable him in all cases to pay full rates. Now that my attention has been called to the matter, I have given instructions for fresh terms to be arranged with the contractor on the basis of an undertaking on his part to pay full wages in all trades.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has seen a telegram from the Times correspondent, at Ottawa, which was published on the 8th of this month, in which members of the Canadian Government declare that the Act constituting Canada a Dominion empowered the Dominion Parliament to appropriate by legislation the Copyright of authors in all parts of the Empire outside of Canada, and to abrogate the protection afforded to these authors by Imperial legislation; whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies will refuse to advise the Crown to assent to such an Act; and, whether the Secretary of State will insist as a condition precedent for advising assent being given to any Copyright Act passed by the Dominion Parliament, that a clause be inserted to the effect that the consent of the author whose Copyright a Canadian publisher desires to appropriate shall first be given by him

The late Sir J. Thompson was in personal communication with the Secretary of State, on the subject of Canadian Copyright, when his lamented death put an end for the time being to the communications, and I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, in several post offices in London, holidays are not confined within eight months as promised by Mr. Raikes when Postmaster General, but that in some cases the period extends to nine months and even more; whether he promised the staff some time ago that the period of eight months should not be extended except where its limitation would cause great inconvenience, and that even then the extension should not be more than by a few days; and, whether he will now give instructions that, subject as above, the holidays shall be confined to within eight months of the year?

I have ascertained that in the case of the London Sorting Force and Postmen, Mr. Raikes undertook to restrict the annual leave within eight months of the year, and, as far as I can ascertain, this has practically been done ever since, though in some cases it has been necessary that the leave should commence a few days before the 31st March and end a few days after the 31st October.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Carrick-on-Shannon Board of Guardians adopted a resolution calling for relief works in the parish of Ballinaglera owing to the pressing distress existing in that district, and specifying as practicable and useful the completion of roads commenced in 1879 and left unfinished; and, will he take steps to give effect to the resolution of the Board referred to, with a view to alleviating to some extent the present condition of the inhabitants of that parish?

I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to. The Local Government Board have directed their Inspector to visit the district, and report to them as to the actual condition of the people. I hope to have the Inspector's Report at the end of the week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that intense distress exists in the scheduled districts of North Leitrim, owing to the failure of the potato crop last year and other causes; can he state the amount expended by the Congested Districts Board for inspections of, and reports on, the condition of North Leitrim, and the amount expended by that Board towards the relief of distress in, and the permanent improvement of, the scheduled districts in that Parliamentary constituency; and, what steps does he propose taking to avert starvation in North Leitrim during the coming Spring and Summer?

The Local Government Board inform me that no reports have been received from their Inspector, with whom they are in frequent communication, as to the existence of severe distress in North Leitrim. The Board inform me that the numbers on relief in this district are now considerably below the numbers at the corresponding period of last year, and that the poor rates are moderate. It would not be practicable to allocate the cost of local inquiries made by the Congested Districts Board in any one district. Grants amounting to £102 have been made by the Board towards the knitting and shirt-making industries at Bally- Shannon (which district includes part of North Leitrim), and arrangements are being made to rent premises and pay teachers at the same place, in connection with the shirt-making industry. A loan of £200 has also been made for the development, of the straw-bottle envelope industry at Kiltyclogher, and some bulls and boars have been sent to the district under the Board's Agricultural Scheme.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if it has been brought under his notice that, owing to the widespread prevalence of distress in the towns of the West of Ireland, a Relief Committee, under the Chairmanship of his Lordship, the most Rev. Dr. Comny, Bshop of Killala, has been formed in Ballina, and that a large sum collected in the town has been distributed to meet the existing local distress; whether reports have reached him from the Local Government Board authorities informing him that similar distress prevails in other western towns; and, whether, seeing that the distribution of seed potatoes and the opening or repairing of rural roads will be ineffectual in meeting the wants of the urban poor, the Government will give its immediate attention to the necessity of providing relief for the distress existing in these western towns.

Distress amongst labourers in towns is, I regret to say. not confined to the west of Ireland, The relief works started this year are only intended to meet the distress caused among small land-owners by reason of the failure of the potato crop.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received resolutions or representations of public meetings or public boards from Belmullet, Killala, Bangor-Erris, and Ballycastle, all in the electoral division of North Mayo, declaring that acute distress existed in these several localities, and calling on the Government to institute relief works; and, if he is prepared to state what measures, if any, the authorities have decided upon to cope with the destitution pointed to in these resolutions and representations? Also if, in estimating the extent and severity of the distress existing in Mayo, he has relied mainly on the Reports of the Local Government Board Inspectors; whether, in order to quicken the preparation and completion of these Reports, any additional Inspectors from the existing staff have been sent to Mayo; and, whether he is in a position to say that the various districts in the Ballina, Killala, and Belmullet Unions, in which it is alleged distress exists, have been visited and reported upon by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board?

Reports relative to distress, or apprehended distress, in the west of Ireland have been fairly made to Government by the police and resident magistrates, and have not been confined to the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. The duty of determining the areas where it may be necessary to supplement the machinery of the ordinary Poor Law by the opening of relief works, devolves upon the Local Government Board; and in view of the additional responsibilities devolving upon the Board at the present juncture, three temporary Inspectors have been appointed to assist its ordinary staff. The decision to open relief works was arrived at by the Government towards the end of last year, and works, as I have already stated, will shortly be laid out in the Unions of Ballina, Killala, and Belmullet. Works are already in progress in the Ballinrobe and Westport Unions in the same country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he is aware that the sum of £6. 6s. is charged to County Justices qualifying in the County Palatine of Lancaster, whilst a charge of £2 only is made to Justices qualifying in the County of Suffolk; (2) whether most of this excess in Lanashire is owing to a charge of £3. 8s. 6d. being made for the writ of dedimus potestatem, of which one moiety goes to the Duchy of Lancaster and the other to the Cursitor; (3) whether he can inform the House who is the Cursitor, by whom appointed, and on what grounds he receives half the charge for the writ of dedimus; and (4) whether he will use his influence to pre vent this charge of £3. 8s. 6d. being made by the Duchy and the Cursitor, so that the qualifying charge in Lancashire may be reduced to that made in Suffolk?

I am informed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that, in his opinion, there is no sufficient reason why the practice of taking out the writ of dedimus potestatem by County Magistrates upon their appointment should continue in Lancashire. The discontinuance of the practice will, no doubt, have the effect of reducing the expense to the persons appointed to be Justices. The question what is the proper fee to be fixed as payable upon appointment is now under the consideration of my noble Friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the Mayor of a Borough is charged any fee for qualifying to sit upon a Borough Bench; (2) whether he is aware that it has been decided by the Standing Joint Committee of Lancashire that a charge of One Guinea, to go to the County Funds, shall be made to Mayors and Chairmen of District Councils qualifying to sit, by virtue of their office and during its tenure, upon the County Bench; (3) whether such charge is legal; and (4) whether he will take such steps as shall lead to the abolition of the charge?

I have no official information on the subject of the first paragraph, but I believe that it is not the custom for the Mayor of a Borough to pay a fee for qualifying to act. The fee of £1. 1s. is charged in Lancashire to every Justice who qualifies at Quarter Sessions as a Justice for the County. The table by which the fee was fixed was approved in 1862, and is apparently considered by the Local Authorities to apply to the ex-officio Justices, including the Mayor and District Chairman referred to in the question. In July 1894 I issued a circular recommending that the fee to be charged to Chairmen of District Councils for qualifying shall not exceed 5s. In January last I expressed doubts as to the propriety of the charge of £1. 1s. in the case of Lancashire, and I shall disallow in any future table submitted to the Home Office any fee larger than 5s. for qualifying as an ex-officio Justice. I have, moreover, taken steps to obviate the necessity for ex-officio Justices for the County taking their oaths before the Court of Quarter Sessions at all, Her Majesty having been pleased to direct, under the Promissory Oaths Act, that these oaths may be taken, in future, before any two Justices Sitting in Petty Sessions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been come to, to grant the long-service medal to Volunteers who, though they may have broken their service for more than a year have yet served for over 20 years as Volunteers?

By an Army Order issued last month it is provided that a break in service occurring before May 25th, 1894, shall not necessarily prevent the grant of the medal. If the break did not amount to a year, the general officer commanding the district will decide on the validity of the claim. In case of a longer break he will submit the application to head quarters for decision.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a system of trading known as "Bond Tea" is being largely carried on in the Metropolis, a similar system having been described by the Hanley Stipendiary Magistrate as a system of obtaining money under false pretences, and a swindle from beginning to end; whether he is aware that the Chief Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis has been repeatedly appealed to, to proceed against such traders in London; whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Grocers and Provision Dealers' Association secured a conviction against one of the "Bond Tea" traders at the North London Police Court in December last, and that in spite of this the trade is being continued in the Metropolis without action being taken by the police; also that in Newcastle, Sheerness, Leicester, Hanley, and Preston, the police authorities have taken action against such trading; and, whether he will instruct that steps be immediately taken in the Metropolis to stop this system of trading?

I am aware that attempts have been made by different firms to promote the sale of their tea by a system which has been held to constitute an illegal lottery. I am not aware of any cases within the Metropolitan Police District in which the police have failed to take action when they could have done so; but I will make further inquiry with a view of insuring the enforcement of the law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the present severe weather, the guards mounted by the troops before public buildings in London can be reduced, especially before those buildings which are unoccupied?

I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the recommendation made by the Duke of Connaught before Lord Wantage's Committee, and whether the sentries at Windsor have also been reduced?

I do not know about Windsor. Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper. The question of sentries in London was very carefully considered in 1892 by my predecessor, and the number was broughtdown to a minimum, below which it would not be right to go. Reliefs, however, are more frequent in severe weather.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his statement that the Consular Reports regarding the alleged outrages in the Sasun district were of a graver character than previous Consular Reports referred only to a Report recently made by the Vice-Consul at Van; whether he is aware that Van is three days' journey from the scene of the alleged outrages; whether the Vice-Consul's Report was derived entirely from Armenian sources; and, whether the Vice-Consul has been but a very short time in the country.

The statements that Reports received recently with regard to the Sasun district were graver than other Consular Reports relating to occurrences in other districts and in previous years, did not refer only to one Report or to one source of information; but as a Commission has been appointed since these Reports were received to inquire into the circumstances to which they relate, I cannot, whilst proceedings before the Commission are pending, give any further information with regard to them. The Vice-Consul at Van arrived there on July 30th.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Report of the Committee appointed by the Home Secretary to inquire into the administration of Prisons in England has been issued; whether he intends making any change in the manufacture of mats in the Scotch Prisons; whether he will state the value of the total annual sales of mats made in such prisons; and whether he is aware that mats manufactured in Perth Prison are being sold to the public at a price with which it is quite impossible for any English Free Labour to compete?

The total value of mats sold in Scottish Prisons in the year ending December 31st, 1894, was £2,237. The mats made in Perth General Prison are sold at the same price as the mats made in other prisons in Scotland. The prices were approximated in January, 1894, to the prices at which similar mats were offered by English outside manufacturers. The Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the administration of Prisons in England is still sitting; and I am not prepared at present to make any change in the manufacture of mats in Scottish prisons.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department is in possession of any information as to the occurrence of some cases of pleuro-pneumonia amongst cattle landed at Antwerp from Canada; and, in that case, what are the particulars; and, what action has been taken by the Belgian Government in consequence?

Yes, Sir; it appears that Contagious Pleuropneumonia was discovered by the Belgian Authorities amongst cattle landed at Antwerp from Canada from the ships Hispania and Cecilia. Three animals in all were found to be diseased, and one of them is stated to have been an old encysted case. A large number of the most experienced Veterinarians in Belgium, including the teachers at the Government Veterinary Schools, were consulted in the matter, and they appear to have been unanimous as to the nature of the disease. In consequence of these discoveries, the importation of cattle from Canada into Belgium has been prohibited.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has reached his Department that certain speculators, taking advantage of the intention of the Government to supply seed potatoes to the starving poor in the western districts of Ireland, are purchasing potatoes in the Coleraine and Ballymoney markets at 3s. 6d. per hundredweight, and shipping them to Scotland, whence they are tendering the same potatoes as "Scotch Champions" to the Poor Law Unions of the West of Ireland at £5 and upwards per ton; and, if no such report has reached his Department, will strict inquiries be made to discover if this alleged traffic has any existence?

I have not received any report to the effect stated in the question, but I have directed inquiry to be made into the matter. I may observe, however, that the rules issued for the guidance of the Seed Inspectors appointed by Government to advise and assist Boards of Guardians in their operations under the seed potatoes supply, expressly point out that no tenders for "Scotch Champions" should be accepted by Guardians unless, on inquiry, it is ascertained that the seed was actually grown in Scotland, and in a district calculated by soil and climate to produce seed suitable to the requirements of the occupiers of the Irish land. With a view to preventing contractors from supplying seed grown in unsuitable localities, and for securing bona-fide shipments of potatoes from the districts in which they wore grown, the Constabulary were some time ago directed to notify to Government the earliest intimation of the movements of vessels laden with potatoes arriving at or leaving Irish ports.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can inform me if it is the intention of the University Commissioners to proceed with Ordinance No. 57 [Gen. No. 19], dealing with the marks of subjects at the Bursary Competition, in face of the local disapproval which has been expressed; and, if so, when the Ordinance will again be presented to Parliament?

The Ordinance referred to by the hon. Member is now before Parliament, and out of the hands of the Universities Commission. I am informed by the Commissioners that they have had practically no indication that the Ordinance, as finally adjusted, did not meet the views of the Aberdeen Authorities as well as those of the other Universities. The Commissioners have laid before me their reasons for the allocation of marks to the respective subjects, which appear to me to have been carefully thought out.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Department if, in view of the exceptional number of unemployed persons in Bradford, he can hasten forward the commencement of the work upon the Bradford Barracks?

The work to be done at Bradford is mostly out-of-doors work, which could not be carried on in this severe weather, even if funds were available; but the services are for the ensuing financial year, and money is not available during the present year. I may add that the whole, service is not of sufficient importance to afford appreciable help to the unhappily large number of unemployed.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to the House the quantities of raw cotton imported into this country, and the quantities of cotton yarns exported in each of the five years 1890 to 1894, inclusive, and the percentage of increase or decrease during that period.

I presume that the hon. Member put this question down on account of the statement I made and the figures I used the other night, which were to show that in the year 1894 there had been no marked or special falling off in the volume of the cotton trade. I will not give all the figures in detail, but the figures which the hon. Member asks for will be found, as regards the importation of the raw material of cotton, in the Board of Trade Returns for December 1894, p. 34, and the last number of the Statistical Abstract, p. 85. There is a little difficulty in all these Returns, arising from the fact that in some instances the figures are given in hundredweights and in others in pounds. The figures for 1894, in pounds, were 1,788,116,512—i.e., 372,000,000 more than in the preceding year, 1893. It is objected that the year 1893 was affected by the cotton strike, but the figures for 1894 were 13,000,000 higher than those for 1892. They are 206,000,000 lower than those for 1891, the year of great prosperity; but only 5,000,000 lower than those for 1890; while they are 80,000,000 higher than the average of the last 15 years. It is upon that ground that I stated there was no exceptional fall in the year 1894. Then as to cotton yarn, figures for this will be found in the Board of Trade Returns for December 1894 p, 58: and the last Statistical Abstract, p. 91. The figures for 1894 were 236,000,000 1bs., or 30,000,000 more than in the year 1893, and 3,000,000 more than in the year 1892. They are 9,000,000 less than in 1891 and 22,000,000 less than in 1890. They are, more, however, than they were 15 years ago. This does not show any special fall in the year 1894, which is better than the two preceding years, but not so good as the years of great prosperity, 1890 and 1891. I observe that the hon. Member makes no inquiry as to the export of piece goods, for obvious reasons. It will be seen by the Board of Trade Returns for December, 1894, p. 68 and the Statistical Abstract, p. 91, that the export of piece goods was 5,312,753,900 yards, by far the highest figure yet recorded—660,000,000 more than in 1893; 439,000,000 more than in 1892; and 188,000,000 more than inl890, the highest figure previously reached, Therefore, it is clear that on this head the volume of trade has not diminished, but increased. I referred to the evidence that employment in textile factories had not diminished (Statistical Abstract, p. 182) It is true that those are returns which are only given at five years' interval, and only come down to the year 1890. Therefore, these figures do not apply to the last five years; but, taking the Returns from 1870 to 1890, it will be found that the spindles and the persons employed have increased in number. In 1870 the power looms were 440,000; in 1890 they were 615,000; the persons employed in 1870 were 450,000, and in 1890, 528,000; or 78,000 more. I am sorry I am not able to give the figures for the last five years, which, of course, are of importance, but I think I have given, as far as I can, the facts on which I based my statement that there was no exceptional depression an the year 1894.

said the reason why he had not referred to piece goods was that the right hon. Gentleman had not referred to them in his statement.

asked if the figures were not, in some respects, misleading, and whether the large increase in piece goods towards the end of 1894 was not entirely due to the expectation that the cotton duties would be re-imposed, but that they would not be reimposed till March.

I do not think the figures are at all misleading for the purpose for which I gave them. I did not use them at all with reference to profits, but with regard to the amount of employment. What you have got to look at is the quantity of material worked; and I admit, of course, that in the thriving times of 1890 and 1891 things were better, and that in the years of 1892 and 1893 they were worse. In 1894, they were better than in 1893.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what steps have been taken to relieve the distress existing in West Mayo?

Relief works have been opened in the three Electoral Divisions which comprise Achill Island, and on the mainland adjoining. Works are also in progress in the Ballinrobe Union, and it is proposed to lay out other works in the Ballina and Killala Unions towards the end of this month, and, at a later date, in the Union of Belmullet.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill to withdraw the Control of Places of Entertainment from the County Council and its Officials, and to give such control to some responsible but non-elective Authority.

I see no reason whatever for introducing or supporting such a Measure.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Convention regarding Swaziland, concluded with President Kruger in December last, continues the present tripartite Administration of Swaziland until May; whether, in the event of the Swazis still refusing to place themselves under Boer rule, the Boers will be permitted to use force to conquer Swaziland; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to prevent the use of force against the Swazis before May next?

The Convention of 1890, under which the tripartite administration of Swaziland was created, will be superseded if and when the Volksraad ratify the Convention of 1894; or, if previously to such ratification the Swazis agree to sign the Organic Proclamation, the Convention of 1893 will thereupon come into force. If neither of these events occur, the Convention of 1890 will continue in force, subject to termination by a, month's notice on either side. The second part of the hon. Member's question is hypothetical, and I cannot, therefore, answer it. As regards the third part, as long as the Convention of 1890 is in operation the employment of force either by Her Majesty's Government or by that of the South African Republic is regulated by that Convention.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was intended to bring in a special Bill in regard to the payment of election expenses, or would this form part of another measure?

It is to be part of another measure.

Part of the Finance Bill?

No.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to explain to the House, if it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill for the payment of Members, how they intended to carry out their promise of last year when they said that they would provide for the payment of Members and of election expenses in a Bill or in the Budget?

said, the measures would be provided for by a Bill.

asked the right lion. Gentleman what explanation he could give to the House of the present action of the Government when, in March, 1893, it accepted a Resolution pledging itself to deal with the question as early as practicable?

The word "practicable" has a very large interpretation. The Prime Minister received a deputation upon this subject, and he stated that the matter depended upon two things—time and money. I have always stated that we are in favour of the principle of payment of Members, but it must be left to the Government to say when is the time or where is the money.

asked if it were not the case that a definite pledge was given at the end of last Session that a Bill would be laid upon the Table this Session by the Government?

I do not know what my hon. Friend calls a definite pledge; I said I hoped so.

May I ask whether that hope has been abandoned?

No, Sir.

I beg to move that Government business have precedence this day and to-morrow.

seconded the Amendment. He expressed his great regret that no reference to India had been made in the Queen's Speech, because the people of India were in a condition of extreme anxiety as to the nature of the proposed Financial Inquiry which was promised last Session. They were anxious to know whether that Inquiry was really to go to the root of the matter; whether it would be a genuine effort to learn the true causes, and apply the real remedy, to the disastrous financial condition of India. Many Members of the House also shared in that anxiety with regard to the proposed Inquiry; especially hon. Gentlemen representing Lancashire constituencies were deeply interested in connection with the question of Import Duties on cotton goods. It could not be too distinctly understood that the imposition of Import Duties was a direct consequence of excessive administrative expenditure in India. It was, in fact, one incident in the downward course of Indian Finance. It was one of the stages in the Rake's Progress. They had two other steps in that career in the closing of the mints, which convulsed Exchanges all over the civilized world, and in the misappropriation of the Famine Fund, on which the lives of the people of India depended. Therefore, he asked hon. Members from Lancashire to say that this excessive expenditure should stop, and then Import Duties on cotton or anything else would cease to be necessary. Several other hon. Members who took a deep interest in Indian affairs were also anxious to know the terms of the refer ence to the proposed Committee of Inquiry. He did not think that those hon. Gentlemen, if asked to sit on the Committee, would be willing to give their time and labour if the Inquiry was to be a mere book-keeping inquiry of no more value than the bogus audits of the Liberator type. They wanted to go to the root of the case, to find out the causes of the financial difficulty, and to ascertain what were the means by which the finances of India could be placed on a solid basis. They were ready to prove certain propositions before that Inquiry: first, that the condition of the people of India was one of extreme poverty; second, that the burden of taxation was more than the people could bear; third, that the proceeds of this taxation were being employed in useless and mischievous frontier wars; fourth, that if this useless military expenditure were stopped it would not only not be necessary to impose Import Duties, but would be possible to remove a certain amount of taxation, and provide funds for objects tending to promote the progress and welfare of the people. It was often said that it was a dreadful thing to have a submerged tenth in this country. But in India there was a submerged fifth. A fifth of the whole population had only one meal a day, and they went through life without ever having their hunger fully satisfied. The Secretary of State for India refused to go into the question of Revenue, and only offered an inquiry into expenditure. It appeared to him that the natural course was to take income first and expenditure afterwards. It seemed a curious thing to lay down how much they ought to spend before they knew how much they had got to spend. His contention was that expenditure in India was on too high a scale for the capabilities of the country. He regretted that the Secretary of State for India was unwilling to go into the question of the reasonable amount of taxation that ought to be raised from India. He thought the Inquiry on that point was all the more necessary, because—and he said it with regret—the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be possessed with a spirit of optimism. The right hon. Gentleman took too rosy a view of the condition of Indian finance, and also of the financial condition of the Govern ment of India. It appeared to him that those optimistic views were a dangerous delusion under existing circumstances. The maximum estimate of the average income of the people of India was 27 rupees per year, or three halfpence per day. Where was the surplus to tax out of three halfpence per day? As a matter of fact, the cultivating class had no savings; they had nothing put away, and having no food in store a single failure in the harvest produced the death of hundreds of thousands, and even millions of those unfortunate people. How was it possible to tax further such a people as that of India, who were now paying in proportion nearly double what the inhabitants of this wealthy country were paying. The Secretary of State for India also took much too favourable a view of the financial condition of the Government of India. There was an interesting and authoritative article in The Nineteenth Century on the subject by Sir A. Colvin, in which it was stated that, unless the aggressive military expenditure was stopped, there would only be three courses open to the Indian Government—to get assistance from the British Treasury, to further tax the Indian people, or to declare India bankrupt. One fact which alone was sufficient to prove the dire financial straits of the Indian Government, was the imposition of the Import Duties, which were giving such great dissatisfaction in Lancashire. No Secretary of State for India would be willing to excite the anger of the Lancashire Members unless it was impossible otherwise to meet India's liabilities. India must have been squeezed very dry before Manchester was called to help. But the Lancashire Members ought to consider the unfortunate position of the Indian taxpayers in this matter. They (the Indian taxpayers) did not want Import Duties; but they asked for them as the form of taxation least painful to them. They preferred to pay 5 per cent, on imported goods, mainly affecting the richer classes, rather than an extra duty on salt—a commodity which was now taxed 4,000 per cent., and which was a necessary to the poorest. He appealed to the great, noble policy associated with the men of Manchester, and Mr. John Bright, who was a friend of India first, and of all other interests afterwards. Let the hon. Members for Lancashire obtain their object in another way, and join in asking for a reduction in the expenditure which made Import Duties necessary. He regarded this military expenditure not only as useless, but as absolutely mischievous. It was an abandonment of the policy of Lord Lawrence, which was that India should remain within her natural boundaries and barriers. The basis of a safe defence of India was the contentment of the people themselves, with friendly neighbours and a full Treasury. At present, India had an empty Treasury; enemies on the frontier, and an overtaxed and starved people within. He begged to second the Amendment.

There is one part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment with which I cordially agree. He said that India asked for no charity, for no subvention, but that her claim was for simple justice. I can assure him that not only this Government but the preceding Government, and the Government which will follow, can have, as all English Statesmen can have, no other wish than to treat India with the strictest, and, I may say, the most generous justice. He said that he moved his Amendment in no Party spirit. I believe and I accept that statement. I can conceive no greater calamity to Indian interests, and to the Indian Empire, than that it should become one of the shuttlecocks with which the Party game of battledore is played. We want to keep Party out of Indian affairs altogether. The people of this country have undertaken—or have had placed upon them—a great trust. I believe, in direct opposition to the statements of the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion, that that trust has been hitherto faithfully, justly, and honourably discharged. I believe that it has conferred unspeakable benefits upon the people of India; and, although no one can be more ready than I am to admit that there are many points in which improvements are desirable, and many spheres in which financial reform can be widely extended, expenditure reduced, and efficiency increased; at the same time, I must express my strong dissent, both from the facts and figures, and from the conclusions which my two hon. Friends have brought forward. The Mover of this Resolution, I am sure, did not himself believe that at the present day the people of India are, under British Rule, suffering grosser outrages, more acute wrongs, than those which it is alleged the people of Armenia suffer under Turkish rule at the present time. I put it to him as a friend of India, as one who, as he tells us, desires to secure perfectly amicable relations between these two great Empires, whether it is wise for him to say in the English House of Commons words which will, no doubt, be transmitted to the whole people of India, and which will record that there is a man in this House who believes that the people of India are at this moment suffering at the hands of the Queen Empress and her advisers wrongs which can be compared even in one-thousandth degree with the wrongs which the Armenians complain of suffering under Turkish rule at the present time. I am sure that that was a mistake of my hon. Friend; and I will also pass by all his allusions to what he called "a conquered people" being treated as slaves and helots. That is not in harmony with the ideas of the people of England, and it is not in harmony with the facts. But the hon. Member gave us two or three figures, and perhaps by the accuracy of those statements I may be justified in judging to some extent of the accuracy of his conclusions. It is in reference to those figures that such largely incorrect views are put before the public mind. I will only refer to two or three of the statements which my hon. Friend made in the course of his speech. In the first place, he said that we were dealing with an expenditure of 70 millions. As I pointed out last year, those very large sums include a variety of incomes and expenditures which have no application to taxation or public expenditure as we use the terms in this country. If you were to include in the financial statement of this country the whole rental of England, the traffic receipts of every railway and canal, an enormous amount of public works, which in itself produces an income sufficient to discharge the entire cost of construction, you would swell the English Budget from 100 millions to 1,000 millions, and then you might say that, you had such a sum to deal with. As I said six months ago, and no one can deny the statement, the real net revenue and expenditure of India are about 50 millions. There was another statement which I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend make, as it may be misunderstood, and may produce in many minds an idea of extravagance and injustice. Though the statement has at first sight some justification, it is not based on the facts of the case. My hon. Friend told the House that the people of India were called upon to pay Rx.20,000,000 to English officials. The conclusion that any one would draw from that statement would be that the ordinary civil expenditure of the Government of India includes something like that sum for salaries. Let me tell the House exactly what was the cost at the date of the last complete return, some six years ago. The cost was Rx.11,726,000, and of that sum over Rx.6,000,000 were paid to natives.

interposing, said, there was a return of the salaries paid to officials receiving 1,000 rupees and upwards, which showed that the salaries, pensions, and other payments made to Europeans in this country and India would be nearly 200,000,000 rupees.

I dissent from those figures. I come down to officers receiving 250 rupees, which figure practically covers the Civil Service. The numbers which constitute that large army of public servants, both Europeans and natives, who discharge their duties with the greatest ability and efficiency, are 7,991 Europeans, 5,347 Eurasians, and 119,514 natives. My hon. Friend and the Seconder also made a statement with reference to taxation in India. I do not understand my hon. Friend to represent correctly the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Samuel Smith), who asked whether I excluded the land revenue when I stated that the taxation of India was the figure which has been quoted. I did not include the land revenue, which is rent, and not taxation. How much of taxation falls on the people of India? As to this Rx.50,000,000 of tax and non-tax revenue forming the taxation of India, you must divide it by one-half in order to obtain the tax revenue; and when we are told that the people of India are unable to pay taxation, I can only say to the House that the only tax which the Indian peasant need pay—and I am sorry he has to do so—is the tax on salt. I have never defended that tax; and I said last year that I should be exceedingly glad to see it repealed. I am satisfied that if our expenditure admitted of a reduction of taxation, Indian opinion would not demand the repeal of Customs duties, but rather the repeal of the salt tax, which presses on the poorest classes of the Indian people. The salt tax amounts to five annas per head; and I ask the House to remember that figure. Then my hon. Friend said it was a monstrous thing that India should be made to contribute towards the cost of the Navy. There is a great controversy going on between the India Office, the Admiralty and the Treasury with reference to the contribution to the Navy. So acute has become the difference of opinion between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and myself, that we have referred this matter to arbitration. Originally it was hoped that a very distinguished Member of the other House—the Duke of Devonshire—would have been able to undertake the task of arbitrating between us; but he was unable to undertake that duty, and now it has been agreed to refer it to the final decision of the Prime Minister. India is now paying £50,000 a year for what we may call the police of the Indian seas—that is, for the protecting work of the British Fleet. My hon. Friend said we have no such thing as Indian commerce, that there is no Indian commerce. It is the commerce, according to my hon. Friend, of Great Britain; and my hon. Friend drew a glowing picture of some future state of affairs which would come into being after England was expelled from India, when there would be an enormous trade in India. I do not know what the trade of India was before the East India Company went there, or 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago; but when my hon. Friend speaks of there being no Indian commerce, I can only tell him that, according to the last "Statistical Abstract," the value of merchandise and treasure bought by India, excluding Government stores and treasure, in 1892–3, which was not a particularly prosperous year, amounted to £79,000,000; and the value of what India sold was £113,000,000. Before I come to the Amendment, let me say a word or two in reply to the speech of the Seconder, who, I am bound to say, did not very accurately approach the wording of the Amendment. The hon. Member first charged us with the closing of the mints and with having convulsed the exchanges of the world. I am not going to open the bimetallic question this evening. But all I have to say is that the closing of the mints has been of great pecuniary advantage to India. Since I have been in office I have had the figures taken out of the value, month by month, of the coining and melting value of the rupee, and its currency value. The value of the rupee has been enhanced by the closing of the mints, and the percentage between the two values is one of those accurate, uniform laws which seem to pervade the whole realm of statistics, which you may wonder at and note, but which you cannot define. Practically it has not varied during the whole of that period in anything more than a fraction per cent. There has been a difference of between 19 and 20 per cent., by which the Government of India has received more for its bills through the closing of its mints. From April to the end of January I should have been nearly two and a quarter millions worse off than I am if the mints had not been closed; and the money would have had to be found from some other source of taxation. We had a full debate last year on the Famine Fund. There are Gentlemen who think that that surplus revenue over expenditure ought not to be applied to any purpose except the purposes which are connected with famine works, and also connected with the railway communication works. My hon. Friend knows that the vast scheme of works which was contemplated 10 or 12 years ago is now completed, and nothing further of a large character is necessary to be done. These works have been provided out of that fund. But the hon. Member spoke of the "misappropriation of the Famine Fund." I am not the Finance Minister of India, but I am the representative of the Finance Minister in this House, and I say that this is language which ought I not to be used regarding the head of any finance department, unless one is prepared to prove it up to the hilt. "Misappropriation" is a very ugly word in connection with finance. My hon. Friend compared the Committee which we are anxious to see sitting to a bogus audit. I do not know what that means, unless it means "dishonest," the auditing of the accounts dishonestly, and the presentation of a dishonest report of what has been done. I do not see the similarity between a bogus auditor and a Committee of this House, and I cannot accept the very severe and harsh criticisms that my hon. Friend has indulged in. What is it my hon. Friend the mover of this Resolution proposes? He proposes that the Ministers should be directed—

"to so adjust the financial relations between the United Kingdom and British India, with regard to all the expenditure incurred in the employment of Europeans in the British-Indian services, Civil and Military, in this country and in India"

—I suppose that includes every British soldier—

"that some fair and adequate portion of such expenditure should be borne by the British Exchequer in proportion to the pecuniary and political benefits accruing to the United Kingdom from Your Gracious Majesty's sway over India; and that the British Treasury should sustain a fair and equitable proportion of all expenditure incurred on all military and political operations beyond the boundaries of India in which both Indian and British interests are jointly concerned."

If the Amendment stopped at the words "British Exchequer," I should not say that the subject was one undeserving of inquiry, although I do not understand his constitutional mode of dealing with the matter. It amounts to a serious change in the government and policy of India, and that would require the authority of an Act of Parliament. Who is to decide what is "a fair and equitable portion of all expenditure?" [An hon. MEMBER: The Duke of Devonshire.] I do not know that he or any number of men could deal with so difficult a matter. I do not say that we have not derived great benefits from India, but India has derived great benefits from her connection with England. My hon. Friend said there was no capital for improving the position of India. Where has the capital come from with which the railways and canals have been constructed, which have changed the whole face of India? It has come from here; it is British capital. [An hon. MEMBER: "Indian, taxes."] I hope my hon. Friend will abstain from these interruptions; I carefully abstain from interrupting him. I do not know whether it is wished to penalise the employment of Europeans. It is a crime as well as a calamity that Europeans have taken a part in the administration? That, I think, will not be the opinion of this House, of England, or of India—that the distinguished soldiers and civilians, and the vast army of English Public Servants who have during the last century carried on the affairs of India, have not served India well. England has no reason to be ashamed of them, and India has no ground to complain of them. We are asked to agree to some apportionment between the two countries, and I admit that difficulties have arisen between the two Exchequers with reference to this apportionment. This is not the first time this question has been raised. A Committee sat a great many years ago, at the instance of Mr. Fawcett. After that Committee had reported, in 1874, a departmental Committee was appointed of which the late Mr. Bouverie was the chairman, but the report was so unfavourable to India that it was practically impossible for the Government to impose it or for India to accept it. India being still justly dissatisfied with the apportionment of home charges, a departmental Inquiry took place under the auspices of the present Lord Derby, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury. This Committee gave the subject their consideration for 14 years, and during that time they issued a long series of Reports. But when that Inquiry closed, Lord Northbrook, the Chairman, was dissatisfied, and the Duke of Argyll—no small authority—was also dissatisfied. I shall quote the remarks of one of my own predecessors, Lord Kimberley, on this question. They were all agreed that there were substantial, just, and reasonable grounds of complaint with reference to these military costs. Lord Kimberley said—

"Upon those questions of general policy which I have been invited to discuss, I do not think it at all safe to express very confident views. As to the share that India should bear of the expenses of expeditions out of that country, it appears to me that if India is really interested in an expedition, it is right that that country should contribute fair amount towards the cost of it. It is impossible to decide upon such matters beforehand. They must be dealt with at the time. All I can say is that we think India should be fairly arid generously dealt with, and not charged with the cost of these expeditions unless she has a distinct interest in them. With regard to Egypt, for instance, India has a very considerable interest. The question of military charges is incapable of any complete solution; but it is one which I am quite certain successive Viceroys and Secretaries of State will continue to press upon the Home Government—that is, that we should not have to bear so large a share of the Army expenses. We must try to reduce them, but I am not very sanguine that we shall be able to do so. We shall not fail at the India Office to do our utmost to keep these charges within a reasonable amount.

I should like to quote one paragraph from the Duke of Argyll. He said—

" We have only to consider what India would have been but for English rule, to see the enormous benefit she has derived from it. It is no exaggeration to say that our government of India is such a government as the world has never seen before. The Roman Empire in its greatest extent was not so wonderful. We govern 180,000,000 men of opposite races and religions, sometimes fanatically opposed to each other, and govern them more quietly, calmly and peacefully than we could govern our own people in Ireland. I desire to say nothing which would diminish the loyalty and sense of obligation which the Indian people feel and ought to feel towards us; and it would have the worst possible effect if there were any suspicion aroused in India that, for the purposes of making convenient Budgets or of party Government, the people of India were being charged with expenses which ought really to tie defrayed by the Home Government."

That, after all, is the chief point of my hon. Friends complaint. [Mr. NAOROJI dissented.] Well, I am sorry there is not that common ground which I thought there was. I said last Session, in reply to the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the Government does not mean to inquire into the whole policy of the Indian Government. That is impracticable, and it is useless. Imperial policy is a question to be brought before this House—before Parliament. No Select Committee could be given the power to inquire into the wisdom, say, of the annexation of Burmah, the fortification of the North-west Frontier, the delimitation of boundaries which is now proceeding between India and Afghanistan—all these are matters of Imperial policy and are not questions for a Select Committee. There are those who think that an unfair share of home charges is placed on the Indian Exchequer, and this is a question with which a Committee or a Royal Commission is competent to deal; but, after the experience we have had, and the utter breakdown of the Committees which endeavoured to cover the whole range of Indian affairs, I shall be no party to embarking on any such fresh inquiry. The Government are anxious that there should be a full and complete inquiry in the direction I have indicated. We have not yet decided the mode in which that inquiry should be conducted. The Member for Banffshire last year proposed the appointment of a Royal Commission. That, however, I thought then would be rather a cumbrous method of proceeding, and I said that I much preferred myself a Parliamentary Inquiry; but I am bound to say that since then reasons have been urged upon me to show that a Parliamentary Inquiry is not the best mode. A Parliamentary Inquiry would cease when the existing Parliament ceased. Accidents happen to Parliaments. Parliaments only last a certain number of Sessions; they may come suddenly to an end. Accidents, too, sometimes happen to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Though they are Members of one Parliament, they may not be Members of the next; and it has been urged upon me whether it would not be desirable to have an impartial, small, but thoroughly efficient Royal Commission to inquire into the question. I do not wish to express any opinion on this point at the present time. The Amendment of the hon. Member is an unconstitutional Amendment. We cannot direct the repeal of an Act of Parliament. That is a matter for Parliament alone. With reference to the opinion expressed in the Amendment that a fair and adequate portion of the expenditure should be borne by the British Exchequer, we are quite willing that such an inquiry should take place, and we should be quite satisfied to abide by the result. In conclusion I would say to the House that, whatever may be our financial views, whether our policy has been wise or unwise—I say, not only for my colleagues in the Government but also for my colleagues at the India Office and for the Indian Government, that it is their desire not to oppress India, not to bleed India, not to injure India, but to go on in that career of progress that has hitherto characterised the rule of India by Great Britain, in the belief that that rule has conferred on the people of India an unspeakable boon, while it has redounded in no small degree to the glory and honour of the United Kingdom.

thought that no case had been made out against the Government of India which could justify the matter being brought before either a Committee or the House of Commons with a Royal Commission. Still he had been asking for years that there should be a Commission or a Committee appointed to ascertain the real facts, and to show to the people of India that they were treated fairly. It was most desirable in his opinion, that that should be made known to the people of India. Let them take the small matter of the payment of the Opium Commission. A portion of that expense was to be charged to the Revenues of India, but the people of India did not ask for that Commission. It was thrust upon them by the House of Commons. If there was, as the result of it, any interference with the habits of the people, it would not be strange if there was an insurrection from one end of India to the other. He cordially agreed in the tribute paid to the Civil Servants in India. Nothing could surpass the high character of their services or of the benefits they had conferred upon India; but at the same time it might be said that probably as good men might be got for smaller remuneration. There might be a saving made in that way, but he did not know that it was desirable, for if there was one thing more necessary than another, it was that the officials should be above reproach. He would remind his lion. Friend that the chief duty of district officers in India was to keep one native from oppressing another, and to restrain the arbitrary conduct of the native police. This country had saved India from the continual wars and troubles that used to afflict her, and had made the country so safe that a single man could walk through it without being molested. That, he thought, was something to be proud of. He did not deny that this country derived very considerable advantage from India, but the advantage was not all on one side. The greatest blessing that India ever saw was the landing of the first English man on her shores. England administered India with justice and fairness, and had succeeded in that in a way that no other country in the world had succeeded. Let a Commission be appointed to go carefully into the question, and if it was found that anything was unfairly charged to India, let reparation be made. He repudiated, as far as he could, the general innuendoes of his hon. Friend, but he should support the demand he had made on the grounds which he had stated.

thought that the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the number of Europeans in the employ of the Government of India, ought to be multiplied three or four-fold in order to get at the truth. Only about three years ago a return was laid on the Table of the House on his Motion, by the courtesy of the Under Secretary of State for India in the late Government, and there the whole thing would be found in black and white. He would therefore in the briefest way take from it the number of, and the emoluments paid to, Europeans, only reckoning those in receipt of a salary of 1,000 rupees and upwards. Instead of 7,000, the number stated by the right hon. Gentleman, there were no less than 28,000 Europeans in the service of the Government of India, drawing a salary out of the Indian Revenue of more than 1,000 rupees, and their salaries aggregated no less a sum than 154,000,000 rupees every year. His hon. Friend the Member for Central Finsbury estimated the whole amount of the pay of all Europeans at about 200,000,000 rupees. He did not know whether he included the rank and file of the British Army, but if so his figure was under the mark and not over it. It was further material to ask where were these 154,000,000 of rupees received and expended. The Return showed that 60,000,000 of them, or 40 per cent., were remitted to and spent in England in the shape of pensions. The same Return showed that only 11,000 persons who were natives of India were allowed to be employed in the service of their own country, at over Rs.1000 per year, and that only 30,000,000 of rupees were divided amongst them. Therefore, retired and ineffective Europeans received double the amount disbursed among the natives of India. The fact that such an enormous sum was spent upon retired Europeans was in itself enough to show that there was ground for moving the Amendment in the benefit which the English nation received under the system which now obtained.

expressed his regret if he had unduly interrupted the Secretary for India with interjections, which he thought, were pertinent, and by which he thought he might be saved the making of a speech. If the Government really meant to grant a Committee—and the right, hon. Gentleman's instincts in that direction were sound—it would scarcely be necessary to divide on the Amendment. There was no doubt there did exist in the minds of the educated natives of India, as reflected not only by the National Congress but also by the Press, a strong impression that this country did to some extent milk India by charging to her revenue much that ought by right to fall on our own Exchequer. If it could be understood that the reference to the Committee could be so framed as to make it quite clear that the Committee was to investigate the relative proportions in which certain charges ought to be distributed, then this Amendment might probably be withdrawn. [Mr. FOWLER: That would be the meaning of the Inquiry.] Then he was quite content. Last Session he called attention to the charge upon India, for 12 years, of £10,000, as a subsidy for the cable between the Mauritius and the Continent of Africa; and he was told that the justification for the charge was the strategic position of the Mauritius as regarded the defence of the Indian Empire. That was a charge which ought never to have been imposed on India at all, and it was but a single instance of charges that ought to be borne by this country but which were cast upon India. As to the British Army in India, we should withdraw a considerable proportion of it without scruple if we required it; and it was really in India for British purposes. The men served in India for four years out of seven; and, if India paid for taking them, Great Britain ought to pay for bringing them back again. The Committee ought to be appointed soon, or otherwise there would be disappointment in India.

said the House would have listened with respect arid admiration to the straightforward and statesmanlike speech of the Secretary for India, and particularly to his broad general statement of the services Great. Britain had rendered and was rendering to India, and of the spirit which animated us in our relations with India. The right hon. Gentleman made a clear statement as to the nature of the promised Inquiry into the financial relations between Great Britain and India; and, whether the Inquiry were conducted by a Committee or a Commission, he believed it would have the co-operation and support of both sides of the House. From the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, it would appear that they must be singularly oblivious of former Debates in that House. Every argument they had used had been heard before, and those who recollected the Budget speech of the Secretary of State last summer would be aware how complete was the answer given to the statements that had now been repeated. Nevertheless, the same platitudes, the same worn-out, threadbare, and preposterous fallacies that were then brought out to be shattered, pulverized, and destroyed, had come up to be again answered six months afterwards. He must say a word upon the concluding part of the Amendment, to the operation of which the Secretary of State had not found occasion to allude. The Mover asked the House to say—

"That the British Treasury should sustain a fair and equitable portion of all expenditure incurred on all military and political operations beyond the boundaries of India in which both Indian and British interests are jointly concerned."

This was a somewhat vague and indefinite proposition, but the hon. Member explained that he would adopt the boundaries which existed when the Government of India was taken over by the Crown nearly 40 years ago. The hon. Member did not lay stress upon the fact, but the wording of the Amendment would bring political as well as military operations within the rule. Did the hon. Member really know what were the boundaries of India in 1857? Had he any idea how the India of today differed from the India of 1857? Did he know the prepos terous demand he was making upon intelligence and statesmanship? The Amendment would apply to our operations in Beluchistan, which were now not military but political, and were concerned with the organization of an administration. Was the cost of that to be met jointly by the Indian and the British Exchequer? The proposed rule would mean that the cost of the Waziri Expedition and of boundary demarcation in Afghanistan should be borne by the two Exchequers, and also of the campaigns on the North-West frontier, which were provoked by turbulent frontier tribes who were repelled by local levies. Lastly, it would mean that the expense of the annexation of Upper Burma, authorized, of course, by this House, but in no sense an operation directly affecting British as distinct from Indian interests, should also have been divided between the two Exchequers. He hoped the legitmate responsibility of England for military operations upon the Indian frontier would never be ignored, and he could conceive of occasions of invasion when a demand might legitimately be made upon this country for co-operation. But that these small frontier wars and expeditions, and the civil organization resulting from their successful issue, should be, borne by us in common with India was an idea which could not commend itself to any but the hon. Gentleman, and the section for whom he spoke. When he complained that the people of India had no voice in the expenditure of their country, he forgot that, by the Legislative Councils Bill of the late Government, which he was fortunate enough to pass, for the first time Members of those Councils were at liberty not only to ask questions, but also to make statements and speeches, upon the Budgets of the Government. The hon. Member must know that the Government of India was conducted in as fierce a light as that of this country, and perhaps even under a more concentrated blaze. The right to ask questions and to make speeches was a positive guarantee, not merely that the views of those for whom the hon. Member spoke would be represented, but that nothing in the nature of substantial injustice would be done. It would have been more to the point if the hon. Member, instead of refe ring to military and political operations, had alluded to certain Commissions of Inquiry ordered by this House, and the cost of which was thrown upon India. He listened with astonishment to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Banff. The hon. Baronet was a distinguished member of a body of civilians whose rule in India had been eulogised by more than one speaker, and of whom it might be justly said that they were the pride and glory of their country. Yet, coming back here with the traditions of the Service upon him, with his great knowledge of Indian affairs, he lost no opportunity of traducing the body of which he was once a member, and slandering the great and splendid work it was carrying on.

said he admitted that the Service was doing good work, but he contended that it was done on a scale too expensive for the country. He had, in his speech, made no charge against the service to which he had had the honour to belong. But he wished its members to be the servants of the people and not their masters. He had no wish whatever to "traduce" the Service.

said he was glad to have that repudiation, but the hon. Baronet's speech undoubtedly supplied this foundation for his charge—that, if the bulk of his accusations were true as to the poverty of the people of India and the oppression of the Government, it would constitute a grave charge against those responsible for the administration of the country. The hon. Baronet complained that no reference was made in the Queen's Speech to matters connected with India. For his own part, so far from deploring that India was not mentioned, he was glad that the condition of affairs in India was so satisfactory that there was no need to allude to it in the Queen's Speech. The assumption underlying the speech of the hon. Baronet was, that the military expenditure of the Indian Government was unwise and unjustifiable and their policy rash and unsound. He himself had made, in a humble way, some attempt to understand the question, and he deliberately stated that, broadly speaking, the frontier policy of India, with the great expenditure it had entailed, had been not merely a wise and statesmanlike, but an absolutely necessary, policy. No doubt great mistakes, involving enormous financial responsibility, had been committed. Nobody would now deny the fatal policy and ruinous cost entailed by the first Afghan war. But we had learnt by experience, and were, he should imagine, extremely unlikely to make any such blunder again. The policy of military expenditure, the frontier expeditions, and the cost of setting up an organised Administration after victory had been won, constituted a policy of insurance which we were bound to pay for our great Empire. Our long immunity from war in India had been simply due to the effect of the millions of money we had been content to spend upon that object. The only way, in his judgment, by which we could escape the invasion of India was to render invasion sufficiently dangerous to make it not worth while for any one to attempt it. Seriously as he thought that the House should scrutinise the various acts of the Indian Government and their consequent financial responsibility, for his own part he was of opinion that the policy of Lord Lansdowne, Lord Roberts, and the great men who for the past 15 years had been making secure the frontiers of India, was one that should meet with the gratitude of this country and the support of the House.

denied that the hon. Baronet the Member for Banff had either traduced or slandered the Civil Service of India. The members of the Service were servants of the people. They should not be above criticism, and he regretted those who criticised their public actions should be accused of traducing and slandering them. What struck a casual observer like himself (who had recently spent some time in India) was the extreme poverty of the mass of the people and the extent to which they were taxed. When he considered what wages were in England he wondered how wage-earners in India managed to live upon the low wages they obtained. The services of horses and dogs commanded a higher price than those of men in some kinds of employment. It was his firm conviction that both policy and justice required that the people of this country should pay a larger proportion of Indian military expenditure than at present. He believed that we ought to be prepared to pay a larger portion of the cost of Indian frontier wars, and, if we did so, it would redound largely to our honour and to the satisfaction of the people of India. He strongly deprecated a feeling of self-satisfaction with regard to our Indian Empire. It was a great charge and a serious responsibility, and we ought not to be too self-complacent as to it. The Secretary of State for India intimated that the government of India had been uniformly good in the past. Good intentions were by no means a proof that right had been done. In Ireland the British Government and officials, with the best intentions, had, in the past, failed, because they had not been acting in accordance with the wishes of the people of Ireland. He was a supporter of the present Government through his Party; he was an admirer of the Secretary of State for India; but he regretted the temper which the right hon. Gentleman had shown in treating this Indian question, and especially in the way he met the hon. Member for Finsbury. Without going further into the question, he believed that, no matter how well-intentioned our Secretaries and Councils on this side were, they should take more efficient means than at present to seek the advice and ascertain the wishes and desires of the natives themselves. Until this were done we should not be on safe ground. He desired to support the Amendment.

said that he was very unwilling to trouble the House, and it was very desirable that this discussion should close. Something more ought, however, to be said. From the remarks of some hon. Members opposite it might be supposed that our military expenditure in India was too high—in other words, that our fighting strength there could be reduced. He did not suppose that it could be argued that the military expenditure could be reduced unless the fighting power were lowered also. He would like the House and the country to consider whether the fighting strength of India was more than what was wanted, or whether it was less than we wanted. He would advise any hon. Member who wished to understand the fundamental essentials of the military problem in India carefully to peruse the work of his hon. Friend the Member for Southport, published a few years ago, upon "Russia in Central Asia." That work showed that the advance carried on by Russia for more than a generation had carried that Power to the very gates of Afghanistan; it showed that, upon a declaration of war, Russia could pour her forces like a thunderbolt over Afghanistan; and it estimated Russia's forces, and went on to consider what reply England could make from India. Though he hoped that the gathering of the forces there represented would be enough, yet it would require all that we knew to do so. Let them consider well the awful issues that would depend on such a conflict, and let the House and the country say whether we had more than enough—whether, in fact, we had enough—to meet the dread issue of such an eventuality. And if not, how could it be assumed that our military expenditure in India could be reduced? Suppose we could put, at the outside, 50,000 men into the field to meet such an enemy, that would be barely enough; and anyone who considered the relative muster of the forces of the two Empires would pray God from his heart to aid our soldiers at that grave moment. Such grave issues as this ought not to be trifled with, as they were always trifled with, both by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. He would tell the hon. Member who moved it that England would suffer far more if things were to go wrong with the British arms in India than would India herself. The frontier defences of India wore wanted for India, and not for England. What did England care for a stony desert to the west Merv or a tract of waste land in Afghanistan if it were not for the sake of India? With regard to Burma, upon what ground could it be asked that the expenses of annexing Upper Burma should be borne by England? Burma was an integral part of the British Empire in the East at the time of that annexation. What did we care for the upper regions of the Burmese rivers, except for the sake of India? He recognised that the mover of this Amendment came from one of the most loyal sections of the people of British India. He highly respected the noble clan from which the hon. Member came, and he quite admitted that it contained some of the bluest blood of all the nationalities on the earth. But, coming from such a clan, speaking, as the hon. Member did, in high terms of the benefits of British rule in India, he was astonished at his bringing forward such an Amendment as this. He did not think that the speeches made by the hon. Member in that House could be delivered by him with safety before his fellow-countrymen in Bombay. His fellow-clansmen would be astonished at such utterances.

remarked that he had said the same things there very often.

continuing, said that this Amendment was not seriously regarded by any other Member in the House except, perhaps, by the Seconder of the Amendment and, possibly, by the last speaker. Did the hon. Member for Finsbury suppose, if he were to tell the British electorate that India was putting a burden upon our Budget, that it would not be very awkward and would set up jealousies between those who were interested in trade with India and those who were not? It was time for someone to stand up and expose in their true light the sentiments which had been expressed. He was astonished that the hon. Member should make such a proposition as that contained in his Amendment and could suppose that it could be seriously regarded either by a British House of Commons or by a British electorate. These questions had cropped up, and had been pulverized Session after Session. He himself had contributed to their pulverization, but they cropped up again just as if they had never been dealt with before. Again and again they were told that the people of India were dying of starvation—the very people who were increasing and multiplying more than any other nation under Heaven. They were told that the people were half starving when they were sending £150,000,000 sterling annually to foreign countries, and when they were flooding the British corn markets with grain to the dismay of the British farmer. They were told this at a time when the trade of India was expanding, when their agriculture was spreading fast, and their capital could be shown to be growing and accumulating. His hon. Friend who had just sat down urged as an argument that the wages were very low; but the prices were also low. These misrepresentations had been constantly exposed. As one who had served the Municipality of London in one of the poorest parts of the Metropolis he ought to know something of the distress which prevailed here, and, nation for nation, country for country, he declared that there was far less real distress in India than there was in this country, and that the actual want and necessity was greater arid more perceptible here than in India. He utterly denied the hon. Member's statements as to the growing poverty in India; he believed the opposite was the case. A great deal of our commerce we owed to India, but what did India owe to us? The people of India owed their lives to us, their homes, hearths, freedom, rights, and liberty. It astonished him when he considered the way in which his countrymen had given their lives in the service of India that such scant justice should be shown them by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Finsbury. He would add his testimony to that which he was sure would be borne by every Member on that side of the House who was acquainted with Indian affairs to the remarkable skill, ability, and patriotic spirit with which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had defended Indian interests. He congratulated him on the statesmanlike capacity he had shown in dealing with Indian problems.

in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India adhered to his pronouncement in regard to the Committee of Investigation. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER assented.] He very much regretted that decision.

said, the fiscal question, or the question of taxation, had a direct and important bearing on the claim the Irish Members had then to make. It was not agreeable to him and his colleagues to have to make such claims, but the recurrence of those partial famines was one of the incidents of the incapacity and neglect of Imperial Administration, and they might be expected to recur from time to time until the resources of Ireland were placed in the hands of Irishmen themselves. Last year was the worst year in Ireland since 1879; indeed, some thought it the worst year since 1848. There could be no doubt of the existence and extent of the distress. In 1892, the last year of Office of the late Government, the Revenue derived by the Imperial purse from Ireland was considerably less than in the past year; yet the late Chief Secretary spent in 1892 in the country about half a million more than the present Chief Secretary had expended during the past year. New imposts were placed on Ireland last year which produced £200,000 more in Revenue than was received in the preceding year, yet much less had been spent in the country. This was the basis of their claim that Ireland was entitled to some assistance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had expressed regret that there was no reference in the Queen's Speech to the distress in Ireland; but the important point was, not that there was no allusion to the question in the Speech, but rather what were the intentions of the Government with regard to Ireland. He was bound to give credit to the Chief Secretary for giving notice on the opening day of the Session of his intention to bring in a Bill to supply seed to small occupiers and farmers in certain districts in Ireland, and that he had taken upon himself the responsibility of making certain advances. They, therefore, knew that the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to do something; it might be inadequate, but still it was a better earnest that the Government would undertake some means of relieving the distress than a mere verbal assurance in the Queen's Speech. It was his duty in the month of November last year to bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary the distress which existed among the poorer occupiers in the extensive Union of Listowel. Ample and reliable evidence was furnished by the Poor Law Guardians as to the extent and depth of the distress, showing that the potato crop had not yielded more than one half in most cases, and not more than one-eighth in others, of the usual amount; and yet when a Local Government Board Inspector was sent to inquire into the nature of the distress, he reported that the potato crop had been an excellent one. On the other hand, the Union officials were agreed that the crop had failed to a very serious extent, and that the distress was patent. The fact was that the Inspector had not enquired of those who were in the best position to furnish him with accurate information. He was convinced, by the unanimous resolutions which had been passed by Boards of Guardians, that great and bitter distress now prevailed all along the Western seaboard of Ireland. It would take more than the Report of a Local Government Inspector moving about the country to remove that impression from his mind, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would adopt means of securing accurate information as to the prevalence of the distress. What, then, was the position? The potato crop had failed. The potato was still the staple food of the people during several months of the year. The supply having run terribly short, the price of the commodity was doubled or trebled. Consequently, on the one hand the labourer was unable to purchase a necessary of life, and on the other the farmer was deprived of the means of employing labour as well. The people could not live; they would not have the means. In this condition of affairs he respectfully, but earnestly, protested against the application of the Workhouse tests. Whether the indoor or outdoor test was applied, the result was most fallacious and misleading. As regarded the former, to say that there were not more people in the Workhouses now than a year ago proved nothing. A solitary member of a family could not be taken in; the whole family must go. In the case of a poor labouring family, bearing in mind the great repugnance they felt to the Workhouse, they must have reached a pitch of suffering and starvation almost imperilling life before they would consent to go into the House. As regarded the outdoor test, again, if a family held more than a quarter of an acre of land they could not have outdoor relief. A monument this of the wisdom of Irish administration! The fortunate possessor of a quarter of an acre of land was held disentitled to outdoor relief under any circumstances! There would be, and were, tens of thousands of families who were starving but still able to walk about, and they did not come within the definitions which would enable the Guardians to give them outdoor relief. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman to revise the whole system of inquiry and inspection, and to lay down some rules which would give some guarantee that the evidence given by the Inspectors in their Reports should correspond with the facts of the case. He also urged the expediency of extending the term of repayment for the seed potato loans. It was very hard to impose on the Guardians such conditions as obliged them to collect the whole of the money within two years from an extremely poor class of occupiers, and he would, therefore, venture with every confidence to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not extend to four, or even to three, years the repayment of the loan. As to the Public Works, he agreed that it was a rather small and trivial system that had been set on foot, and he rather thought the Department were trying their ingenuity to avoid starting important works. He hoped they might hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, considering all the circumstances of taxation and of revenue, and the depth and extent of the distress, the Government would be prepared to deal with this question in no niggardly spirit. In some districts lines of light railways could be constructed with great advantage, as, for example, between Tarbet, connecting with the sea and Listowel. The right hon. Gentleman might consider also the desirability of reverting to the system of loans, free of interest, such as was made to the land-lords in 1880. It was a cruel thing to set up central Public Works 10 or 12 miles away, and to drag the people 10 or 15 miles away from their homes, and to call that relief. It was torture under the name of relief. But if the right hon. Gentleman would, under reasonable conditions, establish a system of loans of moderate amount to occupiers of land, free of interest, either out of the balance of the Church Fund or any other fund that might be available, he thought that would complete a system which, without such an element, would be altogether inadequate to meet the necessities of the case. Whilst the right hon. Gentleman might think he had spoken in a critical spirit, he would admit the responsibility which lay upon the Irish Members in the presence of such suffering and danger imposed that critical spirit upon them, and would not mistake anything he had said as implying any want of confidence in himself, because he knew the right hon. Gentleman had to contend against a hide-bound official system. If the personal spirit of the right hon. Gentleman could, merely by the exertion of his will, dominate the official system of Ireland, the Irish Members need take very little trouble in that House to press such matters as these upon him.

said that relief in the way of grants of seed potatoes should not be restricted to persons whose valuation was under £15. He thought that anyone in need of seed potatoes whose valuation was under £50 ought to receive the relief. It was hard to fix so fast a rule that a man valued at £15 could receive seed potatoes, while his neighbour, equally destitute but valued at £15 10s., was denied the relief. As an addition to the present method of relieving distress in Ireland, he suggested the construction of new harbours and the improvement of existing harbours in fishing districts. The fishing industry of Ireland was entirely neglected. Foreigners fished all round the coasts of Ireland, and owing to the absence of that assistance from the State which countries having paternal Governments received, the people of Ireland were unable to reap any of the harvest of fish which abounded around their coasts. Light Railways were also much needed in some districts of the country. Again, if the Chief Secretary could see his way to have more labourers' cottages erected, it would give much-needed employment, and, at the same time, provide house accommodation for labourers, which was badly wanted in many parts of the country. New roads and main and surface drains would also be very useful. He contended that Ireland was entitled to an equal share with England of the increased taxation. Ireland was not at all as prosperous as England, and one of the reasons why there was so much destitution in Ireland was, because the taxation wrung out of Ireland was mainly spent in England. He contended that the workhouse test of destitution was fallacious. It was a matter beyond contradiction by any one who knew anything of the feelings of the people of Ireland that many of the people would rather starve than enter the workhouse. In England it was, moreover, much easier to get out-door relief than in Ireland. He was not, however, much in favour of outdoor-relief, except where it was found to be necessary, because when carried to excess it had a demoralizing tendency amongst the poor. Irishmen could not, from their experience of the past, have much faith in the permanent officials. There seemed to be a want of sympathy between the permanent officials and the people whom they governed. It was a mistake to suppose that in these details Parliament governed Ireland; the permanent officials were the real rulers. He wished to urge upon the Chief Secretary that in this matter it was necessary to look ahead a little. Mere temporary expedients would not cure this disease of Irish distress. If the present system continued, public works might be necessary for a period which the Treasury would not care to contemplate. The institution of a Board of Agriculture for Ireland would be a great benefit in helping the Irish peasant to be less entirely dependent upon the potato crop. It was a most extraordinary thing that the United Kingdom imported foreign produce to the amount of hundreds of millions every year, while the country was going out of cultivation. If the right hon. Gentleman could devise a scheme whereby the waste lands and the idle hands could be brought together, it would be a national benefaction. At present £20,000,000 of taxation was being raised for protecting a mercantile marine which poured into the country foreign produce of all kinds, a great part of which we could produce at home. He had made these practical suggestions irrespective of Party, for this was not a Party question. It was a question of humanity, in which all sections of the House could co-operate in the spirit of Christian co-operation. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would give the question his serious attention, and try to devise a remedy for a very serious defect.

said, that hon. Members opposite were more interested in this question than he could possibly be; for he represented a part of the country which fortunately did not suffer in this way. In Ulster they were not exposed to the cruel sufferings common in the special area on the west coast of Ireland. To begin with, he hoped that the question of distress would not be complicated with any question of the rights and wrongs of taxation, and the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. No doubt in that respect Ireland might make out a good case; but this was a question, of humanity. What he desired to say next was, that wherever exceptional distress was proved to exist, a prompt and sufficient remedy for it ought to be found. But in his mind the point was, that the proof of this exceptional distress should be sufficient. He did not undervalue the testimony of Boards of Guardians in Ireland. They were the only representative authorities on which the State could rely for information in certain lines of action. But human nature was the same all the world over; and if a district were suffering in any way, though the suffering were not exceptional, and if relief were being given in exceptional cases; there would be a natural desire that that relief should not be confined to the exceptional cases, but should be extended to the other. These Boards of Guardians, like other local bodies, were exposed to pressure. All he would say with respect to them, therefore, was that when an allegation of exceptional distress was made by one of them, it should constitute a prima-facie case for inquiry by the Government. He also thought that the Government ought to be very careful in these inquiries. It was quite true that in Ireland there were hide-bound officials—men accustomed to dealing with distress, who had become callous by constant association with it. In sending those officials to institute inquiries, care ought to be taken that they were in communication with those who had the best information at their disposal. In matters of this kind, he believed that the strong ought to help to bear the infirmities of the weak; and he had risen to say that, in relieving exceptional distress, wherever it had been proved to exist, the Chief Secretary might rely on the co-operation of hon. Members from the North of Ireland, whose constituents were free from the cruel sufferings of other districts, but must sympathise with them. He cared for no Irish policy which did not recognise that the district on the western coast of Ireland was exceptionally situated, and required exceptional treatment from any Government or Party.

said that the Nationalist Members were grateful to the hon. Member for his assistance in this matter. He fully accepted the principle laid down by the hon. Member that the Government, before deciding to take exceptional steps for the relief of distress in Ireland, were bound to hold a careful inquiry into the facts. But what the Nationalist Members had urged upon successive Governments was, that inquiry should be held in good time, and when the local representative bodies had urged the existence of distress; and that the inquiry should be held in some form which would command the confidence of the people as to its results. Past bitter experience in Ireland had led them to distrust, he would not say all, but many, inspectors of the Local Government Board, particularly on account of the secret way in which their inquiries were held. They ought to be held in some open fashion, so that those who lived in the localities might have an opportunity of publicly bringing their knowledge before the Inspectors. He knew that the House was only too familiar with demands from Ireland for the relief of distress. To Irishmen, as could be imagined, there was nothing more painful or humiliating.

Do not include me. It is not humiliating to me.

said, that at any rate he felt the humiliation. One of the reasons for his discontent with the present system of Government was, that it had produced this condition of things, which ought not to exist in any properly governed country in the world. Some hon. Members might think that Irish Members were premature or too clamorous in their appeals. Let them read the history of Ireland, and learn that on more than one occasion it had been proved beyond all question that, so far from being too early in their appeals for relief of distress, the Irish Representatives had been too late. In the terrible years from 1846 to 1848 thousands perished of starvation before any relief came to their assistance. In these and many subsequent years fault might have been found with the representatives of the Irish people that they did not raise their voices on behalf of the starving peasants in the west of Ireland in time. In the whole of Ireland there was hardly a district so universally distressed and congested as East Mayo, the constituency which he represented. He believed that in every period of distress that took place, the dark cloud which settled so often on the people of Ireland, settled with peculiar darkness over the people of East Mayo. The Swinford Union, which covered the greater portion of his constituency, had a population of 48,000 persons, and the valuation was £41,000, or less than £1 per head; in other words the average rent of 10,000 families who constituted his constituency was about £4 per family. The result of that condition of congestion was this: They had a population always living on the verge of famine. In prosperous years they lived in a very humble, parsimonious way, in a state of great poverty, it was true, but still able to keep themselves alive. The moment there was any failure of crops starvation ensued, and the people had nothing to fall back upon. It was therefore a painful and humiliating duty on the part of the Irish Representatives to force on the Government the necessity of relieving that state of affairs. The relief to be given in the Swinford district must be mainly in the nature of relief works. Personally, he believed that the distress which existed in many districts in the west of Ireland was more acute than in 1890. In that year there was a Conservative Government in power, and the Government spent nearly £1,250,000 to meet that distress, while a public fund, in charge of the Leader of the Opposition, also existed. In his own constituency the Government spent not less than £40,000 or £50,000, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would not forget the example which was then set. On the chronic aspect of this question, he had raised his voice more than once by putting to successive Governments the question—

"Are they content that this system should continue, that large portions of the population in Ireland should go on living in this abject and most demoralising condition, unable to make both ends meet, and always living on the brink of starvation, to be pushed over that brink every four or five years:"

He had heard it stated that this aspect of the question had nothing to do with rent. What was the amount of rent taken out of East Mayo alone? In Swinford Union the rent was about £50,000; since 1890, therefore, roughly speaking, £200,000 had been levied in rent in that district. Now, it would take £20,000 to save the people from starvation by the creation of public works. The people, indeed, were paying £50,000 or £60,000 in excessive rent; and this was a point which ought to be considered by the Government. He admitted that a first step had been taken towards the solution of the congested districts problem, but he maintained that, while the Congested Districts Board was an excellent institution, having done very good work, it was insufficient to cope with or to solve this problem, and that, with its present constitution, powers, and resources, it would not solve it for the next 200 years. Would it not be better to make one great effort to constitute a body in Ireland as a sort of insurance against this perpetual recurrence of famine, with sufficient powers and resources to grapple with the problem, and to put the people in the position of becoming self-supporting for the future? He directed the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Wood ford district of County Galway, where the people who had settled under the Congested Districts Act had not received a penny of work since the Board was constituted. He was informed that acute distress prevailed there. Then at Falcarragh, County Donegal, acute distress also existed. If steps could be taken to promote the scheme for the river drainage in East Mayo, he believed that employment could be given to many persons, while effecting a great improvement in the surrounding country. He believed that the Chief Secretary had devoted his attention to this distress with the greatest possible assiduity for many weeks past, and he had every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman would do all in his power to alleviate it.

urged the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the necessity for some public works being provided in North Roscommon, stating that the people in the district were willing to contribute largely to the expense of the drainage works in connection with the River Laune. He heard an English Conservative Member the other night declare in the House that in Norfolk on middling land reductions of rent to the extent of 40 to 60 per cent, were given, while on poor land no rent at all was paid. If this were suggested as to Ireland they would be accused of confiscation. In Ireland on this poor class of land only 20 pee cent, reduction was given, although thr tenants made all the improvements. Several Irish Members rising along with

; the right hon. Gentleman said: I am sorry to stand in the way of my hon. Friends, but perhaps I may facilitate matters if I state now the steps which the Government have taken in order to meet that condition of things which claims the special intervention of the Government. The Member for Mayo and others have opened up very large issues, but I for one do not complain of those issues being raised or of the suggestion as to the propriety of establishing some great body in Ireland to deal with this ever-recurring and afflicting distress. I was Chief Secretary in 1886, and it was my duty then to make proposals to the House on this subject. Since 1886 there was one very serious failure of the potato crop—the staple food of the people—and I think the Irish Members have done no more than their duty when they remind the House, when one of these demands are made, that there is a great social question with which this Parliament has hitherto shown itself incompetent to deal. I think, however, that the criticism of the Seconder of the Motion really vindicated the Government, and that it will not be necessary to go to a Division on the Amendment. That Amendment expresses regret that the Queen's Speech

''did not contain a reference to the severe distress existing in some parts of Ireland, and failed to convey an assurance that public works would be undertaken to alleviate such distress."

The Member for Kerry remarked upon that most fairly and conclusively that a better thing than putting a polite sentence in the Queen's Speech was from the very beginning when this distress appeared to the present moment to make prompt and sufficient preparation. I think I may take credit to the Government for having done that very early last autumn. It was quite clear from the information that I received from official sources that the outlook was rather serious. There were some western localities well known to gentlemen from Ireland where the danger was very serious indeed. I directed special examination to be made in all districts where there was the slightest chance of any scarcity or destitution arising. Early in December I called for further and more specific Reports as to the probable duration of any distress which might arise, and as to the resources which the Local Authorities might have. These inquiries were very carefully made under the direction of the Local Government Board. In the middle of December I was convinced that we should have to supplement the resources at the disposal of the Boards of Guardians by some form of Imperial or Government aid. The Secretary for War kindly allowed an officer of engineers to go to Ireland and inspect the districts which were likely to experience something like abnormal distress, and see what measures could be recommended. The end of that operation was about January 3, and the results were immediately placed before me. I found that there was a falling off in the potato crop more or less serious in some 50 unions in the western counties, but, at the same time, immediate gave destitution was threatened in only some 13 unions in Gal way, Mayo, and Donegal. Drawing a line from Lough Swilly to Cape Clear, the potato crop was from 20 to 50 per cent, below the average. In some lands the failure was very considerable indeed. I do not quarrel with the Member for Kerry as to his warning me against taking the workhouse test as the test of the degree of the suffering which prevails. I may say if that test were applied—and I say this to the hon. Member for Tyrone, who spoke very fairly and reasonably on this point—the number of recipients for relief would not be greater in these districts than it was in the corresponding period last year. I do not know that I go the full length with the Member for Kerry as to the unsatisfactory nature of this test, but I do agree with him in saying that we cannot take it as a conclusive test by which the Government is to be guided. Though, taking Ireland as a whole, the pressure on the Poor Law Authorities is not greater than in the corresponding period last year, yet it cannot be denied by those who resorted to observation that in certain of the western unions there was a pressure, especially in the matter of outdoor relief, which was increasing. The Member for Kerry cast some doubts upon the trustworthiness of the Reports of the Inspectors. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, too, suggested that, though these gentleman were no doubt experienced men, their very experience made them callous to distress, and so untrustworthy. Well, we all know that constant contact with great distress, with horrible material suffering, does produce a certain callousness

I should not like it to go forth that I had pronounced the officers of the Local Government Board as untrustworthy. All I intended to say was this—that their very experience of this distress made them think less of it, and that they had an idea of the endurance of the Irish peasant in their minds which ought not to exist.

No doubt the endurance of the Irish peasant is one of the most extraordinary phenomena in nature. I am sure that to-night we are all agreed, in all parts of the House, in recognising the patience and endurance of the Irish peasant and the hardness of his lot. But to return to these gentle men. My hon. Friend the Member for Kerry spoke of them as irresponsible plenipotentiaries from Dublin.

I only meant that there was no way of checking what they do.

I think there is. These gentlemen do not live in Dublin. They live in their own districts, and their whole life is passed in close contact with those who are administering the Poor Law on the popular authorities, such as they are; and really I do not see how, unless I were to go on a pilgrimage with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, which, of course, I should like to do, from whom I am more likely to hear of things as they are on this western seaboard than from these gentlemen. Reviewing, therefore, their Reports, reviewing all the resources of the ordinary Poor Law to cope with the distress, I came to the conclusion that those resources were not adequate, and that we could not rely on the ordinary operation of the Poor Law. I felt also that it would undoubtedly be a hardship on the small landowners, who are precluded from the ordinary means of obtaining relief, if I were to leave the whole condition of affairs to the operation of the Poor Law alone. Serious consequences might follow to those little humble homes referred to by the hon. Member who moved this Motion, which it is to the interest of all to keep up and to preserve from that broken position which, as the hon. Member for Galway pointed out, would necessitate the sale of their little stock and deprive them of the means of living. So the Government felt bound to undertake the responsibility of organising measures for the relief of the people concerned, and that resolution was arrived at long before there was any notion of an Amendment to the Address—in fact, five or six weeks before Parliament was to meet. It was taken in view of the exigencies of the circumstances, and not in fear of Parliamentary pressure. The particular form which commends itself to me after consultation with experts has been found fault with and criticised in this Debate. It is the completion of the repairing and fencing of public roads, on such terms and in such a way as to afford employment to unskilled labourers at a low rate of wages. I admit that when I first approached this question I was not satisfied that the old policy of road-making should again, without any alteration or addition, be applied; and I cast about in other directions for other methods of public works. But if we look at the suggestions that have been made to-night, hon. Members who made them will, I think, feel that the Government were right in not departing from the old lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Kerry said that these are small and trivial undertakings. I admit that that is so, but I will ask my hon. Friend, who may, some day or other, have to deal in his own country, I hope, with these matters, or the hon. Member for Tyrone "What will you do if you do not go in for road-making?" The hon. and gallant Member for Galway said, "Why not have some of the ships built in Ireland?"

No, I did not. I said, "Why not have drainage?" I spoke about shipbuilding, but I never suggested you should build ships.

Well, as to drainage, my hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that the necessity for drainage does not exist in the places where you need to give this relief.

In nearly all.

I think not. But whether that is so or not, you would have to get the leave of Parliament for such works. You would have to wait weeks and months before you could get your Bill through. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland would assist us in getting such a Bill through?

My right hon. Friend refers to the fact that I opposed certain works in Ireland. So I did, but only because they were useless works.

Yes, but this is a case of urgency. The inhabitants of this part of the country do not want to leave their homes, and go to all parts of Ireland. Drainage works would not effect the desired object. My hon. Friend the Member for Kerry talked about draining bogs. Well, when I was in Ireland one Board of Guardians sent me a resolution urging me to relieve distress in the form of draining a particular bog; but I pointed out that the effect of that would be that public money would be paid in wages for the improvement of property which did not belong to the public, and all the benefit of which would go to the landlord. Then one hon. Member talked about labourers' cottages, but you require skilled labourers for such work as that, and those labourers to whom we seek to give relief to tide over this period of distress are not skilled labourers in that sense. I have no great prepossession in favour of light railways; and they would not help me in my difficulty. Railway making is skilled work; and much of the money that was paid for the making of light railways in 1890 and 1891 did not go into the pockets of distressed people, but gave employment to skilled workmen in all parts of Ireland. Therefore, for an emergency of a peculiar kind, light railways would not help us. It was suggested that it would be desirable to advance money by way of loan on easy terms to small distressed owners, just as a million was advanced in 1880 to landowners to carry out improvements. I have examined a little, not very profoundly, into what became of that million voted by this House; and I wonder how much of it went to the relief of the distress for which it was intended. And how much would do so if we were to advance money to small holders in their present distress? The present Leader of the Opposition had to consider this question when he was Chief Secretary, and he, as I have found, arrived at the same conclusion as I have done. He has been held up as a model, whom I should do well to follow, for the lavishness with which he scattered money; and he came to the conclusion that it would not be expedient to lend money in times of distress, for the purposes of land improvements, to occupiers of small holdings, who might be expected to carry out those improvements in the years of comparative plenty. It is not the risk of repayment I am thinking of; but I believe that loans would have a demoralising influence upon those unfortunate persons.

The loans to tenants have been better repaid than those to landlords.

Quite true; I am the last person to disparage the making of loans to tenants; but here you have to deal with the distress of small men living in small holdings and fighting the tremendous battle of life under extraordinary difficulties. I do not think this is the class of men whom the policy of making loans to tenants is calculated to benefit.

I do not suggest that loans should be made to small holders. I suggested that loans should be made to occupiers, irrespective of class.

My hon. Friend knows a great deal more about these districts than I profess to do; but does he think that loans should be made to small farmers in a condition of chronic distress, deprived of subsistence by the failure of the potato crop, and absolutely in need of subsistence for themselves and their families at the time when these necessary works should come into operation? Besides these general schemes of relief, we have made provision for sudden emergency. What is vital is that no life shall be lost if it can be prevented; and, in addition to the general powers conferred upon relieving officers, we have allowed Local Authorities to grant relief, without restriction, in-door or out-door, in all cases of emergency which may arise. No case of dire want will be left in these districts unprovided for. Care must be taken that relieving officers shall not be left at any moment without funds to deal with any emergency which may arise. I will conclude the account of our projected operations. The areas in which these works are to be instituted are to be determined by persons to be selected by the Local Government Board. We have been able to strengthen the staff by adding three Inspectors to it. They will work in the west in those districts under the supervision of those experienced higher officers who are already familiar with the districts. The general supervision of these measures, both administrative and financial, will be carried out in the Chief Secretary's office. The engineer placed under our directions is now executing works elsewhere, and will advise on future works to be projected. The foremen of the works are to be non-commissioned officers of the Engineers, placed at the disposal of the Irish Government. The timekeepers and paymasters will be the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and that is the only function the Constabulary will have to discharge. The Sappers and Miners, foremen of works, and Royal Constabulary will have nothing to do but keep the time-sheets and see to the pay-sheets. Then we have made an arrangement by which the County Surveyors, with the consent of the Grand Juries, will serve under Major Conder and co-operate with him on the works. The wages of the labourers are to be what they were in 1890–1s. 2d. a day, or 7s. a week. We are anxious that as little money as possible should go in the expenses of administration, and the expenses of administration with respect to each person employed will be about 2s. a week; that is to say, for every man employed in these works 7s. a week will go into his pocket and 2s. a week will be ex pended in the cost of administration. The number of families in the Unions to whom it is intended to give relief by-opening works is 5,400, and we think a very much smaller sum than that mentioned by hon. Members from Ireland will probably be sufficient to meet any demands which may be made upon it. But I do not at present contemplate asking this House for a larger sum than £80,000. If this House were to give half a million of money I am perfectly sure I could undertake, with the assistance of hon. Members from Ireland and the Local Government Board, to spend half a million, or much more, advantageously in Ireland. But that is not my task at the present moment—which is to meet a particular crisis, a crisis whose dimensions I have done the best I can to form an ample judgment upon and to meet in a way which shall prevent one farthing of money finding its way into pockets which Parliament would not desire it should, and which would not leave behind it any demoralising traces or consequences such as have too often followed operations of this kind. Sir, I think I have said enough. On another occasion, when I introduce the Seed Growing Bill, I shall have other things to say, and when the Supplementary Estimate is moved for, for these various operations I shall then be able still more fully to deal with any criticisms, remarks, or suggestions which may be made by gentlemen from Ireland. I hope I have said enough to satisfy them that it is not necessary to press this Amendment to a Division, and that the Government, whatever omissions they have made in the Queen's Speech, have not been at all wanting in promptitude or foresight in dealing with a crisis which we, in common with them, deplore.

said, he had listened with mingled feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He was, however, struck with the keynote of sympathy which ran through it. All who knew the right hon. Gentleman knew well enough that anything he could do personally to alleviate distress in Ireland would be done. But in other respects the speech was of a purely negative kind. When they left the negative and came to the affirmative portions of the speech, what did they find? Conceding to the right hon. Gentleman an earnest desire to alleviate distress in Ireland, what was the sum total of his speech? From the right hon. Gentleman's replies to questions about the distress in Ireland, he had been under the impression that the Chief Secretary had committed himself to two remedies to meet the distress—one, the supply of seed potatoes, and the other, the making of roads. But, so far as he could gather, not a single word had been said in his speech about the supply of seed potatoes.

said, he deferred saying more until he introduced his Bill on the subject.

Well, passing away from that, the right hon. Gentleman committed himself to the making of roads. But he now said he was going to use the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Local Government Board, and the Relieving Officers "to complete the fencing and repair of roads" In his constituency money could be most usefully spent in opening out new roads, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the allocation of the £80,000, would not simply confine it to the completion, fencing and repair of roads. He associated himself with his colleague in the representation of Mayo in protesting that the Local Government Board Inspectors, by going in a secret way through the country without consulting those who really knew the country and its people, could not report to the right hon. Gentleman as to its true condition. The Government were simply intending to spend this money on the reports of inspectors of police, of resident magistrates, and relieving officers. Why should the right hon. Gentleman consult the relieving officer, who was only the servant of the Board of Guardians? Why not consult such men as the priests or the dispensary doctors of the district, who lived amongst the people day by day, and knew most as to their wants. He himself knew of districts which had never been visited by the Local Government Board Inspector since the distress began. How could those districts be relieved? Did the right hon. Gentleman think that this terrible distress was to be met by the appointment of three more Inspectors? It would need more than twenty three to cope with the terrible amount of distress existing there. But besides the making of roads, and other matters which had been mentioned, his hon. colleague was right in suggesting that some little money might be expended by the Government in drainage, of which various methods existed. A large amount of the country had been reclaimed by the vast sacrifices of the poor labourers and tenants themselves, and if some little assistance could be given to those poor cottier tenants to drain their land, it would be found that there would not always be the necessity for supplying them with seed potatoes, and some return might be looked for by the Government and the tenants from such a mode of assisting them. He had made special inquiry into the subject of seed potatoes, and was prepared to offer some suggestions to the Government, but he would defer those remarks till the Bill was introduced. One suggestion he would, however, make to the Chief Secretary, and that was, that in framing his Bill he should take care to make it impossible for the landlord to step in and seize the crops of potatoes for arrears of rent before the tenant could dig them. This was, in fact, done by the landlords on former occasions. He did not believe that the remedies suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would meet the desperate condition of affairs in Ireland. He agreed with his colleague that it was a humiliating thing for them to have to come to the House and beg periodically for their poor people. The blame for this lay, not with the Irish people, but with the British Government and with the system by which Ireland was governed. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would yet, have the satisfaction of voting not merely some beggars' dole to the people of Ireland, but that he would have a hand and part in bestowing on Ireland the one measure which would give to the people of Ireland the right of governing themselves for themselves.

said, the kindly and noble speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that afternoon must force the conviction on everyone that he was as anxious to alleviate the distress as the men who sat upon the Irish Benches. He wished to direct his attention from the abstract, however, to the concrete, and to give him some few instances of individual distress in districts which had come under his notice. They believed that the Chief Secretary had nailed his colours to the mast in regard to these congested districts. It was he who by constant speeches, and by bringing the matter before the public mind, first of all directed English public attention to the distress of Ireland, who actually enforced the institution of the Congested Districts Board, and who was the prime mover in the works which were instituted by the Member for East Manchester. His right hon. Friend had spoken of the distress as a matter of futurity, but the distress, as he knew, was instant, immediate, and pressing. Past Chief Secretaries had been utterly misled as to the extent of this distress by trusting exclusively to official information. This distress was as old and as hateful as the Union, and he could trace its history for 50 years. The last speech O' Connell ever made in the House, was in February, 1847; he was broken in body and in mind, and he burst into tears while asking for food for the people. He was met with the ordinary stereo typed answer that everything was being carefully watched and considered. Within three months of the great Irish famine of 1846 it was stated from the Treasury Bench that all arrangements were made for meeting the distress, and Lord Stanley, afterwards Lord Derby, the then Irish Secretary, said that all fear of an Irish famine had been the baseless fabric of a dream. He was extremely sorry to say so, but the right hon. Gentleman had the same instruments as had the right hon. Member for East Manchester as to the distress in Ireland in 1890. In October, 1890, the Member for East Manchester stated in a letter sent to the Times that the distress in Ireland would be abundantly met by the ordinary provisions of the Poor Law. That was done to counteract two speeches made, at Swinton and St. Helens, by the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chief Secretary himself, in which he described Irish distress, and especially the state of the congested districts in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary knew at that time better about, the condition of the country than the official Chief Secretary for Ireland, because the latter relied only on Local Government Board Inspectors and other Officials, and the former got his information from all who could give it. They wished to penetrate the ring of officials round the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had not told the House the names of the 13 Unions which were to be included in the area to which he had referred.

The Unions are Ballina, Ballinrobe, Bawnboy, Belmullet, Castlebar, Clifden, Galway (West), Glenties, Killala, Milford, Oughterard, Swinford, and Westport.

said that Inver and Arver ought to be included in the list. The workhouse test was absolutely fallacious, for the people in many places would rather die than go into the workhouse. This was proved by the statements of Boards of Guardians and many witnesses. As to outdoor relief, no one could obtain it who owned more than a quarter of an acre of land. That law was passed at the instigation of the landlords for the purpose of driving the people into the workhouse. He had himself visited the distressed districts, from which complaints reached him that the officials were unsympathetic. Local Government Inspectors, he was told, had asked the people whether they were to support them every year, posing apparently as the Executive Government. They also took up the position of advocates of self-reliance, saying—

"If we did not give you relief for one season you would learn to be self-reliant."

He suggested that the Chief Secretary should do something for the development, on a small scale, of piers and harbours. At the village of Inver, a few miles from Donegal, the potato crop had failed completely, and the inhabitants were depending upon the precarious livelihood which they made by fishing. There was a natural bar outside the Bay near Inver, and the Bay, if deepened, would make a wonderfully good harbour. At present the boats were sometimes kept outside the Bay for three or four hours, waiting for a prosperous tide. Masons and skilled labourers would not be required for the construction of the harbour, for the necessary dredging work could be done by the inhabitants of the place themselves under intelligent guidance. There were fifty or sixty cottages in the village, and compared with them any English gentleman's stables were a palace. When he visited these cottages in many of them there was not a morsel of food. In the bedrooms there were only wisps of straw for the occupants to lie upon. Still, they put a good face on their sufferings, and did not seek to make the most of them, although their poverty and actual want were distressing. To mark how the poor people prized their seed potatoes was pathetic and miserable in the last degree to witness. He could assure the Chief Secretary that he now had an opportunity of greatly benefiting Ireland if he would institute work of the kind he had referred to, and would undertake also to see that the public roads in certain parts of the country were renovated and made serviceable. Thus immediate employment might be given. In the village of Glencolumbkille the parish priest told him that in less than a month 100 out of his 300 parishioners would absolutely be in want of food. He went into the houses of many of these people, and could not find a morsel of food in them. He would point out that the distress was not confined to one particular part of Donegal, or one particular part of the western seaboard. He had visited other districts than those he had already mentioned, and in going through the villages he saw the same woe and distress prevailing in them all. He made inquiries in many of those villages as to whether the local Government Inspector had visited them, and was informed that he had not, so that the activeness of the distress had not been officially reported. Both Protestant and Catholic clergy and local officials had told him that the past year had been one of the worst ever experienced in Ireland, and in going from cottage to cottage in the villages along the coast of Donegal he constantly heard the same deplorable story of suffering and distress. He regretted to say that many of the poor people had the idea that if they had not been Catholic peasants, but Protestant loyalists, they would not have been left to starve as they had been. He, of course, did not lay any stress upon this, but it showed the feeling that existed. He questioned the wisdom of employing the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary to act as paymasters in the distribution of the seed potatoes, for he thought Constabulary ought not to be employed in this duty, as there was the risk of their coming into collision with the people. The right hon. Gentleman would no doubt admit that it was an unpleasant duty for him to appear, as he then did, in the guise of one supplicating for assistance for the poor in the distressed districts of Ireland. He relied on the statement of the Chief Secretary that there would be no starvation. He was sorry he had occupied so much time, but a Member of Parliament was unworthy of his position who did not endeavour to the utmost of his ability to alleviate the woes and sufferings of his fellow-men. In conclusion, he would only observe that, having regard to bygone transactions between Irish Members and former Chief Secretaries, there was not a true-hearted Irishman who did not regard the presence of the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench with very great delight.

asked whether the Chief Secretary would not reconsider his decision not to do anything in the shape of instituting relief works in the County of Clare. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that in various Unions in the country resolutions had been passed by the Guardians calling on the Government to do something in face of the distress likely to occur consequent on the failure of the potato crop.

interposing, stated that in his speech he did not speak of any intention not to do anything, but only that at present the Irish Government were confining their attention to the 13 Unions he had named.

was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not definitely made, up his mind to do nothing in Clare, but he was thinking, not of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that night, but of his answer to a question, on the subject the other day. In face of the resolutions alluded to, the right hon. Gentleman could not feel surprised that he should feel it necessary to call particular attention to the distress in various portions of Clare.

Yes; but I must point out that the distress will come in different Unions at different times. My information is that in the Kilrush Union it will be some time between the end of March and the beginning of July.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to consider the situation again, that was all that was required. In the Kildysart Union the Inspector had reported that the potato crop had failed by one-half. It would be a mistake to imagine that there was no likelihood of acute distress in various parts of the county. Whether distress existed acutely now or whether it was more likely to come on in March, there were various portions of County Clare where the condition of the people was very serious, owing to the failure of the potato crop. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would now see the necessity of doing something to meet that distress. He agreed that it was a most humiliating thing for an Irish Member to have to come to that House and appear to beg; but in asking the Chief Secretary to spend some money on this head he did not feel one bit like a beggar. And why? Because last year the House imposed additional taxation to the extent of £300,000 a year upon Ireland, not one penny of which, as far as he knew, would be spent in that country. If they were to pay this additional sum, a large portion of which was to be used for giving employment in the dockyards of England, he failed to see why the Irish Members should be called beggars when they claimed that some portion of the money should be used for the purpose of meeting the distressed condition of their own people. He thought the Chief Secretary was making a great mistake in thinking that the sum of £80,000 would, after deducting the cost of administration, be at all adequate for the purpose of dealing with the distress now existing in all quarters of Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to that amount, he would find, before long, that he would be compelled to come to the House again and ask for additional money. He would ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider his determination with regard to this very limited sum, and to make ample provision for completing the work of relief. He did not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Galway intended to divide upon the matter or not. [Colonel NOLAN: Certainly.] If he did, then he should feel ihimself compelled to vote with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for the reason that he considered the sum which the Chief Secretary had named, to be altogether inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, be inclined to discount somewhat what he (Mr. Redmond) said, because he voted against him the other night, but he would ask him to take the opinion of any Irish Member, even from among his most enthusiastic supporters, as to whether this sum of £80,000, after deducting the costs incidental to administration, would be sufficient to bring relief to the distressed portions of Ireland. He did not think there was an Irish Member who would say that that was a sufficient sum. He, therefore, asked the right lion. Gentleman to reconsider the question of the amount of the relief. In conclusion he hoped the Chief Secretary would not forget he had warned him with regard to the serious condition of certain parts of Clare. If the distress became acute there, it would not be his fault but the right hon. Gentleman's.

Right hon. Members from Ireland might be quite content as to the amount of the expenditure. He never knew an instance yet in which a sum voted for such a purpose as was now contemplated was not exceeded. He had been long enough in the House to witness many deplorable spectacles of representatives of a nation coming to a House, the majority of which consisted of representatives of other nations, and, like mendicants, begging for what was really their own. An hon. Member opposite had said he felt pained to do it. He (Mr. Storey) was always pained to hear his Friends doing it; but he supposed that until the Imperial Parliament gave the Irish people the capacity and means of managing these things for themselves, hon. Members must submit to witness, and the English people must submit to read of, such spectacles again and again. He did not object to the proposed expenditure. Knowing, as he did, how much. England exacted from Ireland, or rather how much more the United Kingdom, for he was anxious to bring in Scotland, enacted from Ireland than she ought, under any righteous arrangement, to take, he was not prepared to object to the small expenditure which was now proposed. He had objected in times past to expenditure in Ireland, and the Chief Secretary had rather twitted him for it. But he had never objected to expenditure there that he thought wise and prudent, and he was quite prepared to admit that, under the special circumstances of the case, the expenditure it was now contemplated to make was a painful necessity laid upon the Chief Secretary and the Government. As an English Member however, he wished the right hon. Gentleman and the Members of the Government to think of the object lesson they were teaching to the English and the Scotch. As he understood the proposal, £80,000—probably a much larger sum—of public money was to be expended in making roads in Ireland, and in giving loans to small holders.

That is just what I said I would not do. I distinctly said I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Balfour) that that was a demoralising form of relief.

was very glad to hear that explanation. The right hon. Gentleman was going by-and-bye to provide a sum with which to provide seed potatoes. [Colonel NOLAN: No, no.] He was going to give indoor and out-door relief to any person, able-bodied or otherwise, so that no person should be left who was in absolute want.

I am not going to give it. I am going to allow Boards of Guardians to give it.

thought that was only a quibble. The right hon. Gentleman intended to take public money, so that no person who was in absolute want should be unprovided for. He made no objection to the proposals of the Government, but wished to point the moral to the House of Commons and especially to the Conservative Party. It was urged in support of this expenditure that Ireland was a poor country and that England was a rich country. All he had got to say to that was that "rich" and "poor" as applied to countries were terms difficult to explain. A country might be rich and yet contain an enormous quantity of poor; and he had no hesitation in saying that to-night there were in London more poor people and more wretchedly poor people than there were in the whole of Ireland. Again, take his own constituency. He was sorry to say that amongst his constituents those in absolute want could be numbered by thousands. The working classes had not been able for months passed, in any of the great industrial centres, to earn more than nine, or ten, or eleven shillings a week. [Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Regular wages," and "hear, hear" from the Nationalist Members.] Yes, but the Irish poor lived in country districts, and not in towns where everything was dear. That made all the difference. He was sure his hon. Friends from Ireland understood that. And for weeks past those working-men had not been able to do a hand-stir, and they were now in misery. In the County of Essex there was also great poverty and destitution. An hon. Member who represented part of Essex had told him that all the industries of Essex were going to wreck and ruin, and even the oysters, against whose credit never a word had been said before, were now suffering depression because it was said they produced typhoid fever. But what he wanted to impress upon the Government was that by adopting those methods in Ireland, for the reasons which they had advanced, they were furnishing an object lesson to the people of England, and they and their successors would find it very difficult to refuse to apply the same policy to this country. That was one of the disadvantages which accrued to Great Britain for not allowing the Irish to manage their own affairs. The Irish had obstructed Parliament, and so compelled the adoption of the Closure; and they had managed in their own way to destroy chances for obtaining reforms which the people of great Britain urgently needed. They had now compelled Ministers to adopt a financial policy which, if it were not applied to England also, would cause immense annoyance and disgust amongst the poor of England; and if it were applied to England would involve the State, as a State, in an enormous expenditure, the end of which no man could foresee.

said there were portions of his constituency, lying along the seaboard of Cork, in which there prevailed destitution as acute as the destitution in any part of the West of Ireland. If the money to relieve this distress was to come out of the Local Rates and not out of Imperial Funds many of the people who would have to contribute the rates would be as poor as the people for whose relief they were intended. That, he thought, was a curious expedient for relieving destitution.

asked the Chief Secretary to state by what means he expected the poor unions to provide funds for meeting the distress when their cheques were dishonoured at the bank. There were other unions and districts besides those on the western coast enumerated by the Chief Secretary, which were just as much in need of relief; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the area of relief proposed as well as the amount of the loan. It had always been found in the past that the official classes tried to minimise the distress, as in the Autumn of 1879 the Duke of Marlborough and Mr. James Lowther proclaimed that there was no such thing as distress in Ireland. Yet within a month after those declarations relief funds had to be raised. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would again examine the information which he had been furnished with. Ample provision should be made for giving employment next summer, and in good time, as he feared that the distress would become acute before the harvest began.

said, that he shared the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for East Mayo that it was disagreeable and painful to have to come year after year before the House of Commons and make these appeals for the relief of distress. But for this state of things no shame or blame attached to the Irish Members or to the Irish people. They had not been allowed to put a hand to the control, direction, or management of their own affairs, and if, 95 years after the Act of Union, the state of a great part of Ireland was what it had been represented to be that night, the blame and the shame rested upon the English Government, with whom rested the responsibility. England was a rich country because it had had the care of a Native Government. Ireland was a poor country because the knowledge and sympathy of a Native Government had not been devoted to her affairs. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) said that there were poor also in Great Britain, and that the precedent which the Government were making now would be brought against them in respect of those poor. As an Irish Member he could only say—and he expressed the views of his colleagues—was that he had great sympathy with the poor in Great Britain; and if the Irish Members could do anything to help in the bettering of their condition by legislation they could rely on the hearty and thorough co-operation of every Irish Member. Did the Chief Secretary mean the relief works to be confined to the making and repairing of roads? That was a very good work. It had this advantage, that it could be set about almost immediately. A memorial was forwarded by him within the past few days to the Local GovernmentBoard in Ireland, asking them to make a mile and a half of new road at Dunfanaghy in the County of Donegal, in order to connect two roads. Within the last 24 hours he had received from the Congested Districts Board in Dublin a reply to the effect that they had no funds with which to make the new road. No doubt this was a perfectly good reason; but, under the scheme sketched by the Chief Secretary, that work, and others of a similar kind, might be carried out with advantage to the people of the district. Again, on the western coast of Donegal an immense benefit would be conferred on the people by the repairing, extending, and creating of new piers. He knew of many small piers which were now inadequate and insufficient, and which might be made very useful to the people if further extended. There was a pier on this coast which was almost useless, because outside were two rocks practically debarring vessels of any size whatever from coming within shelter of the pier at certain stages of the tide. By a little expenditure of money those obstacles could be removed, thereby improving the position of the fishermen and others in the locality. Was such necessary work as this outside the scope of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? On the whole he thought that the Chief Secretary had handled this subject in a sympathetic spirit. The scheme in his judgment would be a useful one, and it would work well. He thought, however, that the grant of money was put at a rather low figure; and he suggested that as the House was in a generous mood it would not quarrel with a Minister who proposed a somewhat more liberal grant for the completion and carrying out of useful and necessary works. He invited the Chief Secretary to have courage in this matter, and he hoped that before it was closed the right lion. Gentleman would reconsider his proposal.

requested the Chief Secretary to reconsider that part of his scheme which dealt with the interference of the police. He could not help observing that during the evening the representatives of the landlords had been absent from the House.

said, he had no right to interfere again, but he should like to be allowed to answer one or two questions, He was asked, "Why confine the work exclusively to roads?" So far as his inquiries had gone that seemed to be the form of work most conducive to the object they desired to pursue; but if in the course of their inquiries they found out other work, this point would be carefully considered. As to the amount of money, he believed that the sum of £80,000 would meet the demands likely to be made upon it. If it was found that the sum was inadequate, it was open to them to come down to the House and ask for more. That would be their imperative duty. It was their business to see this crisis tided over.

objected on the ground that he had not seen the Bill; and he asked the Lord Advocate what he had to say about it?

said, the object of the Bill was to remove a doubt which had arisen in connection with a particular word in the Act of last year, and, although he did not share the doubt, it was, in view of the approaching Parish Council elections, of great importance that it should be removed as soon as possible. He therefore hoped the objection of the hon. Member would not be pressed.

said, if he were assured that the Bill contained a clause to prevent the deportation of Irish paupers who had spent their lives in Scotland, he would allow it to be read a second time, but in the absence of that assurance he must persist in his objection, The Second Reading was accordingly deferred.