I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether the guide to Kew Gardens has been out of print for eight years, and whether a new edition was almost ready three year ago; whether another summer is to be allowed to pass without its publication; and how soon a guide to Museum 2 is to be issued.

The general guide-book to Kew Gardens has been for some year out of print. Owing to the, extensive development of the collections, and their re-organization, a mere revision of the old guide would be worthless and misleading. Each department is being worked up and catalogued in detail, and rapid progress is being made in this work, which must be accomplished before the new edition of the popular guide can be issued. Every effort is being made to hasten the publication but I must remind my hon. Friend that the resources of the Kew establishment are being strained to the uttermost by the growing demands of the Government Departments, India, and the Colonies. In the meantime an enlarged key-plan appears to satisfy the requirements of the bulk of visitors. The guide to Museum 2 is ready, and will be published as soon as the index is finished.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the late lamentable accident at the Snailbeach lead-mine in Shropshire, in which a number of miners lost their lives, owing to the breaking of an unsound rope which had been in use for nine years; whether he is aware that the Government Inspector at the inquest expressed his dissatisfaction at the way in which the rope was looked after; whether it has been ascertained, who, if anyone, was responsible for the supervision of the rope; and whether any further proceedings will be taken; if he will inquire whether a system prevails in this mine compelling the miners to buy from the owners, at a price alleged to be excessive, gunpowder, fuses, and candles; and, whether this system is in accordance with the provisions of the Truck Act?

I have received a report from the inspector, who says that the rope had been in use eight-and-a-half years, which he considers too long a period, and that some specified person ought to have been deputed to grease it; that the outward appearance of the rope did not betray its inner corrosion; and that in his opinion no contravention of the Acts of Parliament had been committed. The question whether the law in this respect requires amendment will be considered by the inspectors at their next meeting. Under the Truck Acts, it is allowable for the miners to contract to buy their materials, such as gun powder, from the employers, and to pay even an unreasonable price for them. The Bill introduced by me is aimed at the kind of evil complained of by the hon. Member, for it does not permit any but reasonable prices to be paid or deducted from wages. If the hon. Member will supply me with any details of the acts complained of they shall be investigated.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if it is in accordance with Law to use a scringe net for the catching of herrings in inlets and lochs in Scotland; and, if not, whose duty is it to prevent such a mode of fishing, which is stated to be very destructive of fish?

It is lawful to use a scringe net for the catching of herrings in small inlets and lochs in Scotland. That mode of fishing might, I believe, be prohibited by the Fishery Board, if they considered it expedient to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that objections have been lodged against the bye-laws submitted by him to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the Volunteer shooting range at Kingcase, Prestwick, Ayrshire, whereby it is proposed to shut up a portion of the seashore between Ayr and Prestwick three days a week during the summer months by the Ayr Town Council, the Ayr Harbour Trustees, the Freemen and Community of Newton and also of Prestwick, the superiors of the land on which the ranges are situated and of the adjoining lands, the adjoining proprietors and others interested, and the proprietors and tenants of lands and houses in Prestwick, New Prestwick, Kingcase, and Prestwick-road, Newton; and whether it is his intention to continue the application for bye-laws against the wish of the public bodies and the other parties whose interests are interefered with?

The objections to the proposed bye-laws have been received, and are under consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the unequal incidence of the School Board Rate, and of the hardship inflicted upon localities where large numbers of the working classes are collected, and the assessable value is in consequence low, he can introduce a Bill to remedy this inequality, or appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the question?

I fully recognise the great hardships caused to certain school districts by the pressure of the School Board Rate, where the industrial population is large and the rateable value low. The question is one of considerable difficulty. I am afraid immediate legislation is not possible, but I have directed that inquiry shall be made in the department into the facts as they affect various localities, so that they may be carefully tabulated. As the question is only part of a very much larger question, the Government do not find it possible to appoint a Select Committee on it at present.

said he would consider the question of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the scrutiny of votes for the Rathgormach electoral division of the Carrick-on-Suir union shows that Mr. Maurice Kennedy obtained 80 votes, while Mr. Michael Power obtained only 51; that the returning officer has declared Mr. Michael Power duly elected, on the ground that the writing of the signature of the nominator of Mr. Maurice Kennedy in the nomination paper does not precisely resemble his writing of his signature in his voting paper; and that the nominator of Mr. Kennedy has made a statutory declaration and forwarded it to the Local Government Board to the effect that his signature to the nomination paper is in his own handwriting; and whether the Local Government Board will, under the circumstances, direct the returning officer to amend his return by declaring Mr. Maurice Kennedy duly elected?

The Local Government Board received yesterday a complaint regarding the action of the returning officer in this matter, together with the statutory declaration referred to. The papers will be forwarded to the returning officer for his observations before further action is taken. I may add that the Board have no power to direct a returning officer to amend his return of a poor law election, but the Board, if satisfied that the person returned by him has no right to act as a Guardian, can set aside the return and order a fresh election to take place.

, may I ask if he is entitled to vote in the meantime as an elected member of the Board.

That is a legal point that I cannot answer, but I will inquire.

May I ask the Chief Secretary if he will inquire immediately, as a division is expected to-morrow of great importance.

I cannot get a legal opinion by to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether two of the Justices, included by the Clerk of the Union of Carrick-on-Suir in the list of ex-officio guardians for the union, namely, Messrs. Edward Bowers and George W. Withers, who are non-resident, are entitled to act, in view of the fact that there are other non-resident Justices, namely, Viscount Clifden, who is a Justice of the county of Kilkenny, and Mr. Goodman, who is a Justice of the county of Kerry, who both possess a higher rating qualification in the Carrick-on-Suir Union than Messrs. Bowers and Withers; whether, under Section 7 of the 12th & 13th Vic., c. 104, as defined by the circular letter of the Local Government Board in reference thereto, the Clerk of the Union was bound to include Viscount Clifden and Mr. Goodman in the list of ex-officio guardians on the 29th September last, they having been on that date acting Justices for the counties in which they reside; and whether the Local Government Board will at once direct the amendment of the list of ex-officio guardians by striking off the names of those who have been acting as guardians up to the present?

A complaint was only received by the Local Government Board on the 27th instant, in reference to the action of the Returning Officer in the preparation of the list referred to, and the Board are now in communication with that officer on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the reformatory ship Clarence, on the River Mersey, is supported almost entirely from taxes and rates, and that the committee of management includes no representatives of the taxpayers or ratepayers; whether he is aware that, although after careful consideration of the report of the recent official inquiry he has recommended the reinstatement of the captain, and that the responsibility for the recent smallpox scandals rested with the medical officer, the committee of management have now decided that the captain is not to be reinstated but is to leave the ship on 5th April, while the services of the medical officer are retained; whether the committee will be called upon to reconsider their decision; and what further action he proposes to take in vindication of the conclusions of the official inquiry?

The ship may be said to be entirely supported by the rates and taxes, as last year the contributions from these sources amounted to £4,400 19s., and the private subscriptions to £6. The committee may, therefore, in a sense, be said to represent the rate and tax payers. The facts are as suggested in the question. A letter has been written to the committee of management stating that:—

"The Secretary of State must insist on the reinstatement of Captain Statham in command of the Clarence, and unless he hears that the committee are prepared to adopt this course it will be his duty to take steps for the withdrawal of the certificate which they now hold."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, after the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops Bill, he intends to move to refer it to a Standing Committee; and, if so, to which Standing Committee?

Yes; to the Standing Committee on Trade.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Board have taken, or intend to take, in order to inform themselves as to when it may be desirable or not to appoint a medical assessor in the terms of Section 3, Sub-section 1, of the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894?

The Accident Returns are examined, and in cases of sufficient importance the Board of Trade appoint a competent person to hold an investigation. No inquiry has yet been held in which the appointment of a medical assessor has been found to be necessary, but each case will be considered on its merits.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the event of a candidate seeking election on a school board, and having children who are paid officials of that board, and such children canvassing on their parents' behalf, he would be disqualified?

If the hon. Gentleman refers, as I assume, to Section 34 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, the Department have no power to decide any question which arises under that section. The section places the decision under the jurisdiction, of the courts of law.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the last available day for moving an Address relating to the Scotch Education Code; and whether, having regard to the importance of the, changes made in the New Code regarding training of teachers, the arrangements for Queen's students, and the great inconvenience attending such discussions after mid-night, the Government will provide for the discussion coming on at a reasonable hour?

The period of one month during which the Code must, as prescribed by Section 67 of the Act of 1872, lie before Parliament expires on Thursday the 4th of April. Any question with regard to the business of the House had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I cannot think that it will be possible to bring on the discussion at an earlier hour than usual.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the unequal competition to which the British and Irish farmers are subject through the importation of large quantities of bounty-assisted cheese and butter, he will try and induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the propriety of neutralising these bounty systems by imposing Import Duties on such goods equivalent to the amount of the bounty?

No Sir, with the experience of other countries before our eyes, I cannot undertake to propose to my right hon. Friend that we should embark upon a policy of retaliatory tariffs. I may perhaps add, that the interesting report by Sir Joseph Crowe on the Agriculture, Bounties, and General Trade, of France, which was delivered this morning, is an instructive Commentary on the cost and results of a protective system, and I hope that it may receive consideration at the hands of those agriculturists who look for assistance in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a duty designed to countervail bounties is in the nature of a protective duty?

I imagine that it is generally understood to be so.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of the Trade if he can state whether the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses are taking any steps to obtain the statutory sanction of Trintity House for the erection of a lighthouse on Tiumpan Head, so that this much-needed work may be included in next year's Estimates.

No Sir, I cannot. Proposals for new lighthhouses in Scotland do not come before me until the Trinity House have considered and decided on applications made by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on the 19th instant.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the lighthouse authorities have arrived at a decision since the 21st February last as to what works will be commenced this year, and whether, seeing that the proposed lighthouse on Flannen Islands was approved several years since, and that in consequence of the dangerous character of the coast in that part workmen can only be employed for a short time during the summer, steps will be taken to start operations as soon as the fine weather sets in?

said: The Estimates of the three General Lighthouse Authorities are still under my consideration. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on the 21st of last month, as to the impossibility of undertaking this year all the new works which have in principle been approved. I then told him that the proposed Lighthouse on the Flannen Islands was one of those approved in principle.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of Erbusaig, Lochalsh, Ross-shire, to the effect that, in the interests of the fishing and crofting population, there should be at least three openings in the embankment of the new railway in that district; and whether steps have been taken to prevent the construction of the embankment without the necessary openings to the seashore?

I have received from the Secretary for Scotland the petition referred to by the hon. Member, and will carefully consider the representations of the petitioners whenever the working drawings of the railway embankment are submitted to me by the Highland Railway Company, which has not yet been done.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has yet completed arrangements for the accommodation of Members desiring to use type-writing machines within the precincts of this House?

The number of hon. Members who themselves use type-writing machines is very small, and I am afraid I cannot set apart any room for their special use. But I have now made arrangements by which a staff of clerks, with the requisite number of machines, will be at the service of hon. Members, and prepared to take work at a price which has been agreed upon. The room to be used specially for this purpose will be the smaller of the rooms formerly occupied by the Railway Commissioners, access to which is obtained on the south side of St. Stephen's Hall. Work will lie begun on Wednesday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have submitted proposals tending to ameliorate the conditions of service, furlough, &c., of European officials, of the Indian police and other branches of the Civil (Uncovenanted) Service of India; and, if so, whether any decision has been come to thereon; and, if not, whether a speedy one may be expected?

, replying in the absence of MR. H. H. FOWLER, said: The Government of India have submitted proposals respecting the leave rules of the various Civil Departments in India. These are now under the consideration of the Secretary of State, but before a final decision can be passed on all points, a further reference to the Government of India will probably be necessary.

called attention to the very heavy contributions for military purposes which had been imposed on the Straits Settlements, with the result that all the unofficial Members of the Legislative Council had resigned, and the official Members of the Council had to pass the Vote, although they had expressed a strong opinion against the justice of the claim. As to the mode of levying military contributions for military purposes on the various Colonies, he said that those Colonies might be roughly divided into four classes. In the first place there were the self-governing Colonies—colonies which had a Constitutional Government of their own and which were practically, so far as administering their own affairs were concerned, independent states. With regard to them the rule was for them to supply their own local defences, but in the case where there were Imperial coaling stations situated within the limits of the Colonies they contributed nothing whatever annually to the cost of the Imperial stations. In one or two instances he believed that they had contributed a portion of the expense of building fortifications, but beyond that they did nothing whatever. Then there was the second class of what might be called semi-self governing Colonies. They had absolute control of their own expenditure, and, while they did little towards supplying the needs of their own local defences, they also availed themselves of the control of their own finances to refuse to pay anything towards an Imperial contribution to keep up the coaling station or the Imperial garrison. In the next place there were such Colonies as Gibraltar which contributed nothing either to local or Imperial defence; and, therefore, with regard to the third class of Colonies there was this fact to be noted, that in no case whatever did they contribute any annual sum towards the maintenance of Imperial garrisons within their confines. But a certain class of Crown Colonies were in a different position altogether. They not only had to maintain their own local defences, but they had to pay the expenses, in some cases the whole, in other cases a very large portion, of the Imperial garrison. The Colonies under this head were Hong Kong, Mauritius, Ceylon, and the Straits. In all those cases contributions for Imperial military purposes were very heavy indeed. But there was no Colony in this class so hardly treated as the Colony of the Straits Settlements. Ceylon, with 1,650 troops, paid £80,000 a year; Hong Kong, with 3,000 troops, £40,000 a year; Mauritius, with 1,000 troops, £18,000 a year; and the Straits Settlements, with 1,500 troops, £100,000 a year, with the possibility of this amount being increased to £150,000 a year within four years, and it had also to pay largely towards the expenses of building barracks. Let the House compare the Crown Colonies with some of the other Colonies. The West African Colonies, with 1,200 troops, and the West Indian Colonies, with 4,500 troops, contributed nothing towards Imperial expenditure. The case was made worse by the fact that this heavy expenditure was solely upon the defence of an Imperial station which practically was of no value whatever to the local defences. The fortifications at Singapore were concentrated entirely on the local depôt at the New Harbour, and there was no defence at Penang or Malacca. What was the justification for the unusual charge? He was unable to trace any justification for so heavy and exceptional a charge. In 1866 Singapore, Penang, and Malacca were taken over from India, he believed at their own request. The reason of that step was to avoid the very heavy general Indian charges which they had to pay—charges amounting to nearly 25 per cent. of their then small revenue. The charges now imposed upon them came to 25 per cent. of the increased revenue which the exigencies and the trade of the times had enabled them to raise. It was, however, distinctly understood at the time that the Straits Settlements were to bear only the cost of their local defence. Singapore was not an important Imperial station at this time; and what they were to pay for these local defences was put at a maximum of £50,000 a year. The conditions of transfer were clear on that point:—

"The payment of the Colony for military defence shall be £50,000 if the cost of the troops stationed there shall amount to or exceed that sum."

That was to say, in no case were these expenses to exceed £50,000, and if the actual cost of the troops there did not amount to that sum the colony was not to pay so much; £50,000 was to be the maximum. Although these were the terms of the transfer, the Government from that day to this had steadily maintained the opinion that the Imperial Government itself was not to incur any extra expenditure on account of the transfer, and they based that argument, not on any agreement made between the Home Government or the Indian Government and these Settlements, but simply on some correspondence which passed between the War Office and the Colonial Office. On the 28th of March, 1866, the terms of transfer were further confirmed by a letter from the War Office in a despatch to the Colonial Office. On the 25th of May, 1866, the Treasury wrote to the Colonial Office, stating that Mr. Cardwell, who was then Secretary of State for War—

"does not consider that the Settlements can be called upon to incur any charge that may be required for troops stationed at Singapore for for Imperial purposes."

That showed that the sum of £50,000 was to be devoted entirely to local defences. No doubt a change occurred owing to the opening of the Suez Canal, in consequence of which Singapore became a very important port of call for ships which had originally gone round by the Cape. The importance of Cape Town was transferred to Singapore, which became the great emporium of the eastern trade. Although the Colony might have stood by the terms of the Agreement of 1866, it fell in with a Revised Agreement, so anxious was it to do everything fair in the matter. It agreed that, up to 1890, whatever the cost of the Imperial troops stationed at Singapore was—whether it amounted to less than.£50,000 or not—it would pay £50,000 by way of military contribution. But, at the same time, the Imperial Government asked the Colony to contribute to certain Imperial works and armaments which were being constructed in the Straits Settlements at that time, and it distinctly refused to contribute a penny to them on the ground that they were Imperial works and not local defences at all. That took place about 1871 or 1872. Time went on, trade increased, and the Colony undoubtedly was further benefited by the increased trade of England to the East. In 1881, the Royal Commission which sat, under the presidency of Lord Carnarvon, to inquire into the general question of coaling stations, arrived at the conclusion that Singapore would form a very important military and coaling station for Imperial purposes. That being so, Singapore was chosen as an Imperial coaling station, and the Straits Settlements agreed, in consideration of defences being constructed there, to contribute £81,000 towards the cost of the actual fortifications. But it was distinctly understood at the time between the Straits Settlements and the Home Government that, if they contributed the £81,000 towards fortifications the ordinary contribution was to go on exactly as before. That went on till the year 1890, arid then it was maintained on the part of the Home Government that not only the temporary arrangement of 1882, but also the agreement under which the Settlements were transferred from the Indian Government to the Home Government came to an end. They at once proceeded to lay an enormous charge—double the previous amount of the military contribution—upon the Settlements. In 1889 the Home Government suddenly informed the Government of the Straits Settlements that instead of a military contribution of £50,000 a year they would for the next four years have to find no less a sum than £100,000 in addition to the actual cost they had incurred in connection with the fortifications. When the announcement was made there was naturally a very strong feeling of resentment in the Colony; not only the unofficial members protested, but actually the Governor of the Colony himself wrote home showing the injustice done to the Colony. The Government at home were relentless: they said the £100,000 a year must be levied, and the official members of the Legislative Council voted the money in spite of their own private convictions. In 1890–91–92, and he thought in 1893, the £100,000 was voted in the same way, simply by the official members of the Council. Owing to certain circumstances the burden was enormously increased. In the first place there was a heavy fall in exchange, which in itself would very largely add to the expenses. Then, again, there was the fact that in previous years, in order to meet the heavy extra expenditure, all the surplus which the Colony had accumulated during years of fairly good trade, and when the military contribution was small, had been exhausted by the extra military contribution. In 1893 the Colony was stranded with no reserve whatever, and they had to pay the heavy contribution out of their annual receipts. They had to cut down their expenditure. Education was largely checked, and even public works were altogether stopped. Fresh taxes were imposed on the Colony, and the result was that while in 1889 the revenue of the Colony had been 4½ millions of dollars, in 1894 it had fallen to something like 3½ million dollars. In 1891, so serious had the circumstances of the Colony become, that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) distinctly promised in the House of Commons that if things went on, and if the Revenue of the Colony was reduced and this heavy military contribution had to be still levied, the Government at home would seriously consider the matter, and see whether some reduction might take place. Lord Ripon had since then been approached, he did not remember whether by the Government or by the unofficial representatives of the Colony, and the result was that his Lordship had promised to make certain concessions. He understood that instead of the sum of £100,000 annually they were to be required to pay £80,000 for 1894, and £90,000 for 1895. That at first sight might seem to be a concession, but practically it was no concession at all. Certainly it was not a carrying out of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1891. In 1891, at the rate of exchange, £100,000 meant 650,000 dollars, whereas at the present rate of exchange £90,000 meant 900,000 dollars. Therefore, the actual payment of the Colony was a great deal larger and heavier now than it was in 1891. But the case did not rest there. This was only a temporary concession, and it was only on the system of deferred payment. Although in those two years £30,000 less would be paid by the colony than would have been the case if the contribution of £100,000 had gone on, Lord Ripon was not going to retard the concession beyond 1894 and 1895, and the great contention of the Home Office that this colony, unlike all other colonies, was liable to be called up to pay the total cost of this military expenditure. In fact there was no concession whatever; there was only a system of deferred payment. He thought this a mere shuffling of the question. It was most unfair to the Straits Settlements, because it was utterly impossible for the colony to put its finances on a sound foundation or to know the scale on which they should buy taxes if they were always to be in a state of uncertainty as to the military contribution the Home Government was going to force upon them every year. The colony offered to contribute £70,000 a year, which, taking into account the rate of exchange, represented a much larger value in dollars. That, he thought, was a very fair offer indeed, considering all the circumstances. It should be remembered that the complaint of the Straits Settlement was not only that this heavy charge which they were unable to bear—for they had had a deficit in three years—was put upon them; but that it was almost exactly the same amount as they had to pay to India before they were transferred to the Home Government. In 1866, the colony got transferred from the Indian Government to the Imperial Government for the purpose of avoiding those heavy general charges. There had, however, been no improvement in that respect. In fact, the Straits Settlements were now actually loaded with far heavier charges under the Home Government than they ever had to meet under the Indian Government. But he ventured to say that in the manner in which those heavy charges were forced upon them by the great grievance of the Straits Settlements against the Imperial Government. The colony had a charter which enabled them to control their own finances for the purposes of the colony. It also had a Legislative Council, but it seemed to be a mere sham, because undoubtedly this contribution had been forced upon the Legislative Council in a mode the Imperial Government dare not have resorted to, if the Legislative Council had been a true representative body. Everybody in the colony in a truly representative capacity had protested against this charge. The unofficial members of the Legislative Council had carried their protest to the extent of throwing up their positions on the Council. The official members of the Council could not have gone so far as that, but they also had protested, through the voice of the Governor, against this charge. What was the use of a Legislative Council of that kind? It was no protection whatever to the colony. Such a state of things would not be tolerated in any self-governing or even semi-self-governing colony. He thought that on all those grounds the Straits Settlements had got a fair grievance against the Home Government. He believed the Colonial Office was inclined to take a fair view of the case; but they had to fight against the War Office and the Treasury, and their chances of overcoming those departments were small indeed. But, nevertheless, he hoped the Under Secretary for the Colonies would be able to announce that some concession had been made in the exorbitant demand of the Imperial Government on the Straits Settlement.

said, it was evident the hon. Member for Preston had given very deep attention to this particular matter of the contribution made by the Straits Settlements towards Imperial Defence; but he was wrong in his statement that self-governing colonies did not contribute towards the expenses of Imperial garrisons and the coaling stations of the Empire. He was also surprised to find the hon. Gentleman instituting a comparison in this matter between a rich trading colony like the Straits Settlements and the miserable West African Colonies such as the Crown Colony of Sierra Leone. The port at Sierra Leone had been fortified simply for the protection of Imperial trade in time of war. Sierra Leone did not derive any trade benefit in time of peace from the port, while the immense trade of Singapore rendered its fortifications necessary for its protection. The hon. Member for Preston seemed to think that the dominant factor in the transfer of the Straits Settlement from India to the Home Government was the desire that the Straits Settlement should escape its payment towards the defence of the Empire as part of India. That might have been the intention of the colony, but it certainly was not the intention of the Home Government when they consented to the change. But it was hardly worthy of the rich merchants of a place like Singapore to desire to pay less than was paid by the much poorer population of India towards the defence of the Empire. They should at least be willing to contribute something like the sum which they would contribute had they remained part of the Indian Empire. The hon. Member said that the people of Singapore could not pay this money because they had a deficit. That was a relative matter, and depended upon the taxation they raised. The taxation of the Straits Settlements was less than the taxation of India, and if they had a deficit they must meet it as India had to meet it, in the usual way. He was bound to say there was a larger aspect of this question which appealed to himself. In the present state of unrest in the minds of the inhabitants of large parts of India, it seemed to him unwise that they should do anything to give colour to the view that India was overtaxed in connection with imperial defence. No doubt, as the hon. Member had said, the Colonial Office for the sake of peace would be glad, if they could see their way, to diminish the contributions from the colonies. But he did not think the pressure of this House ought to be exercised in that sense. They ought, on the contrary, to encourage all Governments to insist upon the full adoption of the principle that each crown colony—especially where it was wealthy, as he thought this colony was—should pay its full measure towards the services of imperial defence.

was very glad the right hon. Baronet had called attention to the fact that the question introduced by his hon. Friend was one essential part of a great whole, and he hoped that neither the Government nor the House would ever consider or deal with it as if it were not so. This question really resolved itself into two great divisions, and the case of Singapore was a good case in point, but only in point, because the question they were now dealing with applied to every part of their empire. The two divisions were those of territorial defence and contributions to the defence of their communication. In regard to territorial defence it was essential in the case of a self-governing colony to leave that matter in the hands of the local colonial government, and in their self-governing colonies he believed there were now 80,000 armed and trained men concerned in the defence of these portions of the Empire, for which the Empire contributed nothing whilst their self-governing colonies did in a large and increasing ratio contribute to the defence of imperial connection and communication. But to come back to Singapore. They were dealing with the necessary or right contributions of those colonies which were not self-governing, and for which the Imperial Government still retained the responsibility of defence. He was sorry the right hon. Baronet should have termed their West African settlements miserable.

By comparison with Singapore.

thought when the right hon. Gentleman got hold of the most recent statistics he would find at the present day not only were they of more importance than he imagined, but that they were rapidly increasing in that importance by a ratio of growth quite unprecedented in any other colony. He might say that the West African settlements were now doing a trade of £10,000,000 sterling, which was a far larger trade than was done by all the West Indian Islands or Ceylon, and far larger than the local trade of Singapore. These contributions from crown colonies were matters of the highest importance in the great question of Imperial defence, and when they were dealing with Singapore they were dealing with the ratio which a crown colony ought to bear to that imperial defence, because they had to place Imperial troops in those Colonies for the sake of defending that portion of the territory of the Empire without any regard to Imperial communication. And the advantage that these Colonies not only enjoyed but acknowledged was that a great deal of the expenditure due to the presence of an Imperial Garrison in a Colony was made within the Colony itself and largely promoted its prosperity. He knew that the West Indian Colonies competed with each other for the honour and advantage of obtaining an Imperial Garrison. It was not a one-sided imposition by the imperial authorities to place an imperial garrison in a Colony. He only wished to point out that the case of Singapore was an instance in one great whole, and must be dealt with in that spirit. He would also add that any conditions they imposed must be liable to variation, because all these Colonies were in process of growth and were continually altering not only in their actual position at the moment, but in their position in the near future, and he hoped the Government might have some proposal to make which should bring these considerations into the estimates of what the Colonies ought to pay. He had himself gone carefully into the subject of Singapore, and the general conclusion he had arrived at was that at the present moment perhaps in comparison with other places Singapore paid too much. He should be glad if these Colonial contributions could be arranged on some general scale which would take into consideration the benefits of the defence of the Empire as a whole, which would satisfy the different Colonies that what was done was in their best interest, and show them that the home Government was not levying unfair contributions from them for the purposes of Imperial defence.

protested against the milk-and-water speeches which they had heard. What were the facts? The contributions levied on Singapore dare not be levied on any Colony enjoying responsible Government. These contributions were levied against the wishes of the Governor appointed by the Colonial Office, against the wishes of the officials there, and of every inhabitant. He appealed to the House to allow some investigation to be made in this matter so that Singapore and Hong Kong might only be charged that which in justice they ought to be called upon to pay. The levy now made on Singapore was so great, that in order to meet it expenditure in directions which would tend to the material improvement of the Colony had to be curtailed. If a Committee were appointed to consider the whole question the people of Singapore and Hong Kong would agree to pay what such Committee decided was their fair contribution, but it was monstrous that they should be called upon to bear a burden which was too heavy for their resources.

said, there was only one word he desired to say with reference to the historical part of the hon. Member for Preston's speech, and that was that if the Straits Settlements had remained part of India the military contribution which they would have to pay at the present moment would be probably a far larger proportion as part of the Indian than it was as part of the British Empire. He had to explain to the House that, though officially representing the Colonial Office in regard to this matter, this question was one which affected three Departments—namely, the War Office, the Treasury, and the Colonial Office, and therefore anything he could say was rather restricted, inasmuch as he could not speak the opinion of the three Departments, but only that of one of them. If this question was to be discussed in a broad view it must be discussed as affecting the Colonies as a whole. He did not propose, however, to discuss it from that broad view, as the hon. Member for Preston had dealt with it from the point of view of the Straits Settlement alone. He agreed with the hon. Member that it would be very invidious if there was to be any discussion between the Colonial Office and a Colony as to the fair share which the latter ought to bear of local Imperial charges. It was not likely under present circumstances, and when the sums were fixed that the two parties would ever agree as to what was a fair share to pay. As regarded the Home Government, they had recognised to the full that the circumstances not only of the Straits Settlements, but of other Colonies, had materially changed for the worse during the last few years because of the falling off in trade, and more especially because of the fall in exchange. The same sterling contribution at the present time threw a much heavier charge on the Colonies in silver dollars than was the case a few years ago. As regarded the contribution of the Straits Settlements, the Home Government had endeavoured to do something to alleviate their position. The Government agreed that, instead of the contribution of £100,000 a year, which was exacted from them during the last few years, and which it was intended to renew, it should only be £80,000 for 1894, and also a reduced sum for1895. The hon. Member had misunderstood the position of the Colony and of the Home Government in regard to future years. If he would refer to the Dispatch written by the Colonial Office, which represented the three Departments, he would see that it had been specifically promised to the Colony that, if their material position altered for the worse during the next three years, that circumstance would be taken into favourable account by the Home Government as regarded the contribution.

Has the Dispatch been published?

was not sure that it had been actually laid before the House, but it had been published in the papers out there In the sentence in which Lord Ripon stated the position of the Home Government, he said that—

"should unexpected circumstances arise, such as a very material fall in silver…Her Majesty's Government would not fail to take note of the altered situation, and to consider any representation which the Colony might make with regard to the situation generally."

He thought the hon. Member had forgotten too much that there was another side to this question, and that was the side of the British taxpayer, because, while it was certainly understood, when the Straits Settlements were taken over from India, that they should bear the local costs of their defence, if hon. Members would look at the figures they would see that, assuming the contribution of £100,000 during the current five years, the cost to the Colony would be half-a-million, but to the English taxpayer it would not be less than £275,000. Therefore, the English taxpayer was bearing a very material portion of the local defence of the Straits Settlements. That was a matter which ought to be taken into account in considering the amount of the contribution. He would only say in conclusion that all desired, if possible, and it was to our interest to come to, an amicable arrangement with these Colonies. The friction between the Home Government and the Colonies was a great source of discomfort to the Colonial Office and to the Colonies; and if they could arrive at some conclusion, on some basis fair alike to the Colony and the Home Government, whereby the contribution should form some proportionate part of their material position year by year, it would, he thought, be much better than the arrangement of these fixed sums, over which there were these perpetual wrangles. The Departmental Committee was now sitting, and they had practically already made their Report, and he trusted it would only be a short time before whatever conclusions they arrived at would be put into force, and that they might not on any future occasion have these questions raised in the House, which caused considerable friction between the Colonies and the Home Government. He believed the result of the inquiry would be an arrangement satisfactory to the Home Government and the Eastern Colonies alike.

asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies for further information as to the actual state of affairs in Swaziland. The House would remember that the Debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire the other day was brought to an abrupt conclusion by the action of the Government, who pleaded, as an excuse for stopping the Debate, the public interest. He confessed he was not able to recognise at the moment, nor had he been able to understand since, the validity of the plea. In his opinion the plea of public interest should never be used by a Government, except in the most extreme cases, and inasmuch as no information could possibly reach Swaziland except through the Boer telegraphs, and the Boers exercised a strict censorship over all telegrams, the alleged danger of the Swazis being incited to incite the wrath of the Boers by resistance was a chimerical danger. They knew well that, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, the Swazis had been abandoned. They had, in his opinion, been betrayed. Our old allies, to whom we were bound, by honour and gratitude, as well as by Treaty, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, had been given up to their bitter enemies. What had happened since, the Convention of December 1894, by which the Government had entirely abandoned the Swazis? It was agreed by that Convention that Her Majesty's Government should press on the Swazi Queen Regent and the Council to issue the Organic Proclamation. That Organic Proclamation amounted to a formal statement by the Swazis that they had resigned their independence, and accepted the Government and Administration of the Boers. For 15 months, since November 1893, Her Majesty's Government had used every endeavour to get the Swazis to issue that Proclamation. They had steadily refused. The Queen Mother and the Queen Regent both emphatically refused to sign. They said: "We will never sign it." The young King said: "We will never sign the Proclamation." And an old chieftain, one of the envoys who came over here, made an interesting and remarkable statement. He said—

"We will never sign. We will never accept Boer rule until Her Majesty, the great Queen, our Mother, also puts herself under the Boers, and if the great Queen puts herself under the Boers, then we, the dogs of the great Queen, will follow her, and put ourselves also under the Boers."

That was the answer of the whole Swazi people. Now he would call attention to the action of the Boers. On January 12 President Kruger mobilised his artillery at a place on the north-eastern border. That fact aroused some interest in this country, and a telegram was sent over here to state that the artillery was not mobilised against the Swazis but against the Basutos. On the 13th of February came the final and emphatic refusal of the Swazis to accept Boer domination. Generals Joubert and Schmidt went down to the borders of Swazis and summoned a commando and assembled a little over a thousand rifles. The artillery was brought up and every menace was made for the occupation of Swazi in force. This occurred at the end of February. But the Boers received some alarming information—and, no doubt, their Govment also received the same information privately—to the effect that a very formidable combination of the natives had been organised to assist the Boer attacks. And, in addition, he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman had information that there was a considerable movement among the non-Boer population of the Transvaal who were ready to give practical help to the Swazis in case they were attacked. In consequence of that, the Boers hesitated, and he thought, very wisely hesitated, to go in. Now came a part of the narrative which he did not speak of with confidence, because they had not yet received any written accounts; and no private telegrams were allowed to go over the Boer wires. He understood the hon. Gentleman the other day to state that there was no truth in the report that communications to Her Majesty s Government were under the control of the Boers.

What I said was, that the communications that were received came from the High Commissioner, who received them direct from our representative in Swaziland, and that, of course, there was no possibility of tampering with them.

said, he had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government received their communications, especially those in cypher, without being tampered with, but what he understood was that all the public and private telegrams were under the control of the Boers, and he still asserted that. The rest of the story was, he admitted, more or less conjecture, and it was with regard to that he wished for information from the hon. Gentleman. What he believed to have happened was this. The Boers, alarmed by this native combination and the effervescence, if not more, among the non-Boer population in the Transvaal, and also the movement in this country, decided upon a compromise. The hon. Gentleman had informed the House that the Organic Proclamation, which the Government had been urging in every way, fair and unfair, upon this unfortunate people for 11 months no longer existed, and had been abandoned. That admission pointed to a compromise. The hon. Gentleman also told the House that an interview had been arranged between the young Swazi King and the Boer generals. He did not know where the interview took place, but believed it was outside the borders of Swaziland. They were told that, at that interview, General Joubert appointed the young King as Paramount Chief of Swaziland, and that then the young King went back to his country, and matters remained in statuquo. The Undersecretary had said it was assumed that the Swazis peacefully accepted the Boer Administration. Why? Because Mr. Crowe, a Boer gentleman, who had been a member of the triumvirate who had looked after the affairs of the whites in Swaziland for the past, three years, still remained in Swaziland. He should like to know whether Mr. Crowe, or any other Boer, had any right of administration over Swaziland. He would like to know if the Swazis had admitted the Boer right to administer Swaziland, and if there was any evidence of it. He sincerely trusted the Swazis still practically preserved their independence, but he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had any evidence that the Boers had a practical administration over Swaziland at the present, or that the Swazis had gone back from the solemn declarations of the Swazi Queens and King, and the whole of the Chiefs, not to accept, Boer domination. Had Mr. Crowe any practical power in Swaziland, and, if so, how did he propose to enforce it; and would Her Majesty's Government in any case permit an armed Boer military invasion and occupation of Swaziland, if the Swazis persisted in their resistance? These were matters on which, he thought, the House was entitled to some information.

said, they really wanted information as to what has happened in Swaziland. The Under Secretary had persistently, and no doubt from the best, motives, withheld the information from the House of Commons. But surely there must come a limit to the period when no information could be given, and when there must be circumstances which could be communicated to the House of Commons. Unless they could get information from the British Government, they would get no information of an authentic character, for they knew that efforts were made to pollute the supply and the source of news in the Transvaal. The news which had reached this country from the Transvaal was misleading, and unless they received some assistance from the Government, they were left unjustifiably in the dark. The Under Secretary seemed to approach this matter from the standpoint of giving the Boers security of tenure in Swaziland, and to think they had got a right to dominate the South African people. He regarded it entirely from a different point of view. He had no sympathy whatever with the Boer intervention in Swaziland. During the last three years the Boer Government had been deliberately legislating against our country and our countrymen. They had been passing Act after Act specifically directed against our people, and instead of desiring to give them one inch of territory or one farthing of money, he would withhold from them everything, under all circumstances, until they behaved to this country with that courtesy and friendship they were entitled to demand from a friendly State. The Boer law, to which he called attention the other day, as to the possession of English silver money was a deliberate insult to this country. It was said that it was not enforced. He could very well believe that if an attempt were made to enforce it, it would precipitate the catastrophe which some people believed to be pending, and the long-suffering Englishmen in the Transvaal would make very short work of those who attempted to enforce it. They were told the other day that the access to the franchise in the Transvaal was similar to that of the United States and other great civilised countries. That was promptly contradicted, for indeed there was no similarity whatever. In the last three years effort after effort had been made, not secretly but openly, against their countrymen to contract the franchise in order to maintain the Boer dominion over them. The House had been misled. Up to the last moment they were denied access to information in regard to one of the most painful incidents in the history of this South African question—namely, what actually took place when Sir Evelyn Wood's declaration was made. It was said over and over again that a declaration was made guaranteeing the Swazis their independence. They were told, however, that that was an error. It was said that the contracting parties were the British Government on the one side and the Boers on the other; and that what was done between them did not affect the Swazis, and had not been communicated to them, save in the way of mere information. But at last the Blue Book was published, and the first thing that appeared on the face of the despatch was, that Her Majesty's Representative went to the Swazis, and in a way that they could and did understand, stated that their independence was guaranteed to them. He defied the Under Secretary to convince any Member of the House that an expression of that kind could, under any circumstances, have any other meaning than the plain meaning on the face of it. It might have been expedient for reasons of policy to disavow that declaration; it was apparently considered very important that it should not become known, for it was not until the eleventh hour that it was published. These seemed to be strong reasons why the House should sympathise with what was certainly the weaker party in this matter. He had never expected to hear a Member of the House claim as a matter of indulgence the fact that he had been the representative of an alien and a hostile power.

That claim was never made. The statement is absolutely inaccurate.

said, the hon. Member who had just interrupted him stated that it was true that he had been a representative of the Boer Government, and he was not ashamed of the fact, because he said it was a poor country, and it was at war with this country at the time.

said, he had a dozen times explained his position as Consul General for several years of the South African Republic. The facts were these. He was Secretary of the Transvaal Independence Committee when the war began. After the independence of the Transvaal was secured by the Treaty of 1881, he was Consul General for several years. It was an honorary office, because there was very little work to do, and it was a very poor country. When gold was discovered, there was a good deal of commercial work, and three or four years ago he asked the Boer Government to appoint a paid official. They did so, and a paid official had been here as Consul General for three or four years. When he acted as Secretary of the Independence Committee, the father of the present Secretary for Scotland and some 60 Members of Parliament were members of that Committee. He occupied that position during the war; and for several years afterwards he continued the work in the capacity of Consul Geueral. At the time of the war the Transvaal was a British Colony, so that it could have no representative here.

doubted whether the statement just made would alter the opinion held on the subject by any Member of the House. He could remember only too well the reports which reached this country of how our two field guns were whitend by the bullets of those whose independence the hon. Member was endeavouring to secure, and how our soldiers were shot down by men whom the hon. Member, a subject of the Queen, was doing his best to assist. He believed the hon. Member was the only man in the House who could fail to feel sympathy with the Swazis in this matter, or who could have the least desire, unless it was proved to be a political necessity of the highest importance, that the Transvaal should succeed in dominating Swaziland. We had had fair warning. It was reported, and could hardly be denied, that the President of the Transvaal had declared that if he did not get all he wanted from us, the Suzerainty of the Transvaal, he would appeal to the German Emperor. The House ought to be informed whether such a declaration was made. But whether it was made or not those who were in correspondence with the Transvaal knew that there was a very strong feeling that that course was open to the Boer, and that it was made much more easy by the action of the Government. He wished the Under Secretary to be more frank, and to tell the House clearly what was going on in the Transvaal; and especially whether the Government was, in any event, going to use force, to allow any of Her Majesty's subjects to use force in order to compel the Swazi people to submit to the worst white Government in the whole of Africa.

said, he also wished to make a protest against the handing over of this brave but defenceless people to the rapacity of the Boers. He considered it nothing short of a disgrace that this country, which pretended to champion the freedom and liberty of oppressed nationalities in every part of the world, should betray and desert these people who trusted us in their hour of need. He called upon the Government to say that they would keep a sharp eye on this transaction, and see that the Swazis are not unduly oppressed.

said, he would not enter on the question of the relations of the Swazis to the Boers. He had come to the conclusion that, between the British authorities and the Boers, the unfortunate Swazis would be made short work of sooner or later. He desired to make a brief reply to the statements made last night by the hon. Member for West Belfast in reference to the appointment of Sir Hercules Robinson as High Commissioner of the Cape. Sir Hercules Robinson, in a letter in to-day's Times, had made a complete answer to the hon. Member's charge—that he was unable to fulfil the position of High Commissioner because he had financial connections in the Colony. The real ground of the hon. Gentleman's attack, however, was, that Sir Hercules Robinson had shown by his past career, not only at the Cape but in other portions of the Empire, that he was anxious to conduct the affairs of any Colony with which he might be connected in unison with the feeling of the people there. The Member for West Belfast said that the appointment was not in the interests of the Empire, but the fact was the appointment was almost unanimously approved of by the colonists, English and Dutch. He thought the hon. Member for West Belfast, who professed to speak in the name of Irishmen, might have left it to someone else to make an attack on Sir Hercules Robinson, who was a distinguished Irishman. Colonists looked with great interest and attention to the character and antecedents and actions of those sent out to govern them, and how could the colonists be expected to receive with general consideration a Governor who was attacked before he sailed by a Member of that House holding the position held by the Member for West Birmingham? The Member for West Belfast might perhaps be excused, for it was well known that somehow or other he was always haunted with the idea since he came into that House that he was the one man living whose duty it was to look after the British Empire in every part of the world. The hon. Member admitted that he had never been to the Cape and he knew nothing of those distant regions of which he spoke so glibly. He could assure the hon. Member for West Belfast that the interests of the colonies, if not of the Empire at large, got on tolerably well before he came into that House.

said, with regard to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the appointment of Sir Hercules Robinson, they had discussed it last night at considerable length, and he would only add that, as regarded the remarks of the Member for West Belfast as to Sir Hercules Robinson's financial operations in South Africa, he had given, in addition to the letter in The Times that morning, a categorical denial of the insinuations and accusations of the hon. Member. That denial was given in a personal interview that morning. With regard to the question of Swaziland, he did not want to go into its history. Therefore he passed by the question of the independence of Swaziland, which had recently been discussed on more than one occasion. He also declined to go into the question of the action of the Transvaal Government with regard to British subjects. He had always thought that some of the laws of the South African Republic were very inexpedient indeed. The position of the Government was this—that unless exceptional and adverse treatment had been shown to British subjects they were not entitled to interfere, nor would it be expedient. With regard to the foreign relations of the Transvaal and the speech of President Kruger, he was not sorry to have that opportunity of referring to the matter, and, as he had said before with regard to that speech, it was perfectly immaterial to the British Government what President Kruger may or may not have said on the occasion. The telegraphic summary was not exactly ii accordance with what he did say. They adhered, as previous Governments had adhered, to the clause of the London Convention of 1884, in which it was asserted that the South African Republic in its foreign relations was within the sphere of British influence, and would not be allowed to make any new treaty or arrangement with any foreign State except subject to the consent of Her Majesty's Government. This Government would take care always to control the foreign relations of the Transvaal.

Did you communicate that statement formally to the Transvaal Government?

said, they had not done so. It was not for them to do so unless the question arose, whether the Transvaal had committed any breach of the convention. Of course the Transvaal Government knew what was said in Parliament with regard to them, and they had received warning, if warning were required, in the most emphatic terms. Finally, he was asked for information as to the present position in Swaziland, which he should deal with without touching the history of the matter. He did not understand what the hon. Member meant by the reference to the organic proclamation. The position was this:—It was created under the Convention of 1893. It was a document which it was open to the Swazis to sign or not. They had declined to sign, and the proclammation disappeared of its own accord. The administration of Swaziland came under the fresh Convention of 1894, with the distinct reservation of tribal independence which he had more than once pointed out. Then with regard to the action of the Transvaal Government as to the mobilisation of the forces on the borders when their Commissioners were going in to meet the Chiefs, they were justified in doing so. The question was whether there might not have been a rising, as there was a considerable amount of distrust at the time. The Transvaal Government would not be justified in sending an armed force into Swaziland when the Commission was sitting. He was thankful the Swazis had not been led away by ill advised counsellors, but had come to the conclusion that they would be able to meet the Boers in a peaceful way. The information of the Government was that they had come to a meeting in a peaceful way, and that the administration of Swaziland was practically now in the hands of the Boers under peaceful conditions and with the assent of the Swazis. He hoped that position would be maintained, because whatever opinions hon. Members might hold, they could not wish that there should be actual fighting between the Boers and the Swazis. That could only have one result, and it was for the interests of all parties that there should be no hostile movement. He hoped the Swazis would be ready to submit to the administration of the law with the reservations the Government had made for them and to the guarantees which the Government fully intended to carry out. This was a logical conclusion to the action taken for many years past in regard to the three countries (Swaziland, the Transvaal, and England), and it had come to this that Swaziland would now practically be administered by the Boers, but they had reserved for the Swazis all the rights that they had not parted with.

Is there any official statement or evidence to show that the Swazis have admitted, or put themselves under, the actual administration of the Boers? [There was no answer.]

said, the hon. Gentleman could not hold him responsible for the character of the scheme. The scheme came from the Charity Commissioners, and during the time it was in the Education Department his attention was not called to the subject by any objections; and he passed it on in the ordinary course. He did not receive any objection to it; and, therefore, he had none to answer.

said, it was a scheme about which Churchmen felt very strongly, because under it the Vicar of the Parish, who had always hitherto been a Trustee, was forbidden to give religious instruction. A Petition against the scheme was presented on September 14 of last year, signed by the statutory number of ratepayers. On November 23 a letter was read from the Education Department stating that 12 out of the twenty signatories had withdrawn their signatures before the statutory two months had expired. A letter had been sent to the Department pointing out that there was no provision in the Act for the withdrawal of such signatures. The scheme was, in consequence, not laid on the Table of the House. In his judgment, the Education Department had acted ultra vires in this matter. But supposing the Department had the power to allow the withdrawal of the signatures, he contended that they should have given notice to those who signed the Petition, in order that an opportunity might have been afforded to others to substitute their names for those who had withdrawn. A complaint had reached him to the effect that those who signed this Petition, and then withdrew their names, did so because they were told something which was not in accordance with the facts of the case. They said that the signatures had been withdrawn because a threat had been made to the effect that if the Petition succeeded the Endowments would be taken away from the parish and a School Board would follow. No such result could have possibly followed, and if the people were so informed it was an unwarrantable use of an improper argument.

said that this question was of some constitutional importance. It was important that the House should know that the sanction of these schemes depended on an Order in Council, and when that Order had been made its effect and result could not be questioned in a Court of law. It was, in his opinion, clear that what had been done in this case was never intended should take place. The l5th Section of the Act of 1873 was distinct in stating that—

"If any Petition has been presented the scheme shall he laid before both Houses of Parliament;"

the procedure following the usual course when Parliament was not sitting. He asked the House to observe what a door was opened to possible collusive or improper action if any departure from established practice were sanctioned. The only protection the opponents had was the protection of petition; through a Petition they could present to the House any objections they had to a scheme. They were informed, rightly or wrongly, of what happened in this case. Let them consider, however, what might happen. A Petition might be presented by influential people; they might believe the matter was going to be discussed—but behind their backs, they knowing nothing about it; the Department informed Her Majesty in Council that no Petition had been presented because the signatures had been withdrawn. There was not the slightest suggestion anywhere in the Act of Parliament that a Petition should be withdrawn, still less that signatures should be withdrawn. That was, in some shape or form, the action of the Education Department, without the consent of the right hon. Gentleman, under a complete misapprehension of what the law was. The fact was, that those who had had bona fide objections to raise could not get them raised. With regard to this particular case, it appeared, on the evidence before them, that individual signatories were visited and different reasons given them why they should not oppose the scheme. The persons who had, bona fide, obtained a Petition to be presented had no means of knowing what was being done. The result of such action was, that the House lost for ever any chance of having the scheme investigated. When a question was put to the right hon. Gentleman, the other day, he said the Department had acted in accordance with the course taken by a previous Government in the Dauncy case. That case, he was sure, never came before the Law Officers. They did not charge the right hon. Gentleman himself with any dereliction of duty, but they protested against being deprived of the opportunity of discussing this scheme. If his hon. Friend was right as to the history of the Charity, and no doubt he was right, it was plain it was a case in which Parliament would have interfered. Whatever might be the excuse which the right hon. Gentleman might be able to give for the conduct of the Department in this case he hoped the protest to-day would make it impossible for anything of the kind to occur in the future.

felt bound to intervene in the Debate in consequence of some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Mr. Talbot). The question of the Church character of the foundation was decided in the negative by the Charity Commissioners after a very full inquiry—an inquiry which lasted a long period, during which, if he rightly understood the procedure, everything which could possibly be brought forward was advanced before the Commissioners. The gift was simply and purely for a free school, without any declaration that it should he of a Church character. He must add, that the proceedings which culminated in the Chancery suit were material. They showed that the school had ceased to exist. If it was a Church school, which was entirely denied, a greater disgrace to the Church could not possibly be conceived. The funds were in the hands of a sole trustee, from whom they were with difficulty recovered, the school-house was in ruins, the scholars were non-existent, and the master was a man of bad character. Under those circumstances—and only under those circumstances—was the Chancery scheme passed. Lord Liverpool was Premier and Lord Eldon was Lord Chancellor, and, naturally, clauses were put in insisting on Church of England instruction. The point he wished to insist upon was, that the insertion of those clauses was a usurpation; not a confirmation of an existing Church character of the school. As regarded the scheme itself he was afraid he must ask the indulgence of the House while he went a little into the educational policy of which the scheme was part—the scheme being only one of a group of schemes. When it became the duty of the Montgomeryshire Joint Educational Committee to set the Intermediate Education Act in motion they naturally considered the question of the existing Endowments in the different parishes. Amongst them was the Endowment at Berriew. The Committee reported:—

"It will be noticed that the Proposals for the County Scheme deal only with the funds arising from the County Rate and Government Grants, and do not include any of the Educational Endowments of the county. The Committee believe that, with the exception of Deythur, all of these Endowments are at present employed in the support of public elementary schools. Inasmuch as the provision of Elementary Education is now a legal obligation on the owners and occupiers of property, and as in the coming Session large additional grants will probably be made for it at the public charge, the Committee suggest that advantage should be taken of the extension to them made by the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of the powers now vested in the Charity Commissioners and the Education Department, to re-organise these Endowments, and at the same time to secure them for the parishes to which they were originally given."

Then they went on to say,—

"The Committee are of opinion that the interests of the parishes will be effectually protected by applying these Endowments in securing for the children belonging to them education in County Intermediate Schools; and they invite suggestions and information from the trustees or managers and all interested in the Endowments which may facilitate the task of preparing a schemes or scheme for this purpose."

In September 1892 a meeting was held with the Berriew Trustees, by the Joint Committee, of which meeting the minute was as follows:—

"After full discussion the Berriew Trustees stated their willingness to concur in the Establishment of a scheme under the Welsh Act for the administration of the Endowment; such scheme to provide for the maintenance of an Upper Department in the Public Elementary School."

The scheme included the clause to which hon. Members opposite took such exception, the one which required that the religious instruction should be given by members of the teaching staff only. That was a clause which was inserted in all Welsh schemes. Not a single official objection was taken to the scheme. There was some private discussion, no doubt, but not a single objection was taken officially to any of the provisions of the scheme, either before the Charity Commission or before the Education Department. The hon. Member for the Oxford University spoke of the withdrawal of signatures being obtained by misrepresentation.

said he did not intend to use those words; what he meant to say was that the signatures would not have been withdrawn but for certain representations made to the signatories.

understood the hon. Gentleman to go further than that, and to speak of improper influences.

said he stated that improper arguments were addressed to the signatories, and that if the case had been properly put before the people an entirely different impression would have been left on their minds. It was in consequence of improper arguments that the signatures were withdrawn.

said that, with regard to the fallacious arguments, he might say that the Endowment consisted of a sum which was in consequence of agricultural depression a little over £70 a year. The County Council gave an additional grant of £73 a year on the condition that an Upper Department was established in the School. This was in pursuance of the general policy of the Joint Education Committee to diffuse Secondary Education as widely as possible among the people of the country. The argument which was used to secure the withdrawal of the signatures from the petition was that the additional grant made to the foundation by the County Council was given on the condition and could only be given on the condition that the School was of an undenominational and not of a denominational kind, and that the endowment, if not used for the support of the School, would be applied for scholarships in other Schools. He was told at first hand by one who signed the petition that he would not have put his name to it had he not been led to understand that the passing of the Scheme would involve the parish in a very heavy expense, and it was on being assured that such was not the case—that on the contrary, it would mean the grant to the parish of a sum very nearly the amount of the endowment—that this particular gentleman withdrew his name from the petition. The grounds, therefore, on which he supported the Scheme, were that the endowment was not a Church endowment, and that the Scheme was one that would be most beneficial to the parish, and the withdrawing of signatures from the petition only expressed the general feeling existing in the parish as to what was right and fair on the subject.

said, there was no doubt that the question raised by the hon. Member for Oxford University was really of serious importance. The Berriew Scheme in due course reached the Education Department. Not a single objection was made to it while it was in the Department. If those who had got up the petition against the scheme at a subsequent stage had made any objection to it while it was in the Education Department he should have investigated the matter. However, he had submitted two questions in regard to the Scheme to the Law Officers. The first was whether, when a petition had been lodged, signatures to it could be afterwards withdrawn. To that question the Law Officers had replied in the negative. The great mistake was in allowing the signatures to be withdrawn. There was no intention, of course, on the part of the Education Department to do any wrong in the matter. But it was believed that it was a very old tradition held by the Department that if those who signed petitions asked to have their signatures withdrawn, their request should be complied with. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight referred to the precedent of the Dauntrey Charity. The facts of that case were these: The first Dauntrey Scheme was rejected in the House of Lords, because as he was given to understand, there was no time to debate in the House of Commons. The second Dauntrey Scheme was believed to be a scheme agreed upon by nearly all the parties interested; but a petition was lodged against it at the Educational Office, at the instance, as he was informed, of the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Saunders). It was pointed out to the hon. Member that his petition was partly based upon a misunderstanding; and shortly afterwards a request was sent him by a large number of the signatories asking that the petition should be withdrawn. The petition, therefore, in that case, which would otherwise have laid the scheme, before Parliament, was withdrawn. It mattered very little from the legal point of view whether the reasons for which the petitioners made their objection were adequate or not. He understood they were all agreed that in no future Corporation or Governing body, a body of petitioning ratepayers, should not be allowed to withdraw any petition to lay a scheme before Parliament, even though they discover that they had made a mistake in presenting the petition. If they had made a mistake, the mistake must be explained within the walls of Parliament and nowhere else; and that in any case Parliament should have the opportunity of discussing the scheme. But the Berriew Scheme had now become law and, therefore, the second question he had submitted to the Law Officers was whether there was any means for bringing a scheme which had passed again before Parliament. The Law Officers had asked for some little time for further consideration before they answered that question. He could only say that if he could devise any reasonable means, even by an Act of Parliament itself, by which this Berriew Scheme could be brought before Parliament for such discussion as it ought to have received, he should be very glad to adopt that means.

called attention to the appointment of Mr. Sadler as Director of Special Inquiries and Reports to the Education Department, a new office which had been created by the Vice-President of the Council. There was a salary of £650 rising to £800 a year attached to the office, and, therefore, it was one of the best appointments in the Education Department. On inquiring what were the duties of this newly created official, he had been informed by the Vice-President that they were to collect and report on such information on educational matters at home and abroad as the Department was constantly in need of. He wrs not going to say one word against Mr. Sadler, but he asked, in the interest of the public service, whether it was right or fair that the 93 Inspectors, the 51 Sub-Inspectors, the 162 Assistant Inspectors, and the whole staff of the Department, numbering nearly 500 officers, should have been passed over, and a young man, who had never been in any branch of the public service, brought in and placed in this good position at a salary about the seventeenth largest in the Department. He knew an Inspector, who lately retired, who had been for forty years in the Service, and it was only recently he got a salary of £600 a year. This gentleman was retired after forty years' service, his maximum salary having been £600; and now he saw a young man, a little over thirty, appointed at a higher salary than he himself was able to receive after forty years' good work in the public service. What was the effect of this on the public service generally? There was a debate in that House in 1877 on a celebrated appointment to the Stationery Office, and they had wonderful speeches from Mr. Childers and the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), who until recently occupied the position of President of the Board of Trade, in which they laid down the law most emphatically. Upon that occasion Mr. Childers said:—

"At a time when they were doing their very best to improve the status of Civil Servants it would be an unfortunate course to adopt a new departure from that sound principle, and in practice have to say to men who had nearly reached the top of the tree: 'No matter how long your service or how great your efficiency, you will not be promoted to the headship of your department, but we will take a junior clerk, or another officer, and put him in.'"

In that case there was a junior clerk put in; but this case was worse, because this gentleman was not even in the public service, and yet he was put over the heads of all the officers. He was not going to say one word against Mr. Sadler personally, but what he condemned was the practice which had been adopted in this instance of bringing in a complete outsider and passing him over the heads of men who had spent twenty, thirty, and forty years in the public service. This was not the only case, for last year he had to call attention to another instance, whilst one of his hon. Friends intended to call attention to the promotion of a Mr. Levy over other officials of long service.

Mr. Levy is not outside the office.

acknowledged that Mr. Sadler's case was the worst, for he had been taken from outside the public service and passed over the heads of a great many deserving men. If time had permitted he would have gone into the question of whether this appointment was really needed. The other day the Member for South Manchester asked the right hon. gentleman whether he was aware that the appointment of Mr. Sadler had not received the general approval of those interested in educational questions.

Those were not the words he used, and that is an exactly opposite interpretation. What he asked me was whether it was not the fact that the appointment had been received with universal approval.

said he would read what passed from "Hansard":—

"Sir HENRY ROSCOE: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is aware that the appointment of Mr. Sadler does not receive general approval from those interested in educational questions?"

That was the statement which appeared, not only in "Hansard," but in every newspaper which reported the matter. He contended that there was no necessity for making this appointment. The work of collecting these reports and so forth was already done by the Education Department, and if there was anything further to be done there were scores of officials who could efficiently do it. Again, all the officers of the Education Department, from the inspectors downwards, had to submit to a competitive examination, and, commencing at a low salary, had gradually to work themselves into a better position. Mr. Sadler, however, commenced at the top, he had had no experience in the work like these other officers had, but they were told he had acted as secretary to the University Extension Society, and was a student of Christ Church. These no doubt were very important offices, but there were men connected with the Education Department who had taken a keen interest in the work of education, who had done much without fee or reward for the extension of University teaching, and he said they were perfectly competent to carry out the work which Mr. Sadler had been appointed for. If the appointment was needed, and Mr. Sadler was most competent, still there was no justification for appointing him, unless he was the only man who could possibly discharge these duties. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to get up in his place and say that there was no other person in the Education Department competent to do the work, for he must know there were many men who were not receiving nearly as much as it was proposed to give Mr. Sadler, but who were thoroughly competent to fill this office. When they found that this was an entirely new office that had been, created, that the gentleman who had been selected to fill it was a supporter of the Government, and that he had been picked out from outside the public service, it naturally made people suspicious. The right hon. Gentleman would probably say that it was a great loss to Mr. Sadler to take this appointment. If so, it was a pity he took it; there were a great many men in the Education Department who would be glad of it, and he himself was very suspicious of gentlemen who sacrificed themselves for a good appointment of that sort. It was important in the interest of the public service to teach those who had been induced to enter that service by the competitive system, that worth and merit would not be passed over; but they would absolutely do away with the esprit de corps and energy of the public service if young men were to be taken, from the outside, and passed over the heads of men who had given the best years of their life to the service of the State. As a protest against the course that had been adopted in this matter he should move to reduce the Vote by £650. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry the Vote, but he would be making a precedent which some day would be seriously used against him, and hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the Vote would find they were undermining the whole of the public service by this system of importing persons from the outside. Now that they had the competitive system of entering the public service these special appointments should be reduced to a minimum. Of course he recognised that it was sometimes necessary to import an outsider in the case of an appointment of a technical character. But this was not a technical appointment, and there were at least fifty men in the Department who could fill it equally as well as Mr. Sadler. They ought to strive to maintain the stability of their public service by preventing that service being endangered by political intrigues, or by any jobbery which might creep in. He did not say that this was a case of political jobbery, but if it was not it had the look of it, and it was for the right hon. Gentleman to prove that it was not. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £650, and intimated that he should press the amendment to a division.

formally seconded the Amendment.

desired, before the right hon. Gentleman replied, to say a few words on behalf of the individual whose name had been mentioned, and by whose appointment it seemed to be considered a job had been perpetrated. Mr. Sadler had never been a political supporter of his and was never likely to be. How far political views had influenced his appoint- ment he knew not, but he wished to say this of one he had known for many years. Mr. Sadler's career at the University had been a most distinguished and successful one, and his qualifications for the post to which he had been appointed were rare. As an Undergraduate at Trinity he had taken the highest honours in Moderations and Final Classical School. He had then been elected a student of Christ Church, and had rendered valuable service to that great House for many years. He had long been Secretary to the Delegates for University Extension. By his writing, his speeches, and his personal intercourse, he had, in a remarkable way stimulated and promoted that important movement. Everybody who had the pleasure of his acquaintance knew him to be a man of high abilities, genial temperment, and great activity in bringing University teaching into connexion with the masses of the people. He felt that the Department was to be congratulated on having acquired the services of a man of such special qualifications for the post to which Mr. Sadler had been appointed.

said that as one who was associated with Mr. Sadler on the Commission of Secondary Education he felt it would be a matter of fairness to bear testimony to his peculiar fitness for the post. Mr. Sadler had devoted long and thorough study to the principles and methods of education as understood in this country and in other countries also. The treatment of education as a science was a movement of comparitively recent origin. It had a large and growing literature of its own. In that science Mr. Sadler was a specialist, and an eminent, specialist. The promotion he had received was not to an office of the ordinary kind at the Education Department, but a special office for which he had special attainments, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman had been thoroughly happy in his choice without implying the slightest disparagement to be distinguished men who form the ordinary staff of the Education Department.

said the hon. Member for Islington had persisted in saying that he had only raised one question. He demurred to that, because more than one question had been raised in connexion with the distinguished office over which he was now placed. The hon. Member had said that there was a great flavour of jobbery about this appointment. He had said that Mr. Sadler—and he was grateful to the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford and the hon. Member for the Cambridge University for bearing testimony to that gentleman's distinguished character and record—was a supporter of the Government, but as Mr. Sadler's educational qualifications had been spoken to by opponents of the present Government he need no go into that. The hon. Member asked whether it was a fact that Mr. Sadler was appointed a bursar of Christ Church—[Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL:"Christ Church 'College'"]—in succession to him. He could not conceive what bearing it had on the matter that Mr. Sadler was appointed by the governing body of Christ Church a bursar of Christ Church when he ceased to act ten years ago. If the question meant anything, it seemed to imply some insinuation against himself. The hon. Member mentioned the case of Mr. Levy, who had received a small addition to his salary of £100. Would it be believed that one Member of the House of Commons more than once addressed him on the question of promotion for some of the senior clerks in the office, that he received petitions from two or three of these gentlemen, of whom Mr. Levy was one, and, considering the great skill which he had in a particular direction in connection with the school accounts and registers, he, with the sanction and approval practically of the Head of the Department, gave Mr. Levy £100 more, and in doing so he was trying to meet what he was asked to do by an hon. Member opposite. He was asked—Did he know that Mr. Levy was a Member of the National Liberal Club? Supposing when he was a private Member he had asked about Mr. Milner, an old friend, the distinguished Head of the Inland Revenue, whether he was a Member of a Unionist Club and whether he had been Secretary to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and why that man had been appointed Head of the Inland Revenue? He should have deserved and should have received the scorn and indignation of the general body of Conservative Members. And so far as belonging to a Club went, he supposed the great bulk of the Civil Service belonged to some Club or another Sir George Kekewich, for example, belonged to the Junior Carlton, and he frequently lunched with him there. He had had to appoint five Examiners in the Department. It had also fallen to his lot to appoint a large number of inspectors, including science and art inspectors. As to the whole of these men he had no more idea of their politics than the hon. Member had himself. As to Mr. Sadler, he believed it would be of the highest value to the Education Department to have a small branch, presided over by a man specially qualified, to mak inquiries at home and abroad, into education at large. The idea was to get somebody who would bear the same relation to the Education Department that Mr Llewellyn Smith, who was appointed from the outside, and who was already a distinguished member of the Civil Service bore to a particular Department of the Board of Trade. They wanted a gentleman who would be able to make inquiries somewhat on the same lines. They took Mr. Llewellyn Smith's appointment as an analogy. His salary was the same, and he would add that, notwithstanding what he had often said as to the distinguished talents of members of the Education Department, he thought that Mr. Sadler was the fittest man for the post. And as to the objection of his being appointed from the outside, he would point out that Dr. Middleton, one of the most distinguished antiquarians in this country, was appointed to be the head of South Kensington Museum as a pure outsider; while nobody had complained that outsiders, from the point of view of the office, had been appointed heads of the Home Office and Post Office. In establishing a small, new branch like this, he submitted it was quite fair and reasonable, after careful consideration, to choose a man who, as had been acknowledged by the representatives of the Universities, was the fittest for the post.

pointed out that the Education Vote had reached the enormous sum of £6,785,000, and that out of that sum no less than £70,567 went for expenditure on the office in Whitehall. The question the Committee had to consider was, whether they were justified in spending £2,000 a year more for the purpose of making inquiries on the subject of education. What was the exact position of the educational question today? The system of elementary education in this country was one of the most expensive that human ingenuity could devise, and therefore he felt bound to ask in what direction would this special inquiry tend? He assumed it would tend chiefly in the direction of secondary or of technical education. But they had a Commission sitting now at great cost to deal with the question of secondary education. He should like some more information as to what really this gentleman's duties were to be. Whatever his abilities might be, this, at all events, might be urged, that he was a young man. He would have to deal with very technical and very difficult questions, and he ventured to urge, in regard to these matters of education, on which Mr. Sadler would have to supply information, that there were gentlemen who had passed more than half an official life in the Education Office who, with much greater facility, would be able to procure the same. He should support the hon. Member in the Division, not in any sense as a condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman's choice, but because he thought and believed, with his knowledge of the Education Department, and knowing also the enormous sums they were now spending on education, and with a Commission sitting with regard to Secondary Education, and with the vast amount of information they had brought together, this extra expenditure ought not to be incurred.

said, that when this question was first asked with reference to Mr. Sadler's qualifications, the hon. Member for South Manchester got up and asked the Vice President of the Council whether it was not a notorious fact that Mr. Sadler's appointment had given universal satisfaction in educational circles. That was his recollection distinctly, and if "Hansard" had put in the word "not" it was only one of many instances of "Hansard's" carelessness in printing the Debates of this House. He should certainly take the opinion of the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxford and the hon. Member for Cambridge with reference to Mr. Sadler's qualifications, and should support the Minister of Education against the proposed reduction. He was glad there were two such Gentlemen in the House—on that side of the House—as the representatives of these Universities who had come forward in a matter of justice between man and man and thrown the shield of their protection over a gentleman who had been represented to be the protégé of a gentleman who had perpetrated a job. He did not know Mr. Sadler personally. He knew him by reputation, and it gave him great pleasure to know that he had been appointed to this office.

said, he desired, as a matter of personal explanation, to say he made no imputation against Mr. Sadler. He had said nothing against Mr. Sadler. His argument was that it was unfair to put him over the heads of 97 per cent. of the people in the Government Department.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned the name of Mr. Levy, he desired to know whether he was entitled to go into his case now, or should he wait until the Division on Mr. Sadler's case had been taken?

said, it would be more convenient to have this case settled first.

said, he should go into the Lobby with his hon Friend, not on the merits of Mr. Sadler, for the merits of that gentleman had nothing whatever to do with the question, but for this reason. Here was a Department spending stupendous sums, and costing about £250,000 a year for administration, and, at a given moment it came to this House with the confession that it was not competent to do its own work, and it must have an entirely new office, with an entirely new officer and assistants, at a cost of something like £1,500 or £2,000 a year. He protested most vehemently against such a system. He did most strongly protest against this House being constantly asked to vote extra sums for new offices and officers to do the work the Department ought to do itself. If this Department was not competent to make such inquiries as were referred, what was it good for. This system of first of all setting up great public Departments with enormous salaries, and then of the head of one of the Departments coming to the House and confessing they could not perform the duties for which they were established, and asking the House to appoint, extra officers with high salaries, was perfectly monstrous.

said the case to which he wished to draw attention was one which, despite the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman, bore a strong family resemblance to that of Mr. Sadler. It was that of a certain Mr. Levy, who was until recently one of the first-class clerks in the Education Department at a salary of £500 a year. This gentleman was recently promoted over the heads of four senior first-class clerks. He has been dignified with the somewhat pompous title of Examiner of School Accounts and Registers, and £100 a year has been added to his salary. In answer to a question which he put the other day, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the duties of the new post were of a more extended and more important character than those formerly performed, and that Mr. Levy was selected because of his special acquaintance with the kind of work involved. He added that the appointment was strongly pressed upon him by the heads of the Department. If that was the case he presumed there was a minute to that effect, and that the right hon. Gentleman would produce it. If there was no minute, he thought he was justified in assuming that this alleged demand from the heads of the Department was of somewhat liberal interpretation. Hints from autocrats like the right hon. gentleman were invariably accepted in the same spirit by their subordinates, and if the right hon. Gentleman expressed a wish to make a particular appointment he would find his subordinates ready to support it.

I can only say that in this case that is not true.

said the appointment was justified because this kind of work had increased. Was he prepared to demand an increase of salary for every official that had increased work to do? But whatever the work was it was not of an extraordinarily absorbing character, because Mr. Levy was a prominent and energetic member of the National Liberal Club, and he was given to understand that he spent a great deal of his time during official hours in that institution. He occupied an important position as a member of the club, and was described as hon. secretary of the political economy circle. It was a great relief to know that political economy was studied at all at the National Liberal Club, because he was under the impression that the new Unionism and the new Radicalism had banished political economy to Uranus and Saturn, if not further. But the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if he pressed for an explanation of this appointment. There was a very strong analogy between this case and the last. Both gentlemen held extreme Radical views. There were two distinct principles involved. One was the promotion of an official over the heads of his senior colleagues; the other was the creation of a new office at the will of a Minister, and the consequent addition to the public expenditure. He desired to protest against the difficulty in bringing matters of this kind forward. On Supplementary Estimates they were forbidden to discuss the policy of the department in Committee, on the Vote on Account they were asked to confine themselves to questions of importance; on Report they could not take a Division, and if they waited till the Estimates came on nobody was present to listen to what they had to say.

wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to the proceedings of one of the inspectors recently appointed to inquire into distress in the West of Ireland. He referred to the inspector who had reported that there was no exceptional distress in portions of South Mayo. This inspector was a man who had no previous experience qualifying him for the duties of the post, and if he made visits to certain districts his visits were of so cursory a character that none of the chief inhabitants knew he made them. The priests of two places had written saying the inspector had not, to their knowledge, visited their districts. The reports of this gentleman were therefore entirely impugned, and the Chief Secretary was making a great mistake in relying upon his reports. The reports showed that this gentleman had applied certain tests of his own to elicit whether exceptional distress prevailed in particular districts or not. One of his favourite tests was the extent of the out-door relief, and another whether seed potatoes had been applied for or not. These were not reliable tests as to the prevalence of distress. One of the first duties of the inspector would have been to have visited the priests, for they could give him more reliable information, and without doubt they were most deserving of being consulted in such matters. On previous occasions the poor people had paid very heavily for the seed potatoes, which afterwards turned out to be entirely useless, and therefore they were very shy of applying again. Neither the number of applications for outdoor relief nor the number of applications for seed potatoes was a proper test as to the existence of exceptional distress. He had applied another test. Meeting a crowd of persons asking for employment, he asked them would they be willing to work for seven shillings a week. He evidently thought they would be disgusted at being offered such meagre payment, but evidently he was surprised when he found they were willing to accept employment at seven shillings a week. He contended that persons willing to work for such a low rate of wages must be in a condition of distress. Another mode of procedure by this gentleman was, that when he found in any particular district that the out-door relief was not high, and that seed potatoes had not been applied for, he ruled out such a district as having no exceptional distress; and in other places where those tests fitted in his reports were identical. There was one matter of importance, to which he desired to draw the Chief Secretary's attention. For ten years he represented South Mayo, and this was absolutely the first occasion on which he had to make an appeal for assistance, and he asserted there could be no stronger proof that exceptional distress exists in the constituency. He had ventured to point out to the Chief Secretary a certain district in which a local work of vast importance, an unfinished Government work, might be completed for a small sum. It would be of great service there for the purpose of relieving distress, but apparently the Government, through their officials, objected to carry out this useful work. He (Mr. O'Brien) was aware of the system under which relief works had been carried out in Ireland, and, to put it briefly, the system was that these relief works should be good for nothing. He would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he went to Ireland to administer the affairs of Ireland as Irishmen themselves would administer them.

To try to.

ventured to say, that if that was the Chief Secretary's intention he was far from realizing it, because that was not the way Irishmen would relieve distress in their own country. The Chief Secretary should remember he was dealing with a most unfortunate country, which never had the benefit from two bodies which always contributed to the prosperity of other countries, namely, the landlords and the Government whose great expenditure fosters and encourages industries while between the Government and the landlords Ireland was depleted and impoverished. The money raised in Ireland was actually carried away from Ireland and spent in England and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman ought also to consider that he was the Chief Executive Officer of a Power which persists in exercising their rule over Ireland, and insists upon exploiting the resources of Ireland. According to the best authorities Ireland was over-taxed one hundred per cent., yet, notwithstanding this, the taxation of Ireland goes on increasing year after year, while none of it is spent in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn over a new leaf, and that in future he would deal more humanely with those poor people than he had done.

said, he had listened with much attention and some concern to one portion of the hon. Member's speech in his criticism of the appointment of Mr. Levy, and if the hon. Member could substantiate what he said he should be pleased to go into the Lobby with him. One of his statements was that Mr. Levy had been appointed to a superior position, over the heads of two or three colleagues, and that Mr. Levy spent part of his official time within the precincts of the National Liberal Club. If the hon. Member could prove that Mr. Levy spent any portion of his official time in the Club or anywhere else when he ought to be discharging his official duties, then he saw no reason, why he should not be dismissed from the office he now held.

said, what he said was that Mr. Levy used to spend part of his official time in the Club. He did not feel called upon to give the names of his informants.

did not think the hon. Member had improved his position. If the charge could not be proved it ought to be withdrawn in an unqualified manner. He gathered from what he said that the hon. Member was ignorant of the economic, social, and political views of Mr. Levy. If the hon. Member could not prove his charge now the matter should be deferred, to give him an opportunity. Then they had Mr. Sadler objected to because he was an outsider. He was in favour of inside promotion. In the other case objection was taken to the promotion of an insider. Not only had a charge of favouritism been made, but it had been said that this gentleman had been promoted entirely for political reasons. He had always believed that the English Civil Service, fairly speaking, was the best Civil Service in the world, and as a rule Civil Servants had been promoted from the inside where they were qualified for promotion, and where they had not been appointed, there had been fairly good reasons for going outside. He hoped that in this case the Vice President of the Council would either disprove the charge which had been made against Mr. Levy, or defer the appointment until the charge had been enquired into.

said he knew more of Mr. Levy than probably any other person in the House. When he went, to the Education Department, in 1880, Mr. Levy served under him for five and a half years, and he had also been in the Department during Mr. Forster's time, and he knew no public servant who was more loyal, industrious or useful than Mr. Levy. He was therefore astonished to find that any hon. Member should attack that gentleman because he happened to be the Secretary of a Political Economy Society which met at the National Liberal Club. Mr. Levy was highly qualified to deal with these questions, and he was sure that the hon. Member for Newton would regret the introduction of Mr. Levy's name in this discussion. Civil servants were not present to defend themselves, and a man who rendered loyal service to the public ought not to be attacked by name in the House, no matter what his politics might be. What would be said if Members supporting the Government were to attack members of the Civil Service who belonged to the Carlton, or other political clubs? He was introduced to Mr. Levy by the late Lord Sandford, who spoke of him in terms of unqualified approval and admiration, and as being one of the ablest men in the Education Department. He was sure that the late Vice President (Sir W. Hart Dyke) would bear testimony to the services of this admirable servant, and he would be the last man to neglect his duty. Mr. Levy's promotion had been exceedingly slow in the Department, probably because he did not enter with University credentials. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the statement he had made.

called attention to the differential and preferential rates on English railways. It was a matter of great importance to the agricultural districts. Preferential rates on English railroads were a millstone round the neck of the English farmer and English producer. In his county he was told that it was cheaper to send shrimps over to Russia and get them back by sea, and onions over to Holland than to send them by rail 25 miles to London. Why did not the Department put a stop to this state of things? They could dt so by means of the Railway Regulation Act of 1873, under which the Board of Trade were empowered to appoint a person to bring a case before the Railway Commissioners The President of the Board of Trade might say that he had no money to do this, but the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 empowered the Department to act as conciliators, and as opponent in preferential charges. Again, in the Railway Servants' Hours Act of 1893, the Department was specially enjoined to act as conciliators if necessary, am also as opponents to the companies on behalf of the railway servants. He was sure that Parliament never granted to the railway companies this absolute monopoly in respect of the trade of the country in order to crush out English enterprise and give the whole benefit to the foreigner.

said the subject was of more importance than perhaps the majority of hon. Members imagined. Preferential rates amounted to a bounty for the foreign exporter. As a member of the Select Committee on Railway Rates and Charges, he attempted to bring the question forward; but the evidence was difficult to obtain from those brought forward as witnesses. The President of the Board of Trade rushed a Bill through which did not adequately protect the native producer, and he trusted that the subject would receive the attention it deserved.

called the attention of the President of the Board of Agriculture to the heavy bounties given, not only in foreign countries but in the colonies, on farm produce sent to this country. Could nothing be done to mitigate the hardships of the English farmer's lot, not only on account of the preferential railway rates, but also on account of the heavy bounties on the produce sent here? The Canadian Government, in order to stimulate the export of butter, had made temporary advances equivalent to 20 cents in the £1, and they had also provided cool storage chambers for the butter. Victoria had sent 20,000,000lbs. of butter to England between July 25 of last year and February 16 of this year. He asked whether the Railway Companies could not be asked to give English farmers cheap carriage for their produce to the towns—say, at the same price as the foreign butter and eggs were carried. He thought the railway companies might give preferential rates for butter and eggs. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that the matter had not escaped his attention, and that, if possible, something would be done in the interests of the farmer.

said this was a matter which was not within the discretion of the Board of Trade, but was one proper for determination by the Railway Commission. The hon. Member was, no doubt, aware that there had been an important case, in regard to this matter argued in the last few days before the Railway Commissioners, and a decision given. So far from the Board of Trade having jurisdiction over the Railway Commissioners, they were absolutely powerless, and could bring no force whatever to bear upon the Railway Commission to induce them to lower these ratings. If hon. Members wished the railway companies to be dealt with they should go before the Railway Commission.

called attention to the distinction drawn, between the natives of India and the white men, serving in the Indian Army, in regard to the punishment of flogging, to which the former were, liable. These punishments were not only applicable to the natives of India when serving in India, but also even when they came to this country, or served side by side with our troops in Egypt or elsewhere. He was anxious to do away once and for ever with this most invidious distinction. For the law which thus exempted the white man from the punishment of flogging, while it reserved it for the natives, the Government of India were not responsible; it was the deliberate act of the House in passing this Act which they were not allowed to amend.

called attention to the different treatment meted out to England and Ireland as illustrated by this Bill. The Bill was one to extend out-door relief and to give, great facilities for relieving distress in Ireland, when at the present moment they had a Committee upstairs considering the relief of distress in England. A large sum of money had been voted for distress in Ireland quite lately on the Supplementary Estimates, and now this Bill was also brought in, while nothing was being done at the same time for England. There was no question but that in England there was as much distress as in Ireland. The question of outdoor relief was a most important one, and, as an English and a London Member, representing a district where there was a great deal of poverty, he thought this different treatment of the two countries was most unfair.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he considered the third clause an essential part of the Bill, and he put the same question in regard to the first clause?

said the Bill was the mere counterpart of the Bill brought in in 1881 by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, and of that brought in by the right hon. Member for East Manchester in 1890. The hon. Member had asked him to withdraw that clause which relieved from electoral disability those who were unhappy enough to require relief, but the same reasons which had actuated right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench in bringing forward similar Bills in previous years actuated him in bringing forward the present measure, and he hoped under the circumstances the Bill would be allowed to pass the second reading, as it would impose no charge whatever on the British taxpayer, but would simply allow boards of guardians in Ireland to do certain things, for which, if they did them wrongfully or wastefully, they would have to suffer themselves.

said the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the first clause, which gave an unlimited power to the guardians which had never been proposed in previous Bills.

said, the provisions of the Bill were identical with those of previous Bills, and it was his intention to adhere to the Bill in its present form.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had announced his intention of adhering to the third clause, he must object to the further progress of the measure.

gave notice, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that on Monday he would move the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule.

in seconding the resolution, thought he ought first to make it clear what they did not want. As far as Wales was concerned they did not want to set up a separate and independent Republic. They did not want an army and navy. They simply wanted what was foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham when he said:—

"But beyond and above a purely municipal organisation of this kind, I believe that a larger arrangement will be found safe and desirable, under which, subject to the concurrent and supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament, the various portions of the United Kingdom shall be, enabled to exercise a greater influence over local administration and over legislation for their special needs and requirements. Such an arrangement, involving a delegation, but not a surrender, of power, and in which the subjects referred to local assemblies would be strictly defined, would probably be sufficient to satisfy the national aspirations of Scotland and Wales."

He believed six years had elapsed since these words were spoken, and Parliamentary conditions, if they had changed at all, had changed in the direction of strengthening the arguments for such a proposition rather than of weakening them. His hon. Friend had pointed out one strong argument in favour of Home Rule all round, when be referred to the congested state of public business in the House. That was probably the inevitable result of the policy adopted in recent years by both Parties in social and economic questions. Formerly both parties deprecated any interference with trade and commerce, and were prepared to leave questions dealing with the welfare of the people to the working of economic causes. Now that doctrine had been dismissed, and both Parties vied with each other in making suggestions for interfering with trade and commerce, for dealing with the lives and comfort of the people, and even for curtailing the hours of labour. In the course of the present Session suggestions had come from the other side of the House for employing people who were unable to find employment for themselves. With these altered conditions it was absolutely impossible for the House to attend properly to all its duties, and at the same time to deal with the separate demands of each nationality. If anyone doubted that he had only to contrast the Ministerial Programmes as set forth in the Queen's Speech for the last ten years with the Ministerial performances at the end of a Session. The present Sessions started with a programme which would probably take two or three Session to work out, and a motion had already been carried in favour of legislation on the question of German brushes, and three or four commissions ranging over the whole area of our commercial and industrial system, the recommendations of which would probably be of a most sweeping character, and would all have to be embodied in legislation; and Friday after Friday they were adding to the number of urgent recommendations to the Government to legislate on various topics. Even if the Government were willing to carry out the recommendations made in the course of the present Session, it would take twenty years to do so. Was it possible, then, that with the present system Parliament could adequately dispose of all these demands in its time? He thought they ought to find some remedy. It was also a deplorable fact that such measures as were got through the House of Commons were often incomplete and imperfect. That was the result of the present system. Ministers overburdened with the care of all kinds of local matters had not sufficient time in which to think out the great measures to be submitted to Parliament. In 1888, when the Local Government Bill was presented, the Unionist Government recognized that they ought to deal with the subject of district councils, with the liquor question, and with other matters; but these subjects were not dealt with in the Bill, because there was not enough time for their consideration. Five or six years elapsed, and the new President of the Local Government Board introduced another incomplete Bill, the excuse being the same—that the time at the disposal of the House was limited. These were illustrations of the difficulty in the way of dealing comprehensively with important subjects. Then, owing to the pressure of time, the only persons who proposed amendments to a measure were its opponents, who desired to stifle it. The men who approved it, and who had studied the question with which it dealt, did not move amendments, although they saw remedial defects in the Bill, because they knew that if they moved amendments they might endanger its passing. The Government, in order to buy off opposition and save time, were often compelled to make concessions which weakened a Bill. The less time a Government had at its disposal the greater was the discussion of its projects, but when it was manifest that the Government could get through its work, whatever might be the amount of time consumed by the Opposition, discussion was at once wonderfully curtailed. That was very curious, and was one of the absurd results of the present absurd system. He was surprised that the English people, who had the reputation of being the best business people in the world, could uphold it. Two-thirds of the time of that House was taken up by questions which affected separate and distinct parts of the kingdom. In 1880, for example, about half the time of Parliament was devoted to Irish questions. In 1886 the best part of the first Session was spent in the discussion of the Irish Coercion Bill; then there were two or three Sessions devoted to an Irish Land Bill, and subsequently the best part of one or two Sessions was spent in an attempt to force poor little Wales to pay tithes. The result was the great Unionist Parliament found no time at all for English business. Even in the present Parliament the same state of things had prevailed, and it would prevail as long as the present system was allowed to continue. The remedy was to confer upon each nationality in the kingdom a Parliament of its own for the discussion of questions affecting it exclusively. In England there was hardly any demand for anything in the nature of land reform, but in Wales the tenant farmers unanimously demanded the establishment of a land court, compensation for improvements, and fixing of tenure. Did not the existence of that demand and the demand for the Disestablishment of the Church show that Wales had special grievances and was entitled to special treatment? There was also a special demand for temperance legislation in Wales, and the Principality had also education questions of its own. One regrettable result of the present system was that before a small nationality in the kingdom could get its grievances attended to it had to resort to something in the nature of lawlessness. Nearly all the legislation of the last ten years for the benefit of the Celtic nationalities had been the result of some kind of insubordination. Instances of this were afforded by the Scotch Crofters' Bill, the Irish Arrears Bill of 1887, and the settlement of the tithe agitation in Wales. No one who favoured law and order could reasonably desire the continuance of a system which forced every small nationality in the country to infringe the law when it wished attention to be paid to its grievances. He also supported the principle of Home Rule all round, because he believed that it would foster the spirit of local patriotism. Hon. Members opposite were rather too fond of treating that idea with contempt. He noticed that our military men had discovered its value long ago. In the army there were Welsh troops, Scotch troops, Irish troops. Why? Because our men of action knew that there was nothing that brought out the best and most soldier-like qualities of their men like an appeal to their enthusiasm for the honour and the fame of their country. What was true of warfare against foreign foes was equally true in the war which was being waged against social evils. It was one way to stir up men to fight against those evils, which were much more dangerous than any foreign foe.

said the speeches in which this Resolution had been commended to the consideration of the House had, no doubt, been interesting and valuable up to a certain point; but he trusted the hon. Gentlemen who proposed and seconded the Resolution would forgive him if he said that, considering the strength of the case which they ought to have been able to present in support of the Resolution, their speeches were scarcely equal to the magnitude of the subject. The subject was one of enormous importance. The proposal amounted to nothing short of the entire revolution of the present Constitution of this kingdom. The subject of Federalism was one that at every stage of the world's history had commanded the attention of political philosophers, and he was willing to admit that there were circumstances in the development of the Constitution of this country and in the growth of popular liberties in this country which would induce one to turn one's eyes towards Federalism as a solution of many of the grave problem of the day. No doubt this discussion must in the main be considered merely as an academic discussion of a theoretical principle, and if he were quite sure that the adoption of the Resolution by the Government of the day and by the House would have any appreciable bearing upon the position of the question of the National Government of Ireland, he would have very little hesitation in expressing in very strong and decided terms the views which he entertained about the abstract merits of Federalism. He had always believed that Federalism was—in the words of the historian of Federalism, Mr. Freeman—a true solvent of the difficulties of those countries which had a certain community of history, or origin, or of interest sufficient to enable them to work together up to a certain point, but which had not that complete community, or rather identity, which would enable them to be fused into one nation. But in considering this Resolution he was bound to ask himself: Was it true that this was a mere academic discussion of an abstract theory, with no actuality behind it whatever? So far as England was concerned, there was at the present moment no demand whatever for a federal arrangement. No complaint had been made that the particular interests of England had been neglected by this Parliament. As to Scotland, he listened with the greatest attention to the speech of the Mover of the Resolution. He said he was coming to the Scotch portion of the case, but he dealt very lightly with that part of the case. It might therefore be fairly gathered that while there was no doubt a feeling in Scotland in favour of committing to the management of Scotchmen purely Scotch affairs, even the hon. Member would not stand up in the House and say that the demand for Scotch Home Rule was an urgent and pressing question at this moment? It was evident from the speech of the hon. Member that both as to England and Scotland this was the merest academic discussion of an abstract theory. With regard to Wales, he thought the same observation was true. The fact was, that Welsh public opinion was concentrated not on the effort to obtain a local Parliament for Wales, but on the passing of Welsh Disestablishment and other Welsh reforms through the present constituted Parliament. So far as the three countries were concerned, therefore, the Debate had no practical reality whatever. If he were able to say the same in regard to Ireland he would be found voting heartily in support of the Resolution. But so far as Ireland was concerned, this was not merely a question of abstract theory. It was a matter of very urgent reality, and it was impossible to discuss the question of the concession of autonomy for Ireland on an abstract Resolution of this kind without taking into account the effect the passing of that Resolution must have upon the prospect of a cause which they hoped, and which the more sanguine of them believed, was approaching rapidly to a settlement. He distrusted and disliked the Resolution from the Irish point of view, notwithstanding the smooth words of the hon. Gentleman who proposed it. The hon. Gentleman assured the House that he desired that the case of Ireland should be treated separately and first. Why did he not put it into his Resolution?

I am prepared to accept the addition.

said it was not in his power to move as an Amendment that those words be added. The Resolution placed the case of Ireland for Home Rule on precisely the same level as the cases of England, Scotland, and Wales. But the case of Ireland was an entirely exceptional case. It was admitted by the entire Liberal Party a few years ago that Home Rule for Ireland was alone and beyond and before every other question—not merely every domestic question, but every question of great Constitutional reform affecting every portion of the Empire. It was true that, for the time being, the question of Home Rule for Ireland had disappeared. If the question were at all apparent to the eye, it appeared in a state of trance, to which it had been reduced by the present leaders of the Liberal Party—a state of trance from which, according to the Prime Minister it was not to be awakened until, forsooth! the House of Lords was abolished; and if the resolution were carried the question of Home Rule for Ireland would remain in that state of trance, not only until the Upper Chamber was abolished, but until public opinion in England, Scotland, and Wales had become ripe for the creation of local assemblies in those countries, which meant, in other words, until the people of those countries had made up their minds to pull the present Constitution of the kingdom absolutely to pieces. But Ireland could not wait for Home Rule until those things were accomplished. To the people of Ireland it was the most urgent and pressing and vital of questions—a question of life and death; and in his judgment, at any rate, the policy of the Nationalist representatives ought to be to keep Home Rule in the front of all other public questions in this kingdom. The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Resolution talked much about the devolution of local affairs to local assemblies and of the difficulty of getting private Bills through the Imperial Parliament. But Home Rule meant more than that. It meant the restoration to Ireland of that national Government of which she was robbed by force and fraud—a restoration which the people of Ireland demanded not only as an urgent and pressing necessity for their country, but also upon the higher and broader ground of national and historical right. The demand for autonomy in Ireland had taken the shape of a demand for repeal until the Home Rule Conference which was held in Dublin in 1873, when the late Isaac Butt, whose memory was still honoured in the House of Commons, induced, for the first time, a representative assembly of Irishmen to accept the proposal of a federal union with England as the national demand. In asking the Home Rule Conference of that year to accept the federal demand instead of repeal, Mr. Butt exhaustively dealt with the question of Home Rule, and quoted a letter written in 1844 by Mr. (now Sir) Charles Gavan Duffy, who wrote that federalism, as it was intended by some of the soundest men in the party who supported it, meant Local Parliaments for the three divisions of the Empire and an Imperial one in common.

"If this principle be insisted upon," wrote Mr. Duffy, "federalism in impracticable; it implies a reorganization of the British Constitution, and, apart from other objections to it, raises a new and tremendous difficulty."

Commenting upon the letter, Mr. Butt agreed that any plan of federal union which involved the breaking up of the arrangement of the Constitution was impracticable, and said they must not come forward with a proposal to pull all existing things to pieces.

"It is vain," he said, "to expect that the English people will consent to pull the fabric of Government to pieces for the sake of giving us Home Rule or in order to construct fantastical baby houses. … The plan we propose is open to no such objection, and could be carried out with no essential alteration in the present machinery of Imperial Government."

For his part, although he had no hesitation in saying he believed in the principle of federalism and that in the principle of federalism all these international difficulties would eventually find solution, at the same time he was convinced it would be a grievous injury to the cause of Home Rule for Ireland if it were now complicated by coupling with it the demand for the creation of local assemblies for England, Scotland, and Wales. Further, he believed that in granting Home Rule to Ireland, in the first instance, care ought to be taken that Home Rule should be conceded to Ireland in such a shape and form it would be possible to fit in afterwards that with a complete system of federalism for all these islands. That was true of the Home Rule Bill of 1893. The Mover of the Resolution spoke of the proposal in that Home Rule Bill to retain the Irish Members in this House, and he truly said that such retention could only be sustained on the theory that at some time in the future a complete system of federalism would be established for all these countries; because, during the interval between the granting of Home Rule to Ireland and the completion of a system of federalism, the presence of the Irish Members in this House on English, Scotch, and Welsh affairs, when Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen had no control over Irish affairs, would be an anomaly. But that, he submitted, was no reason why the concession of Home Rule to Ireland should be postponed until they could make their system symmetrical. The Irish Members never demanded they should be retained in this House, they desired the control of their own affairs in their local Legislature, believing they would be called back to this Parliament when the character and the future of the Parliament would be changed, and when in its place was created an Imperial Assembly in which all portions of the Empire should be represented. Anything which tended to strengthen the idea that Home Rule could wait either for Welsh Disestablishment, Local Veto, or any other British domestic concern on the one hand, or for great constitutional changes, such as the abolition of the House of Lords or the concession of federalism to various parts of the United Kingdom, on the other hand, he regarded as absolutely fatal to the prospects of the Irish cause. He objected in the strongest possible way to the wording of the Resolution which placed Home Rule, which was urgent and pressing, in the same category as the cause of federalism in Great Britain, which could not be regarded at this moment as within the range of practical politics. If it were possible he would have liked to have moved after the words "it is desirable" in the Resolution to insert—

"that, after a national Parliament shall be established in Ireland, to devolve upon Legislatures in Scotland, Wales, and England the management of their own affairs."

Had the Resolution contained those words it might possibly have been within his power to support it, but as it stood he could not take the responsibility of voting in its favour.

remarked that the hon. Member for Waterford had attributed to the supporters of this Resolution a desire to postpone Home Rule for Ireland. He thought if the Liberal Party in that House were to treat Ireland and the Members from Ireland with as little sympathy and consideration in their difficulties as some of the Irish Members seemed disposed to concede to them, then the prospect of Home Rule would be in a very poor way. He, for one, most distinctly disclaimed, in giving his support to the Resolution, any desire whatever to postpone or retard the passing of a measure of Home Rule for Ireland, and he thought it was a little hard that the hon. Member for Waterford should refuse to them what he had pointed out in their case would merely be the result of an academic discussion, while he himself, or rather those he represented, had had the advantage of the passing by that House of a Home Rule measure. The hon. Member talked about some supposed desire on the part of the Liberals to minimise and reduce the degree of self-government which should be conceded to the Irish people, and he asked them what their views on Home Rule were. He would ask the hon. Member to read the Home Rule Bill which was passed by the House of Commons. To every word of that Bill he and every one on that side of the House who supported it still adhered. It seemed to have been rather understood that this question was a question primarily affecting Scotland and Wales. He confessed he did not take that view of it, because it had always seemed to him that if there was any member of the partnership to whom Home Rule was rapidly becoming a necessity it was England herself. It was said that England was represented by a majority of Unionist Members, and consequently if they dissociated England from her allies they would get possibly a permanently Tory majority in this country. He did not think so. He thought the result of an election, where the social issues placed before our countrymen were dissociated from certain Imperial questions, from which at present they could not so dissociate them, would be startling to hon. Members opposite. But even if that were the result he should not complain, because his notion of Liberalism was not Liberalism by coercion. He was satisfied they never could do any good in the interests of progress by forcing on any national reforms which the people were not ready for and did not want. From the social point of view a delegation of the matters of each nationality would result in great benefit to the country at large. In the first place, he could not imagine anything which would afford greater facilities for social progress than having England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all separately managing their social matters for themselves. They would not all go in the same direction. One would attempt one reform and another a different one; and there would be the great advantage of comparing differences. The mistakes of one would save the others from similar mistakes. There would, in short, be four times the chance of real social progress if they had these four independent movements along parallel lines going on at the same time. An even more important consideration was the effect which such a devolution would have on the Imperial Parliament. It would eliminate from the Imperial Parliament that provincialism which must be present so long as it had at times to descend to the details of local government. It would immensely strengthen our position with regard to our relations with foreign countries. At present the power of the Little England party was altogether incommensurate with the public support it had behind it; yet there were times when, owing to social and domestic questions, even such a small party might have a serious effect in regard to our foreign relations. There was very little doubt that what one heard at the present time on that question tended to lead foreign nations to suppose that England was always squeezable, and that they had only to squeeze hard enough to get what they wanted. He certainly thought the Imperial Parliament, discharged from the necessary domestic differences of party warfare about what were really local affairs, would be in a much better position to deal with the interests of the Empire at large than Parliament could at the present time. There was only one other consideration, and that was this, that such an arrangement would undoubtedly lend itself to what he feared was quite impracticable under present conditions, and that was the presence of representatives from all parts of the Empire in a common Imperial Parliament. Great as had been the history of this Imperial Parliament, all Englishmen could only look forward with pride and hope to an assembly in which they had representatives from every part of the Empire. At the present stage it was wasting time to allege that the difficulties were insuperable. Until they first settled the question of whether they wanted this change or not, it was useless to attempt to discuss how they were to get it, and they were not in a position to be able to say they could not get it at all.

said, he had not any intention of intervening in the Debate, but, after the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford, he felt it incumbent upon him to explain, however briefly, the reasons why he should heartily support the Motion. The hon. Member for Waterford had said he could support no Motion which seemed to tend to the postponement of Home Rule for Ireland. Nor could he, nor could any one of the Party with whom he worked, if it had any such tendency, but he did not believe that this Motion, had any such tendency. The hon. Member said he objected to anything which bore the appearance of postponing Home Rule, whether it was for this Motion, or for Welsh Disestablishment, or for any other measure. He begged to tell the hon. Member that his speech was not that of a practical politician. He held that no man had any right to come to the House and, pretending to represent the interests of the Irish people, say he was prepared to take up such a position towards the allies who had stood faithfully by them during many long years of struggle, and say the Irish Members would accept their assistance and loyal support and give them nothing in return. That was the policy of political idiocy, and those who advocated it should betake themselves to the hillsides of Ireland, and not sit upon the Benches of the House of Commons. If anything was to be won for Ireland it must be on the principle of voting against those who were the enemies of Ireland, and assisting those who were friends of that country. Was there any man in that House who supposed that the people of Ireland were so stupid, or so incapable of understanding the elements of politics, as to believe that they would be serving the interests of Ireland or advancing the hour of victory for Home Rule by telling their Welsh allies, after 15 years of faithful alliance and friendly co-operation, that they would not give a vote for Welsh Disestablishment this year? They tried that issue out in Ireland last year, and the mandate they received from their constituents was to support the Welsh people in their efforts to secure Welsh Disestablishment. On the same principle they ought to support that Resolution that night, and, as Irish Nationalists, they would support it. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolution recognised that the case of Ireland had priority and was a special case. They did not attempt to minimise or curtail the demands of Ireland, or even to say that the demands of Ireland were exactly the same as those of Scotland or Wales. They admitted that the demands of those two countries were not so urgent as those of Ireland, and he asked whether, that being so, it would be reasonable or just on the part of honest men if they were to refuse to support the demands of their friends in Scotland and Wales. He spoke, he was sure, the sentiments of nine-tenths of the people of Ireland when he said they would be condemned tomorrow if they did not support the reasonable and just demands which had been put forward. He looked at this Resolution from the point of view largely, though not entirely, of the interests of Ireland, and he thought they were bound, by every consideration of expediency, and of their desire to push forward the cause of Home Rule, to show to their allies that so long as they were true to them the Irish Members would be true to them, and as they gave up the whole of one Session to pass Home Rule for Ireland and were going to give up a considerable part of this Session to pass a Bill in which the fate and fortunes of the people of Ireland were closely bound up, they would give them a fair and reasonable return for their kind offices to Ireland. He looked at it also from a wider point of view. He believed that the Irish Question in this country had since 1886, the year that marked an epoch in the history of Ireland—when an English Minister for the first time declared himself as the champion of Irish grievances, and when the great majority of the Radicals and Liberals of this country for the first time took up the case of Irish grievances—entered into a different phase. He believed that the Irish Members would be utterly unworthy if they did not modify their former attitude in accordance with the modified circumstances in which they were placed. The Irish Party were no longer isolated in this country. They were no longer pariahs and outcasts. They had, he believed, a firm and deep-seated hold on the rank and file, apart from the leaders, of the Liberal Party; they possessed, he believed, a hold on the people of this country, and false would they be if they cast away that great hold. The Irish Party recognised the great value of that position, and had modified their action accordingly. He trusted that, in the future, while they would never lower the flag of the Irish cause, which it was their first duty to maintain and push forward, or allow it to be postponed by one hour longer than the absolute necessities of the case required, they would also show that they felt for the wants and rights of the people of this country; and so long as the democracy of Great Britain were true to the cause of Home Rule, so long would they find in Irish Nationalists true and honest sympathisers.

remarked that there was always an air of unreality about these Friday evening discussions. They seemed to be like "ploughing the sand." In the last Parliament, right hon. Gentlemen opposite were very fond of promulgating the theory that it was the duty of the Government promptly to follow up the passing of one of these Resolutions by bringing in a Bill to give effect to it. Notably in the case of payment of Members, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had altered the well-known words of Felix thus:—

"Though I am very happy to hear you now, I will pay you at a more convenient season."

The subjects chosen for these Friday night discussions should not, in his opinion, be too far from the range of practical politics. In rising that night he had endeavoured to free himself from any feeling of that sort, and to treat this Motion with the gravity of the Mover and Seconder. But those speeches failed to deal with the topic upon which he most desired information. They did not say one single word as to what arrangements they proposed in relation to the Executive. After all, was not this the crux of the whole question? It was impossible to avoid one or two alternatives—either they must have a local Executive, practically independent of the Imperial Executive, or they must have an Executive independent of the Legislature. In the first alternative, they would enter again upon that long controversial debate which they had upon the Irish Home Rule Bill, which could never be better settled than in the words of the homely proverb—

"If two men ride on a horse one of them must be in front."

If it had been shown that the vetoes proposed in the case of Ireland would have broken down just when they would be most wanted, what, he asked, would be the case when they were dealing with four Executives, representing, or not representing, the dominant political party at the time? If they took the other alternative they had to face the establishment of an Executive not dependent on the Legislature, and they would then be surrendering the distinguishing feature of the British Constitution, which more than anything else, had tended to the maintenance of personal freedom—a privilege which we, more than any other nation, had enjoyed. There were many examples in other countries where the divorce was complete. America was an instance at the present moment of a country where the Executive did not represent the majority of the Legislature. That would be an absolutely new system to establish in this country, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford had truly said, it would be tearing up the British Constitution. There was one point which he did not think had been touched upon by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Resolution, and it was the effect which the establishment of those separate Parliaments would have on the course of Legislation. After all, there was not nearly so much distinction between the legal system of the various parts of the three kingdoms as was sometimes thought. Even in regard to Scotland, were it not for two things—namely, some picturesque peculiarities in the Scotch marriage laws, and the fact that the English lawyer did not understand the Scotch legal jargon and forms—the legal systems of the two countries would be very nearly the same. The whole great commercial system was the same, and what men had been trying to do for many years past was to assimilate the laws of the two countries. But the effect of the Resolution was to reverse that process and to make the systems of law different. Then what was to be the prospect of the Imperial Parliament after those Local Legislatures had been established? Was the Imperial Parliament to be reduced to a dreary discussion on the Navy Estimates? An hon. Member opposite had spoken of the necessity there was for a better understanding and a better discussion of Indian and Colonial affairs in that House. Did he really think that if this Parliament discussed nothing but the Navy Estimates, and Indian and Colonial affairs, that it would retain its character as the Imperial and supreme Parliament? Men were interested in those things that concerned and affected them most. Let them take, as an illustration, the list of subjects referred to in the Home Rule Bill as applying to an Irish Parliament, and could they doubt for a moment that if the local Legislatures were continually discussing all the important questions that arose upon those subjects, while this Parliament engaged only in an occasional debate upon Indian finances and economy—could they doubt, under those circumstances, that the centre of interest and the supreme power would in time leave that Parliament and centre in the local Parliaments? It was impossible, then, to deal with more than the fringe of the subject, but he wished to point out to the House that the Resolution was an entirely different thing from the Home Rule policy of the Government, a fact that had been recognized by the hon. Member for Water-ford. He was anxious to know, therefore, what would be the attitude of the Government towards the Resolution. Had they found out their present Irish policy was not a good playing card, and, if so, did they think that Home Rule all round was a better card? As to any demand for Home Rule, he did not believe there was much in Scotland, and probably the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool might take his place as the first English Home Ruler. But the important point was to know the course the Government intended to adopt on the present occasion. They did not want simple expressions of sympathy, and he confessed that he was astonished to hear the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, after quoting from a speech of the Prime Minister during the Recess to justify his statement, that he could have no doubt as to what would be the attitude of the Government on the question. He would press upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if he vas going to speak, that he should at least recognise the real meaning of the proposal, which was the tearing up of our present Constitution. It was something different from the Home Rule Bill, which no one thought or argued as if it proposed a federal system. If he did so, he might stir up the Government's present Irish policy, and the Government might even cease to ponder over the difficult question of the wording of that Resolution which they all expected to see some day. But if he contented himself with mere words of sympathy, which meant nothing, then upon this occasion they would have been wasting in idle words the idlest Friday evening of an unpractical Session.

said, the Amendment of his hon. Friend raised a large question, but he did not think that was any objection in an abstract Resolution. When he was nearer the age of his hon. Friend he had raised in abstract Resolutions the largest legislative questions which had been carried in our generation—the Abolition of Purchase in the Army and the Extension of Household Suffrage—and he doubted whether the time could have been very much better employed. Those who raised large questions in abstract Resolutions, however, must not, and probably did not, expect the concurrence and support of the Government, as a Government, the first time that they were placed upon the Paper. Governments which had got a great deal of work in hand, and were not quite in their first youth, were generally rather slow in their corporate capacity in giving their adhesion to propositions which, if accepted, might bring down upon them very great and herculean labours. They had to be careful not to pledge themselves prematurely, and they had to be careful, also, not to abuse the great influence of the Government by bring pressure to influence and alter the genuine opinion of the House of Commons. The value of abstract Resolutions consisted in their being the measure and mirror of the real opinion of Parliament. It was impossible that questions of advantage to the country could ever ripen and come to maturity, or that dangerous proposals could ever be finally condemned by public opinion, unless Parliament freely expressed its opinion when these matters were brought before them. Unless on that bench and all through the House Members gave their votes according to to the light that was in them, they had better do away altogether with abstract Resolutions and give the whole time of the House to passing Bills, whether of private Members or of the Government. One hon. Member had said that the discussion was unreal, and he was hound to say that the hon. Member did not, he thought, add very much to its reality. He thought, however, the House was very well satisfied with the Debate; he had very seldom heard the opinions of all quarters of the kingdom more adequately expressed. The hon. Mover told them the story of Scotland, and although he had told it before, he had done so this time with novelty; the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was really admirable in his exposition of the Welsh case; the question of England was put by his hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool in a manner which created sympathy and interest throughout the House; and the hon. Member for East Mayo, lighting with those who had fought with him shoulder to shoulder, and who would continue to fight with him in the national cause, if nobody else did, put the case of Ireland in a manner which perfectly satisfied, at any rate, hon. Members who sat upon that Bench. As far as Scotland was concerned, he supposed every Scotch Member present had voted for or against Home Rule for Scotland. The circumstances of last Session and this Session had not diminished the motives of hon. Members. Last Session English business and the Imperial business connected with finance filled the time of Parliament so completely that, but for a single circumstance, Scotland would have got nothing for herself at all, the circumstance being that her principal measure was sent to a Committee upon which all Scotch Members sat and had their say, and upon which they could bring their influence to bear. By this means Scotland got 60 hours of public time—no great allowance, but good use was made of it, and by snatching those 60 hours from the furnace they got a Scotch measure which was a Scotch measure indeed. If that Bill had been in Committee it would have taken, not 60 hours or 120 hours, but—what the English Bill which did more for England than Scotland—he believed 240 hours of public time. It was a Bill which did as much for Scotland and more than the English Bill did for England, because, in addition to a complete system of parish councils, it gave to Scotland a new Local Government Board. The reason for this was it was sent to a body which had some of the leading features of a Scotch Parliament, and the consequence was they got a measure which had given solid satisfaction in Scotland. If that legislation had been conducted in Edinburgh instead of Westminster, not only would Scotland have got as good, and better, a Parish Councils Bill, but there would have been plenty of time for other legislation which Scotland needed. This Session the Government had in petto a County Council Bill which he believed every Member would wish to pass. They had, besides, a Crofters Bill, which although not applicable to the whole of Scotland was greatly wanted by public opinion in the whole of Scotland, and was passionately demanded by the counties which might be called the crofting counties. Why could not these Bills see the light? Because not the gateway but the threshold of Parliament was blocked by a great Bill for Wales and Ireland. The hon. Member for Buteshire had raised a difficulty which he seemed to think insuperable. He said:—

"You must have an Executive independent of the Imperial Executive, or you must have an Executive totally separate from the local Legislature."

He himself did not think this was an alternative at all. They might have an Executive which was dependent on the local Legislature, but which was, at the same time, subordinate to the Imperial Executive. What would happen if they transferred not only Scotch legislation but Scotch administration to Edinburgh? In what respect was it now dependent on the Imperial Executive? Any one who knew the Scotch Office knew it was not dependent on the Imperial Executive at all for practical purposes, except one—for money. Whatever the Scotch Secretary, dependent as he was on this Parliament, and especially on the Scotch Members, desired to do, he would venture to say that in purely Scotch matters he was never checked by the Imperial Executive. Where he was checked, hampered, and fettered was as regarded money. Like others he was absolutely dependent on the Treasury, and it would be no evil if the Scotch Executive had to provide for the needs of Scotland, according to Scotch views, out of Scotch resources, voted by a Scotch Parliament. Two things would come from that. In the first place, Scotch needs, where money was really wanted, would be adequately met with full knowledge of the circumstances, and in those cases where undue pressure was brought to bear occasionally from other parts of Scotland, in a manner which was not quite consistent with the self-respect of Scotland, that would be much less freely done. It was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that the complaint that Scotland could not get any Legislation came to a question of time alone. Of course, it was all a question of time, but look at what that meant. Take a little measure, trumpery, perhaps, in the eyes of the House, but not in the eyes of Scotchmen, for closing public-houses. Many years ago a Bill for that purpose passed through this House and went to the House of Lords, which cut out of it a provision allowing the large cities to close their public-houses at 10 o'clock, and obliged them to close only at 11 o'clock. The municipalities of every great city in Scotland asked to have the same opportunity as others of closing at 10 o'clock; but, although there was absolute unanimity of opinion on the subject, Scotland was debarred from having what it wanted. The hon. Gentleman said it was only a question of time; but what did that mean? Nine years ago a majority of Scotch Members were in favour of throwing open Parish Councils to the people; but nine years passed before Parliament would pass a Bill. What was nine years? It was one-third of a generation. Was a country which wanted a change of that kind to be told to wait nine years because of a block of business in the House of Commons, and then to be told it was a question of time only? Then, if Scotch Members were persuaded that Scotland knew how to manage her own business, and if they had so voted on two previous occasions, were they to be deterred from doing so again because Scotland was put into the same Resolution with Ireland and with Wales, for whom Scotland had the greatest sympathy. [Laughter and cheers.] Why was that a question for laughter? If ever there were two countries that were alike in political and social matters it was Scotland and Wales? Look at the position of Wales? Here was a question that Wales understood, on which she felt deeply, and on which her Members exhibited unprecedented unanimity. Out of 34, 31 were in favour of Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church; and what was the reception they got? They were told they were only 30 Members of Parliament—a mere section—and that it was disgraceful of the Government to think of gratifying them. When the Bill went—as it would go—to the House of Lords, what would be found there? An assembly with plenty of Welsh bishops, without a single Dissenting minister: an assembly with plenty of Welsh landlords without a single representative of the poor farmers and shopkeepers, who supported their own ministers and their own worship, and who, at the same time, saw all the religious Endowments of the country go to another creed. If ever there was a country capable of managing its Ecclesiastical affairs it was Wales. That country felt deeply on two kindred subjects—temperance and education—and yet the people were unable to have their own way in managing these questions, which concerned them so deeply. How sincere, almost pathetic, had been the desire of the Welsh people to get a share of higher education. When, with great difficulty and the help of this House, they had been able to put forward a scheme of Welsh education, it went to the House of Lords, where it met with treatment most unsympathetic, and where the immense power of men who differed from them was conscientiously but ruthlessly exercised to ruin their hopes. When Scotchmen were asking to manage their own Scottish matters, their own liquor laws, and their education, they were more likely to do it freely and gladly, because, at the same time, they could put in a good word for Wales. And what was the result of this? That England and English Liberals in Parliament were in English matters left without the assistance of Welsh, Scotch, and Irish Liberals. He thought it would be a very good thing that England, be she Conservative or be she Liberal, should manage her own affairs in the way which seemed best to her, for he was quite satisfied that they would never get any healthy, progressive feeling in England so long as she had to depend on the assistance of Liberals who lived outside her own confines. As to the condition of business in the House, if any hon. Member was satisfied with it, he could not easily see what was his idea of the functions and purposes of a legislative assembly. Whatever lay before them, he was satisfied that the country would not long or permanently acquiesce in having a Parliament that was blocked by the competition of four nations requiring separate and distinct legislation, and, besides, that had to transact the immense business of the Empire. This Amendment called on the House to say whether this state of things, which every year aggravated, was to last for ever, and those who saw on other remedy for it had no choice but to record their votes in favour of the principle of a proposal which, as the experience of two of the leading countries of the world. Germany and the United States, proved, could be made, by due care, as safe as it would be effective, for giving every portion of the kingdom, with reasonable facility and without undue friction, laws that would, according to its own belief, tend to its own welfare.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by giving the House a description of what he thought its proper functions on Friday evenings, and spoke of the great importance of the Debates which take place early in the Session between nine and twelve o'clock, after an exhausting week, and of the position those discussions take in the labours of this House. He appears to think that public opinion, inside and outside the House, is formed by these discussions, and as he said so, I could not help looking round me on a House which was far emptier then than now, and even then far fuller than an hour before, and reflecting that if it was in those circumstances that the vast questions to which he alluded have to be threshed out there was but a small prospect of our arriving at any rational conclusion. He went further, and he told us that, although these Friday night functions might possess their full significance, it was absolutely necessary that the Government of the day should exercise no control on the Vote Members should give; and I suppose it is for that reason that all the more important of his colleagues have until just now abstained from being present. The right hon Gentleman further stated that when a Government was growing old—I do not know whether he meant us to understand that this Government was growing old—that when a Government was growing old in office, they were extremely reluctant to adopt any Resolutions that might commit them to Herculean labours, and therefore I understand that the right hon. Gentleman himself was put up as the maximum of Ministerial support which committed the Government to nothing. Sir, I differ entirely from the views the right hon. Gentleman has taken of the importance of debates of the character we are now engaged in, and I associate myself entirely with what fell from my hon. and learned Friend near me when he said that they had an ineffaceable air of unreality. If I looked at this question totally from the point of view of one of that party whose main object it is to prevent the proposal for Home Rule having practical effect, I confess I should rejoice to see a Motion of this sort brought forward, supported even by a small fraction of the Government and by a large number of their followers; for if there ever was a Resolution calculated in the eyes of any thinking man from one end of the country to the other, be he a Welshman, be he an Irishman, be he a Scotchman, or be he an Englishman, to turn, the Home Rule proposals of the Government into absolute ridicule It is a Resolution which, if carried into effect, would give us some sort of Home Rule all round, with four executives—no, five executives. I did the proposal great injustice—five executives and five separate representative assemblies. Does anybody think that that would be seriously approved by the people of this country? They are not very much in love with Home Rule as it is, but when they are told that Home Rule for Ireland is to be a mere prelude to this kind of Home Rule all round, and when they draw the inference from that, which is that when once you have given privileges to Ireland corresponding to those contained in the Home Rule Bill of two years ago, you cannot give Scotland less and you cannot give Wales less—do you think that they will be more in love with Home Rule? As an opponent of Home Rule, I rejoice to see the kind of support which is given to this measure by so important a Member of the Home Rule Party as the hon. Member for Mayo. In his speech, which was delivered with his usual eloquence and passion, there was not one scintilla of argument in favour of the Resolution for which he is going to vote, not one word about the effect which such a proposal as this must have upon the very fibre and substance of the British Constitution. The hon. Member's sole reason for supporting this Resolution was that he had received in the past, and hoped to receive in the future, a very large measure of support from various Welshmen and various Scotchmen, and that in his opinion it would be most ungrateful if he on his side did not do his share of the log-rolling and did not vote for something which Welshmen and Scotchmen said they desired. I am sure the hon. Member will not assert that I have over-coloured or altered the substance of his speech. The hon. Member's reason for voting for this Resolution is that certain Scotch Representatives and certain Welsh Representatives in this House have shown a desire to help him to Home Rule in Ireland, and that it would be most ungrateful of him if he did not help them to Home Rule in Scotland and in Wales. That is what is commonly called "log-rolling." It means that the Members from Ireland have publicly avowed that they are not going to vote upon Motions or Bills according to their merits, but that they are going to vote on Bills and Motions according to the measure of support that they expect from the persons who desire to see those Resolutions or Bills passed by this House. That is a mode of procedure which will bring discredit upon the whole of our deliberations; and when the Secretary for Scotland tells this House that this is an opportunity when Members, apart from Government pressure, may for once be allowed to give a vote according to the real opinions which they have formed as to the merits of the question, I would venture to point out to him that his benevolent intentions are unhappily destroyed when we know that the Members of one important section of the House are not going to vote according to the merits of the proposal, but out of a sense of gratitude.

The right hon. Gentleman has rather misrepresented my views. I can see nothing dishonourable in saying that, inasmuch as the great majority of the Scotch and Welsh people have assisted loyally the great majority of the Irish people to obtain what they want, we should assist the majority of the Scotch and Welsh peoples to obtain what they want.

I quite admit that there is nothing dishonourable in that, and I made on allegation of dishonour. What I said was, that such a course of action would destroy the value of the deliberations of this House. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me went into a great many details as to the in juries inflicted upon Wales and Scotland respectively by delays in legislation. I shall not follow him in a discussion of those details. After all, the British Empire is not to be broken up because a Bill passes five or six years later than its authors would desire. Legislation may be too slow or too rapid, but no arrangement that you can make, no cutting up of this Empire into innumerable fragments, will provide you with machinery which will make it impossible to pass criticisms of that character upon our proceedings. It appears to be absolute lunacy for this country to pursue alone among the nations of the world an opposite course to that which has built up every other great empire with which we have to compete. Look at the process by which America, starting as a series of Colonies independent of each other, has gradually been welded, in spite of its Constitution, into a homogeneous whole. Look at the process by which Italy has been converted from a geographical expression into a national reality. Look at the process by which German unity has been built up. [Cheers and Counter Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen do not appear to see that I am describing a process and not a Constitution. It is a vital distinction. I say that the process of change, the movement, the progress—that is the point—of every one of these nations America, Italy, Germany—and of course the same process is going on in our own colonies—has been to bind together and not to loosen. And I would ask Gentlemen who doubt that I have given a correct diagnosis of the history of Europe, or of some parts of Europe, to refer to the eloquent passage, which I think I quoted some years ago in this House, from the writings of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, where he points out, in admirable language, that one of the great benefits conferred by the French Revolution upon. France was that it stamped out the very last remnants of those divisions which even the power of French Monarchy had been unable to efface. Let the House remember that if you establish separate organisations because you find already existing what you call national differences or differences of sentiment between different portions of the population, the separate organizations which you establish have the inevitable tendency to increase, to make perpetual, and to make ineffaceable, the distinction which originally called them into being. It would be absolutely impossible to give Scotland or Wales, and, as I think, Ireland—though Ireland is not in question in this Resolution—a separate organization without by that very act laying the foundation of future differences between different portions of this island, which must inevitably weaken the whole unity of Britain. I feel that if we are to maintain our position in that great national competition it must be by doing that which every other nation has been forced to do, by binding closer together elements which, under different circumstances, might tend to separate, and I feel that this federation, as you call it, is not a step, and cannot be made a step, in the direction of drawing together closer the Colonies to Britain itself, but as a step for destroying that centre around which the Colonies must crystallize if the British Empire, is to remain united. There is no sacrifice, not even the sacrifice of the Constitution of this country itself, that I would not make if I could see every scattered member of our great Empire drawn together into a homogeneous whole, as close as that which we in this island constitute at the present moment. But, believe me, the last hope of carrying out any such beneficent arrangement will be lost if in our madness—as I think—because this or that Bill was not referred to a Grand Committee, because this or that Bill was not passed into law, because the law made such an amendment, or refused to make such another amendment—if for trifling reasons like these—trifling, I mean, as compared with the issues at stake—we are going to enter upon a course, which, in the words of the Secretary for Scotland, will inflict upon the Government which undertakes it a herculean labour, and which, as the result of that labour, can only end in the absolute destruction of the Empire. This is an abstract Resolution, and I have, perhaps, allowed myself an undue measure of warmth in dealing with something which can have no practical issue. I have, perhaps, taken seriously that which I venture to say is intrinsically ridiculous. But though I have misled the House if I have induced anybody to think that I imagine the British Empire is in danger, from this or any other abstract form of words, I do ask the House in its own interests not to make itself ridiculous. Surely we shall not add to our dignity in the view of the public if—after three hours' discussion, in the absence of a very large number of the most important Members of the House, with the Government Bench unadorned by the leading Members who usually occupy it, in a House compared with its whole numbers relatively small—we are to pass a Resolution which, if it means anything. means this: that in the minds of those who vote for it some colossal change in the relation between the different parts of the Empire is to be brought about; that the ancient Constitution of this country is to be recast in some method wholly unknown; that we are to introduce a complexity into our affairs, which at the best must produce inevitable friction, and which at the worst will prove a centrifugal force, driving far apart populations which, by the very circumstances in which Providence has placed them, are evidently intended to form members, and can only do their work in the world by being members, of one united whole.

who rose amidst cries of impatience: Mr. Speaker,—I am in favour of Home Rule on a federal basis, and I intended to speak on that subject, but at this late hour I hope the House will take my speech as delivered.