I beg to give notice that on an early day I shall move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

On an early day, a Bill to amend the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts.

On an early day a Bill to amend the law relating to education in England and Wales.

On an early day, a Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts.

On an early day, a Bill to explain the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

I believe no Englishman can enter this chamber for the first time, without a feeling of awe, and no man can rise to speak for the first time, as I do on this Motion, without an overwhelming sense of his own incompetence to acquit himself worthily of this Assembly. The honour laid upon me is due to no personal merit of my own, but to the fact that I am an humble member of that band of Liberals whose efforts have succeeded in converting London from what we look upon as the darkness of error to the light of the Gospel of Truth. I venture to say the great change of political opinion in London is one of the most remarkable and important features of this most remarkable and important election. No one recognised more keenly the importance of metropolitan opinion than the late Prime Minister. Speaking at the Queen's Hall on the 29th of December, with reference to the fidelity of London to the Unionist cause, Mr. Balfour said—

"I refuse to believe—I cannot believe the London which has been so faithful to this great cause, will turn round and, false to its own past, forgetful of its own traditions, give an example to the rest of the country which might prove the death knell of all that most of us here regard as best worth living for in public life."

The London elections have indeed proved a death knell, not only to the Leader, but to many of his followers. But if these elections sounded as a knell to some, to others they were "Bells as musical as those which on the golden shafted trees of Eden shook by the eternal breeze." They have rung out to many a desolate home a message of hope whore hitherto there has been despair. I recognise that there has been considerable criticism directed to the fact that this Motion has been entrusted to a town Member rather than to a country Member. Although I am, of course, personally innocent of this great offence, I fully recognise the heinousness of the crime which has ventured to place the representation of flesh and blood on a level with the representation of broad acres. But it is only one of the many signs that public opinion is gradually realising that the destinies of a great nation more and more depend upon the condition of its town people. Count Tolstoy has recently said that towns are places where mankind is beginning to rot, and within a rifle shot of this House there are many districts to which that description accurately applies. It is these districts chiefly that we London Liberal Members represent. We bring no message from the depopulated warehouses of the City or the mansions of Mayfair. We have been entrusted, and honoured with the confidence of the poor, and I believe I am expressing the wishes of all my colleagues when I say we feel deeply the responsibility which has been laid upon us of doing what we can to improve the conditions of the poor. And so it is with the greatest gratification that we find that the first message His Majesty has addressed to the new Parliament is so replete with promises of reform which will materially improve the conditions of the common people. Their Majesties the King and Queen—and in referring to them I may be allowed to express our deep sympathy with Her Majesty the Queen in her sad bereavement—Their Majesties have ever shown the greatest practical and personal interest in all measures which relate to the amelioration of the condition of their humblest subjects, and it must be a source of pleasure to them to feel that they have behind them now a Government and a Parliament whose great object it will be to lift up the poorer people of this country. I believe that when we have completed the labours that are submitted to us in the King's Speech—when we have done what we can to improve the education of the children, to bring back, if possible, the labourer to the land, to redress the injustices from which the great industrial corporations are suffering, to equalise the charges of the rates upon the poorer inhabitants of the Metropolis, to do something to amend the Act which grants relief to the deserving poor when out of employment, we shall have found that our work will have been amply repaid by the results. There are other reforms which I would like to see included in the King's Speech, but we can well afford to wait. It is better that there should be a few promises capable of fulfilment than that there should be a long string of proposals which cannot be carried out. But if there are reforms which I would have wished to see inserted there is one reform, which all must be delighted to see has been omitted from the King's Speech, a reform that is no reform; but rather reaction masquerading in the guise of a reform. I refer of course to fiscal reform. The intelligent foreigner who has watched the proceedings in this country for the last two or three years must wonder why no reference is made to this great subject in the King's Speech. Ever since the year 1903, when we witnessed the unexpected and brilliant spectacle of an eruption in Birmingham, this country has been flooded with fiery denunciations against our whole commercial system, and enveloped in a cloud of facts and figures through which the ordinary elector has had the greatest difficulty in groping his way. Since that time we have talked of nothing else but the fiscal controversy. It has been discussed and re-discussed on the platform, in the Press, in public, and in private. It has been the sole issue of many a bye-election; it has been the main issue of the general election. We, Parliamentary candidates, have had to furbish up our principles of political economy and investigate the details of our domestic economy. We have expatiated upon exports. We have perorated on prices. We have replied to the horrors of the competition of the German workman with the horrors of the composition of German sausages. But after all this warfare we find nothing is said with regard to the subject in the King's Speech, and I may in all seriousness say that we thank God for it. It is a tacit announcement that this great controversy is come to an end for the moment. I say for the moment, because the volcano is not extinct. It is only quiescent. But there is one thing which has been settled by the election and that is that if you want to consolidate the Empire you must not put a tax upon food. The great cities of this country have declared in favour of free trade [Cries of "No."] All the cities with one notable and misguided exception have declared in favour of free trade, and for the reason that they know better than anyone how a tax upon food would affect their congested and poor population. London has done many things to earn the gratitude of the nation, but I believe she has never merited it more than when, in spite of her political proclivities, like the deaf adder, she stopped her ears, refusing to hear the voice of the charmer, charmed he never so wisely, and flung the whole weight of her wealth, her intelligence, and her influence on to the side of the poor. But this controversy is now at an end, and there is a chance of commercial peace. After a war from which we are suffering almost as much as the Boers themselves, what we desire for the future is a period of rest in order to recoup our commercial position. Had the country at the election decided that we were to embark on a policy of retaliation that must necessarily have been followed by disputes between ourselves and other countries, and possibly international complications. But, fortunately, now we can proceed with our commerce in peace, and we have the assurance, which we welcome from His Majesty, that we are now at last at peace with the world. May it be long ere we again fail to reap its advantages. It is a trite observation that in order to ensure peace you must prepare for war, but there are various methods of preparation for war, and one of the most effective methods is that we should be at peace amongst ourselves. We must, therefore, welcome the announcement in the King's Speech that the Government have been giving and are giving their attention to the task of eliminating the two causes of discontent which still are a menace to the peace of our Empire. The paragraph in His Majesty's Speech relating to Ireland will commend itself to all reasonable men except those whose function it is to misrepresent the intentions of their opponents. That something must be done to improve the internal administration of Ireland is admitted by all. That this can only be effected by some kind of compromise is also clear. If we recognise that the two countries are permanently united both by nature, by self-interest, and by law, it ought not to be impossible to eradicate this long standing difference between two high-minded and generous nations. The same with regard to the Transvaal. The Transvaal stands in a different position because no one has denied that the Government of the Transvaal and that of the Orange River Colony should be dealt with in precisely the same manner as the other self governing colonies, and the only question was at what period this should take place. This action is to take place forthwith, and His Majesty has decided to recall the Letters Patent, issued by the late administration, which provided for the intermediate stage of representative government. The proposals of the late Government were faulty in two respects. Firstly they proposed to set up an elective body to which should be given no real executive power. If that were done I feel convinced that the result would be that the body itself would be very much weakened in its calibre from the commencement. Secondly, there would have been a constant friction between the popularly-elected body and the executive government which could not have conduced to the peace of the Empire. It is therefore only right—and I believe that European opinion in South Africa itself is almost entirely convinced with regard to this—to give responsible government at the earliest moment. But concurrently with this it is clear that if a permanent administration is set up in the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony that administration must be based upon an electoral system which would give satisfaction to all classes alike. It would be most unfortunate to have started a new government in the Transvaal and then to find that a large class of the electorate felt themselves either excluded from the franchise or unjustly treated. Therefore the announcement that it is intended to inquire by some thoroughly impartial moans into the effect which the various proposals for the reform of the electoral law will have when it comes into operation will be not only welcomed in South Africa but throughout all our Colonies as an earnest that the Government's sole desire is to do equal justice to all the King's subjects, and it will tend more than anything else to realise the hope, so eloquently expressed by His Majesty this morning, that—

"In these Colonies, as elsewhere throughout His dominions, the grant of free institutions will be followed by an increase of prosperity and loyalty to the Empire."

I beg to second the Address which has just been moved. In doing so I feel that I can rely upon the kindly forbearance and consideration which is usually extended to those who occupy this difficult position This forbearance was not necessary in the case of the mover, because he is a gentleman of tried experience and ability; but I hope that the House will be willing to exercise it in my case, recognising that I have none of my hon. friend's personal fitness for this honour. The House, I think, will be all the more willing to extend to me its indulgence because this is the first session of a new Parliament containing so many new Members who are much better fitted than I am to discharge this duty. The Speech from the Throne contains many references to foreign affairs about which I only need to say—and in this, at any rate, I know I shall have the agreement of everyone present—that this House is deeply conscious that the happy position which this country now occupies among the nations of the earth is largely due to His Majesty's zealous care for the welfare of his Empire, and to his great personal desire to cultivate friendly relations with foreign Powers. When we see so many references to foreign affairs in the different parts of the world we cannot fail to recognise the variety, complexity, and difficulty of the task which must fall upon the Minister entrusted with them. If anything could do so, this will add to our heartfelt grief, and to the sympathy which we extend to him in his bereavement. With regard to South Africa, I am sure the House will appreciate the difficult problem which faced the Ministry on their entry to office, and will recognise, I hope, the reasonableness of asking for sufficient time to collect the information which will enable this House to come to a wise and right decision. We trust that the time which will elapse before a permanent form of self-government is established will be brief, but yet sufficient for the preparation and due discussion in this House of a constitution which will be acknowledged as fair and just by all races and interests in our great new Colonies in South Africa. We trust that in these Colonies, as hitherto in our long colonial history, freedom may become the mother of prosperity and loyalty. I am sure that we shall look forward to seeing the representatives from those colonies taking their share together with the citizens of this great Empire from other parts of the world in the Conference which we are glad to know is to meet next year. We trust that those deliberations may be fruitful in strengthening those bonds of sentiment, of affection, and the common enjoyment of common freedom which are the true foundations of empire. The remarkable growth of our trade both at home and abroad has been referred to. However great the prosperity it has caused in many districts we cannot forget that there are still many persons in many parts of the country struggling against the degradation of poverty. I have confidence that the Government will do their utmost so to relieve and readjust the burdens of taxation that this poverty may be reduced. The difficulties, however, will be very great. None will realise more than hon. Members of this House who, like myself, have been fortunate enough to enjoy some experience in the Civil Service, how easy it is to spend a nation's money, and how difficult it is to economise when a liability has once been created. It will have been noticed that the last paragraphs of the Speech fall into two parts, first a statement of the matters which are under consideration with a view to future administrative or legislative action, and, secondly, an enumeration of the Bills which are to be laid before Parliament during the present session. In the first part fall the references to Ireland and to rural depopulation. I think that there can be no ground for controversy on either of these matters. With regard to Ireland, the objects which it is desired to further are only such as have been the policy of the predecessors of the present Ministers. There has been no lack of sympathy with these objects on the other side of the House, and even of desire to carry them into effect, but much to the disappointment of many hon. Members on both sides, this desire has hitherto failed of fruition. The present Government has not only the will but the courage to act, and I am sure that when action is proposed, it will be widely welcomed. With regard to the condition of the rural districts, hon. Members will be aware that an important inter-departmental Committee is now sitting, and they will agree that no legislation can be drafted until we are in possession of its report. The question of encouraging settlement on the land by those who are at present deprived of access to it is of the very first importance, but that is only a part of the vast land question in general. There will be many other Liberal Members now for the first time returned by agricultural divisions who realise how strong is the hope in such districts that comprehensive measures will be laid before us, which will secure not only this object, but a more economical and profitable use of the land by the present farming class. We are glad, therefore, to know that this indispensable preliminary consideration is being undertaken. In the legislation proposed for this session, pride of place is given to education. This is, if I may venture to say so, not only right, but inevitable. For almost exactly four years education has been a platform battle cry, and it has grievously suffered in consequence. While one party has been exulting in victory, the other has been smarting under defeat, and all the while boys and girls have been going out into the battle of life less well-prepared to face the world than they would have been if a fraction of the energy which has gone into this strife had been given to furthering education itself. All parties, I believe, recognise that this must cease. All parties, I hope, are willing to allow the religious difficulty to be composed. When once this is settled, and elementary education for the first time is placed upon a truly popular and national basis, the way will be open for many improvements in it which are now impossible of attainment, and with these improvements there will, we hope, come others in our system of higher education upon which depends in such a great degree our standing among the nations. There is no doubt that large sections of the community are now willing to approach this question in the broadest spirit of citizenship, intent only upon freedom and peace. May I venture to express the hope that this spirit may animate our debates, and that we may set before ourselves with single-mindedness the welfare of the child, which I believe to be the path of true progress. I need only further occupy your time with a brief mention of two other measures. The Trades Disputes Bill will, I hope, be found to redress the disabilities which have within the last few years unexpectedly hampered the action of Trades Unions for the good of their members. The proposal for amending the Workmen's Compensation Acts are as urgently necessary as any other measure to be laid before the House. Every week working men and their families are left in want and destitution because of the limitations of the present law. It is to be hoped that the proposals to be made will not only simplify but widely extend its operations. I should only weary the House even more than I have done already were I even to mention the other matters which will demand our attention. Each of them is of some urgency and importance. May I, in conclusion, mention one of the many reasons which make me so proud to occupy this position. The people of this country at the General Election, not only refused their assent to a great departure from established fiscal traditions, but they also recalled to power and armed with authority a Government with a known and declared policy of social reform. The measures to be put before us during this session constitute a bold and firm step forward towards its fulfilment. It is therefore with pride in being allowed to take even the humblest part in assisting towards the fulfilment of this policy, and with heartfelt hope for its success that I second the Motion now before the House.

I think I might very properly imitate the example of the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken if I also were to plead for the consideration of the House in the very difficult position in which I find myself. At the request of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is temporarily absent, I am endeavouring, however inadequately, to act as his substitute to-night. I suppose it would be too much to ask of human nature to expect that the, Prime Minister would or could express any regret at the series of triumphs which culminated in that great victory at Manchester, which for the moment has deprived him of his principal antagonist. But, although as a politician he must necessarily rejoice, I am sure that, looking at the matter as a personal question only, he will join us most heartily in welcoming back to the House its late Leader—the man who for a longer period than any one in the past century has led its deliberations with constant ability, courage and courtesy. I have often thought that the task performed by the hon. Members for St. Pancras and the Richmond division of Yorkshire is one of the most difficult to fall to the lot of any Parliamentarian; for what is it? They are expected by a convention, which has become almost an absolute rule, to expound and develop the topics of the King's Speech, avoiding anything in the nature of platitude, and equally avoiding any thing in the nature of hard controversy. The hon. Member who spoke last, and who, if I had to use the language of his colleague, I must describe as the representative, not of men, but of broad acres, discharged that difficult task in the most admirable and satisfactory manner, and the way in which he dealt with his task gave as much pleasure to his opponents as he could have done—I am speaking of his style and manner—to his friends. I have had the honour of knowing his father and grandfather in this House. He comes of a family which is so closely connected with our Parliamentary history that it is almost a part of its traditions, and we all delight in thinking that he will for the future be a worthy representative, and that we may often have the pleasure of hearing him in debate. I wish I could speak in the same way of the other speech which we were compelled to listen to, and which certainly formed a precedent in more ways than one. It is a precedent which I hope will be avoided in the future. Both hon. Gentlemen, I think, may be congratulated on having been called upon to take part in what they have described very properly as an unparalleled and exceptionally interesting Parliament. Mostly interesting is it in its composition, in the struggle which preceded it, and in the circumstances under which it now exists, and we shall, I think, be excused if before we proceed to the topics of the King's Speech we say a word or two about the Parliament which opens its first session to-day. The record of this election is absolutely, I think, unparalleled. It has ended in an unparalleled victory for the other side. I have seen it stated in some quarters, which I think are not altogether friendly to the Government, that those legions we see opposite to us are fissiparous and composite, but I shall not attempt prematurely to analyse their composition. On the contrary, I think it would be improper to minimise their victory or question their power. I have been curious, and I dare say many have been curious, to know whether one can find in Parliamentary history any complete analogy. To find anything like it one has to go back to the defeat of the Coalition Ministry of Fox and North in 1784 when Pitt took office. I find on that occasion the Coalition Government lost 160 seats. I am afraid that on these Benches we have to mourn a loss of something over 200. Again in 1833, after the Reform Bill, the Liberals came back. This is rather nearer the existing condition of things. The Liberals came back 486 strong and the Conservatives 172. The majority, therefore, of the Liberals in this House was 314. Now I reckon it is something like 315. There is in all this one grain of comfort. When we look back, what do we find? We find that those great and overpowering majorities have been in existence before and that no special disaster has befallen the country in consequence. And we have also seen that the defeated Party on those occasions has not been permanently excluded from office. On reading one of the letters of Sidney Smith, after the great defeat of the Whigs, I think it was Lord Grey's Government, I find that he said that he and his Whig friends had been terribly cut up by what had happened, and that they had been going about very dejected until it suddenly occurred to him to go out to his garden and sow some mustard and cress. In two or three days, almost to his surprise, he found that the mustard and cress was coming up and that the general operations of nature were proceeding without any interruption. There upon he and his friends began to recover from the difficulties in which they found themselves. Now one other observation I would make and it is this—I do not know what the exact figures are, but I find that some of the newspapers have been trying to discover what is the majority of votes which is accountable for this immense majority in the House, and I understand they calculate that something like a majority of 5 per cent. of the votes accounts for the majority in this House of 50 per cent. I do not know, as I say, whether that is correct, but it is immaterial to what I am going to say. In any case, it will be admitted that the majority in the House is in very much greater proportion than the majority in the country. It is always worth while to remember, when you are not really satisfied with beating us but condemn us also, that we have a large body of the people of the country behind us in these unfortunate times. If my friend Mr. Leonard Courtney had been fortunate enough to be returned, what a text he would have had for his sermon on minority representation. I wish to say, however, that I take what I think is a more manly view of the position, and I rejoice that as you have come in you should be strong and that your numerical majority for executive and administrative purposes in the House should be larger than your actual majority in the country. A weak Government is, in my opinion, the worst form of Government you could possibly have. It is desirable that each Party in turn—and remember our turn will come—should have a large and powerful majority. Of course, with such a powerful majority, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister recognises that he has proportional responsibility. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, the Liberal Party for the first time for many years is master in its own House, and no longer can it be truly said of the Liberal Party that though the Liberal Party was in power there were Gentlemen on these benches who held it in the hollow of their hand. They are now entirely independent, and being independent I hope they will show their independence, and that we shall have no occasion to doubt that what they do is done from the fulness of their heart and with their own thorough approval, and not because there are others exercising an improper influence over them. We can object to what the Government does, we can criticise, but there is no possible combination we can form by which we can turn them out of office, and that is a very comfortable position for them. It is one which after all makes our position a little easier than it might otherwise have been. The Prime Minister, speaking the other day, attributed to me a statement that our business was to harass the Government on all possible occasions. I really do not know where he got that from. I am not aware of, in any speech, having made a statement of that general kind. The Prime Minister said that he did not object to our criticising them when they were wrong, and I assume that we may avail ourselves of that gracious permission. When he is right and when there is no great principle at stake I assure him that he need have no reason whatever to dread the factious opposition of which other Governments have complained. In the opening words of His Majesty's gracious Speech none of us, I am sure, will find any grounds for factious or other criticism. The personal touch with which His Majesty communicates to the House of Commons the bereavement which he and especially the Queen have sustained by the death of the King of Denmark will, I believe, evoke sympathy among all his subjects. The late King of Denmark was the Nestor of European monarchs, and earned the best and most enviable reward in the tribute of affection and regard which has been paid to him by his own subjects. I note in passing what I am sure will have given pleasure to the House—the allusion to the journey of the Prince of Wales. We all know that the personal link with the Crown is of the utmost importance to the Government of the great dependency of India, and we rejoice to think that the visit has been and continues to be an altogether entire success. Then the Speech goes on to deal with foreign affairs, and in its statements it only gives us confirmation of what we have learned from speeches made by Ministers, namely, that in our foreign policy there will be continuity. We have nothing to do but to express satisfaction in that matter. We all recognise that the representations the British Government has to make in the interests of our fellow subjects are enormously strengthened when foreign nations know that what is said by one Government will be said by another, and that all proceed on the same principles and policy. I would like to ask two questions in regard to this, though I should not think of pressing them if there is no information the Government at present are able to give. We hear a great deal in the papers about what is going on at the Conference at Algeciras. We should be glad if the Government could give us an assurance of progress made and any hope as to the future. We know that we entered the Conference as the friend of our great neighbour France, that as the friend of France we had accepted an agreement satisfactory to ourselves, and which we hoped other countries might be able to accept. If by diplomatic means we can in any way promote what we believe to be the just interests of France, I am sure it will be in accordance with the wishes of the whole country. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any Papers on the subject or any information to give. Also I should like to ask what progress is being made in Macedonia, in carrying out the financial argeement accepted some time ago by the Sultan We are aware that the agreement is now being put into force, and we shall be glad to know if there is any information as to whether it is proceeding satisfactorily. Well, then in the paragraph of the Speech which deals with Colonial affairs, I cannot help thinking that those who have been connected with Colonial affairs would agree with me that there, also, continuity of policy is most desirable. This country has suffered in the past in its relations with the Colonies from a want of agreement in regard to that policy. I would say now that I sincerely hope that we may look forward under the present Government to a general continuity of the policy carried out by the previous Government. There is an announcement in the King's speech of an important change in the constitution of the Transvaal which was offered by the late Government. A new constitution is to be conferred on the Transvaal. The House knows how this matter stands. At the end of the war a promise was made that constitutional government would be conferred on the Transvaal at the earliest possible moment, that that should be followed by representative government, and that gradually it should lead up to responsible government. Well, the late Government started with a constitutional government but stopped for the moment at representative government. The form of government that they proposed was a very liberal one considering the circumstances. It must be remembered that never before or after a great war had a defeated party been so largely endowed with a share of the government as the people of the Transvaal were, even under the limited constitution proposed to be given them. Everybody admired the extraordinary magnanimity shown by the Northern States of America after the Civil War, but it was ten years before the Southern States obtained the full franchise and full share in the government of the United States. I do not give that as any reason. You may in a matter of this kind very well create a new precedent. It is as I say only a question of degree. Whatever you do, whether you give representative government or whether you give responsible government, it is necessarily an experiment, and time alone will show whether you are wise. When the form of government which has now been withdrawn was before the House, the Prime Minister and the Member for Poplar and one or two others who spoke, objected to it on the ground that it did not go far enough. They then proposed the policy which they are now in a position to adopt. All I want to say upon that point is that there is no precedent for so quick a grant to any colony of responsible government, and that it will considerably delay the constitution. The Speech hopes that it will be delayed for only a few months. I think that is rather sanguine. I think it may probably be twelve months before that constitution will be in working order, whereas the old constitution might have been in working order in three months. But this is a matter the responsibility of which lies with the Government of the day, who have more knowledge than we have, and they have to consider what it is safe to give. If this large grant of representative government turns out right, no one will be better pleased than we on this side of the House are. There is another point I want some information about. What is to be the electoral system? The Prime Minister will remember that in the debate to which I have referred the whole criticism was on the question of responsible and representative government. There was no complaint of the criticism of the electoral system and the Prime Minister himself approved of it. I believe he said that there were many good things in the constitution offered by the late Government, including the abolition of plural voting and the creation of electoral areas. The details have been unanimously approved by the whole British population in the Transvaal. We have no indication on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have any objection to any part of that measure. I hope that there is no intention whatever to make anything in the nature of an important change in that constitution, and if there is any such intention I ask the Prime Minister, when he comes to reply, to say how and when that change is to be made. I come to another point which is of very great importance. Roughly speaking, we are going on for twelve months without this new constitution in the Transvaal, but meanwhile what is to happen in regard to Chinese labour? In the gracious Speech from the Throne we are assured that no more licences will be allowed. If it stops there I do not think that the facts and circumstances and conditions will be different from what they would have been if the late Government had continued to be in power, except that possibly a few more licences would have been granted. The question is this, that according to statements made by the mineowners the number of labourers they have got is as many as they require, provided that the number is kept up; I Therefore, I say all that would have been necessary, supposing the late Government had still remained in power, would have I been to have kept up about the number at present in the colony. The mine-owners would not have taken any very large additional numbers. As regards the Chinese who are there and those who have got licences but have not yet arrived in South Africa, there is to be no change. Well, then, what is the condition of these men? There are 60,000 of them in the Transvaal at the present time and will be for the next twelve months. It is said that they are in a state of slavery and in chains. During the recent election I am afraid that I came into conflict with the Minister for Education, and in the course of a speech I made incidentally a remark in which I held him, liable or responsible for certain posters and pamphlets issued by the Liberal Publication Department. The right hon. Member was good enough to say that that organisation was in no way responsible for pamphlets or posters involving an accusation of slavery. I at once accepted his denial of any knowledge of the posters or pamphlets; but since then I have received further information, and I think that the right, hon. Gentleman has been I mistaken or misinformed when he alleged that no one of these posters or pamphlets had been issued by the National Liberal Publication Department. Here is a picture which shows a certain number of Chinese walking with heads bowed down and with their hands behind their backs, much as I stand now. If the object of the placard was to represent, that the Chinaman was as free and happy as myself, I do not know why it was circulated. I defy anyone to look at it and say that it was not intended to convey the idea and does not convey the idea that these men have their hands tied behind their backs and was not intended to represent a case of slavery; This is the only one which was distinctly published and issued by the National Liberal Federation, but here is one by The National Press Agency where the thing is carried a little farther, and where not only are these Chinamen represented with their hands behind their backs, but with ropes round their wrists, and they have chains or ropes connecting them neck to neck. Worst of all was a series of cartoons which represented the Chinamen not only in a state of slavery, but being subjected to horrible torture. Here is one where the Chinaman, a ghastly looking figure, is strung up by a rope round his wrists with his toes just touching the ground, and that is given as the sort of punishment to which they are subjected. These were the tortures which were endured in the middle ages and at this day they are in use in China itself. I am not referring to these cartoons in order to incriminate any particular association or any particular person or to fix responsibility upon any person for the publication of these documents. The culpability has got to be determined. It may be, I give you this advantage, If advantage it is, that it may be claimed that these documents are justifiable if the statements are true, but I do not think that in any case it would be in very good taste to circulate them in the course of a political fight, and I do not think that it was in very good taste that gentlemen should have on their platforms men dressed as Chinese chained together. That is a matter of opinion; but I understand that the gentlemen who provided all this literature do not now feel inclined to justify it. Now I want to point out this. It seems to me that the whole policy of right hon. Gentlemen in regard to this matter depends upon what is going on in South Africa. Remember, as far as we know the Government are going to do nothing. A short time ago Members of Parliament had pamphlets sent to then dealing with cruelties in the Congo. There is nothing worse in the description of the cruelties in the Congo than those which are alleged to be going on under the British flag in the Transvaal. That is this case. [Cries of "No."] Oh well, is this really a quibble whether one mode of torture under which the man dies after being hours under it is more or less a subject of suffering than another mode of torture under which he dies in a similar period? My point is this: this is represented as torture of the worst possible kind, which accord- ing to the papers to which I have referred, is going on in the Transvaal. I admit that those who accuse us believe that they correctly represent what is going on. [An HON. MEMBER: Was going on.] I can understand that in the Congo or in the Transvaal and certainly in England a particular act of brutality and cruelty might be committed. I do not deny that something of that sort may take place whatever your regulations or provisions may be in any part of the British Dominions. I have known such things to go on in my experience as Secretary of State for the Colonies in some of our Colonies, but I think it will be believed that as soon as it came to my notice I took steps to stop it, as no doubt was the case with my prodecessors and will be the case with my successors. But this is not a separate case, because the letterpress says these are not singular or exceptional cases but that these cruelties go on as a rule. I am willing to assent to the proposition that those who during the election took advantage of these statements did so believing them to be true. If they did not believe them to be true and made use of them, I say that they were guilty of the grossest hypocrisy and dishonesty. Does the Government believe them to be true? That is the point. I hope the Prime Minister will give me a categorical answer to a question which I think all who are interested in this matter will agree to be a reasonable one. We have a right to know. Is slavery going on on the Rand now? We have a right to ask is slavery going on there, and is torture going on? We have also the right to ask, is the system such that torture and slavery are reasonably possible? Now there must be one of two answers to that question. If the answer is "No; it is not possible," then let us have it on official authority, and then let us tell the Members of Parliament who believe these things to be true how they have been deceived. But perhaps the Prime Minister may tell me "We believe it to be true." If it is true, how are you going to deal with it? How do you justify your inaction if indeed the Speech contains your policy in regard to this matter? [An HON. MEMBER: It is not a case of inaction.] I do not think the hon. Member is yet on the Treasury Bench, and he is not in a position to answer the question, but the fact is that according to the statements widely circulated throughout the country, there are at the present moment some 60,000 of Chinese in British Africa who are subject to these tortures, and yet the Government is prepared to postpone indefinitely—at any late for a considerable time—the granting of a constitution, and when that constitution is granted they propose apparently to hand over the whole matter to the new responsible government without inquiring further as to the condition of those people. I say you cannot do it; you will not be allowed to do it. I say if these things are going on you must deal with the matter now, and you have a majority which gives you all the power which you require. I say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has any suspicion that these practices are going on, he should tell us what provision he is going to make to prevent their beig continued by any responsible Government which will also be under the British flag, how he is going to stop the possibility of anything of the kind in the future, and how is he going to punish the people who have been guilty of these crimes—because it is a crime, no doubt, and you have a right, if these tortues are being inflicted, to demand that these inflicting them should be punished with all severity. I desire to put to the Prime Minister this question in a definite form, Do the Government intend to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into what is going on under this system in South Africa? If they do intend to appoint one, what will be its position? What will be its procedure, and what will be the reference to it? If they have not decided to appoint? Commisison I will ask them to tell me as soon as they have. I am quite sure that for their own honour and the honour of this country they cannot allow this matter to go on without full inquiry, and I have no doubt that they will see that argument in its full strength. Then I come to a paragraph in the Speech which I think is quite unusual. I do not think that before the Speech from the Throne has contained so special a relation to the progress of imports and exports. We rejoice at any signs which point to an improvement in trade, although I thought at one time the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to admit that the imports and exports were to be taken as evidence of the growth of trade [MR. ASQUITH dissented.] I thought that was so. We shall certainly recognise that as one element of the improvement in trade, in which we all rejoice. It is not the time to ask questions on this subject, although I may be ultimately permitted to do so of the Department concerned, the object of which questions will be to analyse these returns more closely than they have been hitherto, in the hope that such further information may enable us to understand how it is that this prosperity should be accompanied by a state of things in which one-third of the whole population are underfed and on the verge of hunger. ["No."] That is the post-election feeling, but the pre-election feeling was that one-third of the people of this country were underfed and hungry. ["No."] Then hon. Members asked for an autumn session to consider the subject, but now an allusion to it is considered to be matter for denial and laughter. At any rate we intend to pursue the inquiry whether you like it or not. We hope to get this information, and I hope to discover from it, if, as we believe and have never denied, wealth is continually accumulating, why it is that men decay. If more and more wealth is constantly added to, why is it that distribution appears to be so uneven? After this interlude the Speech goes on to what will be the most interesting topics to many here present; it gives us the bill of fare for the session. No one can complain of the quantity, although even here there is a curious, I do not know whether it is an intentional, omission. Why is nothing said about temperance? I have looked at a great number of addresses of members, and I find that temperance has a prominent place in all of them. I find that in their speeches Liberal candidates blamed the late Government for making a present of two millions of money to the publicans and brewers, and that this is going on, and that of all reforms the most urgent was one which would stimulate the sobriety of the people. But why is there no mention of the subject in the Speech? It might be said, of course, that the Government have not the time to do everything, but most Governments that I have known have thought they had. The present Government seems to have the wisdom to take its legislation in doses; but why has this question, which was stated to be the most urgent and most important of all questions, not even been mentioned? Why is it not even given a back place? The first place in the constructive policy of the Government appears to be given to Ireland. Certainly the sentence in the Speech which deals with Ireland is a little enigmatical, although we are much indebted to the hon. Member for the Richmond Division for the light he has thrown upon it. The Government, it appears, are going to introduce "means for associating the people"—that is the Irish people—"with the conduct of Irish affairs." Are they not associated now? [NATIONALIST cries of "No."] Their position is the same now as it is in England. In fact, they have a much larger representation. Irishmen count for about two or three Englishmen, and to that extent they have agreat advantage over us. They have substantially equal rights with regard to their representation in this House and in every form of local government. I say, then, it seems to me inaccurate to omit reference to that. It is something more than that which the Speech promises, and I should be very glad if we can have any information whether this is, in fact, the Home Rule which we were led to believe is under no circumstances to be introduced into the present Parliament. If not that, is it that other something which we have never had clearly denned, but which is to lead up to the "larger policy"? All we have to say is, and ill not be any surprise to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that to any policy of that kind, whether it be in the way of compromise or in the way of direct Home Rule, we shall give, as we have always given—

Did you ever read the Radical programme?

The most unrelenting hostility. Reference has been made by an interruption to the Radical programme. You will bear in mind that that programme, which refers to about the year 1884 or 1885, consisted entirely of a policy to take the place of the local government for Ireland which was subsequently adopted. I say that at that time I would have gone further than I would go now. At that time a proposal was on foot which had the support of Mr. Parnell and the leaders of the Irish Nationalist Party in this House and of the hierarchy in Ireland, and which therefore had some chance of being accepted as a settled policy, and as having some finality about it. If any one goes now to any policy of that kind, and I am curious to know to what extent the Government will follow in my steps, all I can say is that it will do so under totally different circumstances, and they cannot pretend that they have any assurance from hon. Gentlemen who represent the Nationalist Party that anything of that kind will be accepted as anything more than a step leading to something of more importance. The Government appear to have withdrawn from operation certain provisions of the Crimes Act. I take it for granted that they see no danger in that withdrawal, no fear of any failure of order in Ireland; and in that case we shall be very glad to know that the time has come when Ireland can be governed without even the appearance of exceptional legislation. If that is so they will probably have received reports from the police or the Judges, and I presume they have no objection to lay those reports on the Table. Then there is a new regulation in connection with the sales of estates in Ireland. I assume there will be no objection to lay it on the Table. We understand from the Papers that free grants to evicted tenants have been made on a larger scale than ever before and under different conditions. I should like to know whether the conditions under which they are granted can be laid on the Table and what source the money is to come from. I always understood that the money in the hands of the Estates Commissioners was insufficient to carry out the operations of the Act, and this is placing a new charge upon us before the old one has been satisfied. While all this is being done for the Irish tenants, what is going to be done for the British farmer? Something considerable has been done for the Irish farmer who cannot or will not pay his rent; what is to be done for the British farmer who can and does pay his rent? The only reference I can find to that is in another rather enigmatical expression in the Speech where we are told that "inquiries are proceeding as to the means by which a larger number of the population may be attracted to and retained on the soil." Who is making the inquiries? Is it an official inquiry? We shall be glad to know also the terms of reference to the committee or commission appointed. I have read the long list of Bills with great interest. The first Bill taken, I presume, will be the Education Bill. I would say with regard to most of the promised Bills, and especially the Education Bill and the Labour Bill, that we, on this side, approve of the avowed objects. There is no doubt about that, and we shall approach their consideration sympathetically, and if they are conceived in a spirit of moderation and justice, we shall certainly be glad to give to the furtherance of those measures any assistance in our power. As regards education, I understand there is to be no fundamental change in our system of education so far as secular instruction is concerned. The great point, I take it, will be what is called the religious difficulty. I am not prepared to say that there is no grievance under the existing system. At the proper time I shall say that the last Act lessened the grievance, but it is not necessary to argue that to-night. As I admit there is still a grievance, so there is, at all events, ground for the introduction of a new Bill; and the only thing I have to do is to put in a plea beforehand that the Bill shall not take away a grievance from one set of shoulders and put it on to other shoulders, that it shall be a Bill equally applicable to all, treating one sect as fairly and justly as another. I may venture to say that such a result, so far as I can see, can only be found in giving larger control to the parents to decide what religious instruction their children shall receive. The Labour Bill, although not revolutionary in title, points to considerable increase in expenditure—and I would further mention in a parenthesis that I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ever find the money which he requires for this policy of social reform, and especially for such a scheme as old-age pensions, unless he is able to widen very much more than I think he will be under the present system the basis of taxation. He is pre- cluded from doing so. The Prime Minister said the other night, "free trade had carried all before it, he trusted, once for all." If I may be allowed to substitute "free imports," then I will agree with him that free imports appeared to carry all before them at the last election; but he would be very short-sighted—and I know he is not—if he thinks he has heard the last of tariff reform. We believe that tariff reform is closely connected with this great question of the condition of the people. Do what you like, and say what you may, it will be continually cropping up in one form or another. At any rate we remember what happened when Cobden carried his proposals. He did not carry them all at once. He went through many defeats in the Parliaments in which he sat; and it was not for a long period—seven or eight years, I think—after he started the agitation that he was able to congratulate himself on his success. We will not be more cowardly than he was, we will not be more discouraged than he was by defeat; and when at length you have failed to satisfy the expectations you have created, when the issues change, when the people once more desire a change of Government, then you will find that we have lost none of our activity, none of our conscientious belief in the necessity and justice of our cause.

I have no complaint to make, neither have any of my friends behind me, as to the general tone of the right hon. Gentleman this evening. He has quoted the words which I had attributed to him, and has rather disclaimed the interpretation put upon them. Bat if he looks at the speeches he has been making since the result of the general election, or since its result had become apparent, I think he will find that he did give utterance to the words, namely, that he and his friends might leave the propagation of his peculiar fiscal views to operations outside, and devote themselves in this House to the ordinary work—I am quoting roughly—of an Opposition, which is to harass the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has not harassed us very much to-night. He has asked a number of perfectly pertinent questions in a forcible manner, and I trust that I shall be able to answer all his questions, if not with entire satisfaction to him, at all events to the satisfaction of the majority of the Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was, I think, a little hard upon my hon. friend the mover of the Address. He covered with praise my hon. friend the seconder, but drew a distinction between him and the mover. I venture to say that it was entirely undeserved. The only reason I can find for it is that the mover of the Address, carried away, no doubt, a little from the ordinary practice by the extraordinary circumstances of the late election, made some strenuous observations regarding that particular policy with which the right hon. Gentleman himself has been so much identified. But I would say that, having heard now more movers and seconders than I like to count up, I have seldom if ever heard the difficult duty performed with greater success and by men more qualified and more justified in moving such a Motion. The mover of the Address has had a long experience of metropolitan government. He is one of the most distinguished of that singular series of capable men whom the new government of London has furnished us with. He therefore comes to this House on an occasion when London has executed such a marvellous change in its political opinion as represented in this House as one who can speak on behalf of London with peculiar emphasis. I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the seconder, for, like the right hon. Gentleman, I have known his grandfather and his father in this House; and we all rejoice to know that the family is not yet extinct either in its individual members or in its capacity for public work. The right hon. Gentleman moralised a little on the general election. He did it very well, because he did not attempt to disguise or hide in any way the seriousness of the overturn of opinion it indicated. But the right hon. Gentleman treated it in a somewhat lighthearted, though certainly in a stouthearted, way. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a question which I see sometimes exercises the minds of the curious, namely, the disproportion that exists between the majority of the votes given at the poll and the majority of Members returned to the House. He is not aware probably—and I believe it to be a fact, however remarkable it may be—that on this occasion it is less than it has been on any other occasion. Certainly it is very much less great than it was in the election with which he was himself concerned, namely, the celebrated khaki election. But he accepts the situation, and in that he is right. The right hon. Gentleman looks forward to a time when he and his friends will be in power again. The mustard and cress which were planted by the ingenious writer and politician whom the right hon. Gentleman quoted no doubt came up very lightly and very rapidly, but they did not last very long; and the expectations and hopes of the right hon. Gentleman may be liable to perish like the mustard and cress. Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will indulge year after year in fresh planting and fresh hopes, but I hope he may be exhausted finally before the fruition of his hopes is attained. The right hon. Gentleman followed the King's Speech in its course. He associated himself with the paragraphs referring to the lamentable death of the King of Denmark and the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales to India The very fact that those paragraphs are in the King's Speech, for which I with others am responsible, dispenses with the necessity of my dwelling upon those subjects. The right hon. Gentleman asked what progress was being made with the Conference at Algeciras. When I come for the first time to a question of foreign affairs, perhaps I may say to the House that, in the lamentable circumstances in which my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary stands, it will not be surprised that he shrinks in some measure from a public appearance in the House; and therefore hon. Members must not expect such full information on these subjects for a day or two as he would have been otherwise anxious to give them. But as far as we know matters are proceeding satisfactorily—slowly, but satisfactorily. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of our relations to the nation and the Government of France. They remain exactly what they were. We are giving the French Government all the diplomatic support in our power; and we are giving it without the slightest prejudice, not only to our perfect amity, but great good will, to all the other Powers that may be concerned. It is right for the people of this country that it should be stated again and again, and as emphatically as possible, that the understanding we have with France remains as strongly intrenched as it was when it was first established, that it has no sinister purpose towards any other nation or Government, and that we merely wish to find in it a means of strengthening that good and almost affectionate feeling between France and Great Britain which we are all anxious to encourage. As to Macedonia, I am afraid that I must refer the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary when he reappears. I now turn to a matter with which the right hon. Gentleman has himself been concerned, namely, the question of colonial affairs. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of continuity of policy in colonial as well as in foreign affairs. So am I. I have always accepted the doctrine with a reservation, because otherwise every Government that came into power would be bound to go on with a policy which in its heart and conscience might be thought a bad policy. I would be opposed as strongly as the right hon. Gentleman to any wanton change for the sake of change merely; but to say that, because an outgoing Government leaves a public question connected with the Colonies or foreign States in a certain position, the incoming Government has not a free hand to deal with the position is to say a thing which would be destructive of the proper management of the nation's affairs. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the announcement that we propose to erect a constitution in the Transvaal embodying full and responsible Government instead of the intermediate stage of representative Government. I will tell him exactly how that stands. First of all, let me say that we have high authority for what we are doing. We have the authority of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who only a short time ago—in August, 1903—said that one thing was clear, namely, that the population of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, both Boer and Briton, by a largo majority desired this self-government, even though it might seem to us to be premature and unwise. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he did not believe there was any danger to Imperial interests to cause us to hesitate to accord it; the point was the interest of the two colonies themselves. So it cannot be on any high ground of imperial necessity that the right hon. Gentleman demurs, if he does demur, and' I do not understand that he does, to the extension of self-governing powers to the Transvaal to the length of what is called responsible Government. But I think what has weighed with us principally is this, first of all there was a movement of opinion—he refers to the feeling of the people—there has been lately a strong movement of opinion in South Africa, so far as we can gather, in favour of responsible Government. In the second place, experience has proved in the past that an intermediate stage has not been favourable, but the reverse. We have more than once thought we were doing well in the history of our Colonies, when we gave to a particular colony what is called a representative Government, by which I understand a system of creating a representative body, but which does not give that representative body full power over its own affairs. We have introduced an intermediate system of that sort on several occasions, thinking it would be as it were a schoolmaster to bring the colony to a proper sense of the use of full powers, but it has been found to be exactly the reverse, to work in the exactly opposite direction, to breed friction and dissension between the governors and the governed, and to create sectional differences in the population, and I believe myself it is safer and better in every way to give responsible government at once, and that that therefore is the best form of education, if education is wanted, to which the population of a colony can be subjected. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, On what basis is your responsible system of government to be founded? Is it to be on what is called one man one vote, or how is it to be, or is it to be one vote one value, and so forth, as was the representative system proposed by the late Government? On that we have an open mind, and it is precisely on these questions—questions as to how people may be affected by a policy—it is on that subject generally that we find ourselves woefully in want of information and therefore must make further inquiry. What we are doing now is not finding some way out of the difficulty of Chinese labour or anything else. Let the House remember we are now giving a system of Government to these two colonies which is to be a permanent system, and our great desire is to avoid anything that has the appearance of being unfair either to one section of the community or another, one race or another, either the agricultural or the urban element. I believe that anything done at this moment that even had attributed to it that it was done from a party motive or with a view to obtain some artificial unity, would leave behind it a root of bitterness which might be fatal to the prosperity and progress of the colony. Our policy—I put it shortly—is to do the right thing as between all the different interests, and we are not yet in a position to judge what the effect of different arrangements on the community, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as they now stand, would be. Therefore it is, instead of applying a scheme which had been promoted for a representative system to a full responsible system of government, we think the wisest thing we can do is to take time, in order to have a thorough inquiry—the particular form or particular method by which we should obtain our information we have not yet determined upon—and then we shall be in a better position to act upon this difficult and important matter and be certain, so far as human certainty exists, that we shall not be doing harm to the future of the country. We must remember also that it is not the Transvaal alone that we are dealing with. We have the Orange River Colony to deal with, and we look forward ultimately, without forcing it in any way, to the federation of South Africa. Therefore we may look at it that everything We do for one of the colonies of that country we do for all; and it is on that ground we are obliged, much to our regret, to postpone the completion of the new system, and can only say we will make it as shortly as it is possible for us to do. Let me say this, there is one very small point. The right hon. Gentleman repeated what I have seen in newspapers or speeches—he has repeated the assertion that in a debate last summer I myself actually approved of this individual system of one vote one value, and rather approved than found fault with the constitution proposed. I think if the right hon. Gentleman looks to what I have said he will find there was some little degree of irony in all I said which rather neutralised the effect of Clause 5. I thought it was a good point to make for the purpose of harassing the Government. I was contrasting these proposals of the Unionist Government for the Transvaal with the Redistribution Bill for England which at the same time the Government were promoting, and I pointed out one or two things which constituted a difference, and expressed in what I thought was an ironical way how it was that out of the same Government there should come two such different constitutions. That is the explanation of the words he quoted. Now, of course, we are well aware of the serious effect of this on the question of Chinese labour. Let me say with regard to Chinese labour—I do not wish to put myself forward—but last summer I said, and I adhere to the statement, that the question whether Chinese labour should be introduced into South Africa as a part of the industrial system was a question not for us, but for the inhabitants of South Africa and of the particular colony concerned—a question to be deferred to them as soon as their opinions could be authoritatively collected. But when I said that the question of Chinese labour or no Chinese labour was to be so referred, I by no means inferred that the question of the conditions under which Chinese labour was to be allowed was a matter of indifference to the people of this country and to the Empire at large, or that it was to be referred to the people of the particular colony in question. The right hon. Gentleman produced certain cartoons and asked, Did we approve of these cartoons or not? I can only say that I have not seen them. [OPPOSITION Cries of "Oh."] In Scotland there are two things we do not use—at least never in my constituency. One is cartoons and the other is colours. We elect Members because of their opinions. Even my friends and countrymen below the gangway will confirm my statement in that respect, although they think there is some virtue in a tie. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the conditions imposed in the Ordinance are servile conditions. He asks me, Is it slavery or is it not? I say that these conditions are servile conditions, and that many of these conditions are more than servile—they are either cruel in themselves or lead readily to the perpetration of cruelty. The right hon. Gentleman puts his hands behind his back, and asks whether the Chinese coolie is as free as he is. Of course he is not. The right hon. Gentleman is not liable to be shut up at night or to be prevented from engaging in business or from settling, after his contract is out, in the country in which he lives. There are all kinds of respects in which he is free and in which the coolie is not. But we have all sorts of evidence of irregularities. One of the evidences is the despatch of Mr. Lyttelton to Lord Selborne, dated October 24th last, in which he says:—

"It appears that the inquiries consequent upon the various breaches of the peace which occurred in May brought to light the fact that this permission to officials to inflict slight corporal punishment had been abused. The Lieutenant-Governor accordingly cancelled the permission in June last. I understand from you that since then the practice has been entirely stopped; but your statement, which reached mo at the end of August, was the first intimation which I received from the Colonies that official permission for any corporal punishment had been given."

That is one of the evils of the system. You import a number of men who are accustomed, I dare say, to acts of cruelty in their own country. Your own officials gradually come to regard those acts as being quite in the regular line of business, and so the whole thing becomes more and more intense, until at last you may arrive at a state of flagrant cruelty. Mr. Lyttelton went on to say that he, by the time he had received this information from Lord Selborne, knew arrangements for maintaining order and discipline in the mines had been drawn up by him and the amending Ordinance for giving effect to them was under discussion, and he concluded by saying—

"I profoundly regret that corporal punishment, however slight, was authorised without the safeguards of the law, and that the matter was not brought to my notice as Secretary of State for the Colonies before it was authorised."

If Mr. Lyttelton, even in this moderate way, rebuked those on the spot for the way in which they allowed discipline to be conducted in the mines, I think that it is no wonder that we should take the same view and entertain it in an even stronger degree. Sir, as I say, we desire the question of the employment of Chinese labour to be decided by the people of the colony when they have received full responsible government. In the meantime His Majesty's Government feel it their duty, so long as any responsibility rests with them for the administration of the Ordinances, to secure as far as possible that no Chinese coolie who honestly and genuinely desires to return permanently to his home shall be detained in the Transvaal against his will or from want of means. Clause 14 in every contract between an employer and a coolie provides that the labourer may at any time, without assigning any reason, return to his own country on tendering to the employer the expenses incurred in introducing him into the Transvaal, together with a sum sufficient to defray the expenditure necessary to return him to the port from which he embarked. His Majesty's Government intend that the labourer who wishes to avail himself of this power of repatriation shall not be deterred from doing so by lack of the necessary funds. They regret that no provision was made in the Ordinance for throwing part at least of the cost in such cases on the importers. But in the circumstances they think it right that, where the desire of the labourer to be permanently repatriated can be proved to be genuine by a reasonable length of notice and by such other tests as a full consideration of the matter may seem to render necessary, the cost shall be met from public funds. This will make it impossible that any labourer really desirous of repatriation shall be retained in the Transvaal against his will. Another point is this. Under the Ordinance of 1905, amending the original Ordinance of 1904, legal sanction is given to certain judicial and punitive methods which His Majesty's Government cannot approve. These will not be allowed to remain in force, and the Government will decide without delay on the best and promptest way of securing their withdrawal.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can make it clear what punitive regulations they are of which he does not approve?

In the Ordinance of last autumn there were provisions allowing certain modes of punishment and allowing trials to be conducted, I think, in the mines by the mine people, without any recourse to the ordinary courts. That is how we stand. In a sense we have no responsibility for Chinese labour. We opposed it from the first. We inherited it from the right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. There are many cases where an evil having been done, or an evil practice established, it is impossible, without a possibly greater evil almost, to put an end to it abruptly. What we are going to do, at all events, is to give the coolie who has a genuine and honest wish to go home, the power to do so, and to do away at the same time with what seemed to be—I will not use so strong a word as iniquitous—but an unusual, or illegal practice. By removing this, we, at all events, do something to mitigate the evil which we and our friends have so loudly and so strongly protested against.

The right hon. Gentleman does not intend, then, to interfere with those regulations which keep the Chinese to the compounds.

Of course, if you introduce a number of Chinese into the country under certain conditions, and the people will not have them going about loose, you have to keep them in a compound.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand I am not criticising or arguing; I am only asking for information so that we may know exactly what the Government is doing.

I think I have already explained. We attach great importance to the leave given to any man who dislikes his life to go home to his own country. The right hon. Gentleman said he would bring up the subject at a later period in order to suggest to us that we should appoint a Royal Commission. We have considered that, but not very fully, but I promise him that it shall be considered. He knows as well as we the delicacy of the whole matter, and how difficult it is to take what is, in common parlance, called a strong line of action, because you often raise difficulties which you do not contemplate at first. We propose to do what we can to take as much as possible the cruelty and servile conditions out of the life, and at the same time give those who dislike the life an opportunity to escape from it. The right hon. Gentleman said a few words on free trade. Well, this great question does not stand even as a general election left it, because an event has happened this week. The right hon. Gentleman said we must all be sorry that the late First Lord of the Treasury is not in his place. I should be rather hypocritical if I professed to be sorry under the circumstances in which he ceased to be in his place. I should of course personally be glad to see him, but the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that we are not bound either to desire or facilitate the return to the House of a right hon. Gentleman who is so entirely opposed to us in political opinions. I am reminded of the passage of time, and I will deal with the question on another occasion. A friend of mine is going to ask for a day to discuss this question of free trade and protection, in order that we may have a full statement or a re-statement of the arguments for and against, with the additional light and assistance which may be given by the right hon. Gentleman, and, possibly, the late Prime Minister, if he elects to take part in that discussion. Last session complaint was made that we did not get opportunities of discussing the question; now we shall have them. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be glad of that, because he is not one who leads his battalions out of the House. Then there is temperance. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are not dealing with temperance. How could we deal with it in a session when we have such large questions as education, the workmen's question and the social question? I believe that temperance is the key-tone, or the cornerstone, in the edifice of the prosperity of this country. We are best serving it by not making an attempt to meddle with it this year, when it is extremely unlikely that there will be time enough to deal with it. As to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman asks what the meaning is of associating the Irish with the conduct of affairs, and he says, are they not associated now with the conduct of affairs. Well, they were not when the right hon. Gentleman compared them with Russia and Poland. Now, he says, you have got local government, and therefore you can do without giving them more. But the giving of local government is the very reason why you cannot refuse that the Irish should have a larger share in the management of their own affairs. We have the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and even the new Irish Member for South Dublin, giving local affairs to the Irish people, and endowing them with millions upon millions of British credit, thereby showing the trust that they have in them. Therefore I claim that they themselves should welcome rather than oppose the larger system of associating the Irish people with the conduct of their own affairs. And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

continuing his speech, said: I was speaking about Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asked me what various things meant—particularly "means for associating the people with the conduct of Irish affairs." Well, Sir, I cannot better explain that than in the words that were used by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland shortly after his arrival in Ireland, who said—

"There were those who seemed to believe that the only way in which a great Empire could be sucessfully maintained was by suppressing the various distinguishing elements in it; in fact, by running it as a huge regiment in winch each nation was to lose its own individuality and to be brought under a common system of discipline." "That," said the noble' Lord, "was not his view. That was more likely to break up the Empire. The opinion of the Government—of the late Government, mark you—was that the only way to govern Ireland properly was to govern it according to Irish ideas instead of according to British ideas."

That is my view and the view of the present Government. The right hon. Gentleman has further asked about the removal of certain conditions of the Crimes Act, and asked that the reports of the police and Judges should be laid upon the Table. I believe that has never been done. It is easy to see why. We on this side of the House have again and again protested against the Crimes Act altogether. I can understand exceptional laws, but I do not like them. This is an exceptional law of perpetual character— If I may use the expression—rather in accordance with the general policy of the late Government, who wished to have a pistol in their hands in order to terrify foreign nations, whose tariffs were objectionable to them, and it was their policy to have this pistol in their hands to discharge at the Irish people directly they made themselves obnoxious to that Government. We have always regarded this pistol held in perpetuity at the head of the Irish people as objectionable. We have voted again and again for the repeal of that Act. I am prepared to do so again, not necessarily this session, but when the proper occasion arises that certainly will be our policy. Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me questions as to certain grants to evicted tenants. They were given under existing Acts and in accordance with legal decisions. "What is to be done for the British farmer?" further asks the right hon. Gentleman. If he waits he will see we are going to do as much as we can. We cannot do everything at once. When the right hon. Gentleman asks what is the meaning of the mysterious inquiry now going on, I reply that the Departmental Committee was appointed by the late Government under the Chairmanship of the Earl of Onslow, than whom there are few men better qualified to be Chairman, and with the present President of the Board of Agriculture as a member, to inquire into the best means of extending and developing the Small Holdings Act. That Act has been unprolific hitherto. The Committee is expected to report in the summer, and on that account, putting aside the pressure of other matters, we cannot attempt legislation now, although that is a matter which certainly presses for attention. As to the farmer and the agricultural labourer, I trust we shall be able, if the House supports us, to do much when we lave had time to consider what steps are most necessary, and when we have a reasonable opportunity of passing legislation. The right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension that we shall neglect the British farmer and agricultural labourer. Education, to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred, will, of course, be the principal subject which we shall at once undertake. I cannot pledge myself that it will be the first Bill to be brought before the House, because circumstances may necessitate that a Bill of less complexity and importance should be brought in before it. I was glad to hear, however, the general tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the subject. We are anxious to get rid of the religious difficulty, but do not let it be imagined that the only culprits are those who complain of the existing system; the patrons of that system are just as much promoters of the religious difficulty, and more so, than those who protest against it. I now return to the subject of free trade, upon which I have a word or two to say. It has taken a new phase in the last week, thanks to the energy and opportunity of the right hon. Gentleman. What we have been trying vainly for the last two or three I years to get at has at last apparently been disclosed. We have now a new "half-sheet of paper." The correspondence which has been published is very instructive. It was between the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Balfour, of whom we can speak by his name now that he is suspended between heaven and earth. Mr. Balfour says, and the right hon. Gentleman agrees, that fiscal reform is and must remain the first constructive work of the future Parliament in which the Unionist Party is to have a majority—if the mustard and cress grows. Well, there is the Unionist Party, and I want to know what are they going to construct? Mr. Balfour says—

"The establishment of a moderate general tariff on manufactured goods and the imposition of a small duty on foreign corn are not in principle objectionable, and should be adopted if necessary for the attainment of the general object in view."

That is entirely new. One of the most recent authoritative statements of the late Government was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Akers-Douglas) in the absence of Mr. Balfour, in the debate on the Address on February 15, 1904, upon an Amendment moved by my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose. Many Members now in the House will remember the scene. After all the speeches were over, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell—whom, politics apart, I am very sorry to miss from here—rose and asked a question—

"Is the Government opposed to the taxation of food as proposed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham? I understand that that proposal is not part of the Government policy, but I beg to ask whether the Government is or is not opposed to that proposal."

This was the anxious inquirer thinking he would get a ready answer, and so he did. But a question was further put by Sir Lees Knowles, who also, unfortunately, has not been returned. He asked—

"Are the Government opposed to a duty on food or raw material."

to which the representative of the Government replied—

"I have said that the Government are opposed to any duty on raw material or food."

That was the answer given then, on which votes depended. And now it appears that—

"There is nothing in principle objectionable in a small duty on foreign corn, and it should be adopted if shown to be necessary."

I do not complain of a change of opinion; a reasonable change of opinion is perhaps rather a good sign. But I do object to a change of opinion suddenly disclosed as this has been. Last session there was no disclosure. We tried; we knocked at every door that we could find. On the eve of the election there was no disclosure. During the election there was no disclosure. But the disclosure came, the vital, and fatal announcement was made the day before a meeting which was to determine the future policy and the Leadership of the Opposition. In the absence of Mr. Balfour there is only one person who can thoroughly enlighten us on this subject. I have often said publicly that he is never backward in giving us the fullest information according to his own knowledge. It is true he is not the Leader of the Opposition, but it is he who leads the Leader of the Opposition. He knows what is in Mr. Balfour's mind; he has given it his imprimatur. In the course of the debate which I have promised him shall occur pretty early, he can say how the grand constructive work of destroying free trade, to which the energies of his Party are now to be devoted, is to be commenced at this auspicious moment when free trade has been endorsed and approved by the vast majority of the people of the country. That is the present position, as I understand it, of this fiscal question. I do not argue about it or enter into the merits of it in the least; I merely make a recital of facts which are known to us all, and which even the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman cannot explain away—which I do not believe he wishes to explain away. However, I trust there will be such an opportunity offered to us within the next day or two; and, so far from the right hon. Gentleman's being entitled to express surprise that there are some words in the King's Speech which appear to have some reference more or less remote to the question of imports and exports, and therefore to this subject, the only marvel to me is that His Majesty has been advised to refrain altogether from making a much more direct reference to this great controversy and to the extraordinary decision which has been come to upon it by the people of the country.

No one who is at all acquainted with the character or history of the Irish question will be surprised if I seize the earliest opportunity afforded to me of bringing that question before the attention of the present House of Commons. This is a new Parliament. As I understand there are close upon 300 new Members of this House who have never heard the Irish question stated on the floor of the House of Commons. The Party whose raison d'être was opposition to the Irish question on the basis of self-government has been, swept out of existence, and the Party which has been publicly pledged for twenty years to a settlement of the question on the basis of self-government has been returned to power by an overwhelming majority. Furthermore, this question of Ireland in the recent elections was in the very forefront of the issues which were submitted to the electors. It was placed before the electors in the speeches of the Prime Minister at Stirling and in the Albert Hall, but I do not dwell on that, although I would be correct in my statement even if I had nothing more to say. Surely the question of Ireland was placed before the electors of this country in the most dramatic and sensational way any issue was ever placed before the electors of England, by the action of Lord Rosebery, because he declared that the Home Rule flag had been raised and that he refused to serve under that flag. Lord Rosebery forthwith disappeared altogether from the controversy and the discussion connected with the General Election. But it does not rest even there, because the late Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and everyone of the late Ministers of the Crown, and I am bound to say every Unionist candidate in Great Britain, put this question in the very forefront of the issues before the country. What did the late Prime Minister say? On the very eve of the East Manchester election he said—

"I assert that Home Rule is the great dividing line between the two Parties in the State in spite of any assertion to the contrary. I fail to see who is going to limit the power of the new Parliament in this matter, or how the Government is going to exclude Home Rule, even in its largest form, from the consideration of the House."

Was that not placing the issue of Ireland before the electors? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was speaking on the 2nd of January last, he said—

"I cannot understand how any of my friends should ever have supposed that the Prune Minister could have come into power without standing by the programme to which he has given emphatic assent on many previous occasions as to Home Rule. I only say that because I wish you to understand that Home Rule is raised in an effective manner in this election."

It will be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman went further in one of his speeches, and adopted as his own a phrase used by a newspaper in Ireland, which I may say was a paraphrase of a statement which the right hon. Gentleman made during the 1900 election, that every vote given for the Liberals was a vote for the Boers. The statement was that every vote given for Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was a vote for Home Rule. Mr. Gerald Balfour in his address used these words—

"The two main questions overshadowing all other are Home Rule and fiscal reform."

And the London Times the day, I think, before the Manchester election said—

"There can be no shadow of question that Home Rule is an issue at the general election of 1906."

I start therefore from this fact, that not only is the Party which has been openly pledged to Home Rule for twenty years, now in power, but from the fact that that issue was placed—no matter whether any individual desired it not to be so placed—by the Prime Minister, Lord Rosebery, the late Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the whole of the Unionist Party, before the electors. The result is that the Party which has been twenty years pledged to Home Rule has come back into power with an unprecedented majority. Therefore I respectfully say to the House of Commons that it is right and proper that at the earliest possible moment this question should be raised. What is the Irish question of which I have been speaking? I respectfully say, to the House that it is the greatest of all Imperial questions which can concern or which can command the attention of English statesmanship. It is the most urgent of all Imperial questions. The present condition of Ireland is the greatest disgrace to this Empire. It is the greatest danger to this Empire. It is the greatest obstacle to the efficiency of this Parliament, and let me say to the new English Members on the other side of the House who have come here full of enthusiasm for reforms for this country, reforms which are needed by the people, that it means the existence at your doors here, at the very heart of the Empire, of an Ireland poverty stricken and disaffected. Does any one doubt that? And does any one who recognises the fact doubt its meaning or minimise its consequences? Judged by every test that the wit of man can devise, the government of Ireland by this country under the Act of Union has been a failure. Now I desire to place this case before the House of Commons anew. Let me take some of those great tests. What greater test of good government and progress in a country is there to be found than its population? All over the Empire you are proud of the fact that population has increased. In Ireland the population has declined. Since 1841 the population of Ireland has diminished by 50 per cent. In 1845 Ireland had three times as many people as Scotland; Ireland had half as many people as England; Ireland had a third of the population of the whole United Kingdom. But in sixty years the population of Ireland has gone down by 4,000,000. Is there in the whole history of the world a parallel to that awful tragedy? We in Ireland have emerged within the last few weeks, I hope for ever, from what the late Lord Salisbury called twenty years of resolute government. In those twenty years of resolute government the population of Ireland went down by almost 1,000,000. And what is the character of the emigration? That is a greater tragedy still. Ninety per cent. of those who emigrated from Ireland were between the ages of ten and forty-five. That means that all those in the prime of life are leaving the country, and accounts for the fact, which English tourists often notice, that there are more little children and old men and women to be seen in Ireland than in any country in Europe. Of the 90 per cent., how many remain in the Empire at all? Why, nearly every man who emigrates from Ireland is a loss to the Empire; 87 per cent. of the whole emigration from Ireland goes to the United States—that is to say, that the young men and young women, physically and mentally vigorous, not only are lost to Ireland, but are lost to the Empire, and constitute a power in America, as everyone who is acquainted with the circumstances knows, which is a danger to this country and which undoubtedly is the chief bar in the way of a thorough amicable understanding between America and England. Those who have followed closely the progress of the Irish movement in recent years have, no doubt, read with interest the remarkable pamphlet and speeches of Lord Dunraven. He is a great Irish landlord, and has been all his life a Unionist, and is so to-day. He openly declares himself a Unionist, and I commend his statements on this point of the decay of Ireland as statements wrung from a Unionist by the hard facts of the case. Take another test besides population. In one of his pamphlets Lord Dunraven deals with this test, and it is an awful condemnation of your rule of Ireland. Lunacy in Ireland has steadily increased. To-day out of every 10,000 of the population 52·6 are lunatics or imbeciles. In England and Wales the proportion is only 34·7. Lunacy in Ireland since 1851 has doubled. It is true that under your rule it has been the survival of the un-fittest in Ireland. All the young people mentally and physically strong go away, while the mentally and physically weak and decrepit remain behind, and you have the awful result in the tale of the unparalleled increase of lunacy which has gone on. Take the birth rate, which in Ireland is the lowest in Europe, namely, 23·5 per 1,000 at the present moment. In England it is 34·7, and in Scotland 31·7; and Lord Dunraven in one of his pamphlets publishes a most remarkable table showing that in Hungary, Roumania, Russia, Prussia, Italy, Denmark, Belgium, and Switzerland the birth-rate is far higher than it is in Ireland. There is another test of an equally tragic character. The serious forms of disease, such as consumption and cancer, are spread in Ireland with alarming rapidity such as cannot be found in any other country. They are diminishing in other countries; in Ireland they are spreading. I attribute these awful facts largely to the unsatisfactory condition in which the mass of the Irish people live, and to the poor and unwholesome food which alone they are able to obtain. Take pauperism. One person out of every 100 in Ireland is at the present moment the inmate of a workhouse. One person out of every forty-four in Ireland is in receipt of poor relief. During the years from 1863 to 1903 the number of paupers per 1,000 of the population in Ireland has doubled. During the same period the proportion of paupers in England has been diminished by one half. Do English Members, especially those of them who represent great centres of industry, ever reflect for a moment how this Irish poverty reacts upon their country and their constituents? Why, you passed with a great flourish of trumpets last year an Aliens Bill for the purpose of saving British workmen from the competition of alien labour. But I would like to ask English Members for the great centres of industry in this country how much of the want of employment of English workmen is due to the competition of Irish labour? The only way that you can save yourself from that competition is by making Ireland a country where men can live and thrive and find work, and in that way alone and not by your Alien Immigration laws, will you be able to deal effectively in places like London, and other great centres, with the problem of the unemployed. Taking Ireland as a whole, it is, compared with almost any nation in Europe, blessed with a mild climate and fertile soil. Here you have a race of men proved by the history of the world to be brave and able. You talk of Irish thriftlessness and laziness. Go, as I have done, through the world and see the labours that have been performed, the industry expended, and the ability shown by the Irish race. It is incontrovertible that in every country but their own the Irish have been industrially successful, have risen to the highest positions, and have shown themselves well fitted for the arts of government and industry. Why is it that in their own country alone they are inflicted with these physical and moral plagues which make Ireland almost a desert? Here is a fertile country inhabited by such a race, and yet the population is flying from it as if it were a plague-stricken land. I have shown but one half of the picture. Ireland is cursed with the costliest government of any country in the world. The cost of the civil government per head of the population is just double what it is in England. The total civil charges for Scotland last year amounted to £2,477,000; for Ireland they were £4,547,000. Ireland's judicial system cost £200,000 more than the Scottish system: and the Irish police cost exactly three times as much as the police of Scotland, although the populations are practically the same and the crime of Ireland is less to-day than the crime of Scotland. On this question of finance allow me to recall to the memory of the House that ten years ago a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. That was not an Irish Commission. It had a British majority upon it. It contained some of the greatest financial experts of the country, and it examined as witnesses all the greatest authorities on finance. That Commission reported ten years ago that Ireland, according to her comparative taxable capacity, was taxed close upon three millions a year too much. In seeking redress for that grievance we were supported by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh and most of the Ulster Members, including the late Mr. Lecky, and most of the Irish Unionists. We had also the support of the hon. and learned Member for the City of London, whom I heartily welcome back to the House because, among other reasons, I heartily respect the motives which drove him out of it some years ago. We had his support and that of a certain number of independent English Members of this House. Ireland has waited ten years for redress, but none has come; and, not only that, but since the Report was issued £3,000,000 a year additional taxation has been placed upon the country. During fifty years, while the population has declined, while poverty, lunacy and disease have increased, the taxation of Ireland has doubled, and in the administration of £10,000,000 of taxation annually the Irish people have no voice whatever. It is idle to tell us that they have representatives in this House. Any old Member of the House knows what happens about Supply. One of the blessings of Tory rule to the House of Commons has been that what has always been regarded as the first and essential duty of this House, namely, the discussion of Supply, has almost disappeared. We are supposed to get, under the new rule, three days in the session for the discussion of Irish Supply—three days for the discussion of forty or fifty boards and £10,000,000 of money, The result has been for many years past that nine-tenths of this enormous sum has been passed by the closure without a single word of discussion by Irish Members. For this enormous taxation we have the worst, and—to use Lord Rosebery's word—the most inefficient government in the whole world. Lord Dunraven, in one of his speeches, said—

"We are governed as no other people in the world are governed. It is difficult to understand what that which is commonly called Castle Government in Ireland really means. It is not democratic, or a despotism, or an oligarchy. No body on earth has any control over its members. They are fed from the Consolidated Fund, many of them, and no one can say that such a form of government is suitable to the needs of the country or the age in which we live."

Lord Lansdowne, in the House of Lords not many months ago, used this remarkable phrase—

"There is room for considerable improvement in the old-fashioned and complicated organisation of the Irish Government."

Sir West Ridgeway, Under - Secretary in Dublin Castle when the late Prime Minister was Chief Secretary, has told us, in a remarkable declaration, that at the very time when he was engaged in carrying out a coercion regimen in Ireland he was at the same time engaged in preparing a great scheme of local government—not of county councils, but of local government in the sense even of devolution, or national council, or something of that kind; and he has told us that from his experience Dublin Castle government is a chaotic anachronism. The same views have been expressed by Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Redvers Buller, Lord Dudley, and Lord Carnarvon, not to speak of Liberal statesmen. I confess I wish I had by me at the moment the Radical programme—it has gone out of print, and I think the Irish Party will have to reprint it. I have it at home and I am very familiar with it, and I directly controvert the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to-night that his scheme for reform in Ireland was such as has been satisfied by the concession of local government. Nothing of the kind; this scheme was a scheme for the abolition of the rule of Dublin Castle, and the putting into the hands of a great representative body all the great Irish questions including, if I am not mistaken, the questions both of the land and of education. The result of all this was inevitable—the neglect of every interest in Ireland and the dissatisfaction and discontent of every class of the community in Ireland. Our fisheries are neglected, our great waterways are neglected, and our system of transit and railway facilities is the most expensive in Europe. Our harbours are neglected. Our system of education is fifty years behind the least progressive country in Europe. Our working-classes are worse housed and less effort is made to improve their lot than in the case of the working-classes of any country in the world, and it follows that every class in Ireland is dissatisfied with the present system of government. The latest proof of this is to be found in the votes of the Orange democracy of West Belfast which returned my hon. friend. Not long ago Lord Rosebery said he would be prepared to give a colonial constitution to Ireland if only Ireland were loyal. I ask the House of Commons what race of men who are not fools or slaves would be loyal to such a system of government as Ireland has? The remark which I have quoted was a thoughtless, heartless remark, showing a strange forgetfulness of history, which has ever shown that loyalty is the result, not the forerunner, of the concession of self-government. Where you give self-government there you have loyalty. Where you withhold self-government there you have dissatisfaction, disloyalty and disaster. Are Irishmen less loyal than the Canadians, to whom Home Rule was given when they were ready for armed resistance? Are they less loyal than the Boers, to whom responsible government is to be given after a sanguinary war? Would the Australian colonies have been loyal for twenty-four years if government were attempted from Downing-street? If you have any doubt of it ask the Colonial Premiers. There is nothing more remarkable than the fact that every self-governing colony in the Empire has declared openly through its Parliament in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. The last is the declaration to be found in the petition to the King, adopted by the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia. They say—

"The sad history of Ireland, since the Act of Union, shows that no British Parliament can understand or effectually deal with the economic and social condition of that country. Enjoying and appreciating as we do the blessings of Home Rule here we would humbly express the hope that a just measure of Home Rule may be granted to the people of Ireland. They ask for it through their representatives. Never has been request more clear, consistent, and continuous by any nation. As subjects of Your Majesty we are interested in the peace and contentment of all parts of the Empire, and we desire to see this long-standing grievance at the very heart of the Empire removed."

That petition was supported by the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia, and, although the Leader of the Opposition spoke and voted against it, he said he did so, not because he was against the concession of Home Rule for Ireland, but because he thought it wiser for Australia not to interfere with this matter at all. When the Colonial Conference meets, if you want to put a subject before them that is certain to meet with unanimity and enthusiasm, put before them this question of self-government to Ireland, and you will get an unanimous, and an enthusiastic declaration in its favour. This problem of Ireland will not brook delay. Ireland is now peaceful. There is no political disorder, and no crime of any sort in the country. One of the most fatal characteristics of English concessions to Ireland in the past has been that they have nearly always been given—I will not say in consequence of—but. at any rate following periods of unrest, and of violence, and I respectfully urge that the English politician who would, say that because Ireland is peaceful, because there is no political turmoil and no crime, therefore this problem can wait, would be incurring a risk and responsibility from which I think any man of knowledge and experience should shrink. The King's Speech alludes to Ireland. I deeply regret that there is no statement in the Speech with regard to the land question. I freely acknowledge, however, that the Government by their administrative acts have done a great deal on this question since they came into office. They have undoubtedly freed the hands of the Commissioners and put it into their power to go a long way in settling some of the worst features of the Irish land question. I look forward with great hope to the speedy settlement of a greater portion, at any rate, of the evicted tenants. But no one who understands Ireland can doubt that serious amendments in other respects—amendments which can only be carried out by legislation—are necessary. This Act was not passed merely to allow one person to transfer property in land to another person. The object of the Land Act of 1903 was to settle the Irish land question, and to remove from Ireland that perennial source of misery and that squalid struggle between the classes in that country; and that object can never be achieved by this Act unless it is amended, and unless, in certain directions, the element of compulsion is applied. I regret that no announcement is made of an intention to amend this Act. It will, of course, be our duty to press that consideration upon the Government, and experience and pressure of events I believe will bring home to them the conviction that they must soon introduce legislation for this purpose. In regard to the Coercion Act I notice that the Speech from the Throne says that Ireland is to be governed by the ordinary law, and I freely admit that the Government have withdrawn all the proclamations which kept in force the Coercion Act. I gather from the Prime Minister that it is the intention and policy of the Government to introduce a measure to remove that law from the Statute-book. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could take up any other attitude, because, when the Bill was passing through the House, the Liberal Party fought it tooth and nail, clause by clause, every session, and the whole of the Liberal Party have voted in favour of its immediate repeal. Last session, when the hon. Member for North Kildare moved a motion declaring that the Coercion Act was unconstitutional and should be immediately repealed, the whole of the Liberal Party—all the so-called sections of it—were led into the lobby in support of that Amendment by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made on that occasion one of the most eloquent and vehement speeches I have ever heard him make, protesting that this Act was a disgrace to the country and should be removed from the Statute-book. I regret that the Government have not mentioned a Bill to repeal this Act in the King's Speech. I urge upon the Prime Minister that he ought to introduce such a Bill this session. Whilst such a measure might be vigorously debated on the Second Reading it would not occupy much time during the Committee stage; and as to the fate that might meet it in the other House that ought not to deter the Government from introducing a measure to which they are so completely pledged. I admit the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as to the vagueness of the references to Ireland in the King's Speech. The words are vague, and if the honour had been done me of asking me to draft those words I should have drafted them very differently. They may mean little, they may mean a great deal. The fact that they are there puts upon me the duty of reiterating the unchanged position of the Irish Party on the question of national self-government. Our attitude has not changed one hair's breadth for twenty-five years. While we take all that comes our way in amelioration of the lot of the Irish people, the Irish question can never be finally or satisfactorily settled except by the concession to Ireland of a Parliament and an executive responsible to it. I feel bound to make that declaration, and to say we shall give every encouragement to the Government in any effort of theirs to deal with that question. In coming to deal with it they will find the Nationalists reasonable and practical men—men who have spent twenty-five years of their lives in endeavouring to win this right for their country, men who do not want to die until they see some great advance made along the road; and, therefore, men who will not wantonly or perversely alienate the sympathy or support of any man or body of men who believe in the principle of settling the Irish question on the basis of self-government. My colleagues and I have been complained of because we made no bargain with the Prime Minister before the election, and the right hon. Gentleman has vehemently denied any bargain. That is strictly accurate, as there could have been no bargain except on the basis of an immediate concession of a full measure of Home Rule as the first Bill of the Session, and on the basis of an alliance implying the merging of our Parliamentary forces with the forces of the Prime Minister. I hold the view that the independence of the Irish Party is better both for us and the Liberal Party, and hence no bargain was entered into, or thought of, between the right hon. Gentleman and us. Our critics say, "If you had no secret understanding with the Government, why did you assist them in rejecting the last Government? My mind goes back to a famous meeting in August, 1901, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the late Prime Minister went down to Blenheim and declared open war upon the Irish Party.

I hope they enjoy the result now.

With their then majority of 150 they were spoken of as the strongest Government of modern times, and those two right hon. Gentlemen declared that this enormous power was to be used to diminish the influence of the Irish Members and to muzzle us on the floor of the House. What has become of their effort to muzzle the Irish Members? Where is their scheme to rob Ireland of thirty seats? Where is their majority? Where is their Party? Where is their leader? They have all disappeared, and the Irish Members are here as numerous as ever. That Government broke its pledge to introduce a satisfactory Labourers Bill, they reimposed coercion upon Ireland, and, having passed the Land Act of 1903, with the unanimity of all Parties, they immediately began, by secret instructions and otherwise, to block its fair and useful operation; and even if they had believed that Ireland could gain nothing from a Liberal Government and that the Prime Minister, after his honourable and consistent record of the past twenty years, was going to prove false to Ireland, the Irish Members would have felt it their duty to do all they could to drive the last Government from office. The present Government has an unparalleled opportunity. One result stands out above all else. Home Rule is no longer a bogey to frighten the English people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham waxed indignant upon the circulation of some cartoons ort Chinese labour, which he thought were unfair and untrue. What about the cartoons that he and his friends issued depicting the Irishman as an inhuman, brute, stabbing innocent women and children? In one constituency the hon. Gentleman who won the seat issued an autograph letter, in which he said—

"If Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman is returned to office, Mr. Redmond will bring pressure to bear on him and his Government by the murder of innocent citizens and the mutilation of cattle."

[Cries of "Oh."] The indignation of the right hon. Gentleman when there was a picture circulated of two Chinamen with their hands tied behind them is ludicrous, when the very men who express this, indignation are guilty of such conduct against political opponents. Home Rule is no longer a bogey to the English electors. We have been taught that the predominant partner must be converted. The predominant partner has now returned a Government which for twenty years has been pledged to the principle of Home Rule, and I am convinced that public opinion in this country is to-day perfectly prepared for some great reconstructive policy with regard to the government of Ireland. The Liberal Government of to-day has an enormous majority and enormous power. Its enemies have disappeared, the difficulties in their path on the Irish question, have melted away, many of them have been removed by the action of the Unionist Party, and therefore I beg the Government to recognise the urgency of this question and not delay in their intention to deal with it. I notice with satisfaction that the King's Speech says that final plans are under consideration for the purpose of dealing with this question. I beg that the final consideration of these plans be not postponed, and I beg of the Government in preparing those plans not to be half-hearted or timid. In the last session of the old Parliament I moved an Amendment to the Address in the following terms—

"We humbly represent to Your Majesty that the present system of Government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people and gives them no voice in the management of their own affair; that the system is consequently inefficient and extravagantly costly; that it does not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population; that it is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and is incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people."

Sir, that Amendment was supported by the entire Liberal Party. If I speak of sections of the Party I am sure no hon. Gentleman opposite will think I use the phrase in an invidious or offensive sense. I do so because the public talk of sections; and I say that this declaration was supported by all so-called sections of the Liberal Party, by all the men who sit on those Benches without exception, save those who are new to Parliament on this occasion. Therefore that statement is no longer a statement of mine or a statement of the Irish Party. It is the declaration of the Liberal Party. That is your own declaration, and that declaration proves at one and the same time the grave and urgent character of this problem. I beg of you, when you come to deal with it, to have the courage of your convictions and to deal with it boldly. Sir, in conclusion, one word more and one only. Once again Ireland has lifted her head, that head which so long has been bowed in sorrow and almost in despair. Once again the hope of a better day, of a coming day of justice, of liberty, and at least of comparative prosperity, is pulsing through her veins. God grant for her sake, but equally for yours, that that hope be not disappointed.

congratulated the Postmaster-General on the attitude which he had taken up on the question of trade unionism, and said he hoped the example set by the right hon. Gentleman would be followed by other great departments, especially the War Office and the Admiralty. There were rumours that it was the intention to revert to the old custom by which the House met at three in the afternoon. He trusted no countenance would be lent to a proposal of that kind. If there was to be a change it should be in the other direction. The business of the nation was too important a matter to be left to the fag end of a day, the best part of which had been spent at business. If the legislation of the country was conducted in the honest light of day instead of in the glare of the gas light, it would be a distinct advantage to the community at large. He regretted the omission in the King's Speech of any reference to temper ance reform. They should remember however, that it was impossible to attempt everything in one session. There was one reform which the Government might undertake. New Members must have been painfully struck with the fact that they could not introduce a friend into the public smoking-room without passing a bar at which intoxicating liquor was sold. A Government strongly imbued with temperance principles might inaugurate a reform here without waiting for legislation, and he ventured to say that this would be a reform which would meet with approval from all parts of the House. With regard to Army reform, at the present time, the ex-Commander-in-chief was stumping the country in support of what was really a very thinly-veiled form of conscription, and the churches and the schools were being used as recruiting agencies for popularising the Army and familiarising the youth of the country with military ideas and drill. There was no lack of genuine patriotism on the part of the working classed, but they had a strong objection to anything that savoured of conscription, whether veiled or open. He had fully expected that the Government would give some indication of a determination to lead the nation away from the war-spirit and declare its intention of co-operating with other nations on the Continent in the establishment of a league of peace for the suppression of war as a means of settling international disputes. He hoped such was the intention of the Government. He hoped he was right in assuming from the King's Speech in regard to this matter that such was the intention of the Government. He sincerely hoped also that we had got away from that spirit of filibustering Imperialism which had cost the nation so dear, not only in money, but in prestige. There were one or two questions on which he desired fuller information in regard to Chinese labour. He had listened to what the Prime Minister had to say on this point. The anticipations raised in the country by the denunciations of Chinese labour during the election were strong, and would not, he felt certain, be satisfied by the position now taken up with regard to this question by the Government. It was not enough to say that inasmuch as the colony would shortly have Home Rule or responsible government, the question should be held in abeyance until they could decide for themselves whether Chinese labour was to be permitted or not. The point for the moment was that Chinese labour was associated in the public mind with Chinese slavery, and the colony ought to be freed from the difficulty which the mother country had imposed upon it before responsible government was established. The same authority which made Chinese labour possible should withdraw Chinese labour before the advent of responsible government. He desired more specific information on these points. He understood from the Prime Minister that Chinamen desiring to be repatriated would be able to have their passage paid home, if no other means were available. He asked whether, in the event of the Imperial Government having to pay the cost of the voyage home of Chinamen, the sum so expended was to be recoverable from the mine-owners, and, if so, what security was there that the mine owners would meet this liability any better than they had met former liabilities. He was not quite sure that he understood the Prime Minister when he spoke about punishments. Was it understood now that no punishment could be inflicted on these Chinamen until they had been brought before a court of justice and tried for the offence with which they were charged? If that were so it would mark a very great improvement indeed in the conditions under which these people worked, but if lashing was still to be permitted within the compounds or within the mines, then the old conditions would practically remain under the new Government. In the Address there was a reference to merchant shipping and the promise of an amending Bill. He trusted that the measure to be introduced would totally prohibit the employment on British ships of foreign seamen, unable to speak the English language. The stipendiary of Cardiff, in a case of inquiry the other day into the loss of a ship, made the alarming and astounding statement that this was the third investigation of the kind he had had within a month, and that in each of the three cases the vessels had been manned by seamen unable to speak the English language. That pointed to a very serious state of affairs. There was no scarcity of British seamen, and the only reason for giving the foreigner a preference was that he could be had at a lower rate of wages than British Jack Tars would accept. The bill of fare in the King's Speech was in the promise at least fairly satisfactory. What it would be in the performance remained to be seen, and the Labour Members would not prejudge the Government in regard to their Labour legislation. They would reserve their judgment until the measures had been produced, but they hoped that in dealing with the topics enumerated in the King's Speech the Government would deal with them in a whole - hearted fashion, so as to secure a final settlement of each. If they were only dealt with in a half-hearted manner there would be further demands made on the time of the House. Take, for instance, the Taff Vale question. He understood that there was substantial agreement in regard to the main lines of the measure, with the exception of what was known as Clause 3 of last year's Bill. The Labour Party in the country —both the trade union side and the political side—had stated with no uncertain voice what they desired in this matter. They claimed absolute immunity for trade union funds from any claims for damages arising out of trade disputes. It was said that this was an illogical position to assume. It was said that where the responsible officers of a trade union were responsible for an offence the funds of the union should be held liable for the loss sustained. Their reply was, "If an officer offends against the law, punish the officer, but do not punish the whole of the members for his indiscretion or want of judgment." Those of them who had had some experience of labour movements were aware that if the slightest opening were left whereby an entrance might be made on trade union funds, the law would find that entrance, and they therefore asked that the Trade Union Bill should be a practical Bill, and that in particular the funds of the unions should be placed beyond the touch of employers seeking damages. In regard to the Education Bill he desired to mention briefly two aspects of the question which were bound to receive a good deal of attention before the measure became law. They had heard this afternoon in the excellent speech of the seconder of the Address an expression of the hope that some method might be found for composing the religious differences which now existed, and which constituted the chief bar to the building up of a proper educational system. He had endeavoured to find out in what way these differences could be composed without leaving heartburning or a sense of hardship behind, and so far as his investigations had gone there appeared to him to be but one method by which the miserable irreligious controversy over religious instruction could be disposed of once for all and that was by taking religious instruction out of the hands of the teachers altogether. A great deal was heard about religious tests, but to make it compulsory on a teacher to give religious instruction, no matter how undenominational it might be, was to impose a religious test which many of our best teachers could not conscientiously adopt. Religion should not be taught by public school teachers. Clergymen of all denominations were never tired of bewailing the irreligious spirit of the age; but how much of this spirit might not lie attributed to the fact that children were taught religion in a perfunctory manner by overworked school teachers? In the best interests of religion, therefore, it was desirable that those who gave religious instruction should be the parents and the spiritual guides of the people and not those who were engaged, or ought to be engaged, in purely and exclusively secular teaching. But perhaps a more important question was the physical condition of the children to receive such instruction. It was useless to go on trying to instil education into the brains of half-starved children. There was the question of seeing that the body of the child was in a condition to receive instruction from its teacher. He would not go into this subject at length. In the last House of Commons his friend and colleague the Member for the Barnard Castle Division introduced a Bill on the subject. That Bill would be again introduced and it would give the House a lead along the road which he hoped they would be willing to take towards conferring on public authorities full and complete powers to make provision for those school children whose conditions were such at present as totally to unfit them for a silating the instruction which the teachers were engaged in giving. He was delighted that the King's Speech gave promise of an amended Unemployed Bill. The Act of last session had proved, as it was predicted it would prove, a failure in so far as dealing with the unemployed difficulty was concerned, but it had laid the foundation for a more comprehensive and effective measure. They expected the measure—especially remembering who was President of the Local Government Board—would be comprehensive and wide in its scope, and that it would not tie local authorities down to one particular method of dealing with unemployment. The local authorities in this country should be free to try experiments in order to find out what was the best way to deal with a national problem. It was also to be hoped that the financial limitations which now hindered the new authorities would be removed in the new Bill. Where the penny rate proved insufficient some form of national grant should supplement the local rates, so as to spread the cost over the community and not leave it as a local burden on the poorer localities. He hoped that the State, apart from what the local authorities would do, would also provide permanent employment for the unemployed by means of afforestation and great public undertakings. Neither would it suffice for the Government to stand by a mere negative on the policy of fiscal reform. The Government must have an attractive policy of reform to counteract the influence of those who put tariff reform forward as a means of helping the working classes. When the Government were dealing with the question of plural voting he hoped that they would also reform the absurd and antiquated registration laws and include the payment of official election expenses. It might be that before this session closed the House would find itself in conflict with another place, involving an appeal to the country. The nation was not at present equipped for that struggle as it ought to be, and as it would be after a thorough reform of the registration laws. Not only was one-third of the male population outside the franchise, but the whole of the women of the country. He hoped the Liberal Government would remove the scandal and disgrace of treating women, because they were women, no better than if they were criminals, paupers, or peers. He trusted, therefore, that women suffrage would form one of the items to be dealt with when the franchise was being tackled. There were several references in the King's Speech to South Africa, and he was delighted to learn that responsible government was to be given to the Transvaal and also to the Orange River Colony. The trust and confidence to be reposed in the people of these lands would, he was certain, be productive of the very best results. But there was one fact connected with South Africa at present on which he thought they were entitled to ask for some information. He hoped that the Government would give information as to the sinister rumours which were in circulation about native unrest in Natal. Some sinister statements were being made in the public Press. They learned already that the Press censor was at work in South Africa. Those who took an intelligent interest in the war with the Boer Republic would remember how at that time the reports we got from South Africa were those which suited the interests of the mineowners only, how the truth was suppressed, how every lie that could inflame and prejudice the passions of the people here against the Boers of the Transvaal was put freely into circulation, and the country knew the price it had to pay for allowing that line of action. It looked us if at the present time the country was being prepared for another war in South Africa. It was stated that the natives were showing unrest and refusing to pay their taxes, and that they had been guilty of murder. It was possible that these romours were the outcome of a policy of irritation to the natives with the purpose of forcing them into a war as the Boers were forced into war six or seven years ago. He hoped the Colonial Secretary would keep a close eve on these developments in Natal and South Africa, so as to prevent a second war being waged in that far off country. With respect to Ireland it seemed a strange anomaly that Ireland was the only part of the world where the Irish people were not allowed to exercise their undoubted faculties for government. Anyone who visited Ireland and saw the poverty and depression of spirit must realise what a curse British rule had been to the Irish people. It must be a source of gladness to these who had fought so long that at length there was a hope of securing justice to the people of Ireland, and that they would be able to share in the administration of the affairs of their own country. He and his friends on those benches would take no part in the ordinary strife and warfare of Party politics. They were here to force to the front the question of the condition of the people of England and to safeguard the rights of the poor. Why was it that wealth accumulated while men decayed? One cause was that the law makers of Great Britain had hitherto been drawn almost exclusively from the wealth owners of Great Britain. The working classes had been represented only at second hand by men whose interests were diametrically opposed to theirs. [LIBERAL cries of "No, no!"] He contended that the workers could not trust their interests to men whose pocket interest—always a powerful factor in influencing conduct—led them to desire that the workers should remain in their poverty—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no !"]—He was glad to hear that protest—and in the condition in which they now were. Property was sacred in England, but life was a thing of no account. Why was it that amongst the children of the poor in our great cities 66 per 1,000 died before they reached one year of age, while only 18 per 1,000 of the children of the class who sat in Parliament died before attaining one year? It was because the life of the poor was of less account than the property from which their income was derived. When they saw that three sides of the House were under the control of, and tenanted by, men whose pocket interests were diametrically opposed to those of the working classes—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no !"]—it was essential that there should be one section of the House, at least, representing the workers and the poor. He and his friends asked for this Government a fair trial. They believed that their legislation would be more advanced than that of any Government which had gone before, and the explanation of that would be found in the fact that at length the workers of the country were bestirring themselves, and insisting on legislation being passed for their benefit. They would not attempt to pre-judge the Government, but to give fair consideration to every proposal which they brought forward, and to keep before them at all times and under all circumstances the welfare, not of this Party or of that, but of the poor, who had hitherto been without friends, because they had not taken the trouble to protect themselves.

said he agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that the re-patriation of Chinamen from South Africa ought to be carried out at the cost of the mine-owners. He was not quite sure that the hon. Gentleman rightly interpreted the Prime Minister when he attributed to the Government the policy of leaving the question entirely in the hands of the people of the Transvaal. There were many Members of the House who believed that forced labour ought not to be allowed under any circumstances or conditions in any part of the dominions of the King. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, whose statements were notoriously inaccurate, and whose figures were sometimes mere illustrations, complained that afternoon of the exaggerated accounts of the condition in which the Chinaman worked in South Africa. If Rip Van Winkle were an Englishman and had waked out of his long sleep last month, he possibly would have been surprised at the supreme importance attached to the question of Chinese labour, and he would not have been astonished to find that the English people were indignant at the revival of slavery and the slave trade under the British flag. He would have known that the people of this country, who were not idiots, did not believe in the distinction between slavery and forced labour. What excited such intense indignation about Chinese labour in this country was the fact that it was the sign and symbol of that gigantic swindle, that colossal fraud, the policy of the late Government in South Africa. Five and a half years ago the people of this country were humbugged and deceived. In Lord Milner's happy phrase they were drenched with lies; but their eyes were open now to the fact that the policy of the late Government was engineered in South Africa by bloodthirsty money grubbers—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh.!"]—mostly of foreign extraction, without honour, without conscience, without country, without God. The people of this country did not forget, and they never could forget, the splendid heroism of their soldiers, some of whom earned for themselves everlasting renown and none of whom were responsible for the cause for which they fought. They saw now, but they did not see then, that the war was a sweaters' war, a war for cheap labour, a war against the working classes, against liberty, against independence and against everything which Englishmen most revered. This was not always the unanimous opinion of the Liberal Party. In the face of the great, united, cohesive organism which he saw before him, he did not hesitate to admit that the Liberals had had their differences, their dissensions, their gaping wounds. Who had healed them? In the hour of their recovery let them not forget the services of their physician. They ought to erect a statue, not of gold, for it was beyond their means, but of brass to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It was he who hadre-united them. It was he who had brought Imperialists into line with mere patriots. He was sure that it would rejoice the heart of the right hon. Gentleman to know that it was he who had removed the jealousies between employers and employed and sent them to the poll together in defence of their common interest, their bread and butter. It was he who had submitted to the working classes for the first time in all its length and breadth the issue between protection and free trade. He had dressed up the carcass of protection, the rotten, stinking carcass, in the tinsel finery of tariff reform, and from one end of the country to the other, from John O' Groat's to Lands End, there came back the shout: "Take it away. Give it decent, or indecent, burial, but let us never see or hear of the foul thing again." The result of the general election reminded him of the epigram written of the lady who had the misfortune to be the wife of George IV.,.and who imitated his vices so far as the infirmities of her sex would permit. It began—

"Most gracious Joe."

He begged pardon.

"Most gracious Queen, we thee implore,

To go away and sin no more;

Or, if that burden be too great,

To go away, at any rate."

The right hon Gentleman, fortunately for himself and for them, had been enabled to entrench himself within the impregnable fortress of our English Tammany. He admired the authority which the right hon. Gentleman exercised, and the confidence which he enjoyed among the people who knew him best. It was said of a great Roman that in the opinion of all men, he would have been capable of Empire if he had never been an Emperor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham might have been thought a great Imperialist statesman if he had not taken rather late in life to Imperialism. He wished that Mr. Balfour were present. If his absence were more than temporary, he would be the greatest intellectual loss the House could suffer—except Lord Hugh Cecil. He would rather pay the right hon. Gentleman compliments to his face than behind his back. The right hon. Gentleman was the nearest approach in these degenerate days to the Greek sophist. The Greak sophists were men of extreme mental subtlety, and of intense personal respectability. They were men of wealth and station; they went everywhere, and knew everybody. They proved all things; they held fast to that which was bad. They undertook to prove that there was no difference between right and wrong, and anything was just which anybody who could afford to pay them wanted to do. They lived lives of unin terrupted felicity until a tiresome person called Socrates appeared and began to ask them questions. Socrates wanted to know what they meant by justice, and why, if there was no difference between right and wrong, they had two names for the same thing. They voted Socrates a public nuisance, and they put him to death. But he left a numerous intellectual progeny, and some of them had settled in Manchester. These asked Mr. Balfour what he meant by free trade, and why, if it was the same thing as protection, he did not call it by the same name. If he had answered with truth that free trade was a tariff for public revenue, and that protection was a tariff for private interest, he would have lost his bearings. He made no intelligible answer, and he lost his seat. What was the right hon. Gentleman's policy of retaliation? "If other countries tax our goods, why should we not tax theirs? That sounded clever, did it not? The wonder was that nobody had ever thought of it before. Could it possibly be that the real meaning of it was somewhat different?" Because foreign Governments tax their subjects let us make our Government tax theirs." That sounded silly, did it not? It sounded silly because it was silly; and because it was silly it would not be done. They free traders had been on velvet. It did not require much ability or learning to show that a nation which depended on foreign food, which imported immense quantities of raw material, and manufactured for mankind, depended for its prosperity—even for its very existence—upon free access to the world's supply. He himself could defend a platitude against a paradox. Chief Justice Jervis said that the world was divided into fools and damned fools, and he thanked God that he was born a fool. He had never felt so thankful for that privilege as when he read Mr. Balfour's academic prolusion, entitled "Some Unsettled Convictions on Political Economy." He thought to himself, "How marvellously acute, and, after all, perhaps it is true." He dared say protection would not do much harm to an uninhabited island in an undiscoverable sea; but what consolation would that be to the 5,000,000 of Lancashire folk who depended upon the cotton trade, when the margin of their profit had been destroyed? They had little more to do than to expound the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue. "Thou shalt not murder." A tax upon corn was murder. "Thou shalt not steal." A corner in wheat was stealing. "Give us this day our daily bread." That was what John Bright meant when he said that he and Richard Cobden had converted a great minister, and had put the Lord's Prayer into an Act of Parliament. Once there, not all the efforts of all the strong men of Birmingham, the seven against sense, taking into their counsels all the wise men of Gotham, the Members of the Tariff Reform League, would ever avail to take it out.