than one occasion that course was pushed to its utmost limits; and the duty of the Opposition "to oppose" was at times discharged with too logical strictness.

Before entering upon the debate on the Address itself, Sir Henry James (Bury) called attention to the return of two new members for Leicester, and obtained from the leader of the House (Sir William Harcourt) the promise of the appointment of a committee to investigate and report upon the constitutional question raised. Notices of motion for the new bills which the Government proposed to introduce were then given, and presumably in the order which it was proposed to submit them to the House: Mr. Asquith, bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire; Mr. J. Morley, bill to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, and also a bill to provide for the supply of seed potatoes to occupiers of land in Ireland; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bill to establish local control over the traffic in intoxicating liquors; Mr. Bryce, bill to facilitate the construction of light railways in Great Britain; Sir G. Trevelyan, bill to make further provision for county government in Scotland; Sir W. Foster (for Mr. ShawLefevre), bill to prohibit plural voting at Parliamentary elections and to provide for taking all the polls on the same day.

The Address was then moved by Mr. C. Hobhouse (Devizes, Wilts) and seconded by Mr. W. H. Holland (Salford, North), both of whom approved of the decision of the Cabinet to give the first place to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, and warmly endorsed the proposal to extend the construction of light railways in Scotland and England.

The

Mr. Balfour (Manchester, East) began by expressing his profound regret that by the death of Lord Randolph Churchill a brilliant and too short career had been brought to a close, paying a generous tribute to a colleague with whom, from the earliest days of his Parliamentary life, he had been closely associated. Mr. Balfour next reminded the House that since the present Administration came into office the Opposition had never deemed it consistent with their duty to the country to endeavour to turn to party account any of the incidents connected with the foreign policy of the Government. Opposition had not, indeed, admired every diplomatic step taken by the Government, especially in the transactions with regard to Siam and certain parts of Africa, but he did not think the Government would be likely to steer a judicious course if the Opposition were always putting their hands upon the tiller. After pointing out that her Majesty's Speech made no reference to expenditure on the Navy, he insisted that the improved condition of Ireland in regard to crime of all kinds was not due to a policy of clemency, but was merely the culmination of a continuous process dating back eight or ten years. Examining

the programme of domestic legislation, he inquired whether there were to be two bills dealing with the ordinary relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland and with the evicted tenants, or whether both these subjects were to be embodied in a single measure. The Government had done well to examine the subject of agricultural depression, which was rapidly reaching the rank of a great national tragedy, and they would receive every assistance from the Opposition in dealing with the question. As to the light railways, he hoped their construction would involve no fresh burden on the local rates. Dealing with the programme of legislation as a whole, Mr. Balfour described it as a farce, and said it was certainly not the agenda paper of a business assembly. It was idle to suppose that the Liquor Bill could be passed by a Government which had not a large majority, while to proceed with the Welsh Church Bill would be like ploughing the sand of the seashore (a phrase afterwards destined to become a party catch-word), as her Majesty's Government were asking the House to do what they themselves said could end in nothing but vanity. In fact the Government called Parliament together not to pass laws but to further some obscure party strategical movement. The Government alleged that the cause of their legislative impotence was the House of Lords. In reality the Lords could not, if they would, resist the will of the people of this country, and if they should succeed in resisting the Government it would be because they did not represent the will of the country. The new departure of the Government in regard to legislation was so grave an attack upon the functions of the House of Commons that he hoped some member of authority would, before this debate came to a conclusion, move an amendment which would give the members of that House an opportunity of recording their judgment on the subject.

Sir William Harcourt (Derby), before replying to the criticism of the leader of the Opposition, expressed in warm and appreciative terms the sentiments of the members on his (the Government) side of the House towards Lord Randolph Churchill. He regarded him as one of the principal ornaments of the House, in whose ideas and language there was a force and a brightness which attracted those by whom he was most strongly opposed. He also regretted the death of the Czar of Russia, whose loss was a great calamity to the world, although happily his love of peace had been inherited by his successor. At the present moment there was not a single Government which was contemplating or desiring war, and with regard to our foreign policy he thought Mr. Balfour's observations were very weighty and just. Sir William Harcourt went on to explain that the omission of any reference to the Navy in the Royal Speech was intentional. In the preceding year it was specially introduced because the Government were about to make large and new proposals concerning the Navy, but in the

present year they were loyally carrying out those proposals, and, therefore, it was thought unnecessary to make any further statement on the subject. With respect to the condition of Ireland, members on that side of the House believed that the policy of the Government was the real cause of the tranquillity of that country. As to the Irish land, the Government reserved their discretion on the question whether there should be one bill or two bills. It was impossible for the Government to provide remedies for the prevalent agricultural distress while a most able and competent commission was investigating the subject. As to the projected light railways, he could not enter into details without anticipating what would have to be said by his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bryce); and if he seemed to give undue prominence to the Local Veto Bill, it was because supporters of that measure were to be found on both sides of the House. In reply to Mr. Balfour's remarks on the Welsh Church Bill, Sir William Harcourt said that to accept such an argument would 'imply that no Government ought to produce any measure unless previously assured that it would be passed by the House of Lords. With regard to the famous resolution (respecting the House of Lords) and its terms, Sir William Harcourt was absolutely silent, merely saying that he awaited with much curiosity the terms of Mr. Balfour's amendment of it. Most of the measures in the Government programme had been for some time before the House and the country, and they would be pressed forward until they were passed into law. They were the measures which at the last election had enabled them to turn the majority of 100 into a minority of 40, and this circumstance was a pretty significant indication of the views of the Government. As long as the present Government had a majority they were bound to press forward those measures, and they would continue to do so until the House of Commons had pronounced a condemnation upon them.

Neither Mr. Balfour's nor Sir William Harcourt's speech was regarded as a success oratorically or dialectically, and the utmost which could be deduced from the latter's avoidance of the subject of the House of Lords was that he sided with those members within the Cabinet who were in favour of allowing the subject to drop. Although, too, the reference to Ireland had been little more than perfunctory, the representative of the Irish Nationalists, Mr. J. M'Carthy (Longford, North), thought it politic to keep up the idea that there was no misgiving on their part as to the ultimate intentions of the Liberal party. He expressed his conviction that the quietude of Ireland was due to the fact that that country had sincere friends in Great Britain, and in order not to allow himself to be outbidden for popular favour with his own countrymen, he urged the Chief Secretary to repeal the Coercion Act at once, and to grant an amnesty to the political prisoners.

The first amendment was moved by Colonel Howard Vincent (Sheffield, Central), who asked that steps should be taken to remove any statutory or treaty obstacles standing in the way of a Customs Union between the different parts of the Empire. This was withdrawn on the statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. S. Buxton (Poplar, Tower Hamlets), that the Government, appreciating the work of the Ottawa Conference, intended to take action on one or more points recommended by the delegates. The wider question of industrial and agricultural depression was then brought up by Mr. Seton-Kerr (St. Helens), but no direct issue was raised.

On the second night (Feb. 6) Sir E. Ashmead Bartlett ventilated the grievances of the Swazi people against the Boers, but on Mr. Buxton's declaration that the British Government had no right to interfere with the internal affairs of the Transvaal, beyond making friendly representations, the subject was allowed to drop.

A more distinct issue was raised by Mr. A. J. Jeffreys' (Basingstoke, Hants) amendment regretting that the Government showed no appreciation of the gravity of the situation caused by the distressed condition of agriculture, the prolonged depression in textile and other industries, and the consequent increase in the number of unemployed. The amendment was skilfully framed in the hope of catching the votes of the working-men representatives. The debate roamed over a wide field, and numerous remedies or palliatives of a condition which all admitted were suggested. Mr. H. Chaplin (Sleaford, Lincolnshire) thought that a duty on foreign barley and the recognition of bimetallism were the only practical remedies. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre (Bradford, Central) objected to any increase of the burdens on the local rates, but attached great importance to the construction of local railways. He thought that low prices were so great a boon to the labouring population that he deprecated all attempts to raise them artificially. Mr. Keir Hardie (West Ham, S.) and Mr. S. H. Pickersgill (Bethnal Green, S. W.), both working-men members, advocated the reference of the question of the unemployed to a select committee -a suggestion which Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire) and Sir J. Gorst (Cambridge University) alike condemned. The Government, however, gladly availed themselves of this proposal, and promised the immediate appointment of a committee to inquire into the distress caused by want of employment among the working classes, and to consider the following points:

1. The extent to which distress arising from want of employment prevails.

2. The powers at present possessed by local authorities for dealing with such cases.

3. The steps which ought to be taken, whether by change

in legislation or administration, to prevent or mitigate the evils arising therefrom.

In answer to various questions the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the scope of the inquiries would be extended to the provinces and to Scotland. All recommendations would be carefully considered by the committee.

Shortly after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about forty or fifty Radical members, among whom were Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Labouchere, held a meeting, and as a result ministers were asked to allow the Select Committee to make a preliminary report with a view to the instant relief of the exceptional distress. The London Liberals had certain specific proposals which they wished to place before the committee, and were anxious that these should not in any way be excluded by the terms of the reference. London, it was maintained, ought to possess the same facilities as other large cities in the matter of the unemployed, and whatever expenditure is incurred should be borne in the same way as under the Equalisation of Rates Act.

The immediate effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's promise was an announcement by Mr. Keir Hardie that his amendment on the Address would not be proceeded with. Almost at the same time the candid friend and often inspired supporter of the Government--The Westminster Gazette-sceptically viewed the action of the Ministry: "Whatever else the Select Committee on the Unemployed may or may not do, it will, at any rate, tide us over the frost. Give the frost as long as one reasonably may, and the committee may still be relied upon to outlast it. Even with the utmost despatch, and with sittings de die in diem, an inquiry into the condition of England, and how to improve it, can hardly be expected to occupy less than a week or two-by the end of which time we may fairly hope that the frost will have broken up and the volume of employment be increased. Thus to tide over the frost is, we expect, one of the main considerations with which the committee has been appointed and approved."

On the third night (Feb. 8) Mr. Goschen (St. George's, Hanover Square) began by remarking that in the copious streams of rhetoric poured out by ministers during the recess there was nothing to show that they appreciated the seriousness of the position of the agricultural labourers. It was a subject not included in the mandate and was not considered by the Government until they had to frame the Queen's Speech. They actually made a proposal for the construction of light railways. When the late Administration made a similar proposal for Ireland it was called a "sop," but now the term was changed, and it became a "great boon." With regard to this boon he remarked that the bill was put after the Welsh Church and the Irish Land Bills, but he would humbly urge that the first place should be given to a measure which so deeply affected