British agriculture. His own belief was that no consideration was given to the question at all, and that the Government had not shown an adequate sense of the gravity of the present situation. A select committee was about to be nominated, and it seemed that commissions or committees were always appointed to take up subjects which were not in the Newcastle programme. The Royal Commission on Agriculture was not only to suggest legislative measures, but was to guide the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the choice of financial schemes for finding the money which might be required. No doubt royal commissions were admirable bodies for investigating facts, but he demurred to commissions which were expected to fish for a policy. The existing depression extended to the three classes interested in British agriculture, viz., the landowners, the farmers, and the labourers. It ought to be a truism, accepted in all parts of the House, that these classes were jointly interested in the matter, but unfortunately the Government had separated in their minds the different classes of the agricultural community. The supporters of the present Ministry had promoted every movement involving increased burdens on the rates and had denounced measures which would relieve the rates. After adducing facts which tended to support these two propositions, Mr. Goschen drew attention to the fact that of the 4,000,000l. given by the last year's Budget in relief of the rates only one-fifth went to the agricultural interest. Surely the statement of this fact ought to deal a final blow to the fallacy which had prevailed so long that the 4,000,000l. went to the Tory landlords. Further relief should be afforded to local taxation, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had by his Budget disturbed the status quo, it could not be given in the old way. He hoped one effect of this debate would be to convince her Majesty's Government that the social questions now agitating the public mind were of infinitely greater importance than the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. No doubt the difficulties were stupendous, but they had a right to demand that the Government should devote their attention to questions upon which the very life of the nation depended. He would not dwell on the question of bimetallism, though he was of opinion that this and other suggested remedies ought to be examined and not scoffed at. No good could be effected unless confidence and credit were restored. Good feeling between capital and labour and cordial relations between employers and employed were indispensable conditions of national prosperity.

After a frank expression of belief by Mr. J. Lowther (Isle of Thanet, Kent) in a return to protection as one remedy for agricultural depression, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the amendment, which was aimed at the life of the Government, was interesting in its genesis and incubation. Originally it was brought forward by Mr. Jeffreys as a straightforward

agricultural amendment, but the question of the unemployed was introduced into the amendment and the textile industries were added to it as a make weight. In fact the net was made large enough to include all the loose fishes. He indignantly repelled the insinuation that members on the Ministerial side did not sympathise deeply with the distressed agricultural classes, but added that if the Government were to be held responsible for distress in all trades it was obvious that the Government itself must be the only trader. Adverting to the agricultural part of the amendment, he charged Mr. Goschen with having picked out all the fallacies of protection and dressed them up in his speech. Was the House, he asked, going to condemn the Government because they had not brought forward protection or bimetallism as a remedy for agricultural distress? He was at issue with the member for Sleaford not only upon the theoretical question of bimetallism but also upon a far greater question-namely, the avowed object at which he (Mr. Chaplin) aimed. That object was to raise prices. For his own part he did not desire to raise prices, because he believed that the cheapness of commodities had been an immense blessing to the people of this country. The condition of the unemployed was far too important to be made a party question, but the Opposition had deliberately made it a party question when they introduced it into an amendment the object of which was to displace the Government. This was an unjust and an uncandid amendment, and he believed it would be repudiated by the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer's efforts to put a little life into the debate were apparently not to the taste of Mr. Balfour, who, in a reply in which his usual urbanity was replaced by a solemn seriousness, remarked that, while admiring the Chancellor of the Exchequer's wit, he was somewhat surprised at the occasion which he had selected for its display. He greatly doubted whether the ruined farmers and manufacturers would find much amusement in the coruscations of wit with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had enlivened this debate. Mr. Balfour proceeded to say that Mr. Jeffreys consulted him as to the amendment, and that he assumed full responsibility for the wording in which the amendment was couched. To have omitted all mention of the working classes who were thrown out of employment would be tantamount to presenting a maimed resolution to the House. He wondered what the farmers and labourers in the agricultural districts would think when they learnt that the best wish entertained by the leader of the House on their behalf was that the price of commodities, which had been steadily falling for the last twenty years, might continue to fall in the future. Although he was not a Protectionist himself, he must express his earnest belief that we were face to face with a financial, an agricultural, and a commercial crisis,

which required us to consider anew and in the light of the best experience all the circumstances affecting our social condition.

A division was then taken, and Mr. Jeffreys' amendment was negatived by 273 to 261, a majority which fell below that which the Ministry might have expected. The Parnellites voted with the Opposition, in accordance with their avowed intention to embarrass the Government on all critical occasions. Mr. Keir Hardie was the only Independent Labour member who abstained from voting, but his example was followed by three Gladstonians and two Anti-Parnellites. By this means the nominal majority of 17, on which, in view of the defection of the Parnellites, the Government Whips could count, was reduced to 12 on this first trial of strength.

On the next amendment (Feb. 11), moved by Mr. J. Redmond (Waterford), the leader of the Parnellite group, the Government obtained a somewhat increased majority, although on this occasion the Anti-Parnellites were placed in the awkward position of seemingly opposing the self-constituted champion of Irish aspirations. Mr. Redmond's amendment to the Address was to the effect that the time had come when it was the duty of ministers to advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and to submit the question of Home Rule to the electors of the United Kingdom. There was obviously nothing in such a demand which the Unionists could not cordially and honestly support, inasmuch as they had pressed for such an appeal to the popular vote ever since the rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House of Lords. Other counsels had, however, prevailed in the Cabinet, and these had finally resulted in the policy of "filling up the cup." Mr. Redmond, in an eloquent and often brilliant speech, traced the history of the question of Home Rule, which after Mr. Gladstone's conversion became the principal plank in the Liberal platform. Such was the position to which Home Rule was raised by the political genius of Mr. Parnell. Since the rejection of the Home Rule Bill in another place, however, the subject had been put upon the shelf. The agitation against the House of Lords would, if persisted in, mean the indefinite postponement of the great Irish question; whereas, if there were a clear declaration of popular opinion in favour of Home Rule, his belief was that the Lords would yield and would consent to pass a measure on the subject. It was the duty of ministers, by dissolving the present Parliament, to do what they could to restore Home Rule to the position which it formerly occupied.

The Chief Secretary, Mr. Morley (Newcastle-on-Tyne), at once replied, and although his speech was severely criticised in several quarters, it was, in view of his difficult position, at once able and politic. He was probably almost alone in the Cabinet in his desire to make the Irish question the chief plank in the Liberal platform, and to disregard the warnings of the party managers who were better informed as to the feelings of the

mass of Liberal electors. He therefore began his speech by declaring himself as much in earnest as Mr. J. Redmond about self-government for Ireland, but with reference to the amendment he declared that no more mischievous blow could have been dealt at the cause of Home Rule. The House would see that the resolution committed the mover to a political paradox. The present Administration had actually passed a Home Rule Bill through the House of Commons, and yet Mr. Redmond contended that the Government which had taken this enormous stride in the direction desired by him ought to be ejected by the friends of Home Rule and in the name of Home Rule. Moreover, it was intended to eject them with the assistance of the party who regarded Home Rule as treason to the Constitution. After twitting Mr. J. Redmond on account of his suicidal and infatuated policy, Mr. J. Morley spoke of that gentleman's confederates, adding (in spite of Mr. Redmond's denial) that doubtless he had in view language which would capture the votes of gentlemen above the gangway on the Opposition side. Surely, it could not be contended seriously that the Government would promote the Irish cause by proclaiming themselves to be indifferent to the demands of English, Scotch, and Welsh members. With regard to the alleged slackness of energy on behalf of the Irish cause, he referred to the enthusiasm aroused by Mr. Gladstone, and explained that that passionate awakening had been converted into a firm and steadfast conviction of national honour and national duty. This firm conviction of the impossibility of governing Ireland on the old lines, and of the necessity of building up institutions by self-government in that country, was not one whit slackened or weakened. It was premature to

suppose that there was no chance of the Government passing their Land Bill, and the success of the amendment would deprive the Irish people of the benefit of a measure which they almost universally demanded. It was a curious thing that the member for Waterford should seek to recruit his rather thin and emaciated ranks by setting the whole of rural Ireland against him. Such a course might be called independent, but it could not be described as patriotic. When the time for a general election arrived the Liberal party would go to the country with the question of the concession to Ireland of a full measure of local autonomy not falling behind the measure of 1893.

Mr. Balfour (Manchester, East) was prompt in exposing the fallacy which underlay Mr. Morley's argument that votes given for the amendment must necessarily be hostile to Home Rule. According to him, if the Government dissolved Parliament they would come back with a majority, and therefore they could not be injured by being obliged to go to the country. The amendment could not be inimical to Home Rule unless the verdict of the country would be against the Government.

If it could be shown that the amendment would be favourable to Home Rule, he, for one, would promise not to vote for it. The Chief Secretary had asserted that in 1886-7 there was an overwhelming passion on the part of Liberal electors to vote for Home Rule, that the first fervour of the honeymoon was now over, that a calm, rational affection had now succeeded the earlier transports, and that domestic felicity was more likely to come about in the second state of things. It often happened, however, that an intimate relation existed between calm and rational affection and what outsiders called indifference. Certainly, Liberal candidates now said as little as they could about Home Rule. With regard to the Chief Secretary's innuendoes, he observed that the honour of the Unionist party was the most valuable of its assets, and he should consider that man to be a political idiot who would attempt to barter that honour for the temporary support of a few votes. The reason why he was going to vote for the amendment was simply because he wanted a dissolution. He believed the democracy of this country shared his opinions, and therefore he called upon the members of the Government to afford an opportunity of ascertaining whether they were the legitimate holders of the offices which they continued to retain.

A protracted discussion ensued, in which the only interesting feature was Mr. T. Healy's (Louth, North) vigorous denunciation of the unholy alliance between the Parnellites and the Unionists, and his clever attempt to discredit the former with their own countrymen by representing the defeat of the Government as meaning the loss of the Land Bill, which the Irish tenants so ardently desired. When at length the division was taken the amendment was defeated by 256 against 236 votes, showing the return to party allegiance of four waverers on the previous occasion.

On the following day (Feb. 12) Mr. Naoroji (Finsbury, Central) endeavoured to obtain a promise from the Government to readjust the financial relations between the United Kingdom and British India; but on the promise of the Secretary for India, Mr. Fowler (Wolverhampton, East), to institute a complete inquiry into the Indian expenditure, the amendment was withdrawn and the remainder of the evening was devoted to the consideration of the severe distress prevalent in certain parts of Ireland. The discussion was left entirely to the Irish members and the Chief Secretary, whose policy was finally endorsed by 200 to 13 votes. Two more days were similarly passed in discussing Irish grievances and the failure of the Government to relieve them, Mr. Clancy (Dublin Co., North) urging the amnesty of all prisoners convicted under the Treason Felony Act. In the course of the debate Mr. Morley was charged with having held out hopes and promises when out of office which he had failed to fulfil when in a position to do so; and a speech of his made in Dublin in 1888 was quoted in