329 Sir Charles Euan-Smith's (11 AUGUST, 1892}

tion of closing the Mints of India to the free coinage of silver was under discussion in Calcutta; and whether any communication has been received from the Indian Government on the subject?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. N. CURZON, Lancashire, S.W., Southport): The Secretary of State has seen the telegram in the Times, and he has received a copy of a letter on the subject addressed by the President of the Indian Currency Association to the Government of India. Some correspondence on the general subject has also taken place between the Secretary of State and the Government of India in connection with the approaching International Conference.

Mission to Morocco. 330

THE SCOTCH CROFTERS. MR. D. MACGREGOR (Invernessshire): I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the following question of which I have given him private notice Is it with the knowledge and approval of the Government that a company is now being formed to induce the crofters and fishermen in the Highlands of Scotland to emigrate to British Columbia, whilst a vast area of land remains uncultivated in their own country?

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University) (who replied): My right that the hon. Friend informs me Government have no knowledge whatever of the facts alleged by the hon. Member.

TO MOROCCO.

MR. SMITH: Arising out of that SIR CHARLES EUAN-SMITH'S MISSION answer, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in the Instructions given to the British delegates to the International Conference they will be allowed a fair opportunity of discussing all the recommendations proposed at the Conference, subject to ultimate reference to the Govern

ment ?

MR. SPEAKER: Such a question as that should be put on the Paper.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (King's. Lynn): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in compliance with Sir Charles. Euan-Smith's request, a reply was. sent to his despatch of 24th May, 1892, proposing to submit to His Majesty the Sultan of Morocco for his acceptance an agreement for the immediate suspension of final relinquishment by Her Majesty's Government of the right of according British protection LORD FREDERICK HAMILTON he has any objection to laying that Moorish subjects; and, if so, whether (Tyrone, N.): I beg to ask the Post-reply on the Table of the House; also,. master General a question of which I whether he can state what was the have given private notice-whether, in nature of the proposals contained in deciding as to the new post office at the document which Sir Charles EuanStrabane, he has taken into consi- Smith stated in his despatch of 29th deration the representations made by July, 1892, that he tore up and rebusiness people of the town that the turned to the Sultan's Minister as proposed situation will be most in- partaking of the nature of an insult? convenient?

STRABANE POST OFFICE.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Manchester, N.E.) Careful consideration has been given to the whole question of the new post office at Strabane, and there seems no doubt that the scheme decided upon affords the only suitable means at present available of providing satisfactory accommodation of a reasonably permanent character for the duties.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith): STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr.. In reply to the first question, I have to say that Sir Charles Euan-Smith was authorised to make proposals, which he sent home both by telegram and despatch, to the Sultan, and it was only owing to inadvertence that the telegram authorising him to make these proposals was not inserted in the Blue Book. With reference to the second question, we have been informed by

Sir Charles Euan-Smith that the docu- | sentations or remonstrances have been ment he tore up was in the nature of a addressed to the United States Governdraft Treaty; but its provisions were ment by Her Majesty's Minister at entirely different from those which the Washington with regard to the M Kinley Sultan had already at that time Tariff Act. In reply to the second accepted and promised to sign. question, no communication relating to interviews or discussions which are said to have taken place have been reported to the Foreign Office.

CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD
REPORTS.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will Reports from the Board for the congested parts of Ireland be published; and if any steps are being taken to establish a technical school for fishery purposes in Galway?

MOTION.

Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech, "That the proceedings on the Motion for an if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House."

Question put, and agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER). THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manches*THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRE-ter, E.): I beg to move— LAND (Mr. W. L. JACKSON, Leeds, N.): In the Act constituting the Congested Districts Board, that Board is required to make a Return once in every year to the Lord Lieutenant of their proceedings. The Report for 1892 will be presented in due course. The Board has this year issued a preliminary statement, which was presented to Parliament in June. Three fishing institutions have been established by the Board in the County of Galwayin the Islands of Arran and Boffin, and at Ardmore-for the purpose of imparting practical instruction fishermen in the catching and curing

of fish.

THE M'KINLEY TARIFF.

to

MR. A. J. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside): I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given private notice whether at any time since the enactment of the M'Kinley Tariff Act any representations or remonstrances have been addressed to the United States Government by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington; and whether any communications have been received at the Foreign Office relating to interviews or discussions which are said to have taken place between Her Majesty's Ministers and Mr. Blaine, the late Secretary of State, on the subject?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

(Mr. J. W. LoWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith) In reply to the first question. of the right hon. Gentleman, no repre

ORDER OF THE DAY.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER

MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]

Order read, for resuming Adposed to Question [8th August], "That journed Debate on Amendment proan humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth :

MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."--(Mr. Barton.)

And which Amendment was,

At the end of the Question to add the words, "That we feel it, however, to be our humble duty to submit to Your Majesty that it is essential that Your Majesty's Government should possess the confidence of this House and of the Country, and respectfully to represent to Your Majesty that such confidence is not reposed in the present Advisers of Your Majesty."—(Mr. Asquith.)

those words be there added."
Question again proposed, "That

Debate resumed.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough) said: I rise to Order, Sir. I desire to ask your ruling on a point of Order, as to whether the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) has not-by the proceedings of Tuesday night-lost his right to speak in this Debate, and I will refer you to what occurred in this House only last year. On 26th May, I myself, at a Morning Sitting at 6.44 of the clock, moved the Adjournment of the Debate in these words

"I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate, as it is impossible, in the short time at our disposal, to consider all the questions

we desire to raise."

On Mr. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN (Bir- | Gentleman did not rise in the House mingham, W.) rising to address the to resume the Debate, as he would have had a right to do; but he spoke House, afterwards in the course of the Debate. I think misconception must have arisen in consequence of the Closure having been moved on the Main Question and not on the Adjournment, and also owing to the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not rise at once to claim his privilege of resuming the Debate. If any misconception has taken place, it is too late to offer any apology to the hon. Gentleman for what occurred in the year 1891. The facts of the case are these-If an hon. Member moves the Adjournment and that Adjournment is not agreed to, he is held to have spoken on the Main Question when it is resumed; but when he moves the Adjournment of the Debate and that question is agreed to he is in possession of the House, and he may either resume the Debate immediately, or subsequently in the course of the Debate he is entitled to speak. I do not think there is any necessity for saying anything further. On Tuesday the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) moved the Adjournment of the Debate, and that was not accepted, but no Division took place against it. The House agreed to the Adjournment, and the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House. If it were otherwise no Debate could be resumed, because if any Gentleman moved the Adjournment of the Debate and anybody objected, without a Division, according to the theory now proposed, it would be impossible for the Debate to be resumed. But the hon. Gentleman was entitled to place the question before the House, and I hope I have stated fairly all the facts of the

That took about half a minute, Sir. That was at 6.44, and at 6.50, after you had refused to accept the Motion to put the Closure, the Debate was talked out exactly as it was last Tuesday. On the next day the House met, 28th May, the Debate was resumed. I considered that I had lost my right to resume the Debate; but as the second speaker I commenced to make a speech, not thinking that I had entirely forfeited the right to speak in the Debate, but you interrupted me in these words

"Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. I see he has already spoken on the Main Question.

Mr. MORTON: I only moved the Adjournment.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is speaking on the Main Question."

I, of course, have no desire whatever to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but as a very humble Member of this House, and there being probably other occasions on which I shall desire to speak, I want fully to preserve my right against all comers.

*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to bring that precedent before the House, but I think there must be some misconception. The hon. Gentleman made a speech-it is true it was a short one and subsequently the Closure was moved, which I declined to accept, and the Debate, not on the Main Question, as the hon. Gentleman put it, but on the Adjournment, was resumed. Subsequently the hon.

EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley): I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I wish to explain at once, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, that I did not speak up to twelve o'clock with the intention of depriving him of the right to speak to-day. I was unaware of the Rule which we have just heard from the Chair; I was only rising to protest against having a three days' Debate instead of two.

Tuesday night, following that precedent | our number. Sir, I would ask whether and in accordance with what I cer- in the history of third Parties, who are tainly believed was a general under- always placed in a difficult position, standing, I at the same hour moved the there is any case in which such a Adjournment of the Debate. There- Party has come back after a second upon the hon. and learned Gentleman General Election forty-nine strong to the Member for North Louth (Mr. this House? My hon. and learned Timothy Healy) got up and objected. I Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. have noticed, Sir, that whenever it is Asquith) talked about our dwindling desired to exhibit personal discourtesy numbers. Well, Sir, I am not certain towards any man, or any woman, the that dwindling numbers are any greater hon. and learned Gentleman always proof of dwindling influence than are presents himself to accomplish it. If dwindling majorities, whether in East the Division had been taken, and if the Fife or elsewhere. But, Sir, our inobjection to the Motion for Adjourn- fluence in the country is not measured ment had been carried, we are now by our numbers in this House, and told by Mr. Speaker that I should have there is, I believe, a very simple test lost my right to take part in the by which you can measure it. In 1885 Debate. No doubt that was what my there was a square fight in the country noble Friend the Member for Barnsley between the Conservatives and Liberals, foresaw. and on that occasion the Conservatives came back to the House 249 strong. They had, however, at that time the support of the Irish vote in British constituencies. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has stated that that is worth forty seats. I think he exaggerates, as usual. Let us take it as worth twenty seats, then the number due to the Conservative strength alone was 229, and to-day the number of Unionists in this House is 315. The difference of eighty-six seats, counting 172 votes on a Division, is the measure of the influence of the Liberal Unionist Party, and in these days of political combination I would venture to point out that the addition of 172 would make the majority of the Opposition 212; and even if on a great Division, under these circumstances, they were to lose the support of the Irish vote they would still be in a majority of fifty-two. I only use these figures to point out to my hon. Friends that, after all, in spite of all they have done; we remain a certain political force, and I would say, with all respect to my hon. and learned Friend behind me, that I do not think he will lessen our influence in the country one bit by calling us either political apostates or an ill-starred abortion. Now, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) said on Tuesday that this Debate was in his opinion most singular in the records of the House.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN: That is just what I was saying. I was just remarking that owing to the happy and friendly conduct of my noble Friend the device of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth was not successful, because my noble Friend talked out the Motion, and accordingly I am able to speak. I will venture to express the hope that after the Division which will take place to-day, and after right hon. Gentlemen who sit around me have obtained the object of their desires-from which, no doubt, I can humbly confess that the Party to which I belong has been the means of excluding them from the last six years-I say I hope that when they have obtained their desires they will themselves feel that the system of petty slights and of injurious language towards the Members of the Liberal Unionist Party should be finally abandoned. Sir, we have come back to the House a Party forty-eight strong, and I am told that in a short time we shall add another to

Sir, I agree with him, although I am | perhaps, in the history of foreign counafraid that we should differ a little tries which are also under Parliawhen we came to describe what each mentary Government. In France and of us believed to be the greatest of its Italy I have seen again and again that singularities. My right hon. Friend a combination of sections, very often in says that the issue between the Union- entire disagreement as to everything ists and the Home Rule Party has been else, has accomplished the extrusion decided by the country, and I agree from power of the existing Governwith him. He says that from that ment, and nobody in those countries verdict there is no appeal, and I agree have seemed to think it necessary to with him. And then he goes on to say ask who was to follow. The act has that under these circumstances it is been an act of destruction and conirrelevant I think he almost said it demnation, and there has been no was impertinent for us to do anything attempt to proceed to construction or more than expel the Government from to substitution. But that is not the Office, without any curiosity whatever case in this country. Owing to the as to what was to follow it, as to the fact probably that we have not so many Government of the future which, with Parties, and that the Parties that we something more than his usual felicity, have are more homogeneous and clearly my right hon. Friend described as a defined, in almost every case in which "nebular hypothesis." But my right a Government has gone out of Office a hon. Friend is not altogether consistent, Vote of Want of Confidence in the because in a later part of his speech he Government has implied a Vote of admitted that a Debate of this kind Confidence in the Opposition in the would not be altogether retrospective. Party coming to take their place, and He said it was natural that there the policy which that Party represhould be some desire to have light sented. Is that so to-day? I say thrown upon the future, for his part you know you can put that Governhe was not even surprised at the appli- ment in a minority of forty; you do cation of pressure, and then he pro- not know that this Government will ceeded to give answers in writing to not be in a minority of one hundred. questions which were put to him by the I have said that that is the rule-I hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. believe almost the absolute rule-in Justin McCarthy). Well, now, Sir, English politics, but there is an excepI appeal to my right hon. Friend, is tion. In 1859 there was a combinanot that rather hard measure? Here tion of sections to put out of Office are 315 Unionists, and we may not ask the then Tory Government; it cona single question; here are seventy-one sisted of the friends of Lord Palmerston, Nationalist Irishmen, and they may of the friends of Lord Russell, of the ask five questions and get a civil answer. Peelites, and the friends, of course, of Sir, I have been studying the charac- Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden, and of teristics of nebulous bodies, and I find the Irish Party; and at the time they that now-a-days, by the employment put the Government out of Office I beof powerful telescopes and the latest lieve those Parties-and I speak in the inventions, these bodies are forced to recollection of my right hon. Frienddisclose their secrets and can be re- did not know what Government was solved into their component atoms, and going to follow or who was going to be at I have come to the conclusion that the the head of it; and not only that they hon. Member for North Longford must did not know, but that they had not the be one of the very latest and most ordinary means of foreseeing what we powerful of these instruments, and I have at the present time. What hapcannot help thinking that the hon. Mem-pened then? When these various secber for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) wishes he could borrow it. Now, Sir, I have said that I agree with my right hon. Friend as to the singularity of this Debate. I believe that the situation is absolutely unprecedented in English political history, though not, VOL. VII. [FOURTH SERIES.]

tions had made up their differences, and had agreed to form a Government, they came back and met Parliament, produced their measures and their policy, asked for Supplies, took the opinion of the House of Commons, and asked its approval, and having got that they

Q