Government, while they admitted the grievance, held out no hope of any adequate remedy. He justified the action of the United Irish League, and affirmed that the policy of that organisation was to suppress crime. He went in some detail into the causes of the trouble on the De Freyne estate, the effect of his contention being that the conditions on that estate being exactly like those on the Dillon estate, the De Freyne tenants were justified in combining to secure at least the reduction of their rents to the level of the instalments of purchasemoney fixed for the occupiers on the Dillon estate by the Congested Districts Board, which had bought and was re-selling it. Mr. Redmond concluded with a fervent denunciation of the methods of the Government, to which, he held, resistance was a duty, while even rebellion against it was merely a question of expediency. In seconding the amendment, Mr. Hayden (Roscommon, S.) maintained that the struggle on the De Freyne estate had originated with the tenantry, and not at the prompting of the United Irish League. Incidentally he claimed that there were now nearly 2,000 branches of the league in existence. Colonel Saunderson (Armagh, N.) blamed the Government for having delayed so long before taking steps to cope with the league, and remarked that the attitude of the Chief Secretary would not have been one of contemptuous contemplation if he had been among the boycotted in Sligo. Mr. Moore (Antrim, N.), a Conservative, said that what they wanted in the North of Ireland was universal sale, and compulsory sale seemed to them the only way, because up to the present the operation of the voluntary acts had only been partial. Failing compulsion, any satisfactory measure would have to supply its place by strong inducement. Sir J. Colomb (Great Yarmouth) supported the recently declared policy of the Government, while their action was condemned by Mr. Tomkinson (Crewe, Chester) and Mr. Lough (Islington, W.), among English Liberals, as well as by most Irish Nationalist members.

Mr. Wyndham (Dover), Chief Secretary for Ireland, denied that free speech was suppressed, and found the strongest argument against compulsory purchase in the certainty that there would be a temptation to fight through the courts every question that could be raised between landlord and tenant. Voluntary arrangements were likely to work more smoothly, and voluntary purchase held the field; though if Home Rule were granted to-morrow and the exchequers of the two countries separated, there would be little likelihood of the continuance of that great credit operation. Referring to the United Irish League, he allowed that it had between 1,100 and 1,200 branches "as political organisations, as party machines," but "there were no more than seventy-four branches which were having a prejudicial effect on the economics of the country." As a rule the methods of the league were erroneous, but not illegal. But it had sometimes stepped beyond the law, and it was responsible

for certain cases of boycotting, though he did not believe that out of 211 persons who were now boycotted, more than twentyseven had been placed in that position through the influence of the league. He warned Irish members that they were treating economic questions in a manner which was likely to harden the hearts of the British people; for it had to be borne in mind that an ill-considered scheme of land purchase for Ireland could not be launched without danger to any well-considered scheme for the housing of the working-classes in this country. "I trust," said Mr. Wyndham in conclusion, "we never shall be false to our Unionist creed. Our policy is not that of killing Home Rule with kindness. Harmony is not between Ireland and this country, and time must elapse before such harmony can be secured. And meanwhile we apply ourselves to measures for encouragement of agriculture, industry, and education with no ulterior political object but in the honest belief that honest work sincerely done is always worth any man's doing."

Resuming the adjourned debate on Mr. Redmond's amendment, on January 24, Mr. T. P. O'Connor (Scotland Division, Liverpool) vindicated a strike against rent among the De Freyne tenantry in view of the contrast between their position and that of the tenantry on the neighbouring Dillon estate, which had been bought by the Congested Districts Board. Mr. Macartney (Antrim, S.) complained strongly of the dangerous extent to which the United Irish League had been allowed to develop and of the interference with individual liberty which it exercised. He also expressed the dissatisfaction of Irish Unionists with the Government for its having appointed wellknown Home Rulers to important posts. Mr. Dillon (Mayo, E.), on the other side, said that if the Chief Secretary would give any undertaking to use his influence in obtaining for the tenants on the De Freyne estate such a settlement as had been secured by those on the neighbouring Dillon estate, he would himself go down to Roscommon and urge the tenants to pay their rents. Other Nationalist members having supported the amendment, the Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Atkinson) denied that the Government were abandoning their friends. Replying to the Irish Unionist demand for stronger measures, he observed that to proclaim the United Irish League an illegal association would be useless, as it might be dissolved one day and revived under another name the next. Equally futile, to judge from past experience, would be any attempt to punish the Press, under the Crimes Act, for publishing the notices of the league. The expedient of changing the venue could only be resorted to in the case of crimes of violence, and such crimes had not been committed. Indeed, there was no serious crime in Ireland. But in certain districts there were conspiracies against the payment of rent, and there was boycotting; and to meet these the Executive had taken advantage of the clause in the Act which provided, under

certain circumstances, for trial, before resident magistrates, without a jury. There was an appeal, on questions of law, to the superior courts, if the magistrate stated a case, and on questions of fact, to the County Court judge, if the sentence given was of over a month's imprisonment. The Government would continue to afford protection to every person in Ireland by steadily and resolutely enforcing the law. Mr. J. Morley (Montrose Burghs) commented on the curious fact that coercion was being reintroduced at the very time of an official declaration that there was no serious crime. He thought that the measures lately adopted by the Irish Government were more likely to increase existing difficulties and dangers than to remove them. As to the land question, a system of continued rent-fixing would, in his opinion, have been wiser than the existing system of voluntary purchase; and it was with some misgiving that he should support the Chief Secretary's promised bill for the extension of the latter. He should vote for the amendment because compulsory purchase was not indefensible in principle, and the application of the principle must depend on legislation; and because he would vote for any motion that carried (as, he held, this one did) a proposal to confer on the people of Ireland the same right to govern themselves as our Colonies enjoyed. Mr. Redmond's amendment was then negatived by 237 votes to 134, the minority including Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and seventy other Liberals.

The House of Lords, as usual, for the most part suspended its dignified activities during the continuance of the debate on the Address in the Commons. On January 27, however, Lord Wemyss, by way of correcting any mischief that might possibly accrue to Imperial interests from the proceedings of the Lower House in relation to South Africa, moved a resolution declaring that in the opinion of the Peers it was "only by the vigorous prosecution of the war and through the surrender of the Boer guerilla forces still in the field that a satisfactory and lasting peace could be assured," and that the House of Lords "approved in these respects, and heartily supported, the action of his Majesty's Government". Lord Wemyss said that he thought that a resolution of this kind, which he proposed solely on his own initiative as a private member of the House, would, if supported by a large majority, make for peace. Lord Welby moved to omit the words after "assured." There was no reason why they should not give a unanimous vote in favour of the first part of the resolution, but many of them could not approve of the way in which the Government had carried on the war. The amendment was supported by Lord Tweedmouth and opposed by the Earl of Camperdown, Lord Stanmore, and Lord Raglan-who made a spirited defence of the War Office. The Bishop of Hereford objected chiefly to the use of the word "only" in the resolution before the words "by the vigorous prosecution of the war." That seemed an attempt

to revive in his Majesty's Government the spirit of the policy of unconditional surrender. Since the Chesterfield speech they had seen many indications that Ministers were ready to bury this term "unconditional surrender," and he could not believe that the resolution was really acceptable to the Premier. The amendment having been rejected by 60 to 16, Earl Spencer explained that he and his friends did not regard "only" as implying a demand for unconditional surrender, and he should certainly not say "content" to the motion if he thought that it did. The Marquis of Salisbury artlessly disclaimed any responsibility for the wording of the resolution; it was, he said, for Lord Wemyss to interpret his own motion. The resolution was then agreed to without a division.

On the same day, in the Commons, Sir J. Dimsdale (City of London) moved an amendment to the Address, asking for a complete inquiry into the practical effect of the recent agreement between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company as to telephonic service in the metropolitan area, and urging the desirability of suspending further transactions or negotiations with the company until after such inquiry. He reminded the House that in 1898 the Select Committee on Telephones recommended that the Post Office should undertake to compete effectively with the National Telephone Company, and it was understood that Ministers had assented to that view. As a matter of fact, however, the Post Office had rather entered into partnership than competition with the company, and the charges for the use of the telephone were to remain substantially unaltered. Mr. Lough (Islington, W.), who seconded the amendment, complained that the agreement allowed the company to retain its monopoly for another nine years, and, in fact, transferred every right which the Government possessed to the company. He suggested that the good terms which the latter had got were possibly due to the influence which its representatives in that House were able to exert.

For this suggestion Mr. Lough was sharply rebuked by Mr. A. Chamberlain (Worcestershire, E.), Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who vindicated the agreement between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company in an able and elaborate speech. In its course he pointed out that the object of the Post Office was not to crush the company, but to promote general efficiency. As to the scale of charges, the case of London was quite different from that of smaller centres. The city which came nearest to it was New York, but even there the telephone areas comprised a population of no more than 2,500,000 as against the 6,000,000 of Greater London. The mileage area of New York was twenty square miles, of Greater London over 600 square miles. Yet the rate for unlimited user in New York was 481. while in London it was only 177. By its very nature the telephone business involved what economists called a diminishing return, because the profits did

not increase with the increase of the operations. In London 60 or 70 per cent. of the messages were junction messages, in other words messages passing over more than one exchange and necessitating additional labour without corresponding gain. The annual "flat" charge of 177. for unlimited user was not unreasonable, Mr. A. Chamberlain maintained, and, on the other hand, the combinations of low fixed and "toll" charges now established brought the use of the telephone for the first time within the reach of working-class householders. In any case the new tariff was experimental and subject to early revision. The Postmaster-General would report to Parliament from year to year upon the working of the system. The amendment was supported from the front Opposition Bench by Mr. Buxton (Poplar, Tower Hamlets), who contended that the House ought to receive fuller information as to the grounds of the agreement, and as to the reason why none of the local authorities were consulted before its conclusion. Mr. Hanbury (Preston), Postmaster-General, emphasised the democratic aspect of the arrangements which the Post Office had made, as benefiting the poorer classes, instead of being reserved, as with even the low "flat" rate of 101. (for which the London County Council had declared itself willing to supply an unlimited service) the telephone would be, to the practically exclusive advantage of the well-to-do. He further maintained that the Government had really broken down the monopoly of the National Telephone Company in London.

Sir J. Dimsdale wished to withdraw his amendment, but leave was refused, and, after further discussion, it was negatived by 227 to 139. The voting almost entirely followed party lines. Some supporters of the Ministry were probably influenced by the promises of an early revision of charges if the facts appeared to justify it. But on the whole the Government were thought to have made out a much better case for the telephone agreement than had been expected.

The first part of the sitting of the House of Commons on January 28 was occupied with a debate on an amendment to the Address, asking for an inquiry into the question of the food supplies of the United Kingdom in time of war. It was moved by Mr. Seton-Karr (St. Helens), who contended that, even if we had the command of the sea, our position might be very unfavourably affected in a war by a wheat corner in the United States. He suggested that the merits of the following expedients should be considered: a system of preferential duties in favour of our Colonies; the establishment of national granaries; and a system of public control over our supplies in time of emergency. Sir H. Vincent (Sheffield, Central), who seconded the amendment, reminded the House that we had a bare sixty days' supply of food in the United Kingdom. The amendment was vigorously opposed by Sir W. Harcourt (Monmouthshire, W.), who observed that in the event of war wheat would not be con