Mr. Balfour, at the Belfast demonstration on April 4, said: "they [the Gladstonians] mean to thrust down these people's [the Ulstermen's] throats, if need be, as I understand, at the point of the bayonet, a Constitution which separates them from the Empire which they love (cheers), and under whose laws they desire to dwell (cheers). Mr. Gladstone desires that if British bayonets are to be used it shall be to compel those to leave the British Empire, to leave the unity of the kingdom who desire to remain members of it—to compel those to separate themselves from us in England who wish to be in perpetual partnership with us."

Is it their fanatical love of the Empire "under whose laws they desire to dwell" which sends these Ulstermen to self-governing countries and colonies in America or Australasia? Is it their "wish to be in perpetual partnership with us," or their overmastering

desire to remain members of the unity of the kingdom," which sends them every year in tens of thousands to seek fortune under the Stars and Stripes?

It is not only, as might be supposed, the Celtic and Catholic portions of Ulster that have suffered heavily during the fifty years under consideration. A reference to the table of decrease per county given above will show that within the last decade, to go no farther, the counties which show the heaviest actual loss are Tyrone, Down, and Antrim. The most cursory glance at the columns of figures for 1841 and 1891 will convince any one that it is not the poorest parts of Ulster whose population has been cut down by more than one-half in fifty years. It is not the wilds of Donegal which have been swept bare, but the fertile counties of Monaghan, where arable land is 90 3 of the whole area-the highest percentage of arable land in any county in Ulster,—of Cavan, which is 86.3 arable land, of Fermanagh, which is 84.4; but the Presbyterian and progressive counties of Antrim and Down. Let any Unionist of good faith, who is impressed by the argument that the Unionist policy has meant the progress of Ulster, ponder over the following percentages. The present is not a time for any sane man to place his reliance in grandiloquent phrases. It is time that all should look at figures and learn the lesson they teach.

Wealthy and prosperous Down, with its 84-6 per cent. arable land, where landlords are so kind, where everything goes on so smoothly according to Unionist testimony, decreasing faster than barren Donegal with its Olphert estates and its eviction campaigns! Monaghan, which has the highest percentage of arable land, showing the highest percentage of decrease in population, and that percentage being 57.0 per cent. for the last fifty years, and 16.1 per cent. for the last decade. It is not the poor that go, but those who are presumably better off; and the movement is not of new growth, attributable to the fear of Home Rule, but has been going on steadily for the last half-century. And even within the last ten years it was not when there was a prospect of Home Rule that emigration from Ulster was heaviest, but just when Home Rule was, in the words of a certain eminent politician, "as dead as Queen Anne"; just when Mr. Balfour was ruling the Celt with an iron hand and patting Ulster on the back; just when Lord Salisbury was proposing "twenty years of resolute Government" for Ireland. The following emigration table from Ulster speaks for itself:

Seven and eight years ago, when Home Rule was on the tapis, Ulster's yearly emigration suddenly fell by more than 2000, to increase by 5000 when the Tories took office; when Home Rule became again the question of the hour and the anti-Irish administration was drawing to a close, another striking fall in emigration occurred in Ulster, and the Registrar-General's statistics of the population for the quarter ending December 31, 1892,* the first quarter after Mr. Gladstone took office, show not a diminishing decrease, but for the first time probably since fifty years, an actual increase of 75 in the population of Ireland.

Let us now refer to the wealth argument. That Belfast has increased and is increasing every Irishman is proud to admit. That its inhabitants are thrifty and enterprising, no fair-minded man will deny. Belfast people have a right to be proud of their city, and they can even be forgiven for being inordinately proud of it. But they ought not to forget, as Mr. Gladstone reminded a deputation of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, who apparently had forgotten it, that Belfast is not Ireland-is not even Ulster. Moreover, even the Belfast merchants and industrials can hardly maintain seriously that

* Published March 27, 1893.

they would not do a more prosperous business if Ulster had to-day three-quarters of a million more inhabitants than she has; in other words, if the population had remained stationary for the last half century, and if Ireland had a population 43 per cent. larger than she has now. Is it wise of them, from the commercial point of view, to support with such vigour a policy which has meant the depopulation of Ireland, which has meant the cutting down by 57 per cent. and by 54 per cent. in fifty years of the population in those counties of Ulster more richly endowed by nature, like Monaghan and Cayan?

Besides, the progress and trade of Ulster are exaggerated for political purposes, and even the Belfast Chamber of Commerce itself has not deemed it infra dig. to have recourse to a trick in order to make a stronger impression upon the public mind. In a document published by that body on March 18th last, and to which allusion was made during the interview with Mr. Gladstone, we read on page 5: "The Customs amount to £2,576,511, Inland Revenue about £900,000 more, making together over £3,250,000, &c." Now the total Customs collected in Belfast are, according to the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom (Blue Book, c. 6676) 1892, £939,526. When the discrepancy was pointed out the phrase was amended in subsequent issues of the document to the following: "The amount collected by the Customs Department, Belfast, for 1892 was £2,576,511, &c., and by the Inland Revenue about £900,000 more, &c." The phrase is technically correct, but the fact that the "mistake" when pointed out was not otherwise corrected, and that the figure £2,576,511 was still kept before the public as "collected by the Customs Department" without further explanation, shows a very keen desire to hoodwink the unsuspecting Britisher. Belfast customs are not over two millions and a half, but are £939,526. The difference is made up of death duties, stamps, income-tax, excise, and some other items of Inland Revenue which are collected in Belfast by Custom House officials. Belfast has a large trade, and collects heavy customs in comparison with other cities in Ireland; but was it necessary to bolster up the importance of Belfast by this device? It is only during the last six years that Belfast has succeeded in beating Dublin, and Dublin still follows Belfast closely. Up to 1884 Dublin was the fourth city in the United Kingdom in regard to the gross amount of customs received. Only London, Liverpool, and Glasgow collected a larger amount than Dublin. In 1884 Bristol stepped before Dublin, and in 1885 Belfast did the same. In 1891 they stood in the following order: London, Liverpool, Bristol, Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin.

But there are other means of appreciating the commercial status of a city besides looking at a gross amount of customs collected. It would be more satisfactory to have a statement of the value of exports

and imports, and of the shipping. Also, since Belfast is now raising a pretension to dictate to the United Kingdom on the ground of her own commercial importance, it might not be out of place to make a comparison between her and other cities of the United Kingdom, and to see what place she occupies amongst them in regard to trade. No doubt it is very shocking to say so, but Belfast as a trading city can be given the twelfth rank amongst the cities of the United Kingdom only by the utmost leniency. I know it is rank heresy for me to make that statement; but I am not responsible for facts and figures. Instead of taking Belfast at her own valuation, I have gone to the Blue Books for information; and if those cold and dusty but trustworthy tomes do not bear out the Orange spouters, whose fault is it? The Belfast Chamber of Commerce have omitted from their statement the interesting fact that in 1891 the value of exports from Belfast was only £96,622; in other words, that Belfast stood forty-first amongst the cities of the United Kingdom in regard to the value of exports, coming between Aberdeen (£109,695) and Wick. Mr. Gladstone is certainly not responsible for that, for during the whole twelve months of 1891 Belfast enjoyed the priceless blessing of a Salisbury Administration. If I wanted to use against Belfast the methods of argument which her own Chamber of Commerce have put in honour, I would leave those figures to speak for themselves, in the hope that people would draw the conclusion that Belfast exports never stood very much higher. I might add, perhaps, that in the previous year things were a little better, and that the northern capital of Ireland came thirty-fourth instead of forty-first in regard to the value of exports. But I want to be fair and just towards Belfast. Belfast is one of our chief commercial cities, disputing often successfully with Dublin the commercial supremacy in Ireland, and it is already sad enough to see those cities in the ranks where the benefits of the Union have placed them without attempting to artificially depress them further. People can see what a beggarly thing is the commerce of Ireland when they know that not a single Irish city during the twelve years 1880-1891 (inclusive) exported goods to the value of £1,000,000 per year. The high water-mark of Belfast exports was reached in 1883, when the value was a little over three-quarters of a million sterling. Belfast is the city which has the largest export trade in Ireland. Yet what is the position of Belfast amongst the cities of the United Kingdom in regard to the value of the export trade? In 1880 Belfast came 24th; in 1881, 22nd; in 1882, 22nd ; in 1883, 22nd; in 1884, 20th; in 1885, 22nd; in 1886, 21st; in 1887, 21st; in 1888, 21st; in 1889, 24th; in 1890, 34th; in 1891, 41st.* One would rather think that for a city which occupies no

* The export figures are taken from the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom," page 29, abstract table 16, for the years 1885, 1888, and 1892 [c. 4459, c. 5451, and c. 6676]. For import figures see abstract table 9, page 16, same vols. Imports and exports include foreign and British.

higher position, Belfast is making a little too much noise and giving herself an importance which is not a little ridiculous.

Let us turn to the import trade now. In 1880, Belfast came 22nd, beating Dublin; in 1881, 21st; in 1882, 25th; in 1883, 22nd; in 1884, 19th; in 1885, 18th; in 1886, 18th, beaten by Dublin in each of these years; in 1887, 17th; in 1888, 20th; in 1889, 18th; in 1890, 16th; in 1891, 16th, beating Dublin in each of these years. Imports increase while exports decrease, which is

not a healthy sign for a manufacturing city.

A glance at the shipping of Belfast with foreign countries and the colonies might also be instructive. I have taken at random the years 1884, 1887, and 1891.*

So that Belfast, Dublin, and Dundee are struggling hard with each other for the 21st or 22nd place amongst the various ports of the United Kingdom, classified according to the number of vessels engaged in the colonial and foreign trade. Belfast's vessels entered, ranging from 300 to 350, and vessels cleared, ranging from 100 to 150, seem very miserable indeed when one knows that with the exception of five or six all the English and Scotch ports coming before Belfast (and there are at least twenty of them) rule into four figures, and in many instances into five. As to the total number of sail and steam vessels entered and cleared with cargo and in ballast from and to foreign countries, British possessions and coastwise, comes 8th in regard to the number of vessels and 9th in tonnage (Dublin having a higher tonnage) for vessels entered, and 7th for the number of vessels, and 9th in tonnage (Dublin having a * See table 14 (pages 48-78) of the "Annual Statement of Navigation and Shipping," which is usually bound with the "Statement of Trade."