HC Deb 09 May 1881 vol 261 cc38-58

COMMITTEE.

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. GLADSTONE

, in rising to move the following Resolution:— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the Memory of the late Right Hon. the Earl of Beaconsfield, with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, said: Sir, considering the Notice that appears, in conjunction with my own, upon the Paper, I should, perhaps, be too sanguine were I to express even the faintest hope that this Motion might receive the unanimous assent of the Committee. But, Sir, while I do not venture to press that hope, I do entertain the very earnest hope—I would even say I offer the most earnest entreaty—that it may not be made a subject of lengthened or contentious debate. I say that, Sir, in the position of one especially bound to consider what is for the dignity of the House; but I say it also in the character of an old and keen opponent of Lord Beaconsfield; and nothing would be so painful to me, except, indeed, the rejection of the Motion, which I think impossible, as that its gram should be entirely marred by its being made the subject of angry disputation. It has not been unnatural that on a subject of this kind, exciting so much and such varied public interest, criticism should have been busy. But with regard to that criticism, both with respect to what has been done and with respect to what has not been done, I will simply say that my object has been the fulfilment of my duty, and that the fulfilment of my duty has appeared to me to lie in a careful consideration of the rules and precedents applicable to the case. I think that those precedents ought to be liberally interpreted; but, for my own part, in all these complimentary matters I have a great jealousy of additions. There is a temptation, under the influence of feeling, to make such additions, and every addition made on a particular occasion becomes an embarrassment on the next occasion. I will simply say, not that I have interpreted precedent aright—I do not assume that—but I have endeavoured, strictly and carefully, to make it my ground. Everyone will feel that this is not the occasion to attempt an historical portraiture of Lord Beaconsfield. Neither is it the occasion to attempt, especially from this side of the House—but from no side of the House, I will venture to say, is it the occasion to attempt a political eulogy of Lord Beaconsfield. It would be mistaking the purposes for which we have met to-day. I will go a little further and say that the position of the House is in some respects and in part peculiar. I do not know that it has ever happened that a Parliament in sharp antagonism to the policy of a particular Minister has been called upon to accept a proposal of this kind with respect to the Minister whose policy is opposed. At the same time, though there is no case exactly analagous to this, there are cases which make a material approximation to it. When Lord John Russell proposed, in 1850, in a speech of great good taste, a monument to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, he very naturally looked back, not merely to the crisis of the Anti-Corn Law movement which had brought them together, but to the long struggles of 30 years before; and Lord John Russell said, in very becoming language—"I will not enter into the nature of the measures with which his name is associated;" and, again—"This is not the time to consider particular opinions or particular measures." But he also quoted an earlier case, in which it happened that Colonel Barré proposed a public monument to Lord Chatham, to whom he had been not very long before in the sharpest opposition. So that although the features of this case are marked features, yet we are not without guidance from the proceedings of those who have gone before us. This I will venture to say, that it is a case with regard to which we who may be said to form the majority in this House ought to be on our guard against giving way to our own narrower political sympathies. It would be better that propositions of this kind should be altogether abandoned and forgotten than that they should degenerate into occasions for issuing the manifestoes of political alliances or of ordinary partizanship. If I am asked why, endeavouring to look without fear or favour at this case upon its merits and upon nothing else, and desirous to speak the truth without constraint and without exaggeration, I venture to recommend this proposition to the House, and why I think that the same reasons which have led the House to give in the case of other Prime Ministers of this country a testimony such as I now invite to the memory of Lord Beaconsfield should actuate us now, I say that, in my judgment, we have to look to two questions, and to two questions only; and they are, whether the tribute that it is proposed to pay is to be paid to one who, in the first place, has sustained a great historic part and done great deeds written on the page of Parliamentary and National history; and next, whether those deeds have been done with the full authority of the constituted organs of the nation and of the nation itself; and I think that an impartial survey of what has happened will satisfy the House that upon neither of these points is there the smallest room for doubt. It may seem to be a sharp mental transition for us to make, when we pass from the balance of political opinion now prevailing in this House to the balance of opinion that existed here two or three or four years ago. But it is right, it is just, it is necessary that we should recollect that what was done by the late Parliament and what was done by the late Ministry, and above all by Lord Beaconsfield as the official head and as the guiding spirit of the late Ministry, was done under precisely the same constitutional title, and with exactly the same charter and authority as that under which we now claim to act. I cast behind me for a moment the question what I approve and what I disapprove, what I rejoice in and what I regret. We are here to act on the part of the nation, and to maintain that description of action which is suitable to, and which is required by, the nation's continuous life. The career of Lord Beaconsfield is in many respects the most remarkable in our Parliamentary history. For my own part, I know but one that can fairly be compared to it in regard to the emotional surprise—the emotion of wonder, which, when viewed as a whole, it is calculated to excite—and that is the career, more especially the early career, of Mr. Pitt. Lord Beaconsfield's name is associated with at least one great constitutional change, in regard to which I think it will ever be admitted—at least, I never can scruple to admit it—that its arrival was accelerated by his personal act. I will not dwell upon that, but upon the close association of his name with the important change in the principle of the Parliamentary franchise. It is also associated with great European transactions, great European arrangements. I put myself in the position, not necessarily of a friend and admirer who looks with sympathy upon the action of Lord Beaconsfield, but in the position of one who considers the magnitude of the part which he played on behalf of this country; and I say that one who was his political friend might fairly have said of him when he came back from Berlin— Aspice, ut insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis Ingreditur, victorque viros supereminet omnes. My duty is to look at these things in the magnitude of their national and historical character, and it is when so looking at them that I have not a doubt that the man who for seven years sustained the office of Prime Minister, the man who for nearly 30 years led, either in one House or in the other, a great Party in this country, and the man who had so intertwined himself in the interests of the national heart, as was shown on the occasion of his illness, is a man for whom the House may well do what I now call upon it to do. I have said that, in my opinion, the magnitude of the part played by Lord Beaconsfield, and the authority with which it was played, are the only matters to which we ought to look; and I press this point specially as one that many of us might perhaps forget—namely, that he acted with the same authority that we claim ourselves. The same Constitution, the same popular liberties, the same franchises, the same principle of acquiescence in the will of the majority placed him in a position, first at this box in this House and then in the House of Lords, to give effect to the policy that he believed to be for the good of his country, as those which have now placed other men in his position to give effect to what they, with equal sincerity, desire to recommend for the approval of Parliament. This somewhat dry portion of my duty, which has led me to direct the attention of the House to these two points, which I deem to contain the whole estimate of the case, is now, I think, concluded. As I have said, I will not attempt anything like an historical retrospect. It would not be fair, and it would not be just, even if it were appropriate, in point of time, that I should do so—I, who have been separated from Lord Beaconsfield by longer and larger differences than, perhaps, ever separated any two persons brought into constant contact in the transaction of Public Business. It would not be fair to him, it would not be fair to his friends, that I should endeavour to draw a picture which must be more faintly coloured, and, I must add, which must be differently coloured if executed by my hand than that which they could fairly claim. But yet, Sir, I will allow myself some satisfaction in dwelling upon matters in which I feel it is pleasurable to myself, and on which I also think it is useful for us all, to dwell. The deceased Statesman had certain great qualities on which it would be idle for me to enlarge; his extraordinary intellectual powers, for instance, were as well known to others as to me; but they are not the proper subject of our present commendations. But there were other great quali- ties, not intellectual—not merely intellectual, in the sense of being disassociated from conduct—qualities immediately connected with conduct—with regard to which I should say, were I a younger man, I should like to stamp the recollection of them upon my mind for my own future guidance, and with regard to which I will say, to those younger than myself, that I would strongly recommend them for notice and imitation. These characteristics were not only written in a marked mariner on his career, but were possessed by him in a degree undoubtedly extraordinary. I speak, for example, of his strength of will, his long - sighted persistency of purpose, reaching from his first entrance on the avenue of life to its very close, his remarkable power of self-government, and last, not least, his great Parliamentary courage, which I, who have been associated in the course of my life with some scores of Ministers, have never seen surpassed. There were other points in his character on which I cannot refrain from saying a word or two. I wish to express the admiration which I have always felt for his strong sympathies with his race, for the sake of which he was always ready to risk popularity and influence. A like sentiment I feel towards the strength of his sympathies with that brotherhood to which he thought, and justly thought, himself entitled to belong—the brotherhood of men of letters. It is only within the last few days that I have read in a very interesting book, the "Autobiography of Thomas Cooper," how, in the year 1844, when his influence with his Party was not yet established, Mr. Cooper came to him in the character of a struggling literary man, who was also a Chartist, and he who was then Mr. Disraeli met him with the most active and cordial kindness—so ready was his sympathy for genius. There was also another feeling, Sir, lying nearer to the very centre of his existence, which, though a domestic feeling, may now be referred to without indelicacy—I mean his profound, devoted, tender, and grateful affection for his wife, which, if—as may be the case—it deprived him of the honour of public obsequies—I know not whether it did so—has, nevertheless, left for him a more permanent title as one who knew, amid the calls and temptations of political life, what was due to the sanctity and strength of the domestic affections, and made him, in that respect, an example to the country in which he lived. In expressing a hope that this debate may not be unduly lengthened, I wish that my contribution to it may be confined within the limits of necessity. I believe, if the House has been kind enough to listen to the few words I have used, I have set before them all that it is necessary—perhaps all that it is warrantable—for me to say; but there is one slighter matter to which I wish to have the satisfaction of referring. The feeling I am about to express is not a novel feeling. It is one which I have for many years entertained, and which has been founded partly upon the private communications of my friends. There is much error and misapprehension abroad as to the personal sentiments which prevail between public men who are divided in politics. Their words may, necessarily, from time to time, be sharp; their judgments may occcasionally, may warrantably, may necessarily be severe; but the general idea of persons less informed than those within the Parliamentary circle, is that they are actuated by sentiments of intense antipathy or hatred for one another. Sir, I wish to take this occasion—if, with the permission of the House, I may for a moment degenerate into egotism upon a subject much too high for it—of recording, in this place and at this hour, my firm conviction that, in all the judgments ever delivered by Lord Beaconsfield upon myself, he never was actuated by sentiments of personal antipathy. It is a pleasure to me to make that acknowledgment. The feeling on my part is not a new one; but the acknowledgment of it could hardly have been made with propriety on an earlier occasion, and hon. Members must excuse me for having thus obtruded it upon them. Now, Sir, I again call the attention of the House to the fact that what we have to look at to-night is the greatness of the man, the greatness of the offices sustained by him, the greatness of the part he played, the greatness of the actions associated with his name, and, finally, the full and undisputed Constitutional authority which he possessed for those actions, whether they were according to our sense and taste or not—that full plenary Constitutional power which authorized beforehand and sanctioned afterwards what he did. These are the essential considerations that ought to guide us; and I feel convinced—unless it be my own grievous fault, and if so I can but regret it—that I have said enough to show the Committee that they will do well and wisely to accept—and to accept in a kindly spirit—the Motion I have the honour to submit for a public monument to Lord Beaconsfield. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir, in rising to second the Motion which has just been proposed, I shall say but a very few words, because I am sure I shall best fulfil the wishes of the House, and best respond to the spirit in which the Motion has been made, if I abstain from anything that can, in the slightest degree, derogate from the tone which has been given to the discussion by the speech just delivered. If I could contemplate, which I cannot for a moment do, that this Motion should not meet with the general—let me, say, I hope the unanimous—acceptance of the Committee; if I could contemplate that it would not be accepted in a spirit and in a manner that would be satisfactory to those who long to see this mark of honour paid to one they love, at least I should feel that one monument, and that one of a higher character than any that could be carved in stone or marble, has already been erected to the memory of Lord Beaconsfield in the speech we have just heard. That speech has been nobly expressed, and, still more, it has been nobly conceived. I venture to say that in this tribute paid to the memory of a sharp political opponent, by one who has been for so many years engaged in the very severest of political contests, we have a record which will be an honour not merely to the speaker, not merely to him of whom the words were spoken, but an honour, as I think, to the British House of Commons. A true key has been struck to our political life and political contests—and I may venture, taking up the last words of the Prime Minister, and speaking as one who has had a very large share of the private confidence and the intimacy of our lamented and distinguished Friend for many years, having been one who has sat by his side in the midst of contests, and who has also had the privilege of sharing his confidence in private and retired moments, I can entirely and from the bottom of my heart confirm the saying of the Prime Minister, that in all those contests, ready as he always was to enter into the battle, sharp as sometimes his words were in the course of action, there was nothing in his mind, nothing in his spirit, that was unworthy of a generous antagonist. No personal feeling, I believe, was ever allowed by him to warp his sentiments of admiration for his chief political rival. Sir, I feel that this is not a moment at which I could properly address the Committee as I should wish to do. This is not a moment for the indulgence of private feelings. We have, indeed, been connected together on occasions of contest and of public debate; but yet there is so much beside that and behind that to those who were intimate with Lord Beaconsfield, that it would be painful to ourselves to attempt to parade the feelings that exist among us. There was much in him to love. There was much in his sympathy and his readiness at all times to give advice, to enter into every difficulty, however trifling it might seem, to encourage whore encouragement was needed, and to utter words of warning when he thought them necessary, that greatly endeared him to us. Sir, it would, of course, be still less appropriate, indeed, it would be an outrage upon the House, were I at such a moment to attempt to draw anything like apolitical character of Lord Beaconsfield which should be in the nature of a political eulogium. I distinguish such occasions as the present, characteristic as they are of the British House of Commons and of the British nation, from those eulogiums which are sometimes passed in foreign countries at the funerals of men who have borne a distinguished part in party warfare, when the opportunity is seized for promoting and glorifying political differences and political parties. We have nothing of the sort here. We are hero engaged for a moment, pausing in the midst of our political strife, in placing a wreath on the bier of a champion who has fallen among us, and whom all on both sides are prepared to honour. If there were anything in this proposal that seemed to pledge the country or the House to any approval or any particular policy of Lord Beaconsfield, I can quite understand that there would be difficulties raised in many quarters to paying a tribute which might be misunderstood. That, however, is not the case. We are now doing honour to a man whose rare gifts we all admire, and which have been acknowledged by all who have had any opportunity of witnessing their display. We are doing honour to a man who never quailed before danger, who never allowed himself to be disheartened by defeat or discouraged by difficulty, but who always kept a high standard before him—whether it approved itself to all men or not I will not say—and who never under any difficulties or under any circumstances lost sight of or shrank from the standard he so displayed. He was one who, when he came to the post of dignity to which he had so fairly fought his way over the greatest obstacles and under the greatest discouragements, commanded the respect not only of the people of his own country, but the respect of those among whom he took his place as the Representative of Great Britain in the affairs of foreign countries. Sir, we have been reminded that the public honours which it was desired should be done to him at his funeral were exchanged for a funeral of a more private character that was in accordance not only with his written instructions, but with the whole spirit of his life. He was one who, above all things, rejoiced in that retirement of which he was allowed to enjoy so small a portion, and his heart was in the home and the sepulchre in which his body is now placed. But we know that although his funeral was private, and there was nothing in the nature of an invitation to the nation to attend it, yet all England was there, and that the hearts of the people, whatever may be their ranks or distictions, were turned to Hughenden on that day. I venture to say that whether or not a monument is erected to him, either in this or any other place of public notoriety, the name and fame of him whom we have lost is secure in the memories of Englishmen and will never perish. Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the Memory of the late Right Hon. the Earl of Beaconsfield, with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

Sir, the Prime Minister in bringing forward this Motion has sought to elicit the opinions of the Members of this House. Acting as the Leader of the House, and as the Chief Adviser of Her Majesty, the right hon. Gentleman has submitted this Resolution; and, at the same time, has stated the reasons and arguments in its favour with his usual ability. The right hon. Gentleman has recognized with regret the fact that the Resolution will not meet with general concurrence on this side of the House. I can fully understand that feeling of regret, because, unless a Resolution of this kind meets with what may be fairly called general concurrence on both sides of the House, perhaps it would be better that it should not be put. But the right hon. Gentleman is not only the Leader of this House—he is the Successor of the late Lord Beaconsfield in the high position which he held. He was, also, for a long time, the noble Earl's political antagonist. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think of the policy of his Predecessor, it is not surprising that on such an occasion as this he should allow generosity to outweigh all other considerations. Nor do I think that any of those who are opposed to the Resolution will think of complaining that the right hon. Gentleman has brought it forward. It is true that certain organs of the Press, which habitually misrepresent the opinions of the Prime Minister, complain that he has not done enough on the present occasion. On the other hand, there are many in this part of the House who consider that the right hon. Gentleman has done too much. This shows how difficult it is in a question like this to satisfy all. No one would demur for a moment to the terms which the right hon. Gentleman has used in speaking of his Predecessor, and still less to the words of affectionate memory in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has alluded to one with whom he had so long been in personal and political alliance. We should all be ready to aid in perpetuating the memory of a statesman so distinguished as the late Lord Beaconsfield, if we could do so with a conscientious regard to our own duties. We admire the perseverance and energy which enabled Lord Beaconsfield to attain to the highest position in the State. We admire his tact and his urbanity as the Leader of a great Party; and we fully understand and even share in the regret which must be felt by his friends at the loss of one so distinguished amongst the distinguished. The Prime Minister has expressed a hope that this occasion will not be converted into one of political hostility. I hope the same. I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that I should be sorry to use one word which may offend the feelings of anyone in the House. But, when we are asked to vote a national memorial to the late Earl of Beaconsfield, we are obliged to pause, and not to allow ourselves to be carried away by impulsive sentiment, but to consider whether the monument is merited, not only by the personal qualities of the man, but by the qualities of the Minister. The Prime Minister has called our attention to precedents. I was much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he had acted according to precedent in bringing forward this Motion, for I myself have been unable to find any precedents at all analogous to the course we are asked to take to-day. During the last 125 years there have been a vast number of Prime Ministers. Of these, only five have received this sort of recognition from the country. The first was the Earl of Chatham, and the monument was specifically stated to be erected on account of great and signal services. The words inscribed on the memorial in Westminster Abbey are— During his administration Divine Providence exalted Great Britain to a height of prosperity and glory unknown to any former age. Though there were many Members of the House at that time who acted in opposition to the Earl of Chatham, there was not one who did not agree that he had performed great and signal services. It was in consequence of this, and not that they absolutely concurred in everything that the noble Earl had done, that the Vote was unanimously agreed to by the House. The next Prime Minister to whom the honour was granted was Mr. Pitt. He died as Prime Minister of England. A proposal was brought forward of much the same character as the present one, and it was most strenuously opposed by Mr. Fox and Mr. Windham, statesmen who, hon. Gentlemen opposite will, I think, agree, were not wanting in feelings of generosity to a political opponent. There were two grounds on which their opposition was based. They said that Mr. Pitt's policy had not been successful, and held that success was an essential element for every national reward; and, also, that the policy advocated by Mr. Pitt was not in accordance with the true interests of the nation. On that occasion, Mr. Fox declared that he could not, from a sense of public duty, be a party to the conferring of public honours upon a man who was the soul—certainly the chief supporter—of a system which he had always been taught to consider a bad one. The next instance is that of Mr. Percival; but the circumstances connected with the death of that Gentleman were of so peculiar a character that it is not necessary for me to do more than mention the case. Then comes Sir Robert Peel, whose case the Prime Minister specially selected as a precedent for the Motion. Sir Robert Peel had been the Leader of a great and important Party; but his financial views were not identical with those of many of his followers. When, therefore, a Motion like the present was proposed, those who had been his followers were naturally ready to vote for it; while those who had been opposed to him on his general policy were still prepared to acknowledge that in proposing the abolition of the Corn Laws he had done the country immense service. His monument recorded merely the date of his birth and his death, stating nothing which could be a subject of controversy. The next statesman was Lord Palmerston, who also died as Prime Minister. Shortly before his death a General Election took place, at which the country entirely concurred in his policy; and considering that circumstance, and considering also that he had a majority in the House, it was not surprising that the House should have unanimously concurred in the erection of a memorial to him. There have been other Prime Ministers to whom such honours have not been paid. I might name a great many; but I will only mention three—Mr. Canning, Lord Derby, and Earl Russell. Mr. Canning had a monument to his memory in Westminster Abbey; but it was not a public one—it was raised by the pious and respectful sub- scriptions of his friends and adherents. Lord Derby, the Chief of the very Party now sitting on the Opposition Benches, received on his death no national honours. Still later, the death of a statesman who had been the Leader of the Liberal Party for many years occurred—I refer to Earl Russell. That noble Earl, it is true, has a monument within these walls; but this, like Canning's, was subscribed for by his friends. I think, therefore, that if we go to precedents we should find no precedent which shows that a public monument has been voted to one who had been once Prime Minister, unless he had at the time of his death a majority in the House of his own supporters, or a majority of those who considered that he had performed great and signal public services. In the present case, the grounds for the monument are set forth in the Resolution itself. I think everyone will be prepared to concur in the Resolution so far as the correctness of the grounds are concerned; but where I and my hon. Friends part company with those who support the Resolution is in our belief that these grounds are not sufficient to justify a national monument. It is true that Lord Beaconsfield had "devotedly laboured in Parliament and in great Offices of State;" but so have many others, past and present, who have had no national memorial. I admit that Lord Beaconsfield possessed "rare and splendid gifts;" but rare and splendid gifts in themselves are a danger rather than an advantage to the State when the possessor of them does not use them for what is considered by the majority of his fellow-countrymen to be to the public advantage. The mere possession of great intellectual gifts is an advantage to the person possessing them; but we are obliged to look, not only to this, but to how they are employed, and also to the results of their employment. A statue is granted by a national Vote to a politician because his country is grateful to him; but, with all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose feelings I certainly do not wish to hurt, I do not consider that the country has reason to be grateful for anything that Lord Beaconsfield did. It is impossible, to my mind, to separate the man from the Minister—the statesman from the statesmanship. Especially is it impossible in the case of one who played so great a part in contemporary history as Lord Beaconsfield to suspend our judgment at will, and look on him simply as an amiable man of great genius, and not as a Minister. The monument we are asked to raise is a political one, and it is as a politician that Lord Beaconsfield's claims to it have to be judged. The deceased Minister's policy was a bold and clear policy, and I can well understand two different estimates being formed of it. I can perfectly well conceive that hon. Gentlemen opposite view it with admiration, and most conscientiously believe that Lord Beaconsfield was entitled to the gratitude of the nation for advocating such a policy. But I think also that my own and my hon. Friends' convictions should not be questioned. I wish to avoid all controversy on this occasion with respect to Lord Beaconsfield's policy, and on that subject we and hon. Gentlemen opposite may agree to disagree. The only tribunal that can ultimately and finally decide between us will be the tribunal of posterity. But it cannot be forgotten that little more than a year ago an appeal was made to the only existing tribunal, and that tribunal has emphatically decided against the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. During Lord Beaconsfield's tenure of Office, hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House had protested against his policy, not merely on the ground that it was unwise and impolitic, but on the ground that it was politically dishonest. Without carrying political hostility beyond the grave, it is surely not unreasonable of Liberals to maintain the same opinions to-day as they did yesterday. If we now were to express our approval of a policy which at the General Election we denounced, we should, in my opinion, be stultifying ourselves. We should be laying ourselves open to the charge either that we had indulged at the General Election in rhetorical exaggeration for the purpose of misleading public opinion, or that we are absolutely indifferent to the morality or immorality of a policy. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House whether we ought to make ourselves obnoxious to either of these alternatives. I do not deny Lord Beaconsfield's claims to a voluntary monument, and I acquit hon. Gentlemen opposite, of course, of being influenced in the matter by considerations of money. The question is, whether the policy of Lord Beaconsfield should obtain, now that he is dead, that public recognition of soundness and moralty which the country denied to it while he was alive? If, at the General Election, he had been returned with a triumphant majority, nothing would have been more reasonable than the present proposal; but the reverse being the case, it is impossible for those who denounced his policy when alive, to concur unanimously in a national apotheosis of it so soon as he is dead. I had put a Notice on the Paper to the effect that it was my intention to move the Previous Question; but as that would not have been, I believe, convenient to the course of the discussion—for it would have involved its consideration before the Prime Minister had spoken to the Resolution—I substitute for it a Motion which is tantamount to it, and that is that the Chairman leave the Chair. The division on that Motion will, I think, show that the proposal made by the Prime Minister has not the general assent of the House, and that being so, I would, after what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devonshire, submit to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will do well to go into the Lobby in support of my Motion. At any rate, I hope that hon. Members will do so who sit upon the Liberal Benches, and who have over and over again protested against the policy of Lord Beaconsfield both in this House and in the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Chairman leave the Chair.

MR. CAINE

seconded the Amendment. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he thought that it was a thousand pities that the question had ever been brought before the House. The mischief which Lord Beaconsfield had done survived him, and he could not understand how the Prime Minister, who knew so much of the effects of that Nobleman's policy, could ask a House composed of Irishmen as well as Scotchmen and Englishmen to vote for the erection of a monument to that noble Lord's memory at the public expense. He was quite at a loss to imagine in what capacity they were to honour him. It certainly was not as a politician, for his policy was denounced as insane. It could not be as a literary man, for he was better known as a plagiarist of other men's speeches than for his own productions. After the death of another Prime Minister, Lord Beaconsfield had stooped to plagiarism in the eulogium which he pronounced upon him, having previously said of him that he had failed as a Prime Minister because he did not understand England. For his own part, he knew of nothing which Lord Beaconsfield had done to justify such a Motion as the present. With regard to Irish grievances, the noble Lord described the requirements of Ireland in graphic language many years ago; but when he was placed in the position of Prime Minister he never did anything to redress its grievances, and yet Irishmen were asked to vote public money for a monument to a man of that description, whose life was spent in antagonism to the interests of their country, and who had vilified all her public men. In his will he had left behind him a monument of his selfishness, for it showed that in death, as in life, his leading thought was a glorification of Benjamin Disraeli, and nothing else. Entertaining those views, he should cordially support the Amendment. Question put. The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 380: Majority 326.

AYES.
Anderson, G. Henderson, F.
Balfour, J. S. Hopwood, C. H.
Barclay, J. W. Illingworth, A.
Barry, J. Lawson, Sir W.
Beaumont, W. B. Laycock, R.
Biggar, J. G. Leahy, J.
Briggs, W. E. Lee, H.
Bright, J. (Manchester) Macdonald, A.
Broadhurst, H. M'Carthy, J.
Burt, T. M'Minnies, J. G.
Byrne, G. M. Mappin, F. T.
Caine, W. S. Mason, H.
Cameron, C. Nelson, I.
Collings, J. O'Connor, T. P.
Corbet, W. J. O'Conor, D. M.
Daly, J. O'Kelly, J.
Dawson, C. Peddie, J. D.
De Ferrieres, Baron Pennington, F.
Dille, A. W. Philips, R. N.
Dillwyn, L. L. Potter, T. B.
Finigan, J. L. Rylands, P.
Gordon, Sir A. Samuelson, B.
Healy, T. M. Slagg, J.
Smith, E. Williams, S. C. E.
Stanley, hon. E. L. Willis, W.
Taylor, P. A.
Thomasson, J. P. TELLERS.
Webster, Dr. J. Labouchere, H.
Whitworth, B. O'Connor, A.
NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.
Agar-Robartes,hn.T.C. Chitty, J. W.
Alexander, Colonel C. Christie, W. L.
Amherst, W. A. T. Churchill, Lord R.
Ashley, hon. E. M. Clifford, C. C.
Ashmead-Bartlett, E. Clive, Col. hon. G. W.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Close, M. C.
Balfour, A. J. Cobbold, T. C.
Balfour, J. B. Coddington, W.
Baring, Viscount Cohen, A.
Barnes, A. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Collins, E.
Bass, H. Colman, J. J.
Bass, M. Colthurst, Col. D. la T.
Bateson, Sir T. Compton, F.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H. Coope, O. E.
Beach, W. W. B. Corbett, J.
Bellingham, A. H. Cotes, C. C.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Courtauld, G.
Biddell, W. Cowan, J.
Birkbeck, E. Cowen, J.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Cowper, hon. H. F.
Blake, J. A. Craig, W. Y.
Blennerhassett, Sir R. Creyke, R.
Boord, T. W. Crichton, Viscount
Bourke, right hon. R. Cropper, J.
Brand, H. R. Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.
Brassey, H. A. Cubitt, rt. hon. G.
Brassey, T. Cunliffe, Sir R. A.
Brett, R. B. Dalrymple, C.
Brinton, J. Davenport, W. B.
Brise, Colonel R. Davies, R.
Broadley, W. H. H. De Worms, Baron H.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Dickson, Major A. G.
Dickson, J.
Brooks, M. Digby, Col. hon. E.
Brown, A. H. Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Bruce, Sir H. H Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.
Bruce, hon. R. P. Donaldson-Hudson, C.
Bruce, hon. T. Douglas, A. Akers-
Brymer, W. E. Duckham, T.
Burghley, Lord Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.
Burrell, Sir W. W. Duff, R. W.
Buszard, M. C. Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Buxton, F. W. Eaton, H. W.
Buxton, Sir R. J. Edwards, H.
Cameron, D. Egerton, Adm. hon. F.
Campbell, J. A. Egerton, hon. W.
Campbell, Sir G. Elcho, Lord
Campbell, R. F. F. Elliot, G. W.
Campbell-Bannerman, H Emlyn Viscount
Ennis, Sir J.
Carden, Sir R. W. Errington, G.
Carington, hn. Colonel W.H.P Estcourt, G. S.
Evans, T. W.
Cartwright, W. C. Ewart, W.
Castlereagh, Viscount Ewing, A. O.
Causton, R. K. Fairbairn, Sir A.
Cavendish, Lord E. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Cavendish, Lord F. C. Fay, C. J.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. Feilden,Major-General R. J.
Chambers, Sir T.
Chaplin, H. Fellowes, W. H.
Cheetham, J. F. Fenwick-Bisset, M.
Ferguson, R. Holmes, J.
Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B. Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.
Filmer, Sir E. Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.
Finch, G. H. Howard, E. S.
Findlater, W. Howard, G. J.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E. Howard, J.
Fitzpatrick, hn.B.E.B. Hubbard, rt. hon. J.
Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W. Inderwick, F. A.
Fitzwilliam, hn. W. J. Jackson, W. L.
Fletcher, Sir H. James, Sir H.
Flower, C. James, W. H.
Floyer, J. Jardine, R.
Foljambe, C. G. S. Jenkins, D. J.
Foljambe, F. J. S. Johnson, W. M.
Folkestone, Viscount Johnstone, Sir F.
Forester, C. T. W. Joicey, Colonel J.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Kennard, Col. E. H,
Foster, W. H. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Fowler, H. H. Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.
Fowler, R. N. Kinnear, J.
Fremantle, hon. T. F. Knightley, Sir R.
Fry, L. Laing, S.
Gabbett, D. F. Law, rt. hon. H.
Galway, Viscount Lawrence, J. C.
Gardner, R. Richardson. Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Lawrence, Sir T.
Garnier, J. C. Lawrence, W.
Gibson, rt. hon. E. Lea, T.
Giffard, Sir H. S. Leatham, E. A.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Leatham, W. H.
Gladstone, H. J. Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Gladstone, W. H. Lee, Major V.
Glyn, hon. S. C. Leeman, J. J.
Goldney, Sir G. Lefevre, right hon. G.
Gooch, Sir D.
Gorst, J. E. Leigh, hon. G. H. C.
Grant, D. Leighton, Sir B.
Grant, Sir G. M. Leighton, S.
Grantham, W. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Greene, E. Lever, J. O.
Greer, T. Levett, T. J.
Gregory, G. B. Lewis, C. E.
Grey, A. H. G. Lewisham, Viscount
Guest, M. J. Lindsay, Col. R. L.
Gordon, R. T. Litton, E. F.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. Lloyd, M.
Hamilton, I. T. Long, W. H.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. Lopes, Sir H.
Lowther, hon. W.
Hamilton, J. G. C. Lusk, Sir A.
Harcourt, E. W. Lymington, Viscount
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V Lyons, R. D.
Macartney, J. W. E.
Hartington, Marg. of Mac Iver, D,
Harvey, Sir R. B. Mackintosh, C. F.
Hastings, G. W. Macnaghten, E.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral M'Clure, Sir T.
Sir J. C. D. M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.
Hayter, Sir A. D. M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Helmsley, Viscount M'Lagan, P.
Henry, M. M.Laren, J.
Herbert, hon. S. Makins, Colonel W. T.
Herschell, Sir F. Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Hibbert, J. T. March, Earl of
Hicks, E. Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Marjoribanks, E.
Hill, Lord A. W. Marriott, W. T.
Hill, A. S. Massey, rt. hon. W. N.
Hill, T. R. Master, T. W. C.
Hinchingbrook, Vise. Maxwell, Sir H. E.
Holker, Sir J. Milbank, F. A.
Holland, Sir H. T. Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Hollond, J. R. Mills, Sir C. H.
Moreton, Lord Scott, Lord H.
Morgan, rt. hn. G. O. Scott, M. D.
Moss, R. Seely, C. (Lincoln)
Mowbray,rt.hn.SirJ.R. Seely, C. (Nottingham)
Mulholland, J. Selwin-Ibbetson,Sir H. J.
Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.
Murray, C. J. Severne, J. E.
Newdegate, C. N. Sheridan, H. B.
Newport, Viscount Smith, A.
Nicholson, W. Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Nicholson, W. N. Smyth, P. J.
Noel, E. Spencer, hon. C. R.
Noel, rt. hon. G. J. Stanhope, hon. E.
Nolan, Major J. P. Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.
North, Colonel J. S. Stewart, J.
Northcote, H. S. Storer, G.
Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S.H Story-Maskelyne,M.H.
Stuart, H. V.
O'Beirne, Major F. Sykes, C.
O'Brien, Sir P. Talbot, J. G.
Onslow, D. Tavistock, Marquess of
O'Shea, W. H. Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T.E.
Otway, A. Tennant, C.
Paget, R. H. Thomson, H.
Palliser, Sir W. Thornhill, T.
Palmer, C. M. Thynne, Lord H. F.
Palmer, J. H. Tollemache, H. J.
Patrick, R. W. C. Tollemache, hon. W. F.
Peek, Sir H. Torrens, W. T. M'C.
Pell, A. Tyler, Sir H. W.
Pemberton, E. L. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Ponder, J. Vivian, A. P.
Percy, Earl Wallace, Sir R.
Phipps, C. N.P. Walpole, rt. hon. S.
Phipps, P. Walrond, Col. W. H.
Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. Walter, J.
Portman, hn. W. H. B. Warburton, P. E.
Powell, W. Warton, C. N.
Price, Captain G. E. Watney, J.
Price, Sir R. G. Waugh, E.
Puleston, J. H. Whitley, E.
Pulley, J. Wiggin, H.
Ralli, P. Wills, W. H.
Rankin. J. Willyams, E. W. B.
Rendlesham, Lord Wilmot, Sir H.
Repton, G. W. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Richardson, T. Wilson, I.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Wilson, Sir M.
Ritchie, C. T. Winn, R.
Robertson, H. Wodehouse, E. R.
Rodwell, B. B. H. Wolff, Sir H. D.
Rolls, J. A. Woolf, S.
Ross, A. H. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Ross, C. C. Wroughton, P.
Rothschild,Sir N. M. de Wyndham, hon. P.
Roundell, C. S. Yorke, J. R.
Russell, Lord A.
St. Aubyn, W. M. TELLERS.
Sandon, Viscount Grosvenor, Lord R.
Schreiber, C. Kensington, Lord
Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.
SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

explained that he had accidentally gone into the wrong Lobby. Seeing the hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart-Dyke) standing at the door of one of the Division Lobbies, he thought he was right in going into it.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the explanation would be noted in the Minutes.

MR. BIGGAR

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister one question. It was, whether or not, after the very decided expression of opinion of a large numerical minority, he thought it desirable that a Motion of that sort, which, if passed at all, should be passed with unanimity, should be persevered with?

MR. GLADSTONE

Under the circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying it is the intention of the Government to persevere with the proposal. Main Question put. Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the Memory of the late Right Hon. the Earl of Beaconsfield, with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Offices of State; and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same. Resolution to be reported To-morrow.