Commons Sitting of 1 May 1884

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Postponed Resolution[April 21] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—National Debt Act, 1870, &c.; Coinage and Banking Acts.
Ordered—First Reading—Shop Hours Regulation (Liverpool)* [185].
Committee—Representation of the People [119]—R. P. [Second Night].
Considered as amended—Fisheries (Ireland) * [27].
Third Reading—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders* [145], and Passed.
Withdrawn—Stage Plays (Oxford and Cambridge) * [84].

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE—CLERKS OF THE LOWER DIVISION—HOLIDAYS AND SICK LEAVE.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Petitions which he has received during the last five years from Lower Division Clerks in the War Office, on the subject of holidays and sick leave, What are the points which have been referred to the Treasury; on what dates the first and last communications to the Treasury were made; whether any reply has been received from the Treasury; and, when he expects to be in a position to give his decision on the questions referred to in the Petitions?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in. reply, said, that the communication with the Treasury on the subject referred to in the Question had not yet been concluded. As soon as a final reply had been received from the Treasury, he would have no objection to give whatever information he possessed on the subject.

BURIALS—NONCONFORMIST FUNERALS AT MAIDENHEAD.
MR. G. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen a statement in The Maidenhead Advertiser of 19th March, that, at the burial by a Nonconformist minister, in the churchyard of All Saints, Boyne Hill, Maidenhead, of a girl named Annie Barnes, the funeral party were not allowed to enter by the churchyard gates, but had to enter through an opening in the churchyard fence, which had been made for the purpose; whether he is aware that this is the second occasion on which the same obstruction has been offered to a Nonconformist burial in All Saints' churchyard, and that the vicar, the Rev. A. H. Drummond, has declared his determination to pursue a similar

1025
course in future; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the facts; and, if they prove to be as stated, will give directions for instituting legal proceedings against the vicar?
EARL PERCYsaid, he would ask, in reference to the same statement, Whether it is the fact that the church, vicarage, schools, and curate's house form a quadrangle, out of which a path leads through and under the church tower to the churchyard, which lies entirely on the other side of the church, and that, consequently, this path is only used by funerals which go to the church; whether the "opening in the churchyard fence," referred to in The Maidenhead Advertiser, is an entrance which has existed for many years, with gravel properly laid up to it, giving direct access to the churchyard; and, whether at the time of the funeral the gates of the quadrangle were unfastened, and many of the attendants actually went through them?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received a communication from the Vicar, from which it appears that the facts are correctly stated in the Question of the noble Lord. I may state that the Vicar writes that he has already written to inform the Bishop that he is willing, in deference to his Lordship, in future to permit such funerals to use the entrance through the gates of the quadrangle if it is desired. I hope this will put an end to any further difficulty.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE WEST INDIA COLONIES AND THE UNITED STATES.
MR. TENNANTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Earl of Derby had yet come to a decision on the points raised by the recent West Indian deputation, especially as to the inclusion of the West Indian Colonies in the favoured nation clause with the United States, and the proposed allowance of reciprocal trade or tariff arrangements between the Colonies themselves and the United States?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No decision has yet been arrived at on the points mentioned; but my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby; is in communication with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and both the Colonial and Foreign Office are giving their earnest attention to the matter.

THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHING TREATIES—REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMISSION.
MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Anglo-French Commission, which has recently been sitting in Paris, on the subject of the Newfoundland Fishing Treaties, has made its Report; if so, whether such Report will be laid upon the Table of the House before it comes into operation; if not, whether such Report contains provision to render the assent of the Newfoundland Legislature a condition precedent to such Report having any operation; and, whether the Report denies, and sets at rest, the pretensions of France to any territorial rights beyond those expressly conceded on the seashore to the subjects of that nation by treaty, for mere fishery purposes?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Joint Commission will not make any Report. It was appointed for the purpose of considering whether any arrangement could be made for the continued exercise of the French fishery rights in such a manner as to give increased facilities for British subjects and the development of Colonial industries. The British Commissioners have signed a project of arrangement, subject to the confirmation of the two Governments, and the Newfoundland Government will be consulted before the arrangement is confirmed. The two British Commissioners will go to Newfoundland to explain what is proposed. Papers will be presented to Parliament containing the Reports made to Her Majesty's Government by the British Commissioners and other correspondents. The French Government put forward no pretension to any territorial rights beyond those expressly conceded by Treaty for fishing purposes on the seashore, and Her Majesty's Government believe that the new arrangement, which keeps within the lines of the Treaties, will prove very advantageous to British interests.
In reply to a further Question from Mr. JOSEPH COWEN,
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: There are provisions in the projected arrangement which will undoubtedly require the consent of the Colonial Legislature to give them validity.

POST OFFICE—TELEPHONE LICENCES.
MR. GRAYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the licence granted by the Post Office to the Northern Telephone Company for a Telephone Exchange at Newcastle-on-Tyne contained a condition requiring the Company to sell to the Postmaster General, on terms to be fixed by arbitration in default of agreement, as many telephonic instruments as he might demand for use by him in any place and for any purpose he may think fit; whether such a condition exists in former similar licences; whether, at the time such licence was executed, the Department was in possession of and had official cognisance of the terms of the licences granted by the United Tele-phone Company, of which the Northern Telephone Company is a subsidiary Company to all its subsidiary Companies, one of the conditions of which is that the United Company shall not sell for use, or permit to be used, the telephonic instruments of which it controls the patents in the districts of the subsidiary Companies save through the said Companies; whether, at the time such licence was granted and accepted, the Department was in possession of a copy of the licence of the United Company to the Northern Company containing the above stipulations applicable, amongst other places, to Newcastle-on-Tyne; whether the Department was at that time officially aware that the Northern Company did not own, and had no right to sell, any of the telephonic instruments known as the "Blake Transmitters" and "Edison Receivers," having only the usor of them for its district from the United Company; whether, under the circumstances, in the event of the Northern Company using the "Blake Transmitter" or "Edison Receiver" at Newcastle, he intends to seek to enforce the clause in the Post Office licence requiring the Company to sell to him instruments which it does not own and cannot sell; and, whether, in the event of the Department by any means obtaining possession of or control over "Blake Transmitters" or "Edison Receivers," it will attempt to use them in any of the districts of any of the subsidiary Companies to which the United Company has already sold the right of exclusive use of those patent instruments under agreements, of which the Post
1028
Office had official knowledge when it granted its licences to the said Companies?
MR. FAWCETT: I think it would not be possible, without describing in detail the policy of the Post Office with regard to telephone licences, to give a full answer to all the Questions which have been addressed to me by the hon. Member; and it is less necessary that I should do so in view of the Notice he has given of raising a debate on the entire subject when the Telegraph Estimates are considered. I may say, however, that the licence which was granted to the Northern District Telephone Company was in every respect the same as that which it was decided to grant, after the conclusion was come to nearly two years ago to allow any responsible persons, on conditions which were considered necessary in the interests of the public, to obtain a telephone licence. I was aware of the general nature of the relations existing between the United Telephone Company and the Northern District Telephone Company at the time the licence was granted to the latter Company for Newcastle; and it was, in my opinion, for the Northern District Company, who were in intimate relations with the United Telephone Company, to consider how they could carry out the stipulation which they agreed to accept. There has been no occasion hitherto for the Department to call upon the Company to fulfil the condition of supplying telephones which they are using; but I do not think it would be expedient for me to give any assurance which might fetter the action which, in future, it might be in the interests of the public desirable for the Department to take with regard to obtaining a supply of telephones and the manner in which they should be used.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)— UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any steps have been taken to discover and pay to the proper owners the forty thousand pounds which is lying derelict in the Irish Bankruptcy Court?
MR. COURTNEY: I am sorry to say this matter is still unsettled; but steps are being taken to enable any bond fide claimant to dividends to search for and discover whether any sum owing to him

1029
is lying derelict in the Irish Court of Bankruptcy. I do not think the burden can be thrown upon the Court of searching out claimants, as notice is always given to creditors when dividends are declared.
MR. O'SULLIVANasked why the list that was annually made out was not published, so that the people might see what the dividends were?
MR. COURTNEY: The lists are quite open to the public.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—COST OF ANNUAL CHANGE OF LOCATION.
MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the annual dates since the transfer of the Government of India to the Crown in 1858, of the migration of the Government of India from Calcutta to Simla, and the dates of its return to Calcutta; and, the extra annual cost imposed upon the taxpayers of India in consequence of this annual migration of Government? He would also ask, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the ages of the respective members of the Indian Council, their professions, the length of time which each has resided or served in India, and the period which has in each case elapsed since the termination of such residence or service?
MR. J. K. CROSS: There are no materials at the India Office which will enable me to give the first Return asked for; but the question shall be submitted to the Government of India. The second Return shall be presented, if the hon. and learned Member will move for it; and if he will consult me as to the form of the Return, it shall be made as complete as possible.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—THE CREW OF THE "NISERO."
MR. STOREYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any further news of the crew of the Nisero, of Sunderland; and, whether, in view of the fact that those British subjects have been prisoners now for some months, any and what effectual steps are to be taken to secure their release?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have re-
1030
ceived Mr. Maxwell's Report of his mission to Tenom, which I regret to say has been unsuccessful. It contains a copy of a letter, dated the 10th of March, from the chief officer of the Nisero, acknowledging the receipt of clothing and provisions, and stating that, although suffering himself in health, the rest of the crew were well. A telegram has since been received from Singapore, to the effect that the latest news of the crew was of the 31st of March, when it was reported that one of the crew—an Italian—had died, that three were ill, and that the party were in great straits for want of food. Telegraphic instructions were immediately despatched to the Governor of Singapore and the senior naval officer to make every effort to convey provisions to them. A telegram has been received in answer from Singapore, announcing that H.M.S. Peqasus leaves for Tenom to-day with supplies for three months. In consequence of Mr. Maxwell's report as to the origin of these hostilities, Her Majesty's Government have placed themselves in communication with the Netherlands Government with a view to offering their mediation, and thereby obtaining the release of the prisoners and a cessation of hostilities.

THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND —SYLLABUS OF LECTURES, &c.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there would be any objection, to direct that every Fellow of the University and every Examiner who receives pupils should for the future print for public circulation a complete and explicit syllabus of his lectures, with a full list of the works to which in his lectures he is in the habit of referring, said syllabus to be carefully revised each session; that a copy of such syllabus be forwarded, at the expense of the University, to all candidates in the special courses; that the calendars of the several colleges to which fellowships are allotted shall be published before the next ensuing University examinations begin, the addresses of the establishments where they are sold to be inserted in The Royal University Calendar?
MR. TREVELYAN: So far as I have been able to ascertain, the preponderance of opinion among gentlemen in responsible positions in connection with

1031
the Royal University and the Queen's Colleges is not favourable to the proposition contained in the earlier part of the Question. The reasons given are rather of an argumentative character, and the very complicated nature of the proposals and of the objections to them—the Royal University being opposed, and the Queen's Colleges divided in the matter—renders the subject one which can hardly be satisfactorily dealt with in answer to a Question, but may properly be referred to the impending Commission. With regard to the suggested publication of the College calendars before the time fixed for the Royal University examinations, I believe that, in the case of the Queen's Colleges, this is already done. I am informed that they are published "two months, six months, and some months" before.

THE TRUCK ACT—SICK CLUBS AND PENSION FUNDS.
MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the stoppage of a portion of workmen's wages by employers, for the purpose of contributions to sick clubs or pension funds, is a violation of the Truck Act?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that there had been a decision on this subject given by the Court of Appeal in February last; but he was sorry to say that it was somewhat complicated. The result seemed to him to be that the practice described in the Question would be within the Truck Act, unless the payments were made under written agreement to the effect that they should be allowed, or unless they were absolutely paid over to the medical officer of the Society.

RESTORATION OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY—LEGISLATION.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is now able to state when the measure will be introduced which is to provide the funds required for the urgent repairs of Westminster Abbey?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that the Bill to provide funds for the restoration of Westminster Abbey was in a forward state of preparation. It would also provide for the maintenance of cathedrals generally.

PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.
MR. HOULDSWORTHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of the Treaty with Portugal being ratified, the various Treaties and Engagements between Her Majesty the Queen of England and the chiefs and headmen of the Congo River and adjoining territory, recorded in the Paper, "Africa (No. 3, 1883)," will be thereby cancelled; if so, whether the said chiefs have given their consent; if not, how Her Majesty's Government propose to fulfil their obligations under these Treaties, or to enforce the stipulations contained therein in respect to the suppression of the slave trade and to freedom of commerce? He would further ask whether any representations have reached the Foreign Office from the Congo Natives by the steamer Senegal, which arrived this week?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already answed this Question, and have stated that the Treaties and Engagements will be superseded by the Treaty with Portugal. The Treaty not only takes full security for the suppression of the Slave Trade, but contains new and valuable stipulations with that object. The Foreign Office has not received any information by the Senegal.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: My noble Friend has not answered the Question whether the Chiefs have given their consent to the new Treaty?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stated the other day that they were not consulted.

THE CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS—AMALGAMATION.
MR. RITCHIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is in contemplation to amalgamate the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments; and, if so, when the amalgamation is likely to take place?
MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, he was not at present aware of any such intention.

INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—FLOODS OF THE LOWER BANN.
MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the

1033
House the Report of the Board of Works upon the Floods of the Lower Bann, which, several weeks since, he mentioned as having been received by the Treasury?
MR. COURTNEY: The Government are giving their best consideration to the question how, and by whom, the present unsatisfactory condition of the Lower Bann is to be remedied; but as my hon. Friend thinks that it will be useful to publish at once the Report of the Engineer to the Board of Works, we have no objection to doing so, and I will lay it on the Table of the House as soon as possible.

AFRICA (EAST COAST)—THE SLAVE TRADE.
MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Copy has ever been presented to Parliament of that "Draft Treaty for the development of commerce and suppression of the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa," which is stated by Lord Granville in his Despatch of January 23rd, 1883 (Africa, No. 2, C. 3885, pp. 9 and 10), to have "formed the subject of negotiation between the two Governments (of Portugal and the United Kingdom) between 1878 and 1881;" and, if so, whether he will kindly give the House a reference to the volume in which such Copy can be found; and, if not, whether he will now lay a Copy upon the Table of this House?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The draft of the Treaty for which negotiations were initiated by the late Government and subsequently suspended, was not presented to Parliament, as it is contrary to the usual practice to do so. I may, however, add that the Articles referred to in the despatch which the hon. Member quotes are given at full length in a foot-note for the information of the House.

PUBLIC OFFICES—THE NEW WAR OFFICE AND ADMIRALTY— NEW DESIGNS.
MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can give the House any further information as to the result of the recent competition for the erection of the New War Office and Admiralty?
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, that 128 persons had sent in designs, of which the judges had selected nine, the authors of which were to compete with more elaborate designs to be sent in on June 21, when judgment would be given.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— CONVENT NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has he yet formulated his plan for increase of emoluments for Convent National Schools in Ireland; and, if so, will he give some particulars of his scheme?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, no plan has yet been formulated; but the Irish Government has been in communication with the Commissioners of National Education since the debate raised by the hon. Gentleman. I may state, however, that in the event of the Treasury consenting to any arrangement which would involve increased expenditure, the Estimates which are already before the House would not admit of such arrangement taking effect during the present financial year.
MR. BIGGAR: Could not the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Supplementary Estimate?
MR. TREVELYAN: The Treasury should be consulted, and I am afraid there would be considerable difficulty in getting them to consent.

NAVY—THE GUNBOAT "FORWARD."
MR. TOMLINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in The Times of the 20th March, to the effect that on the 9th March the Forward gun vessel, tender to the Channel Squadron, arrived from Malta and had to lie to for forty-five hours, being very much overladen, and had to throw overboard a large quantity of her deck cargo; and, whether the Board of Trade possess any jurisdiction over vessels belonging to the Royal Navy?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the Board of Trade had no jurisdiction over vessels of the Royal Navy. As to the statement contained in the first part of the Question, he had been informed by the Admiralty that the Forward gunboat arrived safely at Suda Bay. The Admiralty had no information, confirma-

1035
tory or otherwise, of the statement contained in the Question.

INDIA (MADRAS)—THE MYSORE TERRITORY—CONCESSIONS TO BRITISH OFFICIALS.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Madras Officials, who are Concessionaires of the gold yielding land conceded on advantageous terms to them by the British Resident of Mysore during the Regency of the Rajah, continue to receive their pensions and salaries; and, if so, whether this is in accordance with the rulings of the Secretary of State's Despatches, No. 22, of 25th November 1862, and No. 17, of 9th July 1863, categorically prohibiting Civil and Military Officers from holding land in the Mysore territory?
MR. J. K. CROSS: The Government of India, some months ago, directed that the three officers connected with the Mysore concession who are still in the Service should at once sever such connection. They do not, however, think it necessary to go further than this, having no doubt that these officers acted in the bond fide belief that they were not contravening the orders of the Government in acquiring their shares in the concession. As regards retired officers concerned in the matter, Government has no ground for interfering with their pensions. The Papers explaining in more detail the views of the Government of India and of the Secretary of State are now complete; and if the hon. Member will move for them they shall be presented.

BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—BUILDING GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the National Education Commissioners have made a rule under which assistance is refused towards the erection of any school, even though vested in local trustees, if the teachers employed in it are religious men or women; and, if so, what is the reason of the rule?
MR. TREVELYAN: Under the rules of the National Education Board, schools taught by men or women belonging to religious Orders are ranked as convent or monastery schools, and are therefore
1036
ineligible to receive building grants. The rule in the matter is not a new one, but has been in operation for many years.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether it was a fact that any school belonging to private persons, although certificated teachers, were deprived of assistance from the mere fact that they were held by nuns?
MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that that was a case that obviously would seldom occur, and he would not like to interpret off-hand the rule with regard to it. He would like to have a case brought before him, before deciding the point.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether, within the last few days, the Commissioners of National Education had written to a parish priest in the Queen's County, stating, with regard to a school vested in local trustees, that whether vested or non-vested, the school to get assistance must be taught by lay teachers.
MR. TREVELYAN: Yes, I will inquire.

THE MAURITIUS (CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT).
MR. WODEHOUSEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government in favour of changes in the constitution of the Colony of Mauritius; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of this House any Correspondence relating to the subject?
MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir, there have been such proposals, and the Correspondence on the subject is being prepared for presentation to Parliament and is nearly ready.

THE NATIONAL DEBT—REDUCTION OF INTEREST.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853, declared in his Budget speech, with reference to the reduction of the interest on the Public Debt, "that a large operation of a compulsory character was out of the question," he will explain whether the note appended to the National Debt Act of 1876, from which he now claims to derive compulsory power, has,

1037
since its enactment in 1752, acquired a new signification, or whether he derives such power from other, and, if other, what statute?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I have spent some time in reading the Budget Speech of 1853, and I am sorry to say that I have failed to find the words which my right hon. Friend quotes; but whatever the circumstances of 1853 may have been considered to be, those of 1884 are such as in our opinion justify the plan about the Debt which I have explained to the House. The Act—not of 1876, as my right hon. Friend says, but of 1870—consolidates the enactments relating to the Debt, and what he calls "a note appended to the Act" is the Schedule, the terms of which as to Consols and Reduced Three per Cents are explicit.
MR. J. G. HUBBARD: What authority has the right hon. Gentleman for the assumption that he has compulsory power for the conversion of Consols?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It would be impossible to explain the arrangements as to compulsory conversion in an answer to a Question. I will give full information on this subject in debate.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any and what action, in the conversion of Three per Cent. Stock into Two and a-half per Cent. Stock, has been taken, consequent on "The National Debt Act, 1884," and, if action has been taken, he will present to the House a statement of the amounts and terms of conversion, including the rate of interest at which the Terminable Annuities were calculated, and the amount and nature of the addition given beyond the equivalent value; and, whether, also, the operation has been with the public or the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my right hon. Friend I have to say that under the National Debt Act, 1884, £4,000,000 Consols held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of the Post Office Savings' Banks Fund were cancelled as from the 28th of March last, and the Commissioners received in exchange £4,000,000 Two-and-a-Half per Cent
1038
Stock, with an annuity for 20 years of £35,121. A copy of the Treasury Warrant under which this conversion was made was presented to Parliament on the 3rd of April last, but was not printed. The market price of Consols being 102¼, and the market price of Two-and-a-Half per Cents being 90⅞, the difference was 11⅜, and to this difference 2 per cent was added, under the arrangement between the Treasury and the Commissioners provided for by the Act. The rate of interest at which the Terminable Annuity was calculated was 1·4769 per cent for half a-year, that being the interest yielded by Consols at the price of 102¼. The Acts authorizing the operation limit it to stock held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt on account of Post Office Savings Banks.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether it was within the scheme to lay aside one-half per cent saved in interest as a sinking fund for the National Debt? The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the matter in his Budget Speech.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said: On the contrary, I fully explained the point in my Financial Statement, and my remarks were accurately reported in The Times.

STREET TRAFFIC (METROPOLIS)—CONGESTION AT KNIGHTSBRIDGE.
VISCOUNT NEW PORTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the dangerously congested state of the traffic at Knightsbridge; and, whether he can make any suggestion for relieving it?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: If I am correct in assuming that the part of Knightsbridge referred to by my noble Friend is that close to Albert Gate, I may inform him that my attention has been called to a congestion of traffic there, although I should not go so far as to speak of it as dangerous. Looking, however, to other more urgent improvements which the Metropolitan Board is called upon to carry out, and to the great expense which widening the Knightsbridge Road would involve, I am not, at the present time, prepared to offer any suggestion for relieving the traffic there.

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY.
MR. GREGORYasked the honourable Member for Finsbury (Mr. Torrens), Whether he will consent to limit the operation of the Waterworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment Bill to the Metropolitan area, and to introduce Amendments to that effect in the Committee on the Bill?
MR. W. M. TORRENS, in reply, was understood to say that the promoters of the Bill would offer no objection to an Amendment limiting the operation of the measure as desired. They would thus be enabled to make applicable the provisions of the Valuation Act of 1869, which only extended to London. He further wished to state that if any doubt were entertained by the Companies as to their legal right to contest the ruling of the Assessment Committees or of the Assessment Sessions, no objection would be made to the insertion of a clause in Committee expressly giving them a locus standi for the purpose.

EGYPT—MR. O'KELLY, M.P. FOR ROSCOMMON.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as Mr. O'Kelly, M.P. is an accredited special correspondent of a London daily newspaper, and as he has been stopped at Dongola, on his way to the residence of the Mahdi, where he contemplated carrying out his instructions in regard to his correspondence with the aforesaid newspaper, he will telegraph to Dongola informing the Egyptian authorities there of the peaceful character of Mr. O'Kelly's intentions, and intimating to them that he ought not to be hindered from fulfilling his duties to his employers; and, whether it is to be understood that special correspondents of English newspapers may be prevented, by the Egyptian officials in the Soudan, from proceeding to the residence of the Mahdi?
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: Might I ask whether Mr. O'Kelly is not the specially accredited correspondent of an American newspaper?
MR. LABOUCHERE: If the hon. Member asks me, I may say he is not. He is acting exclusively for a London newspaper.
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have ascertained that, as I stated the
1040
other day, Mr. O'Kelly was not arrested; but that, on the 27th of March last, he was informed at Dongola by the Governor that he could not start for Obeid. It is believed he has started for Lower Egypt. The Egyptian Government, with our concurrence, acted entirely within their right in taking the above steps. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question would depend on the circumstances of each particular case. Mr. O'Kelly was not at all interfered with as a newspaper correspondent, and I need hardly say there is no intention of interfering with newspaper correspondents properly authorized.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I did not gather from the noble Lord on what grounds Mr. O'Kelly was detained; whether he, being an accredited correspondent for a London journal, was rightly and justly stopped by the Egyptian authorities; and I, therefore, ask on what grounds he was stopped?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: He was stopped on grounds of public policy, having reference to the relative positions of the Mahdi, Mr. O'Kelly, and the Egyptian Government.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I have not yet gathered any answer to my Question why Mr. O'Kelly was stopped, because Mr. O'Kelly had not then made the acquaintance of the Mahdi; therefore, I ask on what specific ground was he stopped?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am afraid I cannot give any clearer answer than I have already given.
MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether he has not been informed, on good authority, that the commission which Mr. O'Kelly received from the London newspaper was a commission to reach the Mahdi, and to act as the correspondent of that London newspaper in the camp of the Mahdi; and, if so, how can he say that Mr. O'Kelly has not been interfered with as a newspaper correspondent?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, it was assumed in the Question of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) that Mr. O'Kelly was the j correspondent of a newspaper, and I answered it on that assumption. In regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, it would be better if he would give Notice of it.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that the English Government is at war with the Mahdi, or is he at war with, any friendly Power; and, if not, will the noble Lord say whether any Englishman or Irishman could not proceed to his Court?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think that Question involves matter of argument.
MR. O'BRIEN: Might I ask the noble Lord, whether he has any information that it was at the instigation of Mr. Clifford Lloyd that Mr. O'Kelly was stopped?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL—THE DOMINION OF CANADA.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the event of the Merchant Shipping Bill becoming Law, it would in any respect bring within the scope of its provisions vessels belonging to the Dominion of Canada and other of our Colonies?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Bill—for example, those relating to compulsory pilotage, to detention, and to inquiries—cannot apply outside the limits of the United Kingdom, but will apply to Colonial vessels within those limits. Certain other provisions, such as those relating to insurance, to liability, and to tonnage, which are not limited to the United Kingdom, like existing provisions on the same subjects in Acts already passed, apply to all British ships, including ships belonging to Canada and the Colonies, subject, however, to provisions in the Merchant Shipping Acts which give to Colonial Legislatures, should they think fit so to do, power to alter the law with respect to ships registered within their jurisdiction.

WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS—PROPOSED RESTORATION OF THE GOLD COINAGE.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is the intention of the Government to take light half-sovereigns at their nominal value in exchange for sovereigns during the next three months; and, if so, whether there will be any limit imposed in
1042
respect either of the amount which may be tendered by any one person at any one time, or in respect of deficiency allowed on individual coins; and, whether the Treasury has received any precise information as to the number of half-sovereigns now in the Banks of Australia and other Colonies?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that, under the law as it now stands, light half-sovereigns are not current coin of the Realm, and that Government is debarred from giving sovereigns for them if they are not of their nominal value. If the Bill which I am about to introduce passes, we shall take steps, with the aid of the banks, to withdraw all light half-sovereigns at their nominal value, by giving a sovereign for every two half-sovereigns, unless they have been tampered with or are 4d. below that value, in which case they will be, as now, treated as bullion. We have no information as to the number of half-sovereigns which may happen to be at any given time in the banks of Australia or other Colonies; but the total amount of half-sovereigns issued from the Sydney and Melbourne Mints since their foundation is less than £2,500,000 worth, and half-sovereigns are not usually sent as remittances to or from the United Kingdom.
In reply to a further Question,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think it would be possible to withdraw the whole of the light half-sovereigns within three months; but they would be withdrawn as soon as possible.

LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— ARRESTS AT TUBBERCURRY, CO. SLIGO.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the case of the eleven persons arrested at Tubbercurry, county Sligo, more than a month ago, upon a charge of conspiracy, the accused have been several times remanded after having, on each occasion, been brought before a magistrate in private, and although no evidence tending to criminate any of them was on any occasion produced on the part of the Crown; whether the accused have not been allowed to see their friends, professional or otherwise; whether the stipendiary magistrate who

1043
ordered the remands denies having made any order to debar the prisoners from receiving visits; and, if so, who is the person responsible for preventing communication between the prisoners, their advisers, and their friends; and, whether, with reference to the expiration, on Friday next, of the current remand in these cases, the agents of the Crown have been instructed to cause or assent to a public hearing of the charge, and to agree to the discharge of the prisoners from custody unless a case is put in evidence against them? He would further ask, in view of the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, that the examination of these men to-day would be held in public, and that the Crown would use every effort to have that done, whether the following telegram despatched to him (Mr. Sexton) that afternoon, from Sligo Prison, accurately represented what had taken place:—
"Remanded again in gaol to-day without going into evidence. We believe they intend to rob us first, and then try to convict us"
MR. TREVELYAN: It is true that the prisoners have been four times remanded without evidence being adduced against them; hut the remand in each case was upon affidavit, showing it to be necessary for the interests of justice. Their professional adviser and their immediate relatives have not been refused access to them, and the remanding magistrate denies he has given any instructions for such refusal, as none has taken place. I am informed that one further short remand until Monday next will be necessary, when evidence will be gone into against all the prisoners, and the investigation will be held in public.
MR. SEXTONasked if they might take it as settled beyond any doubt that that course would be taken next Monday?
MR. TREVELYAN: That will certainly be done.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES —THE BROOK STREET, LIMEHOUSE, SCHEME.
MR. RITCHIEasked the honourable baronet the Member for Truro, What number of the labouring class will be displaced for the purposes of the Brook Street, Lime-house, Scheme, confirmed by ''The Metropolis (Brook Street, Lime-house) Provisional Order Act," 1883, and
1044
upon what terms the land, when cleared, will be let for the purposes of the Act; and, whether it will be possible to arrange that the area may be cleared in sections, so that rebuilding may pro-coed pari passu with the demolition of the existing buildings?
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I beg to state that 562 persons of the working class will be displaced for the purposes of this improvement scheme; and the Board will have to let the site, when cleared, with reference to the fact that it has to be appropriated for the purpose of accommodating at least 562 of the labouring class, a circumstance which will no doubt render it necessary for the Board to accept much below the market value of the land. Having regard to the limited character of the area, there would be considerable difficulty in arranging so that the rebuilding may take place in sections pari passu with the clearance of the site; but the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) in this respect shall receive the consideration of the Board.

LAW AND JUSTICE—POLICE— LICENSED VICTUALLERS AS SURETIES.
MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the slur cast upon the body of licensed victuallers by a refusal on the part of Mr. Lushington, one of the magistrates at the Thames Police Court, to accept a member of that trade as security for a person bound over to keep the peace, not because he doubted the solvency of the publican, but because he made it a rule never to accept a publican as security for a person bound over to keep the peace; and, whether such a ground of refusal was justifiable in Law?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that, in his view of the case, the magistrate's discretion was confined to the amount of bail, and to the sufficiency of the security offered, and, therefore, a person who offered sufficient security could not be refused, on the ground of the particular nature of his employment. He would communicate to the magistrate that view, which was the view of the chief magistrates of the United Kingdom, and he had no doubt it would be acted on.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— BERBER.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received confirmation of the following statements made by the Cairo Correspondent of The Standard, on the 29th:—
"The last act of the Soudan tragedy is evidently at hand. Mr. Egerton received a telegram late last night from Berber, stating that no sums of money could guarantee the delivery of any message through to Khartoum, all of whose inhabitants are now at the mercy of the rebels; four sanjaks or divisions of Shageeyah Bedouins, together with five hundred soldiers, have joined the rebels, leaving Khartoum helpless; the Governor of Berber, acting on instructions sent to him to evacuate the town, if possible, merely proclaimed the fact, with the result that the inhabitants fled northwards, while the troops marched out south to join the insurgents;"
whether the telegrams to the Governor of Berber, refusing him military aid, and telling him to evacuate Berber, were sent by the authority of the British Cabinet; whether General Gordon was first consulted; and, by what road the 2,000 women and children at Berber are to escape?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have already informed the House that Mr. Egerton has telegraphed that no messenger could be found to proceed from Berber to Khartoum, and that the Shageeyah Bedouins who joined the rebels were at Berber, and not at Khartoum. The message to the Governor of Berber will be found in the Papers now before the House. I may add that it was not, of course, possible to consult General Gordon on this matter. There is only one practicable road at this moment from Berber—namely, viâ Abou Hamed to Korosko.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the noble Lord be good enough to say whether the instructions to the Governor of Berber were sent by the authority of Her Majesty's Government?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had stated already that they would be found in the Papers before the House.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Surely the noble Lord can say that?

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—MOVEMENT OF DISEASED CATTLE.
MR. HICKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he is yet in a position to give the House detailed information respecting the movements of the 101 bullocks which arrived in Cambridgeshire during the night of 14th April, from the time they were taken out of the ship which brought them to England till the hour they were placed in the Railway trucks at Liverpool; whether he can now state (supposing they came in the ship Quebec, from. Canada, as he informed the House on the 24th), what has become of the rest of the cargo; and, whether he will direct the Government veterinary inspector and the chief of police at Liverpool and, if necessary, at Birkenhead, to supply the authorities of Cambridgeshire with all the information they have been able, or may hereafter be able, to obtain?
MR. DODSON: Sir, we are now in possession of full information on this subject. These 101 bullocks formed part of two cargoes landed from Canada on the 9th and 12th of April. They were passed healthy by our Inspector on landing, and again by the Market Inspector, when they were exposed for sale in Stanley Market on the 14th, having been in a lair adjoining the market during the interval between their landing and exposure in the market. These 101 bullocks were sent to Cambridgeshire, and on the 17th of April foot-and-mouth disease appeared among them. Fifty-one of them went to Wimpole, and 50 were slaughtered at Cambridge. The rest of the two cargoes were distributed to various towns, and no outbreak has been reported among them. Thus this information accounts for the whole of both cargoes, and I shall be happy to furnish all or any part of it to the Cambridgeshire local authorities, if they think it would be useful to them.
MR. HICKSasked whether the lair in which those cattle were kept, from the time of their landing to the 14th of April, was at any time used for keeping cattle brought to this country for immediate slaughter?
MR. DODSON: The hon. Member must be aware that cattle from countries from which there is free admission—

1047
Canada, for example—are not landed at the same places as cattle that come from, other countries, and are to be slaughtered.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS—KILMEEN ELECTORAL DIVISION, KANTURK UNION.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the successful National candidate for the Kilmeen Division of the Kanturk Union, at the recent Poor Law election, has received a letter from Mrs. Smith, of Blossom-fort, stating that she was obliged to break her promise to vote for him in consequence of receiving two letters from her landlord, Mr. Richard Long-field, Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant, directing her to vote for his opponent, a rent-warner on a neighbouring estate, who himself presented to her the second letter from Mr. Longfield; whether he is aware that a Mr. Horgan, who remained neutral in the same contest, notwithstanding a letter from Mr. Longfield directing him to support his candidate, was afterwards requested by Mr. Longfield to return his letter, and, on his replying that he had mislaid it, was informed that his services as gamekeeper in Mr. Longfield's service were dispensed with until the letter should be returned; whether there is any legal remedy for intimidation of this description; and, whether Mr. Longfield's conduct will be brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor?
MR. TREVELYAN: The facts appear to be that Mr. Longfield, junior, son of the gentleman mentioned in the Question, wrote two letters to Mrs. Smith, asking her to vote for the candidate whom he considered the more fitting of the two. This candidate was not, as stated, a rent-warner on a neighbouring estate; but his opponent, the successful candidate, did occupy such a position. Mrs. Smith emphatically denies that, in writing to the latter, she gave him the slightest grounds for saying that she was in any way intimidated by Mr. Longfield's letters. With regard to the case of Horgan, I am informed that Mr. Longfield, junior, wrote to him also on behalf of the same candidate, and that hearing, subsequently, that his letter was misrepresented, as conveying a threat, he asked Horgan to return it
1048
in order that he might see how it was open to such a construction. Horgan did not comply with the request, but he did not allege that he had mislaid the letter. Nothing was said to him about his being dismissed if he did not return it. His dismissal had no connection with this matter, but was on account of "extreme carelessness and neglect" of his duties as gamekeeper and bog ranger—on account of which he had been warned long before the election took place. He did not think there had been any intimidation for which there was a legal remedy, nor did he think that Mr. Longfield's conduct should be brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.
MR. O'BRIENasked whether the right lion. Gentleman would consider the advisability of introducing a Corrupt Practices Bill in reference to Poor Law Elections?
[No reply.]

PUBLIC HEALTH—DEATHS FROM CHARBON.
MR. GRANTHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the frequent deaths among the men in one of the tan yards in Bermondsey, from a disease affecting cattle in foreign countries, called "charbon," and which is inoculated upon persons handling the hides of animals which were affected with the disease which is very fatal to human beings; and, as the families of the men so dying have been unable to obtain compensation under the Employers' Liability Act, if he will make such inquiries as will enable them to make better provision for the safety of the men working in these yards; and, if possible, to ensure some compensation to their families on their death?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have not failed to observe the occurrence of anthrax or charbon among persons engaged in the hide and skin trades of Bermondsey, and have caused inquiry to be made by one of our Medical Inspectors—the Inspector who recently investigated the same disease as it occurred among wool sorters in and about Bradford. In all, during the past 11 years, between 40 and 50 cases of anthrax, about a quarter of them fatal, are known to have occurred in the Me-

1049
tropolis among persons thus engaged, about half this number of cases and of deaths having occurred during the last two years. They have not been restricted to one single tanyard. A Report on the subject has been presented to Parliament, and will soon be in the hands of Members. The more recent aspects of the matter, however, are now being inquired into. Pending this inquiry, it would be premature to consider whether the Employers' Liability Act should be extended to meet cases of persons dying from the disease referred to, so as to give compensation to their families.

THE COINAGE—MINT CHARGES ABROAD.
MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Master of the Mint, If his deputy has prepared a paper showing the mintage charge on the coinage of other countries; and, if he will make of it a Parliamentary Paper; and, if there are at the Mint calculations snowing the average cost of coining (apart from metal) a single coin of each denomination; and, if he will give a Return showing that, or, failing that, the average cost (apart from metal) of coining one coin?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): A table has been prepared at the Mint, showing the Mint charges levied in the principal countries of Europe, and was printed in the Journal of the Institute of Bankers for the 19th of March, 1884. I will lay it on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper. It is impossible to form any trustworthy estimate of the cost of coining individual pieces of each denomination, as the average cost of the coins struck each year depends entirely upon the amount of coinage executed. But if my hon. Friend will peruse the valuable Joint Report of Mr. Graham, the late Master of the Mint, and Colonel Smith, the late Master of the Calcutta Mint, which was a Parliamentary Paper of 1869, No. 285, he will find the fullest information on this subject, and in the calculation then made the present Deputy Master concurs.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— KHARTOUM.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether communications have been
1050
opened with Khartoum by way of Massowah; and, whether the negotiations with King Johannes for the relief of General Gordon are progressing favourably?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; communications have not been opened with Khartoum by Massowah. No reports have yet been received of the progress of the negotiations referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—QUARANTINE REGULATIONS.
MR. DUCKHAMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether a quarantine of ninety days will be adopted for store animals from scheduled Foreign Countries as now enforced by the United States, Canada, and Australia for store animals from this Country; and, if not, whether he will state the quarantine it is proposed to enforce?
MR. DODSON: Quarantine must be regulated in each case according to the disease to be provided against, and to the circumstances of each case. The countries referred to in the Question direct their quarantine specially against infected countries. The quarantine we are thinking of is one to be adopted as an extra precaution, applicable to specified regions concerning the soundness and security of which we have distinct and positive assurance.

GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE AND ANNUITIES ACT, 1882—INSURANCES UNDER THE NEW TABLES.
MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Postmaster General, When insurances and annuities under the new tables framed in accordance with the provisions of the Assurance and Annuities Act of 1882 will be ready for issue?
MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, the tables had been prepared, and he hoped that a scheme would be brought into operation early in June.

A MINISTER FOR SCOTLAND—LEGISLATION.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When he proposes to introduce the Bill to establish a Minister for Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): In consequence of the state

1051
of Business in this House, it is proposed to introduce tins Bill in the House of Lords, and this will be done on an early day.

QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CORK—THE VISITORS.
MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now name the visitors who will hold the promised special visitation at Queen's College, Cork; and, if the College authorities will be instructed to furnish the students appealing against the decision of the College Council with copies of the evidence obtained against them?
MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that most probably the Court of Visitors, which will sit on the 15th of this month, will be composed of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, His Grace the Duke of Leinster, Dr. Moore, President of the Royal College of Physicians, and Mr. Wheeler, President of the Royal College of Surgeons. The Government have no authority to give any instructions as to the course which the investigation may take.

THE ROYAL UNIVERSITY AND QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND)—CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is able to inform the House as to the composition of the Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Royal University and Queen's Colleges in Ireland?
MR. TREVELYAN: We are getting along as fast as possible. We are promised the services of three gentlemen out of five who have been named, and we hope to secure the services of two others in a few days.
MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman finally decided whether a Member of this House will be asked to serve?
MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; it has been decided no Member of this House will be asked to serve. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will keep their minds open until they hear the names.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— THE CAPTIVES AT SINKAT.
MR. A. ROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whe-
1052
ther the women and children captured by Osman Digna at Sinkat have been rescued from slavery; and, if not, whether the Government are still continuing their efforts to attain that object; and, whether any Papers on the subject will be shortly laid upon the Table of the House?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The authorities have received instructions to do all they can in this matter. At the same time, I cannot give any great hopes as to the result. The hon. Member will find what has passed on the subject in the Papers just laid before Parliament.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—THE DAIRIES, &c. ORDER, 1879 —REGISTRATION OF COWHOUSES.
MR. CLARE READasked Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether a bond fide farmer, who sells milk and keeps cows hi an urban sanitary district is compelled to register his cow-hoses, &c. under the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milkshops Order of 1879; and, if so, whether he is exempt from such registration if, although selling milk within the said district, his cowsheds happen to be outside it?
MR. DODSON: Sir, the local authority under the Order, or, rather, under the Act of 1878, is the Quarter Session in a county, the Town Council in a municipal borough. The registration which each local authority is to require and enforce is a registration not of premises, but of persons carrying on, in the district of the local authority, the trade of cow-keepers, dairymen, or purveyors of milk. A bond fide farmer who carries on this trade is to be registered in the same way as anyone else. The district in which the trade is carried on is, as I am. advised, the district in which the principal or central seat of the trade is situated, not every district in which any portion of the milk is distributed.

EGYPT—ENGAGEMENTS OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT (DESPATCH, 19TH SEPTEMBER, 1879).
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, With reference to his statement that the covenants under which this Country has been acting in Egypt were not made by the present Government, and to the Correspondence "Egypt, No. 11"

1053
(Despatch No. 1, paragraph. 3), just presented to Parliament as an explanation of the above statement, whether the paragraph in question, which states that Lord Salisbury, in a conversation with M. Waddington, agreed "that the Native Government should receive our earnest support," is the only statement that can be construed into a covenant justifying the acts of the present Government in the Soudan?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the only passage, in terms that I have ever cited or referred to in this House, was a passage in a despatch that is now laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. I must, however, guard myself against being supposed to mean that that is the only engagement that has been entered into. I consider that an engagement has been constituted and contracted by the proceedings connected with the dethronement of the late Khedive, and the establishment of a former Khedive. But perhaps I cannot better or more fairly explain the matter than by quoting the passage, which has now become historical, from the speech of Lord Salisbury, delivered in the House of Lords on the 15th May, 1882. The noble Lord is reported to have used these words—
"With respect to Egypt itself, it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government, both, by the engagements which they themselves have entered into, and by the engagements which they have necessarily inherited from their Predecessors, are bound to give their support to the present Viceroy of Egypt, so long as his Government is in accordance with the principles which they approve. They are bound to give him that support, not merely as a matter of sentiment, not merely in words or in notes, but in something stronger if the need should arise."—(3 Hansard, [269] 651.)
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: In reference to the answer of the Prime Minister, I would ask him, Whether his attention has been called to Despatch No. 3, Egypt 11—Lord Granville to Mr. Malet, dated March 3, 1881—in which these words occur—
"England and France are disposed to give to the present Khedive all their support, and the British and French Agents are to concert measures for the purpose;"
and, further, to Despatch No. 4, Lord Granville to Mr. Malet, dated March 7, 1881—
"The policy laid down in this Despatch (referring to Despatch No. 2) is that which you have hitherto recommended and pursued, with
1054
the en tire approbation of Her Majesty's Government;"
and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, taking into consideration these two despatches, whether they constitute a covenant, and whether this covenant was not entered into by Her Majesty's present Advisers?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will, without taking any objection to the words quoted in the Question of the hon. Member, say that the words used by Lord Salisbury in speaking of the engagement into which the present Government have entered, correctly stated the circumstances of the case. No doubt, in the development of the Egyptian Question, Her Majesty's Government had occasion to apply to new circumstances, as they emerged, the principles by which they thought themselves bound to act under the covenants which they found existing when they entered Office.
MR. GORST: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question, of which, if he cannot answer now, I will give him Notice—namely, Whether the engagement earnestly to support the Government of the Khedive, which was entered into by the late Government on the 19th September, 1879, or a similar engagement which was entered into by the present Government on the 25th February, 1881, and the 3rd March, 1881—whether those engagements were ever communicated, either by the late or the present Government, to the Sultan of Turkey?
MR GLADSTONE: I am not Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and it would be very difficult for me to say from memory. I think perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman had better give Notice of the Question.
MR. GORST: I will repeat it tomorrow.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he considers himself and the Government, under the documents which have been laid on the Table of the House, as being under a pledge to support the dynasty, as well as the person and the Government, of the Khedive?
MR. GLADSTONE: That is a Question which hardly admits of being answered within the usual limits. But perhaps the hon. and learned Member will give Notice of it, and I will then answer it.

EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that negotiations are in progress for the assembly of a Conference on Egyptian Affairs; and, if so, what are the matters which it is proposed to submit to the Conference?
MR. GLADSTONE: I will endeavour to answer the Question as exactly as I can. Her Majesty's Government have proposed a Conference to the Powers upon certain Egyptian affairs. That proposal of Her Majesty's Government has been accepted by the Powers. In fully accepting that Conference in principle, the French Government has expressed a desire—I do not understand it to be a condition of the assent—but the French Government has expressed a desire that there should be some preliminary communications, some communications before the Conference actually meets, between the French and English Governments. M. Waddington having just returned from. Paris, these communications will immediately take place, or, perhaps, even now for all I know may be taking place. Turkey, which has a distinct position, has been invited to join the Conference, but no answer has as yet been received from Turkey, and the distance of Constantinople would require a little more time than in the case of most other capitals. With regard to the purpose of the Conference, it is on the financial situation of Egypt, which, as I think, has been intimated in general terms on some recent occasions by myself, has required attention, and from that attention the Law of Liquidation cannot be excluded. I think I cannot do better than to read to the House the passage—the actual terms—in which that subject has been submitted to the Powers—
"It appears to Her Majesty's Government that to meet the charges necessary for the peace and good government of the country, and to fulfil the engagements already incurred by the Egyptian Exchequer, some change in the Law of Liquidation is required. Her Majesty's Government would therefore propose that a Conference should meet in London or at Constantinople to determine whether such a change is necessary; and -what should be its exact nature."—[Egypt, No. 17 (1884), p. 1.]
I think I need only add that, with regard to the place of the Conference which
1056
is thus proposed to be either in London or at Constantinople, no decision has as yet been arrived at.
BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, if he can state without inconvenience whether the Conference will be called upon to consider any question but that of Egyptian finance, or whether it will embrace the wider scope of the whole Egyptian Question?
MR. GLADSTONE: The invitation, Sir, is limited to the subject of finance.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask, have any communications been exchanged between the Governments of France and England as to the possibility of the participation of the French Government in the occupation or administration of Egypt?
MR. GLADSTONE: Nothing has come to our knowledge of any communication from the French Government which refers to that subject.
MR. BOURKE: I wish to ask the right lion. Gentleman, whether any Papers on this subject will be laid before Parliament in the next few days, because it is possible, when the House becomes acquainted with these Papers, it may wish to express an opinion upon the subject?
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman has had considerable experience in the Foreign Office, and I am bound to say I think from that he must know it would be an entire deviation from precedent, that when Her Majesty's Government are inviting the Powers of Europe to meet and to consider a particular subject, they should, before the Powers have considered it, produce Papers relating to that meeting.
MR. BOURKE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, in the case of the very important Congress held at Berlin, it is not a fact that when the announcement of the Congress was made to this House, despatches were immediately laid on the Table, stating the basis upon which the Conference would meet, thus enabling the House to form, an opinion as to the engagements the Government were about to undertake?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that any Papers were laid upon the Table which, in the slightest degree, affected to indicate what were to be the deliberations or proceedings of that Congress.
MR. BOURKE: The basis of the Congress.
MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, with regard to the basis of the Congress of Berlin. Well, with regard to the basis of this Conference, I think I have stated the basis upon which it has been proposed by us. At the same time, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have that put in another form, probably, he will put a Question on a future day. In the Congress of Berlin there were most important preliminary objects of controversy, and very important military measures to be adopted by the Executive Government of the country, which made it necessary that these should be the subject of communication to Parliament. But that was very different indeed from the present case.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Conference would be limited to the subject of finance. Are we to understand that the subject of finance will be limited by the terms of the paragraph which the Prime Minister has read to the House?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have read the invitation, and I presume that the Powers, having accepted the invitation, the subject of the Conference will be limited accordingly. It is quite evident that if any question of an extension should arise, that must be an entirely new question, totally detached from anything that has hitherto taken place.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— RELIEF OF GENERAL GORDON.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is now able to state to the House when the Government intend to send an expedition for the relief of General Gordon?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have nothing further to say.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: With reference to the despatches just placed in our hands about General Gordon, I wish to ask, if the Government are in possession of the text of a telegram from General Gordon to Sir Evelyn Baring, which does not appear in the Papers on the Table?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of that Question, as it relates to Papers only presented this afternoon.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Will the Prime Minister allow me to ask a Question which very seriously affects the accuracy of information given to this House some days ago by him? I asked the Prime Minister about the condition of General Gordon on the 24th of April, as to whether the fall of Berber would not increase the peril of General Gordon; and the Prime Minister informed the House that, according to all the information in his possession, there would be no essential change in the position of Khartoum. I want to ask the right hon. in consequence of the change at Berber. Gentleman, whether his attention has been drawn to a despatch of Sir Evelyn Baring, dated the 20th of April, and received on the 20th of April, in which the following passage occurs:—
"Unless some prospect of help can be held out to Hassan Khalifa, there is some risk that he will be thrown into the arms of the rebels. This would seriously affect Gordon's position,"—[Egypt, No. 13 (1884), p. 13.]
I wish to ask the Prime Minister, how he could possibly have given the answer he did with that information in his possession?
MR. GLADSTONE: The information communicated by Sir Evelyn Baring is completely in my recollection, and was in my recollection, I believe, at the time I spoke in this House, and was to be taken and considered by the Government in connection with all the other information the Government then possessed. That being so, my opinion, and, I believe, the opinion of my Colleagues, was, as I stated, that the fall of Berber—I do not know that I used the word "fall"—whatever might take place in Berber would make no essential change in the position of Khartoum. I do not doubt at all that the fall of Berber, affecting one of the routes of Khartoum, would affect Khartoum unfavourably rather than otherwise; but our opinion was, and is, that it would make nothing approaching to an essential change in the position of security of General Gordon.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: So that the House is to understand that the deliberately expressed opinion of Her Majesty's Envoy is absolutely and utterly worthless?
MR. GLADSTONEdissented.
SIR. R ASSHETON CROSS: It makes no difference how long the Egyptian

1059
Papers have been in our hands; they have been in the hands of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitz-maurice) for some time. What I want to know is, whether we have got all the despatches from General Gordon to Sir Evelyn Baring? If the noble Lord cannot answer, I will give Notice for tomorrow.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I would ask, whether the information which induces the Government to think that Khartoum is not in greater peril in consequence of the fall of Berber is to be be found in the despatch of the Governor of Berber, dated April 23, in which he says—"If Berber falls, there will no longer be any hope of the Soudan?"
[No reply.]
MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask, whether the Government still adhere to the opinion which they expressed on April 21 last, that the position of General Gordon at Khartoum was one of complete security?
MR. GLADSTONE: I adhere to the opinion I have given in this House more than once—that there is no military danger at the present moment besetting Khartoum, subject to the reservation, the only reservation, the single reservation, that our intelligence from Khartoum only comes down to certain dates.
MR. WILLIS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the time has come when the Government may properly take steps for the purpose of putting an end to the mission of General Gordon?
MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to the Question of my hon. and learned Friend, what I have to say is, that I am not, at present, in a condition to give any full answer to-day, for a simple reason which I will explain. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that General Gordon was sent to the Soudan—went to the Soudan upon a mission which involved the use only of pacific means, and that the first accounts which came from General Gordon were of a very encouraging character. Unquestionably, I admit that subsequent accounts have tended to throw doubt upon the prospect of accomplishing the objects of his mission by pacific means. But on that subject we some time ago addressed communi-
1060
cations to General Gordon which we think will materially enlarge our information with respect to his views of any prospect he may entertain of accomplishing that pacific mission. Until we receive the replies to these communications I shall not be in a position to answer the Question.
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Are these communications in the Papers?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: If the noble Lord will only examine the Papers, they will answer a great many Questions which have been asked.

PARLIAMENT—THE "COUNT OUT" ON TUESDAY.
SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the simultaneous withdrawal from the House, on Tuesday last, of all the Liberal Members except two, when thirty-five Conservative Members were present, was by Ministerial arrangement; and, whether, to avoid for the future the repeated counts-out on Tuesday Evening Sittings, he will arrange for the attendance of some Members of the Government to assist in keeping a quorum?
MR. MAC IVER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, what has become of the Commercial Treaty between Portugal and Spain?
MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to the Question of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, what I have to say is, to give an assurance that there was no arrangement whatever made by the Government with regard to the withdrawal of Members from the House. If there was such a process, so far as I know, it would be entirely spontaneous, and be suggested by the nature of the case. With regard to the "Counts-out" on Tuesday evenings, I should say that there may be special circumstances when, if a Motion were in danger, it would be the duty of the Government to attempt to secure, even on Tuesday evenings, the making of a House; but I certainly could not undertake the additional responsibility, which would be handed down, like Egyptian engagements, to our Successors in Office; and I do not think it would be fair to impose such an obligation upon the Members of any Government.
MR. MAC IVER: I will ask the Question on Thursday.

IMPERIAL AND LOCAL TAXATION— THE INCOME TAX—THE DEBATE OF FRIDAY, APRIL 25—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. J. G. HUBBARD: I must ask the indulgence of the House while I refer to a matter which concerns my personal character and honour as a Member of this House. In the animated speech of the Prime Minister on Friday evening last, he charged me with having intentionally used the vowels A E I O U, in referring to the different heads of the Income Tax Schedule, instead of the letters A B C D and E, in order to avoid disclosing that my scheme of adjustment would effect a further burthening of Schedule A; because, on the previous day, I had secured the support of the landed interest in this House. He said he thought it would have been better had I used the five letters of the Schedule and not gone to the five vowels, "in order to obscure the operation of the plan." Now, Sir, I need hardly say that the imputation of purposely avoiding the disclosure of any of the consequences of my plan involves a charge of untruthfulness, hurtful to myself, offensive to my constituents, injurious to this House, of which I have the honour to be a Member, and damaging to the cause which I have espoused, and for which I have laboured, however imperfectly, with absolute truthfulness of purpose. I defer to a fitting opportunity the exposition of the fate of Schedule A; but I do not delay my appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to do me justice. He has known me and I have known him longer than any person in this House, and I ask him to withdraw unreservedly the charge he has made against me, which from his lips has proceeded to the five divisions of the globe, and which is altogether undeserved.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am extremely sorry if my right hon. Friend thought that there dropped from me any words which could possibly constitute a charge against his veracity, and that no opportunity was given me, by his appeal to me at the time, of withdrawing any such words. I am glad to think that, at any rate, the charge could not have been a very obvious one, when it is now six days since the debate before he has made it the subject of complaint in the way of any public or other reference. If
1062
he had stated it to me in private, I would not have waited this appeal in the House, but would have myself stated to the House that I should regard, with the strongest disapprobation, the conduct of any man, and especially my own conduct, if I were capable of making any imputation on the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman. The utmost that I ever charged my right hon. Friend with, if I ever did charge him with anything, was this—that he had not made it his care to put forward into the most prominent position what I considered to be the real points of his case. I beg my right hon. Friend to accept from me the expression of great regret if I have used words conveying the impression he has described; for, in my opinion, there is no man in this House who less requires to defend his honesty, or his public or private character, in this or in anyother respect than my right hon. Friend himself, and most happy should I have been in private to lay this explanation before him instead of waiting for his appeal.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. HENEAGEasked, when the Government intended to proceed with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill?
MR. GLADSTONE: There will be no opportunity of going forward with that subject to-night; but the Government are very anxious to bring this and some other matters to an early conclusion, and to expedite the Business of the House. For this reason, I shall have to-morrow to make a further proposal to the House on the subject of Morning Sittings. Complaint has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and by others, that no opportunity is given of deciding the question of Morning Sittings, at a proper time, and that the practice of deciding them one by one, at a late hour of the evening, is not always satisfactory and sufficient. Therefore, I propose to meet his views, and to move to-morrow that until the end of June, the House shall meet on Tuesdays and Fridays at 2o'clock, and I trust the judgment of the House on the subject will then be fairly taken. One of the prime objects we have in view is to take the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, to which my hon. Friend refers.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will there be a Morning Sitting tomorrow?
MR. GLADSTONE: We shall not ask for a Morning Sitting to-morrow. The proposal will be made before the Orders of the Day. We shall take the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill if possible to-morrow.
MR. BROADHURST: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give facilities for making a House on Tuesday night for the discussion of the Motion in regard to Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, with regard to which both sides of the House take a great interest.
MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke need be under no apprehension. It is certain that when that Motion comes on there will be a House.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to give Notice that I shall oppose the Motion to take Morning Sittings.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Would the Prime Minister inform the House, whether his Motion will also include the proposal that all Select Committees, all Private Committees, and all Grand Committees are to suspend their Sittings at 2 o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays?
MR. GLADSTONE: No proposal will be made on that subject. The ordinary Rules will remain in force.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: In what shape does the Prime Minister propose to bring forward the Motion to-morrow?
MR. GLADSTONE: The only precedent is that of the course adopted by Mr. Disraeli, in 1867, who moved that until the end of June, the House should meet at 2 o'clock on Tuesdays and Fridays. My Motion will come before the Orders of the Day in accordance with that precedent.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What was the date when that Motion was made?
MR. GLADSTONE: It was made on a late day in May, instead of an early day as we propose.

PUBLIC HEALTH—CHOLERA.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has received any intelligence of the arrival of a troopship at Portsmouth, with cases of cholera on board?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No details have reached me on this subject; but I hope to receive them soon.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Has there been any case of cholera landed?
THE MARQUESS or HARTINGTON: No.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Has the President of the Local Government Board any information on the subject?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I believe there have been no cases on shore since the ship arrived at Portsmouth; but I cannot speak certainly with regard to it. The arrival of the ship was the subject of discussion in advance between the War Office and the Local Government Board, and rules were laid down as to the procedure which was to be followed with regard to the ship. It was ordered to come in flying the yellow flag, and was to be anchored at a special point. That was done, and no one was allowed to land until there was pronounced to be no danger of infection.

EGYPT—THE TELEGRAMS.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay on the Table the telegram of General Gordon, referred to in the last despatch of Sir Evelyn Baring, dated the 8tb of April, in which he states "General Gordon evidently think he is to be abandoned, and is very indignant?"
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that the telegrams presented, in the Blue Book, which came down to a very late date, were simply those portions of telegrams sent by Sir Evelyn Baring to the Foreign Office. The full telegram of General Gordon referred to, had not, as far as he knew, been received by the Foreign Office.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked, whether the full text of the telegram could not be given, now that Sir Evelyn Baring was in England?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that the hon. Member would see that, in accordance with the undertaking that was given, the telegrams presented were simply those portions of the telegrams received by Sir Evelyn Baring from General Gordon which Sir Evelyn Baring had transmitted to the Foreign Office. They fully stated what had occurred.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION" OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION" OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]

    COMMITTEE. [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming proceedings upon going into Committee.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR), who had an Amendment on the Paper, to the effect "That this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," said, he did not intend persevering with the Notice of Motion standing in his name; but he desired in the most emphatic manner to enter his protest against the measure. After referring to some of the anomalies that would be created by the Bill, if it passed—such, for instance, as that of a freeholder of the Borough of Hackney continuing to give his vote for the County of Middlesex—he maintained that in dealing with this question the House ought to have a complete measure before it. It ought not to be a piecemeal Reform, and he objected to this measure on the ground that it was a "bit by bit" Reform. It dealt very partially with one branch of the subject only, and it did not attempt to grapple with those anomalies which had been pointed out by his noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners). The anomalies complained of would be very much increased by this Bill. The House was told by the Prime Minister that he proposed early next Session to bring forward the complement of the Bill. He had said that the Bill which would be brought in would repress all those anomalies in their representation, and that it would make the measure a complete one. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) could not, however, understand why the precedents of 1832 and 1867 were not followed in dealing with this Bill. Why had the House not a complete measure before it? The right hon. Gentleman promised the complementary measure next February; but what security had the House that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to fulfil his pledge? A variety of causes might occur between this time and next February to prevent its fulfilment. There were certain contingencies attached to life itself of which they
    1066
    did not wish to think; there were foreign complications and numberless other events. They knew that the Prime Minister, very much to their regret, had been absent from the House recently owing to ill-health; and he might not be able, when the occasion arrived, to be present in the House to carry the Bill. It was on grounds such as these, therefore, that he wished to enter his protest against the bringing in of a partial Bill, and one which dealt with only one branch of the question. In addition to the reasons he had given, he ventured to take exception to the time at which the Bill had been brought forward. He greatly feared that if the Bill passed into law the Government would take advantage of that circumstance, and of the strength which it might give them in certain counties to dissolve Parliament. The country would then be appealed to on the present Bill, and without an opportunity having been given to consider the whole measure. Having regard to the present borough representation, and to the fact that several county seats might be gained under the new Bill, it was clear that it would be to the advantage of the Liberal Party to go to the country at an early date on this question. This seemed to be a dodge of the Birmingham caucus. If such a course were pursued, it would be unworthy of a great Government like the present. He regretted not to see the Secretary of the Board of Trade (Mr. Holms) in his place. His hon. Friend, some years ago, published an article in which he recommended that five years, instead of seven, should he the duration of Parliament. In this connection he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) wished to point out that, shortly after those views were propounded, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government came into Office, and he selected the hon. Gentleman, and made him a Member of the Government. He thought, therefore, he would not be far wrong were he to assume that the views of the hon. Member for Hackney were not altogether disagreeable to the Prime Minister. The present Parliament had now existed for more than four years, and were the views of his hon. Friend to be carried out they would naturally look for a Dissolution at the close of the present Session. He maintained, therefore, that this was not only an attempt to force the Bill through a moribund

    1067
    Parliament, but an attempt to foist the Bill on the country without allowing it to judge of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade evinced some curiosity about a speech which Lord Salisbury delivered when, on a recent occasion, he dined at the Mansion House. What Lord Salisbury said on that occasion was said in private, and he should be guilty of a breach of trust were he to tell the House what was then said by the noble Marquess. He had, however, no objection to tell the right hon. Gentleman what he himself said on that occasion. It was that it seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government, in bringing in this Bill, had taken for their motto—
    "Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo."
    That was the motto of the Government in regard to this Bill, and he pressed earnestly upon the noble Marquess to use his influence with that Assembly, of which he was a distinguished ornament, to give the country an opportunity of judging of this Bill. He knew that course was not popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Leeds, in a speech to his constituents, announced that the Government would not dissolve until they had passed all their measures. Considering the large number of measures of which Notice had been given, he considered the statement a somewhat extraordinary one. It certainly seemed to him that in a great change of this kind—the greatest change in our Constitution, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that had taken place since the Revolution of 1688—the country ought to be consulted. One of the leading Members of the Government had told the House that the passing of this measure would amount to a revolution. (He Mr. R. N. Fowler) certainly thought that in such a case they were not asking too much that the country should be consulted. Hon. Members opposite said the country was with them in this matter. If that were so, why should they fear to face the country? Members on the Opposition side of the House were greatly desirous that an appeal should be made to the country. But hon. Gentlemen opposite, who persisted in saying they were sure of the verdict, yet shrunk from the opportunity of inviting it. Now, he would ask the House and the country to judge which Party had confidence in the country—those who earnestly sought
    1068
    an appeal to its decision, or those who shrank from it? He would remind the House that both the preceding great measures of reform had been brought in early in the existence of the Parliament of the time. In the case of the Bill of 1831, Parliament had only met in the preceding year, while as to the Bill of 1867, the question of Reform had been brought up shortly after a Dissolution. The Parliament was elected in 1865, and in the following Session of 1866, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had brought in his Bill. Therefore, the country had had the question of Reform before it on both occasions. The present Bill, on the contrary, had been, brought in at the close of a Parliament. It was true that they had been told by the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) that it was the best Parliament that ever met at Westminster; but he doubted whether the opinion of the more experienced Members of the House would be similar. He hoped that before this great change was made they would be given the opportunity of knowing what was the opinion of the country. They would recollect that in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman opposite had brought in a suspensory Bill relating to the Irish Church which, after passing that House, had been rejected in the other House. The country had then been appealed to, and had decided in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, upon which the other House had given way. Similarly, he thought that if the country proved to be in favour of this Bill the other House should give way. He maintained that this measure ought not to be forced through the House when the country had not been consulted upon it. He thought that everyone must admit that at the last Dissolution this measure had not been a very prominent one before the constituencies. They had had the right hon. Gentleman opposite impeaching the policy of Lord Beaconsfield in Afghanistan, at the Cape, and everywhere; but there had been no question of a redistribution of that House. At that time they had not been aware what the Government might be; some people had thought that the noble Marquess, who was then Leader of the Opposition, would be at the head of the Government, and the Liberal Party had received a large amount of votes from those who thought that the noble Marquess was a

    1069
    man of great moderation. He objected to this Bill being rushed through a Parliament in its fifth year, without an appeal to the country, and he wished to make his humble protest against the course which had been pursued. He had placed his Motion on the Paper in order to have the opportunity of addressing a few words to the House on the subject, and, having gained that object, he did not propose to press it; he wished, however, to express his view that this measure ought not to be passed without an appeal to the country. Both sides had expressed their confidence in the result; then let it be tried. On that side of the House they looked with confidence to the result of that appeal; they thought that the country would stand by them. On the other hand, if hon. Gentlemen opposite were right in their views as to the opinion of the country they had nothing to dread, and if they did succeed, he hoped that those on his own side of the House would abide by the decision of the House, in the spirit of the illustrious Sir Robert Peel, who concluded one of his great speeches in 1832, in these memorable words—
    "If, Sir, the people of England, after meditating on these things, on the condition of foreign States, on the signs and indications at home of the probable consequences of this measure of Reform, still insist on its completion, their deliberate resolve will, no doubt, ultimately prevail. I shall bow to their judgment with the utmost respect; but my own opinions will remain unchanged. To all the penalties of maintaining these opinions—the withdrawal of public favour, the loss of public confidence, the incapacity for public service—I can and must submit. The people have the power, as they have the right, to inflict them; but they have neither the power nor the right to inflict that heavier penalty of involving me in their own responsibility, by making me the instrument for the accomplishing of an act by which we, the life-renters of those institutions which have made our country the freest, the happiest, and the most powerful nation of the universe, are to cut off from those who shall succeed us the inheritance of that which we ourselves enjoyed."
    MR. CHAPLIN, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
    "That this House considers that to largely increase the electoral privileges of the Irish people, at a time when vast numbers of the population are bitterly opposed to the English connection; when the object of their leaders and representatives in Parliament, openly avowed, is to sever that connection, and establish the National Independence of Ireland; and when the Government dare not even trust them
    1070
    with the full enjoyment of their ordinary civil rights, is inexpedient and dangerous to the welfare of the State, and cannot fail, with the present proportion and distribution of seats, to give strength and encouragement, in the prosecution of their aims, to the Separatist Party in Ireland."
    said, he held that the objections which had been made with reference to the action of the Bill upon Ireland were most serious, and, indeed, unanswerable. It was most necessary, now, that discussion should be raised upon that question. The senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had delivered a most powerful and effective speech on that point during the debate on the second reading, and not one single Member of Her Majesty's Government had even attempted to meet him in reply as far as he could see. That mode of proceeding, he had observed, was by no means uncommon with Her Majesty's Government; on the contrary, it seemed to be their invariable practice, whenever they were confronted with a more than usually awkward question, to do their utmost not to meet, but to shirk and evade it. This Bill was entitled "A measure to amend the laws relating to the representation of the people in Parliament;" but, for his own part, he would describe it very differently. So far as Ireland was concerned, it was simply a measure to facilitate the repeal of the Union, and to promote and encourage the separation of Ireland from England. He had not one single word of complaint to make against the course taken by the Irish National Party in the House upon the second reading, or the largely-added majority which they brought to a Division on that occasion. Naturally enough, the Irish National Party welcomed that Bill with open arms, because they observed and recognized quite clearly what its inevitable effects must be in Ireland. They were quite shrewd enough to see how large a step it had brought, or would bring them, nearer to the goal which they had in view. That goal was nothing less than the establishment of the national independence of their country. They had from the first never concealed it. He might deplore their objects, as well as the means by which they had sometimes sought to attain them; but he could not refuse to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends full credit for the candour

    1071
    and consistency with which they had always avowed those objects from the first; and, in that respect, he was bound to say their conduct contrasted very favourably with the conduct of some right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. He maintained that to the Irish Party this Bill was welcome because they saw in it an effective instrument to assist them in carrying out their schemes; but to Her Majesty's Government, on the other hand, this Bill—with all the stimulus and encouragement of an added force which it must give to the cause of separation—was the price which they were willing to pay for the support of the Irish vote at the approaching General Election. He thought the Government were wise in their generation, for they might depend upon this, that they would require every single vote they could command when the appeal was made from this Parliament, which they were seeking to betray, to a country which distrusted them, and, he believed, was thoroughly disgusted both with them and their proceedings. The Government had stated, with the utmost frankness from the first, that the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill was a vital and fundamental portion of their scheme. He (Mr. Chaplin) wished to speak, with equal frankness. If that was true, if that was the final position of the Government, if it was really impossible for the settlement of this question that the three countries should be separated, all this afforded, to his mind, an unanswerable argument in favour of postponing the question altogether until Ireland had become less disturbed, less hostile to this country, and more reconciled to the connection. Could anyone get up and say that Ireland was in that position of contentment, and tranquillity, and freedom from violent agitation, which all agreed was a most desirable, and many thought was an absolutely necessary, condition for the introduction of an organic change in the constitution of a country? The President of the Board of Trade during the Recess had used the argument that Ireland was never likely to be contented as long as they withheld that great act of justice, as it was called, from her. How long was it since Members of the Government had made that discovery? He would tell them. It was made by the President of the Board of Trade about two or three
    1072
    months before the assembling of Parliament, just after the Conference at Leeds had decided, so far as it was able to decide, that there should be some measure of Reform introduced in the present Session, and that, taking all things together, it was less dangerous to the interests of the Liberal Party, as a whole, that that measure should be extended to Ireland than that it should be withheld from that country. Now, they had not a shadow of ground for pretending either that the want of such a measure was the cause of disturbance and disaffection in Ireland, and that its adoption would be a remedy for those evils in future, or that it would be gratefully received by any portion of the Irish people, except in so far as it was likely to strengthen the cause of separation. Over and over again since he had been a Member of that House hon. Gentlemen opposite had come forward and said—"Oh, here is this great measure of justice to Ireland; it is imperatively necessary for the peace and tranquillity of that country; only pass this measure and all we be well." Even now his memory distinctly recalled the accents of the Prime Minister as to the "Upas tree"—the Established Church—which they used to be told was the bane, the misfortune, and the curse of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman asked them only to give him liberty to cut it down, and they would then see what they would see and have something approaching the Millennium in Ireland. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had had great majorities behind him, and had been able to do almost anything that he pleased in regard to that country. The Upas tree had been destroyed root and branch; but, unfortunately, instead of having the Millennium, they were on the virge of civil war in Ireland. That was not his own assertion, but the assertion of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who stated not long ago, at a public meeting, that it was only the presence of the Queen's troops in Ireland which prevented an actual outbreak in that country. The Government had been warned again and again from the Opposition side of the House of what would be the inevitable results of the pernicious policy which they had been so long pursuing. Many of the measures of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from being acts of justice, had

    1073
    been the most flagrant acts of injustice which it was possible to conceive, the gravest departure from all the sound principles of legislation which, up to the career of the right hon. Gentleman and his Irish policy, had been recognized in all civilized countries in the world; and they were beginning at last, as was not to be wondered at, to bear their natural fruits. When the right hon. Gentleman first embarked in his policy towards Ireland he had a golden opportunity of promoting the regeneration of that country, such as was rarely offered before to any English statesman. They could judge to some extent of the use that he had made of that opportunity by the Ireland they witnessed to-day. The chief difficulties which English Ministers and Parliaments had previously to deal with in Ireland were mainly of a social and economical character. The position of affairs there at present was unhappily far more serious; now, the difficulty was undoubtedly political; and it was to his mind one of the most terrible misfortunes of the whole Irish policy of the right hon. Gentleman that, while he had done much to render all satisfactory solution of the social problems in Ireland impossible, the political and and far more serious evils and dangers of that country were mainly, if not entirely, of his own creation. He had brought things to this condition—that while the proposal to extend the suffrage in Ireland was viewed with avowed anxiety and dismay by a great many Liberals in this country, and even by the noble Marquess, his Predecessor as the Leader of the Liberal Party, as was evident from his speeches in Lancashire, there were vast bodies of the people of England who regarded it as a positive and a grave danger to the State. Was it at all surprising, then, when they recollected how all their previous predictions as to the future of that country, and all their fair promises had been so completely falsified, if people were not disposed to place reliance on the latest specific and panacea of the Government, or to accept what they told them in regard to the extension of the suffrage in Ireland? It seemed to him that they could not possibly have selected a more unfavourable time for the experiment they now proposed to make. He constantly received a good deal of information about the present state of Ire-
    1074
    land from men who, he had every reason to believe were as competent to express an opinion on that question, and as well acquainted with it as any Member of the Government; and what he learned from one and all of them was that, except as far as open insurrection and disturbance could be prevented by the action of the Crimes Act, the state of Ireland at that moment was worse, more dangerous, more disloyal, and disaffected to this country than it had probably ever been before. Yet, in face of that, Ministers went down to the country and made smooth speeches, and said pleasant things, about the present condition of Ireland; and he believed that the President of the Board of Trade had recently said, to a great assembly in a northern county, that Ireland was in a far more improved state than it ever was during the last four years, and that except for the action of some troublesome Orangemen everything would be quiet and peaceful. He (Mr. Chaplin) would give a simple illustration of the real state of things by a circumstance that happened to come under his own notice. Not long ago, one of the principal land agents in the South of Ireland came over from that country to London, and called upon him on the very morning he arrived from Dublin. The land agent put into his hand a paper and said,—"Mr. Chaplin, no doubt you have been reading some of the speeches which Ministers have been making about the improved state of things in Ireland. What do you think of that?" On opening the paper, he found that it was a telegram which that gentleman had just received on his arrival in London from the chief inspector of police in Dublin, or of some other town—he forgot which—and it was to this effect—"We have received information that your life will probably be attempted while you are in London"—by an Invincible, he thought it said, or by an agent of some other association. "We have forwarded the information to the proper authorities in London; but it is absolutely impossible that you can take too great precautions." And the land agent said to him—"In the face of things happening like this, and happening every day, though probably you do not hear of them, is it not too hard on us in Ireland that Cabinet Ministers should go into the country and say that the state of Ireland is much better now than it ever

    1075
    has been in the past four years?" That gentleman had for many years had the charge of immense estates in the South of Ireland; and he had had the reputation of being one of the kindest and, towards his tenants, the most liberal of land agents in the country. It had been his own good fortune to spend some time at that gentleman's residence in Ireland just before the introduction of the Land Act; and he should never forget the conversation they had together on that occasion. They were speaking of the anticipated Act. His friend said—"In the county in which I live we have never had an agrarian outrage or an agrarian murder, I believe, in the memory of man. I have never had a difficulty, I have never even received a threatening letter, and I have lived in perfect friendship and amity with all I am concerned with. But," he added, "if this measure, or anything at all like it, is introduced into Parliament and carried, I would not give two years' purchase for my life if I still continue to perform my duties." Since that time he knew that that man's life had been attempted more than once—he believed several times; and such was his position that when he came to England he was met with a telegram such as he had described. Even when he went a few yards from his house to church, he was accompanied by armed policemen, he believed, on either side. He might give the House many other similar illustrations of some of the consequences which had resulted from the policy of the Prime Minister, but it was not necessary. He would content himself with appealing to the highest authority—namely, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Would that right hon. Gentleman get up in his place that night, and state to the House, that apart from the effects of the Crimes Act, he was able to discern any real permanent or lasting improvement in the condition of Ireland? If he could, why, then, did he continue to suspend the Constitution in that country? Some gentlemen had often asked him—"Why do you desire to withhold the suffrage from Ireland? Why make a distinction between the two countries?" When that question was put to him he always replied by asking another, and he should like to ask then the Chief Secretary, or the Prime Minister, or the Secretary for War—"Is the Crimes Act
    1076
    in Ireland indispensable to-day, or is it not?" If it was not, then it ought at once to be repealed. If it was, the Irish people were not fitted to receive the franchise, and those who asked him why he objected to its extension to Ireland had answered themselves. He should have thought that no body of men in the world out of Bedlam would support a measure like the Coercion Act side by side with a large extension of the suffrage. The two things were absolutely incompatible. It was impossible to contend that it could conduce to the interests, or the peace or prosperity of Ireland largely, to increase her electoral privileges when the Government dared not even trust the Irish people with the full enjoyment of their ordinary civil rights. What was the chief difficulty with which the Government had to contend at the present moment? It was that the present electorate of 200,000 and the Representatives whom they sent to Parliament were banded together, for the most part, for one purpose, which was by some means or other to compass the separation of Ireland from England. That purpose was perfectly clear to all who chose to see, and it was not less clear that a large extension of the suffrage would enormously strengthen the hands of the Separatist Party in Ireland. That fact was denied by no one single Minister or statesman in the country. There was one person, however—he referred to the President of the Board of Trade—who had thrown some doubts on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken somewhere in the country word of an ominous significance. He had said that whether the effect of the ex-extension of the suffrage would be to strengthen the cause of separation or not was not the question. What the Liberals had to ask was, what was the object of a representative system, and if it were faithfully to reflect the views of the constituencies, and the country was convinced of the necessity of such a system, it ought to be made a reality and not a sham, no matter what the consequences might be. No doubt those were also the views of many Gentlemen opposite. But had they considered what such a doctrine must inevitably lead to? He would like to have asked the President of the Board of Trade if he were in his place, what course he would take if the present electorate, and still

    1077
    more, if the future electorate which it was proposed to establish, should return to Parliament a large majority of Representatives pledged to the cause of National independence in Ireland? Was he prepared to accede to the request for separation or not? If not, what became of his plea that the representative system should be made a reality at once? If he was, his object ought to be proclaimed, and the country had a right to know what were the views of the President of the Board of Trade on that question. He did not know whether there might, or might not, be some future Kilmainham Treaty, but if the right hon. Gentleman remained silent after the challenge which he had made, there would be no alternative except to believe that, in certain circumstances arising in the future, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and those who shared his views were prepared to accede to the demand for the national independence of Ireland. But up to the present time there was no public man in England who would not have been prepared to utter an emphatic "No" a thousand times to any such proposition, and nobody had seen that more clearly than the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War. The noble Lord had, on various occasions, expressed his opinion on the subject of the extension of the suffrage to Ireland. Not long ago in Lancashire he had painted in vivid colours the condition of the country at the present time, and pointed out how the government of the 5,000,000 in that part of the world offered problems by the side of which the government of the remaining population of the Kingdom fell to absolute insignificance. But what conclusion did the noble Lord draw from that state of things; where was his logical consistency? It had been proved almost impossible to govern Ireland with an electorate of 200,000, and so, in order to make it three times more impossible, the noble Lord was prepared to increase the electorate to 600,000. The conduct of the noble Lord in that matter was open to grave and serious reproach, even if no harsher term might be applied. The noble Lord said not long ago, even with regard to local government in Ireland, that it would be absolute madness to grant it, unless some assurance were given by the Leaders of the Irish people
    1078
    that it would not be used to weaken the authority of the central Government at home. Was it not perfectly obvious that every word that the noble Lord said with regard to local government applied with ten-fold force to the extension of the suffrage? The noble Lord perceived it himself, for he went on to speak about the suffrage in the same speech. He then said—
    "There is no franchise possessed by the English people, there is no power which is either possessed or which may hereafter be conferred upon the English people which, from any national jealousy, we will withhold from Ireland so soon as we can be persuaded that the Irish people and their Leaders have reconciled themselves to the inevitable fact that they are and must remain an integral portion of the British Empire."
    The natural conclusion from that statement was that, so long as the Irish people failed to fulfil that condition, the noble Lord would withhold the suffrage. But the speech of the noble Lord was soon followed by a declaration made at a banquet in Dublin by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). That declaration was full of energy and full of Irish aspirations, and expressed a determination never to rest for a moment until they had gained the objects they had in view. The hon. Member for the City of Cork said—
    "Beyond a shadow of doubt it will be for the Irish people in England, separated, isolated as they are, and for the independent Irish Members, to determine at the next General Election whether a Tory or a Liberal Ministry shall rule England, This is a great force and a great power. This force has already gained for Ireland inclusion in the coming Franchise Bill. We have reason to be proud, hopeful, and energetic, determined that this generation shall not pass away until it has bequeathed to those who come after us the great birthright of national independence."
    That was the reply of the Irish Leaders to the noble Lord, and in face of that reply he asked the noble Lord how he could reconcile his previous utterances with the action he was taking on that occasion? In reply to the suggestion that the question should be postponed altogether until the condition of Ireland had changed, only two answers had been made in the course of that debate, one negative and the other affirmative. The Chief Secretary said that it would be monstrous to deprive England and Scotland of their undoubted right of which they had already been deprived for

    1079
    many years because of the dislike entertained towards extending the franchise in Ireland; and the Prime Minister cast aside all obligation to produce arguments for the Bill, and said that the addition of every capable citizen to the constituency must inevitably give strength to the the State. He (Mr. Chaplin) took issue with both right hon. Gentlemen upon the arguments which they had used. He denied altogether that the exercise of the suffrage, or the extension of it, was to be treated as a right. If it was to be regarded as a right, that position was inconsistent with the support of the Bill. It extended the suffrage to 2,000,000 more; but what about the rights of all the rest who were excluded? If it was a right in one case, surely it was equally a right in the other; and, therefore, the pretence that it was a right that could not be withheld was absolutely worthless. The Prime Minister was most unfortunate in his illustration of the grounds on which he supported the measure, for he alluded to America, where it was notorious that the prevalence of corruption deterred the most able and competent men from having anything to do with public life. The right hon. Gentleman said that addition to the electorate would necessarily give strength to the State; but would that be done by the increase of the electorate in Ireland? The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in his speech at Edinburgh, pointed out that the position of Ireland was always a source of danger and anxiety, and that, in case of war or foreign complication, it would become one of absolute peril to the State. Would the condition of things be improved by the increase of the electorate in Ireland as well as England? But to come nearer home still, did the Prime Minister think that the last extension of the franchise had improved the condition of the House of Commons and made it more useful? If so, his memory ought to undeceive him on that point, for it was not so long ago that, owing to the terrible depth to which the House had fallen from its ancient traditions, the right hon. Gentleman had found it necessary to propose arbitrary rules for its government, without which he declared that the transaction of Business would be absolutely impossible. All this had arisen from the last extension of the franchise, the real
    1080
    effect of which we were only just beginning to perceive. He could not conceive how it was possible for the right hon. Gentleman to believe that in a further addition to the electorate there would be an accession of strength to the State. The proposal he (Mr. Chaplin) made was virtually a proposal not to exclude Ireland from the suffrage it was proposed to confer on England and Scotland, but to postpone the settlement of the question altogether, until Ireland was in a fit state to receive it. Surely hon. Members opposite, who were proud of the Irish legislation of their Chief, who sang paeans in praise of the measures passed, would be the last to suppose that the fruits of these magnificent effects of statesmanship, the halcyon days of Ireland, could be long postponed. Unless the Government was convinced that the vast majority of the Irish people were not bitterly opposed to the connection with England, that it was not the purpose of their Leaders in Parliament or the country to sever that connection and establish national independence, and that the extension of the suffrage would not largely strengthen the cause of separation between the two countries, he had made out a case for the postponement of this question. Whatever objections there might be to postponing it in England and Scotland, they would not bear comparison for a moment with the objections to extend the suffrage in Ireland at the present time. He had only to consider the course which on this occasion he should pursue. He knew perfectly well that he should have banded together against him the whole Irish Party and the whole Radical Party. Was that likely to further the ultimate object he had in view? It was not the part of a wise general, on any occasion, to court an overwhelming defeat. Believing that the full statements of the views he entertained upon this question might possibly have as much influence, and, perhaps a more favourable influence, than an overwhelming Division against him, he should not move the Amendment which stood in his name, but he should merely record his protest by saying "No !" to the Motion "That the Speaker do leave the Chair."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not yet realized the full effect of the closing statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), which is, I may say,

    1081
    one of the most remarkable that I have ever heard in this House. The hon. Gentleman has compared himself to a wise general who has, on this occasion, undertaken to march at the head of the Party opposite in support of an Amendment; but who, at the last moment, has remembered that prudence is the better part of valour, and has announced to us that, after all, he does not mean to fight. But the hon. Gentleman, although he is most pacific in his acts, is undoubtedly very warlike in his words, and in his use of big ones. Of them I have rarely heard any hon. Gentleman favour this House with a more abundant supply. There are parts of what the hon. Gentleman has said which I must say I hope will receive very specific notice from those Irish Members to whom he has so pointedly alluded. The hon. Gentleman has put upon the Paper allegations, that vast numbers of the Irish people are bitterly opposed to the English connection, and that the avowed objects of their Leaders and Representatives is to sever that connection, and to establish a national and independent Ireland. Well, Sir, undoubtedly the majority of the Representatives of Ireland sitting in this House, would not consent to, or admit, the truth of either of those allegations. The majority of the Irish Members were returned at the General Election to support what is termed Home Rule; but there are many—I am not able to say how many—of those who support what they term Home Rule who have, at all times, indignantly repudiated the doctrine that Home Rule is equivalent to severance of the English connection. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear those cheers. I was going to say that the hon. Gentleman near me, the Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw), at the time when he was actively engaged in representing the feelings and opinions of the great body of the Irish Members in this House, made a speech which, I am certain, conveyed to the minds of those who heard it the firmest conviction that, while he was a supporter of Home Rule, he was the friend, and not the enemy, of the English connection. I believed then, and I believe still, that there are many, even of those who are considered the extreme Irish Party, that share that sentiment of my hon. Friend. It is for them, however, to make plain the position they hold. I
    1082
    am not at all sorry that they have been challenged by the hon. Gentleman, in the Motion which is printed on the Papers of the House, and which, I hope, and for my own part believe, to be a libel upon those vast numbers of the Irish people to whom it refers; but it is for them, I admit, to explain, defend, and vindicate themselves as they may think proper. I say so much, because, undoubtedly, it is needless for me to deal with a Motion which has vanished into thin air. I did suppose, when I heard and listened to the hon. Gentleman throughout his speech, speaking of his proposals, that he was really going to propose them. But I find that these are proposals the essence of which is that they are not to be proposed; because the hon. Gentleman thinks that, upon the whole, he may trust to the influence of the oration which he has given to produce, if not the outright conversion, at least, a fundamental change in the attitude of men's minds' in and out of the House, the effect of which might have been marred if a Division had taken place. I only say this upon the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. He says that he withdraws it, because he would have had against him the whole Irish Party and the whole Radical Party. I believe he had other reasons for withdrawing it, besides his apprehension of those two Parties; and, that, among the reasons for withdrawing it, was the advice he received from the most prudent, and perhaps the most experienced and influential of those who sit on his own side. I was going to have asked the hon. Gentleman, what I need not ask now, what we are really discussing? Referring to his speech, which is the only thing we have to discuss, I shall only think it necessary to say a very few words. The hon. Gentleman accuses the Government of having brought in a Bill for the enlargement of the franchise in Ireland, and bringing it to a footing of equality with England and Scotland, at the price of the Irish vote at the coming Election. Is that a fair accusation? Is this the first time on which we have endeavoured to enlarge the Irish constituencies? Have we not again and again, during past years, and without the slightest idea or prospect of the Irish vote—have we not again and again supported the Irish Members in their endeavours to

    1083
    obtain an extension of the franchise to Ireland as regards equality? For be it remembered that, at this moment, Ireland does not possess that equality. Neither in the counties nor in the towns of Ireland is the Irish constituency to be compared, I do not say in numbers, but as to their legislative basis, with the constituency long granted to England and Scotland. I understand the speech of the lion. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman modestly described the gist of his own opinions, when he said his Party wanted to postpone altogether the question we are now debating; but, Sir, they go a great deal further than that, and the hon. Gentleman is entitled to much greater praise for verbal than for rhetorical courage; because the hon. Gentleman, towards the close of his speech, entered upon an indignant denunciation of the existing franchise in England and Scotland, stating it was only now that gradually we were beginning to develop and find out the mischievous effects of the franchise; and, in that view, though modesty prevented the hon. Gentleman from even printing the Motion, and withdrawing it upon the subject, yet he should have brought forward one for the repeal of the Act of 1867, for nothing less than that is the true outcome of the speech which he delivered, and from which he expects that such great political results will arise. Now, Sir, with respect to this Bill, as to which we are charged with having sought the Irish vote, I refer to our conduct during the past 10 years upon every occasion when the subject of the Irish franchise has been mooted in this House. With respect to the Bill, let me consider a little the objections taken by the hon. Gentleman against it. The hon. Gentleman says that Ireland is in a dreadful state, and that he will challenge any Minister to declare that its condition has improved, except through the operation of coercive measures.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I said any permanent or lasting improvement in its condition.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly. That leaves a refuge to the hon. Gentleman; because if I say or allege actual improvement, he may say it is not permanent or lasting. He calls the future to his aid when the present does not sufficiently bear him out, or answer his purpose. The fact of an improvement
    1084
    in the state of Ireland I should have thought, if that word "improvement" be rightly understood, is an undeniable fact. I do not deny that, in certain respects, it may be urged that the state of Ireland has not improved—that is to say, that the Parliamentary controversy between a large body of the Irish Members, who may in another Parliament become the majority of those Members, the majority of the rest of this House, is not yet solved—not, perhaps, yet even mitigated. I do not underrate the importance of that Parliamentary controversy. It may cause great inconvenience and great uneasiness. My share in it is nearly at an end, and it will last, probably, longer than the short residue of my political life. But what will be the upshot of it? Debating here, voting, cross voting, the disturbance possibly of a Ministry, and the Dissolution possibly of a Parliament? All these things may arise from the political controversy between the Irish Members and a certain section, especially if they be raised to a considerable majority, or a majority at all, of the Irish Representatives for the rest of Ireland. But what then? Does that imply that Ireland is lost, or that its state is less happy than before? When I speak of the improved condition of the country, I mean the improvement in the lives and conditions of the human beings who inhabit it. [Mr. ONSLOW: Loyalty!] That is what I understand by the improvement of the country. I speak of their lives and conditions. That constitutes the improvement of a country. Their political temper is another matter—a very important one—not one which I will take into view now, but I will presently refer to it. I affirm that great as the improvement in the condition of the people of Ireland now is, as respects personal and domestic happiness, as respects the hearths and homes, the very essence of human life, their condition as compared with the condition of their forefathers for many generations is vastly superior. If I may take the external evidence of that improvement, I do not deny that there is yet much to be desired; but hon. Gentlemen should know that the outrages perpetrated in Ireland are trifling in number compared with those that have unfortunately characterized former years. I believe I would be correct in saying not only that

    1085
    they have enormously diminished since-the crisis of the great social struggle three years ago, but that they are less than half what they were at the time the present Government took office. The hon. Gentleman, says—"Do not extend the political franchise to Ireland at a time when you have got an Act on the Statute Book in derogation of the civil rights and liberties of the people." The doctrine of the hon. Gentleman reaches a long way. If you are to withhold all extension of political franchise from Ireland, while there are exceptional laws abridging civil liberty, unfortunately you never would have given any political franchise to Ireland at all, for there has hardly been a period when Borne exceptional law or other of that character has not been in existence. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite, I will not echo the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman; for I am sure I am correct in saying that, in 1868, when the political franchises of Ireland were extended, exceptional laws still existed, and I am not sure that the Habeas Corpus Act was not suspended in Ireland at that time. The hon. Gentleman refers to the case of gentlemen who are in personal fear in Ireland—personal fear and danger of their lives. It is not difficult under the thin disguise of the hon. Gentleman's description to imagine whose life had been threatened by some of those whom the hon. Gentleman calls "Invincibles." Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that these Invincibles are a fair specimen of the people of Ireland, or that the people of Ireland generally are in sympathy with their attempts? I believe, for my part, no such thing. I believe they are the greatest enemies of the people of Ireland. I believe the people of Ireland will more and more come to recognize them as their greatest enemies. I am sure there is but one course which can tend to identify the people of Ireland with these wicked men, and that is, that we should pursue a course ungenerous and unjust towards the people. The hon. Gentleman referred to America. I am always sorry when I hear severe imputations cast upon the institutions of America by hon. Members speaking in this House. We should not relish it, if the practice were applied to ourselves; and I question the taste as well as the justice of it, except with very great care and much
    1086
    reserve. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States have not had the same experience in legislative matters as we have had. I quoted the case of America for a purpose which I think was unimpeachable. It was to show how, in America, with a vast constituency, an enormous vigour and vitality had been developed by the Constitution of the country in the struggle of 1861 to 1865—a struggle, I believe, such as never fell to the lot of any other people in modern history. It was for the vigour and vitality given to the Constitution, for the strength, the tenacity, and the persistency which the people assumed over the working of the Constitution, for their devoted self-sacrifice, for their patriotism, which seemed to burn brighter and brighter in proportion as difficulties grew more and more embarrassing—it was for this purpose I quoted the American Constitution in my speech in introducing the Bill. I do not think the argument was misapplied, as it tends to show that a wide suffrage has a great effect in giving the Constitution a hold upon the minds and hearts of the people, and disposing the people to make the most manful and devoted efforts on its behalf. The hon. Member says the Americans are rather disadvantageously situated in point of purity. How long has it taken us to attain a decent standard of purity? I am not even sure that we have attained it yet. I am not quite certain that American elections would not one by one compare pretty favourably, even at the present day, with English elections. But America has a young Constitution compared with ours. She has for 100 years presented the picture of an independent and growing nation. She has undoubtedly, under very great temptations, shown from time to time weak points in the conduct of her public men and her local politicians, not all over the country, but in some particular localities. But we, at any rate, have passed through that phase, and if we have now emerged from it: for I am not certain that we have, in all respects, emerged from it. But, at any rate, it has taken us 200 years to get through, or to make any serious progress in getting rid of the political corruption. When America has as yet had experience of but half the time, I think really we might restrain the censorious tongue, and be a little more considerate in dealing with

    1087
    America under this chapter. The hon. Gentleman says he sees danger to the State in the extension of the franchise—[Mr. CHAPLIN: To Ireland.] No; the hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, was general. He said—" I will not admit that raising the constituency is a means of strengthening the Constitution of the country." He seems to think that, with a sufficiently narrow franchise, the Government is pretty safe, But he follows up that opinion by the censure he has passed upon the Act of 1867, and the last great extension of the franchise. Sir, narrowing the franchise is not a protection against rebellion or revolution. There is a Republic in France, resting upon a franchise of the very broadest basis; and that Republic, so far as we can see, does not exhibit any sign of gross weakness or debasement. We are very fond of referring to bye-elections in this country. You see bye-elections take place in France. Do those bye-elections indicate that the people of France have changed their minds, and are ready to bring about a great change in their institutions? But they have now this enormously-extended franchise. What sort of franchise had they under the Bourbons, and under Louis Philippe? If I remember right, the constituency was 80,000 under the Bourbons, and under Louis Philippe 150,000 or 200,000; and yet, as sure as 15 or 20 years passed, revolution came, though the franchise was limited in a manner to content the heart even of the hon. Gentleman. Do they show any great desire to go back to the former state of things? If, unhappily, a people are not attached to their institutions, then, whether the franchise be wide or narrow, that discontent and that want of attachment will make themselves fatally shown; but where a people are attached to their institutions, where every man in the country glories in belonging to that country, where the law stands in general respect and harmony with the views of the enormous majority of the people—where the desire of the people, upon the whole, is to improve, but yet, while improving, to preserve and to hand down in substance to their posterity that which they have received from their forefathers—there is a case which, happily, in the main corresponds with our case, and there it is, that to broaden the constituency is to strengthen the
    1088
    Constitution. With respect to Ireland, the real question first is—is this, in our view, a United Kingdom? If it is a United Kingdom, is the hon. Gentleman in his right, if he gets and demands from us that Ireland shall remain as she now is, with a franchise grossly unequal, with a franchise extremely limited as compared with the franchise enjoyed in England and Scotland? And I want to know on what principle—if, as I suppose, the hon. Member defends the Union with Ireland—on what principle is it possible to defend it, except upon the principle that the aim of that Act is to introduce Ireland to the enjoyment of equal rights with those of England and Scotland? It is impossible to maintain the Act of Union or any form of connection between the countries upon the principles of the hon. Gentleman. For the Irish people will not submit, and I must say—I am speaking, of course, of constitutional submission and constitutional resistance—but, speaking within these limits, I not only say that they will not submit, but I say that I rejoice they will not submit, to the inequality which the hon. Gentleman desires to inflict upon them, and, as I may say, as respects the franchise, to perpetuate in the form in which it now exists. There is one objection which I feel to speeches like the speech of the hon. Gentleman on which I will yet say a single word. I am vexed at the amount of compliment that the hon. Gentleman pays to Irish Members of what we call extreme opinions—I do not mean by these compliments the great value that he sets upon getting their votes in the same Lobby with himself, but the compliment which is essentially involved in his whole strain of argument. He appears to think that Irish voters' Representatives meeting English and Scottish voters' Representatives upon a footing of equality, and with the principles of justice, alike acknowledged and applied on either side, are not only formidable, but are absolutely irresistible. He seems to think he will terrify us out of our seven senses by alluding to the state of things which will arise under the Bill, as to which he says there is to be a very large majority of Irish Members following the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). [An hon. MEMBER: Do you not think it will be

    1089
    so?] Yes; but I think I am entitled to put this question to the hon. Gentleman—Does he not also think there would be a large majority of Members returned in the same sense if he succeeded in maintaining the present system? The question between Great Britain and Ireland does not depend upon the comparatively paltry difference between 70 Members, or 80 Members, or 90 Members in a particular Parliament. It depends upon one thing more than any other, and that is the avoidance of injustice. Why are we to be told that 400,000 persons, added to the constituency in Ireland, are to carry all before them, and to prevent us from exercising in this, or a future Parliament, an independent 'judgment on the connection of the two countries? Why are we to be told this, when we bear in mind that if there are 5,000,000 in Ireland there are 30,000,000 people in Great Britain; and if there are 500,000 or 400,000 persons going to be added to the Irish constituency, there are 1,500,000 persons going to be added to the already vast English and Scottish constituencies? Why, then, should we be afraid to look in the face the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork and all his coadjutors? I know but one thing which can inspire craven fear in our minds, or which can for a moment weaken the position of England, or derogate from the power of the Imperial Parliament to govern this great country—England, Scotland, and Ireland—and all the Empire according to law and the Constitution. I know but one thing that can weaken it, and that is, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork is able to rise in his place, and say that we are attempting to inflict upon Ireland the brand of social and political inequality, and to make the Act of Union, which professes to be an Act of equality and justice, an Act, on the contrary, under cover of which we are to maintain a state of laws which denies to Ireland the rights which we grant to the rest of the Kingdom. That, I frankly own, is my view, and I believe it is the view of the majority of this House, and of the people of this country as well. I do wish the hon. Gentleman and those who think with him would do a little more justice, if not to themselves, at least to their country. If, for argument's sake, I am to regard this as a great controversy between the two Islands, I say to
    1090
    those who profess to represent the population on this side of the water, surely we are strong enough in numbers, in wealth, and in ancient tradition. That being so, there is but one other item that matters a feather weight in the case—let us be as strong in right as we are in population, wealth, and historic traditions, and we shall have abundant force to settle our accounts in whatever may be founded on justice, or can fairly be demanded for the people of Ireland, with their Representatives. I make no complaint of the lion. Member's raising this question. It is a perfectly fair question to be debated, and it may be said to have attracted only a limited attention in the course of the previous debates. But I must say that while I am sorry for many of the opinions which have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I rejoice that he has not seen fit to ask the House to assent to the terms of his Motion. It shows, after all, that we are making some advance in political knowledge and experience; and that, even if extravagant opinions can be vented in a speech, there is too much modesty, too much prudence and wisdom on the part of the speaker, to ask the House of Commons to inscribe them on its records.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) throughout the whole of his speech had treated the franchise as a right. He (Mr. Newdegate) remembered hearing the right hon. Gentleman defend it as a trust. He remembered the right hon. Gentleman as a Colleague of Lord Palmerston, who held to the last that it was a fundamental maxim of the Constitution that the franchise was conferred as a trust; and that it was essential that men, or rather classes, should be recognized as trustworthy citizens, before they were permitted to possess any share of political power. The right hon. Gentleman held up the example of the Republic of the United States to guide them who were anxious to preserve Constitutional Monarchy. The right hon. Gentleman cited the success of manhood suffrage in carrying the great Republic through the Civil War, but said nothing of its effects in preventing civil war, or of the success of the Constitution of this country, which had preserved its internal peace for nearly 200 years. The right hon. Gentleman must have gratified

    1091
    the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who was an avowed Democrat, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Newdegate) hoped he was not violating any confidence when he said that the first time he met the President of the Board of Trade, immediately after his election as Mayor of Birmingham, that right hon. Gentleman told him, within five minutes after being introduced to him in the presence of the assembled Volunteer officers of Birmingham, that he was a Republican. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was based upon Democratic principles. He (Mr. Newdegate) regretted that the late Lord Beaconsfield should have entered into competition with the right hon. Gentleman, in seeking the applause of Democracy, when he passed the Act of 1867. But there was a great reservation in that Act. The household and lodger franchise was not, by that Act, extended to the counties, which contain the majority of the people, especially in Great Britain. Now, however, the Prime Minister proposed to extend that franchise to the counties. What did the action of the late Lord Beaconsfield and of the right hon. Gentleman amount to, if not to mere competition for the favour of Democracy? He remembered the Prime Minister when he was a very different politician. The right hon. Gentleman, in an article written some years ago, in answer to a very able article by Mr. Lowe, now Lord Sherbrooke, eulogized the character and conduct of the House of Commons as it existed between 1832, when the first Reform Bill was passed, and 1852. After 1852, there was, according to the right hon. Gentleman, a deterioration. He (Mr. Newdegate) would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any improvement had taken place since 1867? In defiance of the warning of Lord Russell, the right hon. Gentleman was about to introduce that uniformity of suffrage which, according to his late Colleague, must create a mass of discontent among all those who were excluded. We were now on our way to the manhood suffrage of the United States. The right hon. Gentleman eulogized manhood suffrage, because it had carried the United States through a great civil war. The right hon. Gentleman forgot to notice the fact that,
    1092
    with our existing institutions, we had hitherto avoided civil war. Members sitting on his (Mr. Newdegate's) side of the House had rightly endeavoured to obtain from the Government some information about the intended redistribution of seats. If the Government were going to act on the principle of equality, the county population would demand a more adequate share of representation than it possessed at present. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear !] If such a change of the principle of equality was to be observed, it would involve a revolution. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] The right hon. Gentleman objected to his using the term revolution. Perhaps, when he next addressed the House, he might coin some new word to convey his meaning. The system that would then exist would approach very nearly to that of equal electoral districts, and would be another step in the direction of Democracy. Let the House remember that they were dealing with the majority of the English people. The population of the counties in England and Wales numbered 13,688,902, the county Members were 187, the borough population numbered 12,285,537, while the borough Members were 297. Why should the county population submit to this gross inequality of representation? He would warn the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who was the present Leader of what was the Conservative Party, that they had had one great success, thanks to his hon. Neighbours from Ireland. When an attempt was made to introduce Atheism into the House, they acted on a specific principle for a specific object; then the Party was recognized again as Conservative of a great principle, and they succeeded. He (Mr. Newdegate) was the senior ex-organizer of the Constitutional Party in the House; and he warned the right hon. Baronet that the Liberal Party, from their very name, bespoke universal relaxation. The name of Liberal was derived from the Latin verb libero, and meant quod liberat, that which loosens. It would be an inconsistent and absurd attempt on the part of the defenders of the Constitution, if they tried to compete in Democratic concessions with the Liberal Party. He knew enough of Englishmen to believe that those were to be found who were not ashamed of

    1093
    the liberty which their un enfranchised fathers enjoyed when the franchise was limited, before 1832. Unless Conservatives were found who would maintain the principles of the Constitution against Democratic assaults such as were now being made, the present Conservative Party would lapse; and then, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) would have to make another whirl about and resume the character in which he (Mr. Newdegate) first knew him, that of a genuine Conservative.
    MR. R. POWERsaid, he should not attempt to follow the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) through the rather wide discussion which he had raised; but he could not help expressing the feelings of gratitude and pleasure with which he (Mr. R. Power) had listened to the statement made by the Prime Minister. During the whole of the time he had been in the House, he did not think he had ever read a more extraordinary, or more extravagant, Amendment than that in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and its extravagance was only equalled by the extravagance of the language in which it was introduced. He could not congratulate the Tory Party upon their tactics on this occasion. They reminded him of the tactics of the Egyptian Army, when those in the rear cried "forward," and those in the front cried "back." Really, the Tory Party, in their opposition to the Bill, sought, by every means in their power, to dwindle down and whittle away the benefits which it would confer on the people of the Three Kingdoms; and though they were disgracefully beaten in their efforts on the second reading by a majority of 130, yet it ought not to be forgotten that in their future opposition to the measure they would have to contend with far smaller majorities; for he had no doubt, in their tactics and dilatory Motions, they would be ably assisted and cheered on by such Liberals as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey). It was now over 80 years since the Irish Members first came to that House to ask for their country the same rights and privileges which the people of England and Scotland possessed; and although they only asked for an equalization of the law, for
    1094
    a measure that in no way was revolutionary or novel, yet the Irish Members had, up to the present moment, found it impossible to get for their countrymen the same electoral privileges and rights which Englishmen and Scotchmen possessed. It was a sad, if not disgraceful, condemnation of the English rule in Ireland to find that after 80 years of so-called Union there were so many gross inequalities remaining between the two countries; and that, when they had brought forward Reform Bills and measures for the improvement of their municipal institutions, they had always carefully excluded Ireland from the provisions of those measures. When the late Mr. Butt first formed a Party in that House, his great idea was that, by united action, the Irish Members could compel Parliament to accede to their just and legitimate demands; and for many Sessions no man laboured harder or pleaded more eloquently in any cause, yet he (Mr. R. Power) regretted to say Mr. Butt passed away without having accomplished any of the reforms for which he so eloquently pleaded; and it was not till his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) took up a firmer attitude that English statesmen at last listened to the demands of Irish Members. The question now before the House—Or rather the question which would be before the House if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had the courage to stick to his Amendment was—Are you going to give the same rights and privileges to the people of Ireland, which you are prepared to give to the people of England? Are you going to say to the Irish people—"We do not intend to give give you those rights?" You must pay our taxes, fight our battles, obey our laws, and support our institutions; but we shall not give you those rights and privileges, because you are our inferiors in intellectual and moral qualities. The principle which he believed underlay this Bill was, that they could only exclude from the franchise those who were unfitted to exercise it through want, either of intelligence or integrity; and he maintained that the Irishman was at least equal to the Englishman in either of these two qualities. Let them, for one moment, glance at the gross inequalities which existed between the two countries on this question of the franchise. He should

    1095
    not weary the House with many figures, "because he was aware the House disliked figures almost as much as he did himself. He should only take the five principal towns of Ireland. Dublin had a population of 267,717, and the franchise was enjoyed by only 12,310; whereas Leeds, with a population of 259,000, had 49,300 electors. Belfast had a population of 174,413, and yet only 19,633 electors; while Aberdeen, with a population of 88,125, had 13,738 electors. Cork had a population of 100,518, and yet it had only 4,445 electors; whereas Greenock, with half the population, had 7,614 electors. Lastly, Waterford, which had a population of 29,918, had only 1,414 electors; whereas Grimsby, with a population of 3,000 less, had actually 5,205 electors. He could give further examples of inequality; but, surely, if figures could prove anything, those figures must conclusively prove to an impartial mind the gross unfairness and injustice of the inequalities which existed. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire said reducing of the franchise was a dangerous and revolutionary measure, particularly as regarded Ireland. Well, that argument he (Mr. R. Power) had heard applied to almost every measure, however great or small, which had ever been introduced in that House, and it was always applied to Reform Bills. It was applied to the Reform Bill of 1832, and yet that Bill did not produce a revolution. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire might think Irishmen were not fit to exercise equal privileges with his own countrymen, and might believe them to be inferior in intellect and integrity or moral qualities; but the hon. Member might depend upon it that, the more England refused to them the demands of fairness and justice, the more irresistible and stronger would they make the claim of Irishmen for the legislative independence of their country. There was no danger in allowing the Irishman to exercise his vote; but there was real danger in shutting Irishmen out from the benefits and privileges of free representative institutions. They might depend upon it that the greater the rights enjoyed by Irishmen under the rule of the Constitution, the more would the Constitution be respected; and they would improve the social and moral condition of the Irish people, by giving them an interest in,
    1096
    and control over, the affairs of their own country. Conservatives, of course, called this measure revolutionary; and he (Mr. R. Power) was surprised that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not say something in his very discursive speech about the Pope. There were very few of the hon. Gentleman's long orations in which he did not bring up the name of that Potentate. Several hon. Members feared the influence of the Catholic clergy under the Bill. They tried to conjure up the nightmare of Catholic ascendency; but he (Mr. R. Power) would ask the House to allow him to read to them a passage from a speech that was delivered a few years ago by a Gentleman who represented in that House, not only the Irish Protestant Party, but also the Irish Orange Party. Mr. W. Johnston, the Member for Belfast, speaking on the question of the franchise, said—
    "The Protestant population of Ireland had no fear of their fellow-countrymen in other parts of Ireland, and they asked for equal and fair justice for all portions of the Kingdom, and, therefore, he supported the measure cordially."
    He (Mr. Power) hoped his hon. Friend the present Member for Belfast would, upon this occasion, express some amount of liberality, and support the Bill before the House. There was more evil in excluding Ireland from the provisions of this Bill than at first might be apparent to many hon. Members. He did not conceal the fact that, among a certain portion of his countrymen, a feeling of the utter hopelessness of gaining anything from that Parliament was becoming stronger every day. If Parliament denied to Irishmen this extension of the franchise, it would declare that they were not the equals of Englishmen; and he would ask, if Irishmen were not their equals, why should they be there at all? Englishmen, he knew, were very fond of calling Ireland the Sister Country; but, to his mind, they treated it far more like a step-daughter than a sister. They had reduced the condition of political affairs to this—that they must either give the franchise to the Irish people, or govern that country by force of arms; and if they had to do that, they would find it a very expensive and very unpleasant undertaking. Depend upon it, if the people of Ireland were driven into illegal excesses, it would be because Parliament denied them equal privileges; and

    1097
    when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire spoke about all the horrors and evils that would ensue if the franchise were extended to the Irish labourer, he forgot the best safeguard against all those evils would be the very granting-of the franchise to those people. The hon. Member seemed to forget that it was the curtailment of rights and privileges which, in every country and every age, had driven men into excesses and rebellion. He was no true friend of either England or Ireland, who, in that House, had not the courage to speak the opinions which he believed actuated his countrymen at home; and he (Mr. R. Power) would ask the House what answer were Irish Members to make to their countrymen in Ireland and abroad, when these asked them how it was that it took over 30 years to gain from the English Parliament a measure of simple justice, and when they sneered at them for going into an Assembly that had branded their countrymen with a mark of inferiority? These men who so sneered at them entertained more extravagant opinions than they (the Irish Members) did, and had little or no belief in Constitutional agitation; and the House of Commons, if it excluded Ireland from the Bill, would be the best friends of unconstitutional agitation in Ireland. Aye, the men of whom he spoke would welcome their action. They were watching many movements of that House, in the hope that England might refuse to give to Ireland the privileges they themselves possessed. It looked very like, indeed, as if some parties in that House wished always to have an Irish difficulty; but they ought to take care lest the Irish difficulty might some day become an Irish impossibility. The Conservative opponents of the Bill had two logical reasons, from their point of view, for opposing it. First of all, the Tory Party feared the people; and, secondly, they knew that the Bill must be followed by a Redistribution Bill, and that the Redistribution Bill must destroy many of the small boroughs in England, over which the Conservatives had so much influence. In some respects the loss of these boroughs would be a loss to that House; and he (Mr. R. Power) feared, as a result, that they might lose some of their most distinguished men. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would no longer
    1098
    be there to whisper to them the secrets of every European Cabinet; and even his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) might also go away, without having accomplished the dream of his youth—the abolition of patent medicines. He was sorry to say that it was even possible they might lose the presence of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); and, thereby, no longer witness that interesting and consistent spectacle of an hon. Member vehemently denouncing the Government, and the next minute supporting them by his vote. Speaking seriously, he believed that if the Bill were passed they would strengthen the Constitution of England; they would bring into that House the true Representatives of the Irish people; and it would then be for them to declare, in an unmistakable way, the amount of self-government which they were prepared to give the Irish people in the affairs of their own country.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not think the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) required any answer from the Irish Benches, especially as it had been so effectively replied to by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; but, as the right hon. Gentleman said he thought a duty lay upon the Irish Members to make some remarks upon the subject, he (Mr. Sullivan) would just submit a few considerations on the Motion to the judgment of the House, He did not, however, consider the occasion called for much exertion on his part, seeing that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire had not the courage to face a Division. The case against Ireland was so bad, that he dared not submit it even to an English House of Commons, and his arguments were utterly without basis or foundation. The hon. Member said that, inasmuch as the condition of Ireland at present was unsatisfactory, it should be allowed to remain so, except in so far as it could be made very much worse than it was at present. The hon. Member further urged that the Irish people were not well contented with English rule, and that additional power ought not to be put into their hands. But if the Irish people to-day were disaffected, how had that state of things been brought about? Was it not by the denial of justice, by

    1099
    the withdrawing of the rights of the people, by the denial to them of those privileges freely accorded to the people of England? It was those things that had made the Irish people discontented and disaffected; and the hon. Member thought he would improve that state of things by an act of flagrant injustice. He thought it was most extraordinary that such a proposal should be advanced with an idea of its being accepted by any human being possessed of reasoning faculties, or any assembly of intelligent men in that or any other part of the world. It was like telling a captive that he would have no relief from his chains, which were to be allowed to eat into his flesh until he did not care to be released. It was like telling a hungry man that he would have no bread until he did not crave for it. This was just a parallel case with that which had been raised by the hon. Member who had addressed the House a short time before (Mr. Brodrick). Well, he would tell the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member who was disposed to take the same view of the case, if they were to wait until Ireland grew content with injustice and with English rule as it now existed, they would wait for ever. The people of Ireland would never grow contented with slavery, and would never be satisfied with injustice. They would always continue to strive to the best of their ability, in order to gain that freedom which was the right of the nation. He was proud to know that the Irish people were not content with the slavery which had been inflicted upon them by a more powerful nation; and he said it was to their honour and glory that they continued to fight against this state of things and insisted upon their rights. Though they had been defeated upon every field, yet they had never surrendered, and they were determined still to keep their flag flying; and their hearts to-day remained unconquered, and would remain unconquerable. They had had a very touching picture drawn by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire of the fear and terror in which an Irish land agent had lately found himself. He was once a happy man; but now it seemed that he had got some threatening letters, and his life was in danger. Now, because that gentleman had felt those terrors for his safety, the House of Commons was, forsooth, to refuse an
    1100
    act of justice to the Irish people. The story which had been given of the agent was a one-sided story. There was a very important side of it which had not been presented by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. In the days when that agent was happy and contented, was there happiness in the homes of the humble people over whom he held sway? All he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) could say was, that in those halcyon days, when this agent was comfortable, there was fear and trembling1 amongst the poor people whom he ruled over. He would also say, for the peace of mind of that worthy land agent, that there was now some security for the honest toilers in Ireland, and greater peace and security amongst the people, than there had been in those days when the land agent was happy, and the people were terrified and miserable. They were told that to extend the franchise to Ireland would be to strengthen the hands of the Separatist Party in Ireland. Well, how would it be if the franchise was not extended to Ireland? He would ask the hon. Gentleman to answer that question. If there was danger that the extension of the franchise would strengthen the hands of the Separatist Party in Ireland, there was ten times more danger that the refusal of it would strengthen their hands—it would not only strengthen their hands, but give them an unanswerable case. There wag no man in Ireland, of extreme or moderate views, who did not perfectly understand and believe that no better stroke of business could be done to strengthen the hands of the Separatist Party in Ireland than to inflict upon that country this insult and injustice. No better means could be chosen for the accomplishment of that end than the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The hon. Member asked, were the Irish Party in the House of Commons such a comfort to the Government that they should consent to increase their numbers and bring them a large reinforcement of strength If the present Irish representation was not at peace with the House of Commons, he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) said that it ought not to be, and he hoped it never would be, as long as Ireland was suffering wrong. If the Irish Members were such a trouble to the House, did the hon. Member think that the political situation would be im-

    1101
    proved by turning them out of the House of Commons, and refusing to the Irish people any representation at all? If the argument was worth anything, it went to that extent. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would ask, who believed that the peace and happiness of the people would be advanced by denying them their representation; and who believed that the Separatist Party would not find it to their advantage that there should be such a state of things? He said that the result of such a measure would be, even from an English point of view, most fatal, as it would aggravate all the evils which at present existed and produce greater troubles. No more foolish and insensate step could be taken. They would hear a good deal, no doubt, as the debate went on, about what was called the "loyal minority" in Ireland. The House of Commons would be asked, were they going to abandon those who had remained true and stood by them for so many years? Why, what, he would ask, was going to happen to the loyal minority in Ireland? What were they afraid of? What were they going to do with them? Were they going to put them into some dark corner and slaughter them; or what else was going to happen? Had they not a majority in that House, and another in the House of Lords? He really could not see what was in such arguments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire evidently did not think that there was much in his arguments himself; for after all his inflammatory language on the subject he did not dare to press his Motion to a Division. He believed that in that, as in all other matters of English rule, England must be prepared to grant full justice to Ireland; for so long as she declined to do so, so long would Separatists, Extremists, and Invincibles be found in Ireland in the future as they had been in the past. No evil result could possibly arise from doing justice to Ireland; but any measure, such as had been proposed, which would be the very negation of justice and fair play, could not fail to bring about a bad condition of things. Separation had been talked about. He maintained the claim of the Irish people to that measure of independence which they had formerly enjoyed, with such modifications as recent experience had shown to be advisable. The people de-
    1102
    manded the restoration of the Constitution, for the maintenance of which Henry Grattan had fought, and which had been taken away from the Irish people by means the most nefarious and infamous. The longer the measure of justice was denied, the more firmly resolved would the people become to obtain their rights, and the more extreme would become their demands. This Irish National question might have been settled at the time of O'Connell; it might have been settled later still under Isaac Butt; or it might have been settled through the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) before now. He hoped the House of Commons would not be misled into yielding to the representations which had been made to them, to deny to Ireland her claim to be placed, in the matter of the franchise, upon an equality with England and Scotland.
    MR. J. R. YORKEremarked that the impalpable, shadowy grievances of the Irish people appeared to increase rather than diminish with every attempt that was made to meet them. Hon. Members representing Irish constituencies had told them that night that the extension of the franchise in that country was the one thing needful to make Irishmen content. ["No !"] There were two points of view from which this matter could be looked at—that of the public interest, and that of Party advantage. The public disadvantage that must result from the extension of the franchise in Ireland was palpable enough; and if Her Majesty's Government did not perceive it, it was not because some of their Colleagues were not fully aware of the character of the individuals whose hands the extension of the franchise in Ireland would strengthen. In a speech that he had delivered at Glasgow in October, 1881, the Home Secretary had said that the object of the Irish Party was not to benefit the Irish tenants, but to bring about a political revolution; and that the land agitation was fomented with the intention of breaking up the Empire, and of overthrowing the established Government of the United Kingdom; that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) demanded not the fixing of a fair rent, but no rent at all, and that he sought to get rid of the landlords with the object of getting rid of the

    1103
    English Government. The Prime Minister had been equally definite in his description of the objects of the Leaders of the Irish Party. In announcing the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork in October, 1881, the right hon. Gentleman had said that that object was to get rid of law, order, and the rights of property. These were the objects of the men whose hands the present proposal of the Government was calculated to strengthen. To introduce a large body of such men into that House would be merely to introduce traitors to the Constitution—that was to say, men whose avowed objects were hostile to the interests of the Empire. If they strengthened the position of Members who were actuated by such motives as were avowed by the Irish Party, they would fall into the condition of some foreign countries that had had to change their Governments three times a-year. It was idle to suppose that they would avoid that danger if the Irish Party of disaffection held the balance, and could control events, when they admitted that they did not consider the safety of the Empire their first object, and that they came here to promote their own purposes. It was necessary to revert to these things when they were ignored in rhetorical appeals from the Treasury Bench for justice to Ireland. Was it not a superficial view of the matter to say that they were doing justice to Ireland by giving it an equal franchise, when they held back the enjoyment of the ordinary privileges of social life? If a man could not be trusted to walk about with a stick, it seemed a strange thing to present him with a pistol. It was difficult to understand the infatuation which promoted legislation of this kind in the present condition of Ireland. It was wrong from a public point of view; but from a Party point of view it was easy of explanation. Indeed, it appeared that the conditions of the Kilmainham contract were being carried out. In that concluding paragraph which was read to the House at the instance of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) it was said that the accomplishment of the programme that had been sketched would be regarded as a practical settlement of the Land Question; would enable the Irish Members to co-operate cordially with the Liberal Party in forwarding Liberal principles;
    1104
    and would justify the Government in dispensing with coercion. The Members for Ireland were now co-operating with the Government in forwarding Liberal principles, and they would expect next year that coercive legislation should not be renewed. The Prime Minister had made a further bid for Irish support by promising Ireland more than its proportional share of Representatives; but he would probably find it impossible to carry a Redistribution Bill based on this injustice. When the Irish Members had been used to get the chestnuts out of the fire they would be thrown over; and, not for the first time, they would have been used to carry measures profitable to the Liberal Party, but disastrous to the best interests of Ireland.
    MR. SALTsaid, he desired to consider the matter from a political point of view, using that word in the sense of what was best for the country, apart from personal or Party considerations. The change proposed was one of the greatest importance to the householder, and it became necessary to consider what was his position. It had been laid down by an authority no less eminent than Lord John Russell that the householder had in himself a right to the franchise; but that claim could not be too strongly repudiated. Because a man was a householder he had no right ipso facto to a vote—he had a right to good government, to freedom of speech, action, and thought. These were the things to which every man, woman, and child had an inherent right; but not to the franchise. The rule they should lay down in determining where to bestow it was in what way they could get the best House of Commons; for they must not forget that the House of Commons so created was not a Body dealing with the administration of a few Islands in the North Sea merely, but of a great Empire. He would make a large admission in regard to the householder; he had no objection to the householder in the country—he was as good as the householder in the town; but in admitting him largely to the franchise many considerations must be kept in view. He quite concurred in a remark which fell from an hon. Member in the early part of the evening as to the advantage of a wide basis of representation, so long as that basis was arranged

    1105
    on fair and intelligent grounds; but when it was said that the effect of placing the representation of the people on a wide basis had been to create a character in the people and a force which would not have existed otherwise, he could not help recalling the circumstances of their past history. A House of Commons elected by very narrow constituencies had carried on the Business of the country in times of great emergency. The country never was in greater danger than between the years 1790 and 1815, when foreign wars were being waged and great interests were at stake at home. Any large enfranchisement of the people, he maintained, must be subject to certain rules, acknowledged by all who had turned their attention to the subject; and though he could not go into those points in detail, it was fair to indicate what he thought they were, inasmuch as they guided him to the opinion at which he had arrived. The first was that of population. Another would be intelligence. Property was another element, and by property he did not merely moan large fortunes, but any property—it might be a cottage which a man desired to preserve and cherish. Locality and the peculiar interests of localities ought to be considered, and also variety in their representation. In addition to all these, there was a time for a Reform Bill. Opportunity was another point to be considered. He was not going to deal with the objection that the Bill was not a complete measure; it had been presented to the House as a complete measure on the highest authority—that of the Government, who were responsible for what it did and what it was. His objection to it was that on carefully examining it, not on Party or personal grounds, not for the purpose of present emergency, he believed it to violate nearly every axiom of representation of the people that had been laid down by our best statesmen. Coming to the question of its application to Ireland, he would like to speak of that country in the most kind and gentle way; but he wished to consider what a statesman would do as a matter of political and philosophical justice. He was willing to admit that Ireland had had many difficulties, and that those difficulties ought to be met with the utmost fairness and justice; in fact, he
    1106
    Would go further, and say that they should be met with great consideration and generosity. What was the condition of Ireland? They had been told early in 1880 that Ireland was in a state of unusual quiet and total absence of crime; then had come a most deplorable state of things in that country; and two years afterwards they had been told, on the highest authority, that, so far from the country being in a state of comfort and content, the worst elements were then predominant and the best elements were suppressed. Great discontent was felt in the country; but he would ask the House whether the dissatisfaction of the Irish people, as expressed in Irish newspapers, was one which was to be remedied by an extension of the franchise? There was a phrase which had been uttered by a statesman of great eminence, which had given rise to a great deal of political discussion and animosity—namely, that "force is no remedy." Of that phrase he took a very different view from that held by an immense number of people in this country. He thought that there were two interpretations of the saying; and unfortunately it was the worst one which had got about the country at large—that there was no use in applying force to produce order, because it was ineffectual. In that sense the words were mischievous; but there was another sense in which they might be understood—namely, that force was no remedy for the grievances which had caused the discontent. They might have to use force to procure order; but it was not a remedy without looking further. Taking that best view of the words, he had not been able to see in the whole course of Irish trouble anything that could lead to the conclusion that the extension of the franchise in that country would be a remedy. Forty or 50 years before, in talking to an Irish friend who knew the country well, he had remarked that he could not see any solution of the difficulties which existed in Ireland, and the reply had been—"Leave us alone; give us rest." He believed now that the real solution of the difficulties of the country was to be found in rest and quietness; let them do what was just and right; but, above all, give the country rest. Let them do what they could to remove grievances and difficulties, and make improvements as fast

    1107
    as they could; but they should never take a single step without knowing that it would lead to greater contentment and peace.
    MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, that the right lion. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, in a debate previous to the Easter Recess, charged the Opposition that they were simply putting in force all the arts of Obstruction against the progress of the Bill before the House. He (Mr. Finch-Hatton) resented such a calumnious charge, and must be allowed to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would feel it but right to withdraw it as being wholly untenable. Turning to the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he observed that probably in many minds throughout the country the interest of the whole subject of the franchise chiefly centred round the question of whether or not it was expedient to extend the franchise to Ireland; and the attitude of the Opposition in regard to the extension of the suffrage in Ireland must be carefully distinguished from their attitude in regard to its extension in other parts of the United Kingdom. They might have their doubts whether the large number of persons in England and Scotland which it was now proposed to enfranchise were sufficiently qualified to exercise that trust with due advantage to the State, and yet they might believe that those new voters were loyal subjects of the Queen, who would carry out their duties faithfully according to their lights. But the facts prevented their having such security as to the great mass of the electors whom it was sought to enfranchise in Ireland; and, moreover, they were met at the outset by this lion in their path—that the Prime Minister had not apparently withdrawn from the original statement which he had made to the House—namely, that he did not intend, or that he thought it unadvisable, to reduce the number of Representatives sent to that House from Ireland. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman still adhered to that statement; or whether he was prepared to modify it so far as to say that he would only give to Ireland such a number of Representatives as should seem fair, taking into consideration her population and her taxation; because when that subject was discussed before the Prime Minister, in answering the remarks of the
    1108
    right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) repudiated any idea of having made that declaration as a bid for the Irish vote, observing that the Opposition usually derived more support than the Ministry did from Irish Members. But when both sides of the House had their field day, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite bagged 130 more than his opponents, the Irish game was not discovered in the bag of the Opposition, and they were induced to look with some suspicion into the bag of the right hon. Gentleman, when the first 30 birds found there were Irish. Again, he wished to know whether the Prime Minister had abandoned his centrifugal theory with respect to Parliamentary representation? Although the right hon. Gentleman had maintained that places which were far off were entitled to greater representation, because of the difficulties of communication between the constituencies and their Members, it was a remarkable fact that the Division List of the House showed that the Members from Scotland put in an attendance at a larger number of Divisions than the Members from any other part of the United Kingdom. With respect to the number of Representatives from Ireland, the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had urged them to maintain the provisions of the Act of Union, and that, too, by the extraordinary expedient of passing a Bill the admitted result of which would be to introduce 60 more Members pledged to the repeal of the Union. Mr. Pitt said that if the different parts of the Kingdom were united in interests and convictions, it mattered little whether the number of Representatives from one part was smaller or greater. But was Ireland in that condition? Was she united to us in interests and convictions? The Coercion Act threw a heavy onus probandi upon the Government. If Ireland was unfit to be intrusted with the exercise of the ordinary rights of citizenship, how could she be said to be ripe for the most responsible privileges of citizenship? The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said that the sooner the fact was recognized that there was a state of civil war between the English and the Irish people the better it would be for both. The Chief Secretary, at Galashiels, stated that nothing but the Queen's Govern-

    1109
    ment—by which the right hon. Gentleman must have meant the Prevention of Crime Act—stood between Ireland and civil war.
    MR. TREVELYANexplained that he was then referring to the disturbances between the Orangemen and the Nationalists, which were quieted by the ordinary powers of the law.
    MR. FINCH-HATTONsaid, that in that case the Government ought to withdraw the Coercion Act, So far as Ireland was concerned, the operation of that Bill ought to be suspended either until the Government could rule Ireland without a Coercion Act, or until it could be shown that the effect of the measure would not be to transfer the balance of power to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), or to disfranchise loyal minorities in the country, or to dismember the Empire. The people of this country, anxious as they were for the privilege of the franchise, would gladly wait if it was necessary until such time as they could obtain it without danger to the stability of the Empire.
    MR. W. SHAWsaid, that the Speaker would very soon be allowed to leave the Chair, in order that the House might go into Committee on the Bill. The general question would be settled in the House of Lords; but he ventured to prophesy that their Lordships would not throw out the Bill. He imagined that the Gentlemen in that House, aided by the advice of Gentlemen in the House of Commons of great experience and sagacity, would hardly run the risk of throwing out this Bill, and repeating what occurred on a former occasion—namely, passing in 10 minutes a Bill of a much more extensive and drastic character than this. So far as England, Scotland, and Wales were concerned, the effect of this Bill would not be unfavourable to the Conservative Party. The electors in the country districts were a slow and ignorant class of people, who did not even see a penny paper until it was two days old; and he did not know any more suitable ground for Conservative organization. In fact, he was quite sure that the Conservative organization would get an immense deal of support from these country voters in England and Wales. But the question of more immediate importance to the House was the question of Ireland. Now, he should like to know as to the
    1110
    Amendment put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and as to the speeches by which it had been supported, although it had not been moved, did they represent the opinion of the Conservative Party? Was the House to look upon that Amendment as embodying the views they would hold if they got into power? If so, the logical thing for them to do would be to suspend the present Constitution, in Ireland and to take away the votes of those people who had them at present. That would be the natural thing for them to do if they believed in that Amendment. There was no doubt that the addition of electors in Ireland by this Bill would be proportionally much larger than in England or Scotland, because in Ireland the present franchise was much higher than in those countries. But was that a thing which Parliament could avoid? Would it be possible for any Government to bring in a Franchise Bill, and to avoid that? He did not think it would; in fact, the thing was perfectly absurd. It was not arguable. It had often been stated in the House that a General Election under the present franchise would bring a large addition to the ranks of what was called the Active Irish Party. He believed it would. He spoke only his own opinions; but he thought it would be hardly worth while to contest constituencies in three Provinces in Ireland against those Gentlemen if they were able to get candidates to contest them. He could speak for himself; and although he very much valued a seat in the House of Commons, yet he looked upon the importance of settling the Irish question as so great that he would vacate his seat to-morrow, and give it to any Gentleman who would come into the House in order to make a Party to bring that question to an issue. This was not a question which they could let lie on from year to year. The sooner that by this Bill, or by creating a'large Party with this Bill, they brought Government face to face with the Irish question the better. The non-settlement of it was hindering the prosperity of Ireland, was demoralizing political Parties in England, and was working evil all round. Therefore, he said that if this Bill did nothing else than to bring into the House a party of 70 or 80 Gentlemen pledged to one object it would do

    1111
    good. The issue would be placed plainly before the House. It was said that that object had not yet been formulated. Probably it had not; but he thought the views put forward by the hon. Member for Westmeath, who was generally considered an extreme man, were views that would be generally accepted, and he did not believe there was any considerable Party in Ireland who looked to separation pure and simple as a solution of the question. He spoke from a general knowledge of the South and Midland Counties of Ireland. He knew pretty well the farmers and intelligent working-classes in these districts; and from intercourse with them his opinion was that they did not look to anything but a settlement of what was called the political controversy between the two countries. That was not a thing to frighten either England or Scotland. It was not a thing that should make Parliament deny a political right to the country, and keep it suspended for an indefinite time, thus creating a greater evil than the one they were now trying to avoid. He believed that if Lord Beaconsfield were alive the Irish would get what they wanted; and that if Mr. Pitt could have foreseen the future he would not have brought forward the Act of Union as it now stood upon the Statute Book. As the Act had worked, it had not been good for the country; and if it were left as it stood, without such modifications as were possible in the minds of political thinkers, and which might be easily worked out within the lines of the Constitution, it would be worse for England, and worse even for Ireland. Ireland was a poor country, and had, unfortunately, very little to engage the attention of her people. She wanted increased manufactures, and the sooner they could settle this question and Ireland could settle down to business the better. Then the minds of the people would be engaged, and their whole attention would not be devoted to political theories; but until the Irish question was settled there could not be a proper and legitimate connection been the two countries. He had before expressed his opinion that it would be a misfortune, and nothing but a misfortune, to separate Ireland from England. He believed it would be against the views of the great majority of the Irish people to go out,
    1112
    as it were, upon a sea of politics, and to have to construct a Constitution for itself upon new lines. They wanted only that the lines of the present Constitution should be modified and shaped in accordance with the wants of the country and the times in which they lived. There was nothing in this to frighten any thoughtful politician, or to make them for a moment think that the future of Ireland would be worse instead of better. The people who were proposed to be enfranchised in Ireland were not a bit worse than the people whom it was proposed to enfranchise in England. They were quite as intelligent, and were in every way as well conducted a people as could be found in England. But they would resent, indeed, the passing of a Bill of this character if a great number of their countrymen were excluded from its privileges. He looked forward to the near future with hope. He hoped there would be born an Irish Party, 70 or 80 in number, who would be able to formulate some plan, and put it before the House and the country, that should be consistent with the union of the two countries, and that peace should be brought about thereby. He himself had not the slightest doubt of it. He believed no one in Ireland really wanted revolution with a view to carrying out their purposes. Let the question as against England be once settled, and they would be able to work out with a fair purpose the political union of the two countries.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he should not have troubled the House on the present occasion but for the fact that he wished it to be understood that the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), on which a Division was not intended to be taken, did not represent the views of the entire Conservative Party. The Prime Minister, when he introduced the Bill, called upon Parliament to trust the people; and as far as he knew there was no feeling of distrust among Conservative Members in the body of the people—in fact, his opinion was that the opinion of the general body of the people of Great Britain was Conservative; and that, therefore, when the Bill passed, if it ever did pass, an increased power would be given to Conservative opinion. If they were prepared to trust the people of Great Britain, he saw no reason why the

    1113
    people of Ireland should not be trusted also. He was most reluctant to believe in the disloyalty of the Irish people; and he did not know that anything had occurred within the last few years which would justify the House in pronouncing that the mass of the Irish people were disloyal. Was it, then, for the interest of the United Kingdom that the people of Ireland should be inadequately represented in that House? Why, clearly not. Whatever were the opinions of the Irish people, it was certainly desirable they should find utterance in Parliament rather than in the formation of secret societies. He should himself have been extremely sorry if the Government, while extending a large measure of enfranchisement to Great Britain, had found it necessary, as a matter of State policy, to refuse the same measure of enfranchisement to Ireland. He hoped that the last speaker and other hon. Members would not go away with the idea that the Motion which was put down on the Paper and not moved was in any sense an adequate representation of opinion on the Conservative side of the House.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANobserved, that when the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) attempted to show that the Resolution before the House did not convey the general opinion of the Conservative Party he was not cheered by the Conservative side of the House. On the contrary, he was cheered a great deal more by the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. He thought that silence on the part of the Opposition well showed that the Conservative Party were pretty nearly unanimous on that point. He had observed, too, that when the hon. and learned Member remarked that he did not believe in the disloyalty of the large portion of the Irish people, the suggestion was received with marked and significant silence by those hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland in the House. Personally, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman to a considerable extent when he said he did not believe the whole of Ireland was disloyal. He had always emphatically maintained, and he declared now, that a large portion of the Irish people were loyal; and it was for this very reason that he objected to the franchise being extended to those portions of the community in Ireland who were hostile to
    1114
    England. Turning to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork County (Mr. Shaw), he felt bound to confess that never since the days of Quintus Curtius was there such a display of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice as had been shown by the hon. Gentleman—for he had avowed himself the advocate of a measure which must infallibly terminate in his political extinction, and in the political extinction of every man who, like him, had a common sense and a common desire for the welfare of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman reminded him of another man of rather a later date, and perhaps of rather an apocryphal existence. He reminded him of Rip Van Winkle, for his speech went back to the days when he led the Home Rule Party in the House, and when the hon. Gentleman was the head of the Party to which he (Colonel King-Harman) belonged. Believing that the loyalty and common sense of the majority of the Irish people rendered them competent, to a certain extent, to manage their own affairs, the hon. Gentleman trusted to the Party, and believed in their policy until they rose up against him, and ousted him from his seat. The hon. Gentleman said he did not believe there was a large Party favourable to separation, and in that he agreed with him. He did not think that among Irishmen of capital, men of means and men of common sense, there was any desire to separate from Great Britain; but he maintained that amongst the large and ignorant class, who were misled by American agitators, and headed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, there was an avowed determination to separate Ireland from England. He believed they would use, as their Leaders avowed they would use, every means in their power to secure that end. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in a speech made at Cincinnati, said he would not take his coat off for the Land League——
    An Irish MEMBER: No; for Home Rule.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: He said he would not take off his coat for the Land League, if he did not intend to destroy the last vestige——
    An Irish MEMBER: The last link.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: If he did not destroy the last vestige of union between Ireland and England. The hon.

    1115
    Gentleman knew he was quoting correctly. Whether they intended to carry out their threats, if they had the power to do so, and whether their dupes would assist them in doing so, he could not say; but such, at any rate, was the avowed intention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would make use of any extension of power which Her Majesty's Government might in their consideration grant the Irish people to promote the disintegration of the Empire. If Her Majesty's Government believed this was the best course to adopt, of course, they must pursue it; but he must raise his voice on behalf of loyal Irishmen against extending the franchise to ignorant and misled people who, backed by an American agitation, were trying to sever Ireland from the Mother Country.
    MR. WARTONobserved, that the debate had been conducted entirely by Conservative Members, so-called Conservative Members, and Home Rulers. Not a single Liberal Member had spoken in all that great Government majority—and why? It was because they had given their consciences and opinions entirely to the Prime Minister, and were no longer a Liberal, but a Gladstonian Party. If they took the test of population or the test of property, Ireland was not entitled to retain the present number of Members.
    MR. P. J. SMYTH: I regret to see that on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill an Amendment has been placed upon the Paper alleging that Irishmen are not entitled to the same franchise as Englishmen and Scotchmen. Till hon. Gentlemen opposite prove—and they will find it no easy task to prove—that the Irish are a degraded race, they will try in vain to persuade those in this House to vote for the degradation of Ireland. This is the first Reform Bill which has been based upon a principle of equality, and which recognizes the fact that Ireland is a distinct part of the United Kingdom. In 1832 O'Connell's demand was for equality and identification. That demand was rejected, and there arose that mighty movement for the repeal of the Union which shook the Empire. This Bill means identification, and the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Chaplin) implies separation. Half a century ago a noble Lord—a great English statesman
    1116
    —startled his hearers in "another place" by the astounding utterance that the Irish were aliens in blood, language, and religion. That utterance was immortalized by the retort which it drew from Richard Sheil in this House. What is the Amendment if it be not a repetition in another form of the Lynd-hurst declaration? [Cheers.] Well, in Ireland, if we are aliens to you, you are aliens to us. We will be your friends as your equals, as aliens your foes. Let us understand each other, and whatever the consequences may be let justice and right be done. Adopt this Bill and provide after that a Redistribution Bill, a Bill which I hope will follow so closely upon the footsteps of the present that the two shall be virtually one, and that, therefore, all classes shall be fully represented in this House. Then you will rest future legislation upon a Constitutional basis when you have declared your intention to enfranchise the people.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The House always welcomes the views of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Smyth), and listens with pleasure to his eloquent speeches; but the question which anyone connected with Ireland naturally asks himself is, to what political Party does the hon. Member belong, or what political power in Ireland docs he represent? The hon. Gentleman has told the House that the Irish people, if enfranchised, would be the friends of this Bill. Now, I believe that no sentiment ever uttered in this House could be more repugnant to those whom the hon. Member seeks to enfranchise in the county which he now represents. Anyone who has followed Irish politics within the past few years must note and record this melancholy fact—that the more bitter and the more hostile a man's utterances are against England, and to everything English, the more popular he becomes among certain classes in Ireland. If this Bill were to pass into law, and an Election were to take place upon it, every Member on the other side of the House who now represents an Irish constituency would, as the House very well knows, be for over consigned to political oblivion. In the earlier part of the evening we had a remarkable speech from the Prime Minister; a speech worthy of the right hon. Gentleman who made it, and worthy of the occasion; but it embodied the

    1117
    principle that the Union between England and Ireland can only be maintained by equal laws and equal institutions. Now, that is a new policy on the part of the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. hon. Gentleman prepared to push that sentiment to its logical conclusion? During the 16 years that I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I have seen, time after time, the Prime Minister come down and ask this House to assent to exceptional legislation, as far as Ireland is concerned, on the ground of the exceptional condition of that country. Our legislation for the last 16 years, with regard to the Church, the laud, and social matters, has been exceptional for Ireland. During the last three years, so exceptional has been the land legislation of the Government, that it has touched the extreme limits of confiscation, and their repressive legislation has touched the extreme limits of coercion. Are we to understand that there are to be equal laws for England as for Ireland? Is the English Church to be disestablished because the Irish Church has been disestablished? ["Hear, hear!" from below the Gangway on the Ministerial side.] There are, no doubt, many hon. Gentlemen who wish to see it disestablished. Am I to assume, because exceptional legislation is enforced in Ireland, it will also be applied to England? The Government have suspended the whole system of trial by jury in Ireland? Are they anxious to try the same experiment in England? Silence follows my question. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to push to extreme limits, in the case of Ireland, the logical conclusion of his remarks in regard to Ireland? The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has made a remarkable speech to-night; but he has been taunted by the Prime Minister with not having persevered with his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman should have recollected that even he himself, with his superb debating power, courage, and all his Parliamentary skill, has himself on several occasions been compelled to alter a proposal he had on the Notice Paper for many days when he found that the circumstances were not altogether favourable for its consideration. I can recollect one case when the late Government were in Office that the present Prime Minister placed four Resolutions on the
    1118
    Paper condemning their foreign policy. The whole Liberal Party came down—I do not know whether to support those Resolutions, but, at any rate, to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, just in the same way as the Conservative Party have come down to-night to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire. The Prime Minister, I suppose, judging from his own experience, said that no doubt the hon. Member had accepted the advice of the older, the more respectable, and the wiser Members of his Party. Therefore, I assume that four years ago the right hon. Gentleman accepted the advice of the older, the more respectable, and the wiser Members of the Liberal Party by withdrawing his Resolution. But I do not wish to push that point. The right hon. Gentleman is quite aware, from his great Parliamentary experience, that there are many occasions on which it is not only legitimate but statesmanlike for a man, however strong his opinions may be, not to put the House to the trouble of a Division, and the present was one of those occasions. I think my hon. Friend has been well advised in the course he has taken. There is not a single Member on this side of the House, except my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who does not believe that we are indulging in a most dangerous, if not reckless experiment, in reducing the franchise in Ireland. But there are two opinions which, to a certain extent, counter-balance and counteract each other. Some think that the condition of Ireland, making it dangerous to reduce the franchise, is a good reason for not bringing in any Franchise Bill affecting England and Scotland. But there are other persons who are of opinion that if a Franchise Bill is introduced, then that Bill ought, regardless of consequences, to be applied to Ireland. No doubt when there is this difference—a difference amongst us, so to say, on a minute detail—[A laugh.] Well, it is a minute detail. Hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me must recollect that we had a most favourable Division, which nothing can counteract on the point, and to which we attach the utmost importance, that redistribution should accompany extension of the franchise. We believe that any reduc-

    1119
    tion made in the franchise ought to be accompanied by a redistribution of seats. In a Redistribution Bill the disaffected parts of Ireland would have their representation materially curtailed. We have had already, as I say, a favourable Division upon that point, because in a House of Commons with a nominal majority of 150 Her Majesty's Government had actually, in the Division to which I refer, only an actual majority of 27. Therefore the nature of our objections was covered by the vote which took place a few nights ago. What seems to me to be the objection against this Franchise Bill standing by itself is that there are two exceptional concessions made to Ireland. The Prime Minister, more than once, said that this Bill is merely the development of the great legislative judgment given in 1868; but the legislative decision arrived at in 1867 and 1868 was that a £4 franchise in Ireland was to be equivalent to household suffrage in England and Scotland; and, therefore, this Bill upsets that statement on which the Prime Minister himself originally relied, and the consequence is that by establishing household franchise in Ireland you would be approaching much more nearly to manhood suffrage than in England and Scotland. The Return presented to the House of Lords fully proves the truth of my observation. Therefore, under this Bill, you are giving to that part of Her Majesty's Dominions which is the most disturbed and the most disloyal a lower franchise than to those parts of Her Majesty's Dominions which are loyal. Another exceptional piece of favouritism shown to Ireland is that there is no Redistribution Bill. I contended the other night, and I think I proved, that if a Redistribution Bill is disassociated from this Bill you will not pass a Redistribution Bill in this Parliament; and if you do not pass it in this Parliament you will not pass one affecting Ireland for many years to come. When the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) comes back to this House with a following of 90 Members he would be unworthy of the sagacity and generalship which he has hitherto shown if he allowed a Redistribution Bill to pass though the House which would curtail his following. There was one observation made by the Prime Minister which, I think, is especially worthy of notice. He said
    1120
    that no doubt the result of this Franchise Bill might be that it would create a Parliamentary controversy in this House in reference to Irish matters at a period when, as he intimated, owing to his age, he might not possibly be longer amongst us. Now, I think that anyone who is proud of his career and of his Parliamentary position ought to think a little of the legacy he is bequeathing to those who come after him. Therefore, I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider what would be the position of the Liberal Party, and of the House of Commons, if we have 90 Members returned from Ireland all pledged to separation? It has been intimated by the Prime Minister that the Resolution which stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire was a libel upon the Irish Party. But that assertion did not elicit a single cheer. It is no libel at all. Those hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that the one expression constantly cropping up in their speeches and Resolutions is that the House of Commons is a Foreign Assembly. What hon. Member from Ireland wishes merely to have such control over Irish local matters as they have in the United States? Does anybody suppose that any speaker in the United States would be allowed to describe the Congress of Washington as a Foreign Assembly, as the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has described the House of Commons? Every day the violent Party is more and more getting the upper hand in Ireland. I have not got them with me now; but if any hon. Gentleman will cote the Resolutions passed, and especially the Resolutions passed at meetings in England, attended by Irishmen, they will find that the simple repeal of the Union would not satisfy the Irish demands. Now, let us consider the condition of a subsequent House of Commons. What is the franchise but a means to an end, to give effect to the wishes of the people of Ireland? If the Nationalists of Ireland return 90 out of 100 Representatives, and demand the repeal of the Union with Ireland, will you refuse it? Can you refuse it? [Cries of "Yes !"] On what ground? You can only do it by force, and force alone. Yet force is the single instrument you repudiate. The Prime Minister says that, after all, if the worst comes to the worst, there will be 550 English and Scotch Members

    1121
    against 90 Irish. But will it be 550 English and Scotch Members against 90 Irish? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) declined to believe that any large body of the Irish people were hostile to the connection with England or disloyal. I recollect at the end of last Session that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), amid the cheers of his own Colleagues, asserted that the sooner it was understood that there was war between England and Ireland the better; and the only reason they did not give material effect to that war was that they had not the physical means of carrying it out. No doubt, if all the English and Scotch Members were to combine to deal as they ought to deal with the enemies of England and of English rule, one-half of the Irish difficulty would be solved. If English and Scotch Radicals would be true to themselves and their country, and would not enter into negotiations with those who avowed themselves to be the enemies of England and English rule, then the Irish difficulty would be easily solved. But exactly the same motives which induced right hon. Gentlemen opposite to negotiate the Kilmainhan Treaty when only 30 votes had to be gained, will induce whatever Government may sit on those Benches, when 90 votes are to be obtained, to make even still greater concessions. That is the danger, if you grant a reduction of the franchise without a redistribution of seats. Nine-tenths of the Representatives of Ireland will come back favourable to separation; and in the course of time I believe we shall find ourselves unable to refuse our consent to that demand, although, to make use of the words of the President of the Board of Trade, our consent to that demand would mean civil war in Ireland or ruin to England. My firm belief is that if we pass this Bill in its present shape, without redistribution, we shall sow seeds of evil which will ultimately cause such a rift through the whole fabric of our Empire, our trade and commerce, as neither time nor human hands will be ever able to reclose.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preliminary.
    Clause 1 (Short title of Act).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know why the Government were obstructing their own Business? The hour was comparatively early, and there were loads of time for the Committee to go on with the Bill. Nevertheless, this precious Government, which stumped the country charging the Conservative Party with a desire to obstruct Business, was absolutely stopping this important measure on which, they asserted, the whole future of the country depended. At that hour the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was acting in a most extraordinary manner in asking the Committee to report Progress. He thought if any hon. Member on that side of the House had ventured to make such a Motion, there would have been a very great outcry from the other side. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to reflect upon the dangerous course into which he was plunging. The Home Secretary, the other day at Derby, informed the country that nothing had been done in the House of Commons on account of the obstructive tactics of the Conservative Party. But what were the Government themselves doing? This was a measure to which the Government were pledged, and yet they were asking to have its consideration adjourned at that early hour. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his determination, or to assign some reason why he had been induced to take this extraordinary course.
    In reply to an hon. MEMBER,
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was probable that Supply would be taken on Monday next, and that the Army Estimates would be proceeded with.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.—REPOET.
  Postponed Resolution [21st April] considered.
  "(3.) That a sum, not exceeding £91,685, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

  1123
  necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in rising to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, in respect of the Wellington Statue, said: I hope the House will allow me to make a statement which, I think, will induce the House to consider that it is not desirable to pass this Vote. It will be in the recollection of the House that on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) there was a very near Division on this Vote of £2,000, which appears in the Estimates as a grant for the statue to the Duke of Wellington at Hyde Park Corner. That majority against the Amendment of my hon. Friend only amounted to three. On that occasion, I am sorry to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) remarked to me afterwards, there were two hon. Members who have studied apparently the new ethics of politics, and who having spoken one way voted the other, or there would have been a majority of one in favour of the Amendment. Now, what is this question? The question now before us is whether this sum of £2,000, which forms part of a sum of £6,000 to be voted next year, and part of a scheme which will involve an expenditure of £20,000—or, indeed, a great deal more—to be levied by public subscription, should be approved or not? Now, what I contend is that the statue of the illustrious Duke is public property. I maintain that it is a National monument. The public subscribed to it; it was made of metal taken in the course of the illustrious Duke's numerous campaigns, and being a National monument it should be treated as such by the House of Commons, and not by an irresponsible Committee. Now, I desire to speak in terms of the highest respect of those who are connected with that Committee, and also of my right hon. Friend opposite the First Commissioner of Works, because I honestly think that he has been a very good First Commissioner of Works. I think he has given careful attention to the subjects with which he has been charged, and I think he has carried out many great and useful Metropolitan improvements. I think it is only fair to say, without going further, that
  1124
  I believe he has made a great mistake in this matter. He appears to have shrunk from the responsibility which belongs to his Office, and to have sheltered himself behind certain Committees—a General and an Executive Committee—and it will be in the recollection of the House that he has sheltered himself a very great deal behind the name of an illustrious personage, who, in the course of his speech the other night, the right hon. Gentleman quoted 17 times as being a high authority. I repeat that this is a National monument, and, therefore, it ought to be treated as such by the House of Commons, and not by an irresponsible Committee. The second suggestion I take from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it was the original intention of the Government to replace the statue where it was before. If the right hon. Gentleman had done that, all this bungling would have been avoided, and what would have been the consequence? Why, that the statue would have been where Her Majesty gave a solemn pledge to the Duke of Wellington that it should be; where the illustrious Duke himself wished it to be; where, I venture to say, the people of this Metropolis wish it to be; and where, I am confident, if you were to poll the Army, from the Commander-in-Chief himself down to the humblest drummer-boy, they would wish it to be. They would all say—"Put it back in its place where it was before"—namely, in the vicinity of Apsley House. Let the House recollect that three consecutive Prime Ministers of England agreed that the statue should be placed upon the Arch at Hyde Park Corner. Lord Melbourne, in 1838, advised Her Majesty the Queen to carry out the decision which had been arrived at by William IV., in 1832. In 1846, Sir Robert Peel sanctioned the erection of that statue upon the Arch; and in 1847, Lord John Russell, after a debate in this House, agreed that it should remain in the place where the Sovereign had given her pledge to the great Duke that it should be. But there is another objection that I make as regards this statue, and it is this—that the Government, having said that they wished it to go back to its former position, have, unfortunately, fallen into the mistake of consulting the

  1125
  Academicians. Now, the members of the Royal Academy, in my mind, are not people of very good taste. In fact, I am bound to say that I look upon a great many of the members of the Royal Academy of this day as a most degenerate and a meretricious body. I have received a number of letters from distinguished artists—although I must admit that they are not themselves members of the Academy, and therefore their complaints must be received a little cum grano salis—complaining that the Art opinion of many of the Royal Academicians is not worth much. Well, Her Majesty's Goverament having proposed to replace the statue, the Royal Academy stepped in, and the Royal Academicians said—"You must remove it altogether from the Arch, and now is your opportunity." I am sorry to say that my right hon. Friend has proposed to follow the advice of the Royal Academicians, having asked their opinion as to the statue. Many of them have said that the statue is a disgrace to British Art. ["Hear, hear!"] I shall show directly, if I am allowed to do so, that it is far from that. They say that it is a disgrace to British Art, and that it offends the canons of good taste. I recollect that on a recent occasion many of the members of the Royal Academy were examined in a Court of Law, and they all said that the busts called the "Belt busts" were a disgrace to British Art. But the Judges, the jury, and the public all took a different view of the matter. I recollect perfectly well the President of the Royal Academy saying in Court, when he saw one of the busts of Mr. Belt—and I only give this as an illustration of how little the President and his colleagues are to be entrusted in matters of Art—I recollect in the course of the Belt trial the Judge asking the President of the Royal Academy—"What do you think of that bust? "pointing to one of the busts of Mr. Belt. Sir Frederick Leighton, not knowing at the time that it was by Mr. Belt, said—"That is a bust worthy of Phidias." Upon which he was informed by counsel that the bust was by Mr. Belt; whereupon Sir Frederick turned round at once and said that it was not a work of Art all, but a disgrace to British Art, and not worthy of admission into an exhibition of the Royal Academy. What I have said is a positive fact. I
  1126
  would not venture to state it if it were not absolutely correct; and it proves to my mind that the opinion of the members of the Royal Academy is not worthy of the slightest consideration at the hands of this House. I maintain that it is not the opinion of the Royal Academy you ought to look to in this matter; but that in a question of a National monument it is the opinion of the House of Commons that ought to be looked to, and nothing else. This very morning we have had a paper delivered to us which is called a Petition of the Royal Academy. Well, now, it is a very curious document—it is almost as bad as their Art. A more fallacious document I do not think I ever read, and I shall be prepared to prove what I say. I only wish it had been in the hands of the House at the time of the last discussion; and I am surprised that the Government have not attempted to conceal it until after the discussion to-night, because it militates very strongly against the Royal Academicians who have petitioned the Government. If the House will allow me I will refer to one or two of the statements contained in this document. The Petitioners observe that—
  "This displacement affords an opportunity for the removal from the summit of that Arch of the colossal equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington;"
  and they say of the members of the Royal Academy—
  "We should he wanting in duty did we fail to give emphatic expression to the strong desire and earnest hope entertained, not only by the artistic community, hut by all those who are interested in English Art, that this reproach may at last be taken from among us."
  This document goes on to speak of—
  "The dismay of the intelligent in matters of Art, the vain protest of the architect whose work was to be marred, the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to induce the Committee to reconsider its disastrous decision, their offer through Sir Robert Peel to propose to Parliament a Vote of money to meet the expenses of a fitting pedestal, and the letter of Lord Morpeth to the Duke of Rutland acquainting him of the intention."
  I will ask the House, in passing, to observe how untrue this statement—
  "Of Her Majesty's Government to abide by their decision that the statue be removed."
  This Memorial says that it was with dismay that the intelligent people of this country saw the placing of that statue

  1127
  on the Arch. The assertion is wholly a gratuitous one. One of the greatest patrons of Art at that time—Lord Francis Egerton—was, among others, a subscriber to that statue.
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: May I be allowed to say that my Father was very much against the statue being placed upon the Arch?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I hope to be able to convince my hon. Friend that the statement he has just made is entirely at variance with the opinion expressed by Lord Francis Egerton at that time.
  ADMIRAL EGERTON: May I also be allowed to interrupt the right hon. Baronet? I am bound to say that the statement of my hon. Relative opposite is entirely correct.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I do not at all venture to dispute the correctness of the statement. I only say that, as a judge of Art, Lord Francis Egerton at the time—and it is on record in Hansard—entered a protest in the strongest terms against the suggestion that the equestrian statue which had been made should not be placed on that Arch. That is on record; it is in Hansard, and hon. Gentlemen will be able to see for themselves whether my statement is not correct. The Memorial goes on to say that Her Majesty's Government—that is, the Government of Lord John Russell—had come to a decision to move the statue. I have looked into Hansard, and I can find nothing of the kind. On the contrary, this is a statement of the views of Lord John Russell, the Prime Minister who succeeded Sir Robert Peel in 1846. It is quite true that Lord Morpeth, who was then the First Commissioner of Works, wrote a letter saying that it was the intention of the Government to move the statue; but the Prime Minister came down to the House and said that, in consequence of a communication from the Duke of Wellington, the Government had made up their minds not to insist on the removal of the statue. Lord John Russell said that in the House; and what was the letter of the Duke of Wellington? I believe I can speak here with a great deal of authority. No man was more intimate with the Duke of Wellington, during 20 or 25 years of his life, than the late Sir Robert Peel. I have often heard the matter discussed and talked of; and
  1128
  what was it that the Duke of Wellington mentioned to Sir Robert Peel, and wrote to Lord John Russell? He wrote a letter which must be in the collection of the noble Lord's papers. He said that, as the Sovereign had given her solemn pledge to him that the statue should be placed upon the Arch, he desired to express his opinion that the removal of the statue might be considered as a mark of the disapprobation of the Crown towards himself; and therefore it was that Lord John Russell, as Prime Minister, came down to the House, notwithstanding the letter which had been written by Lord Morpeth, and explained that in consequence of what had been said by the Duke of Wellington the Government would not persevere in the matter. It is well known—and it may be seen in Hansard—that Lord Brougham said in the House of Lords, four days after the statement of Lord John Russell in this House, that he knew his illustrious Friend would feel hurt beyond expression if the statue were to be removed. I think I have shown pretty clearly that, at all events, the statement contained in the Memorial of the Royal Academy is very incomplete as regards what is said respecting the Government of Lord John Russell in 1847—namely, that they had determined to abide by the decision to remove the statue, because Lord John Russell himself had determined that it should not be removed. This document goes on to say—
  "Still less is it needful in these days to dwell on the violation of every principle of propriety, and every canon of proportion, displayed in the existing haphazard combination."
  I think I see the Lord Mayor present. [An hon. MEMBER: He has just gone.] I do not intend to refer to him, of course, as a violation of every principle of propriety and every canon of proportion; but I wish the Lord Mayor had been present, because I desired to draw his attention to that hideous monstrosity in Fleet Street as one of those erections which offend against every canon of proportion. It is a curious matter of fact that when the President of the Royal Academy in this Petition states and maintains all through the argument that there is no precedent of this kind, everybody knows who has been on the Continent that the most splendid statue in Europe is in Venice—the statue of

  1129
  Coleoni in the Piazza San Giovanni. That is supposed to be a finer statue than any other, and it is erected upon an edifice. [An hon. MEMBER: But not upon an arch.] I had not finished the sentence. It is erected upon a construction similar to that upon which the Duke of Wellington's statue was placed, with this exception—that the arch is not pierced. So, also, with regard to the famous tomb of the Scaligers at Verona, upon a model of which the Brunswick Memorial is placed. In that case there is a series of arches, with the equestrian statue upon the top of them.
  MR. MUNDELLAhere made a remark across the Table, which did not reach the Gallery.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, is a great judge of Education; but I am afraid that his acquaintance with Science and Art is not so high. I saw this statue only the other day, and I know that what I am stating is quite correct. I maintain that the Brunswick statue erected at Geneva—the statue of the Duke of Brunswick upon horseback—is an equestrian statue on the top of the model of the tomb of the Scaligers from Verona. I do not think anybody can contradict that. I will not trouble the House with many further remarks on this subject; but I must say that in bringing the matter forward I am greatly interested upon one point, and I feel sure the House will agree with me if they will give me their attention for a few moments longer. I think it is a very dangerous thing for a country to begin to remove its National monuments. I recollect, during the Commune, seeing the column of the great Napoleon toppled over in the Place Vendôme by the Commune; and only the other day we read in the newspapers that the statues of General Bessières and Prince Murat, of Bonaparte's Army, erected at Cahors, had been removed to make room for a statue of Gambetta. When people begin to remove National monuments there is no knowing how far they will go. Therefore, I protest against anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works made a few remarks the other day, and in the course of his observations he made one which it struck me was not very well-founded in fact. He said that it would cost £25,000 to place that statue back again on the top of the
  1130
  Arch. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have greatly exaggerated the expense. The statue weighs 40 tons with the pedestal, and 20 tons without the pedestal. It is in four parts, and I venture to say it could be put back again for £1,000 or £1,500, and then melted and moulded together on the top of the Arch. [A laugh.] That is how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do it at Aldershot. Hon. Members laugh; but that is certainly what the First Commissioner of Works proposed the other day—namely, to cart it away in four "pieces; and he said that with ease it could be erected at Aldershot. Now, I protest against a site at Aldershot. It was not known to the Duke of Wellington at all. I have heard a quotation which I wish to read in answer to the observations which have been made in regard to the character of this statue—namely, that it is a monstrosity, and that it offends against every principle of propriety and every canon of good taste. Here is a passage from an article which appeared at the time of its erection in The Times newspaper; and it is curious to see how much more this statue was appreciated then than it is now in these aesthetic days of a degenerate Academy. This is an abstract from The Times of 1846, when the statue was being erected—
  "The general impression respecting the statue as a work of art was highly favourable, and several old companions in arms of the illustrious hero expressed opinions that it was the best likeness ever made of him."
  Well, I must say that after that we ought to hesitate before we break up this statue of the great Duke of Wellington. I am informed that Mr. Boehm is to have the commission for the new statue, although he is a foreigner. Who is Mr. Boehm? I confess that the name smells foreign, although it has an English ring about it. The name is written in a foreign way, and I do not know that Mr. Boehm is a man who ought to be entrusted with the making of a statue of the Duke of Wellington. I will tell the House the reason. He is at the head of a Franco-German Manufacturing Company. Now, I do not know if the French people were to be told that a National statue of the great Bonaparte were about to be made by an Englishman what the French people would say about it. But in this case

  1131
  the leading modeller in this German artist's studio is a Frenchman; and I do not think an artist of that nationality ought to be entrusted with a statue of the great Duke. ["Oh!"] At all events, we have two statues in London which have been made by this German sculptor—one of Lord Lawrence and another of Lord Beaconsfield. In the statue of Lord Lawrence there is a conspicuous absence of dignity, and a curious position of repose, which renders the whole quite unworthy of the man it is intended to represent; and I am quite certain that anyone who sees the statue of the great Lord Beaconsfield will admit that there is a want of character about it that is not at all in harmony with the subject. I move the rejection of this Vote, because I am. opposed to this system of removing statues which have been erected to our great men. I trust that the House will endorse the opinion which I have expressed. In making this Motion I have had no desire to give offence to any person who may have been connected with any of the arrangements of the Committees—either the General Committee or the Executive Committee—or with any of the arrangements with which my right hon. Friend has been concerned. I merely move the Motion on public grounds. I think it would be a pity to see a statue erected to the great Duke removed away from London; and I hope that the House of Commons will give its assent to the suggestion I make—namely, that this Vote should not be allowed, in order that the House of Commons, if it thinks fit, may appoint a Committee to consider the whole matter.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he rose to second the Motion; but he must, in the first place, say that he did so on different grounds from those which had been put forward by his right hon. Friend. He took it that in objecting to this Vote the House would by no means pledge itself to the opinion that the statue should be replaced upon the Arch at Hyde Park Corner. His right hon. Friend had put forward arguments in favour of the statue being maintained in the neighbourhood of Apsley House, though not necessarily replaced upon the Arch. It had been suggested to him—and he threw it out as a matter for consideration—that a new pedestal might be designed, and that the statue might be erected
  1132
  upon it, on the mound in the Green Park, under satisfactory conditions, in a position that would meet the requirements of the right hon. Baronet, being in the immediate neighbourhood of the residence of the Duke of "Wellington. He wished to point out to the House that by consenting to this Vote of £2,000 they committed themselves to a course which was open to very serious objection. His right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works had declined to request other sculptors to compete for a new statue; but without objecting at all to Mr. Boehm, on the ground that he was a foreigner, he did maintain, that if they were to have a new statue the best British artists ought to have an opportunity of competing for such a great National work. His right hon. Friend had said that the best English sculptors had refused to compete for the execution of the statue; but he should like to know who those artists were? Neither Mr. Birch nor Mr. Brock had declined to enter into the competition, and they were British sculptors, who had produced equestrian groups of high merit. He believed that another sculptor of distinction had prepared a model in anticipation of a competition taking place; and therefore, he said, the competition ought to be a general one among the British artists, if they were to have a new statue at all; but, at the same time, it appeared to him that it was a grave question whether there should be a new statue or not. He should vote against this item of £2,000, upon these grounds—first, because he entertained a grave doubt whether the statue of the Duke of Wellington should be removed from the vicinity of Apsley House; secondly, because it appeared to him that if they ought to have a new statue it should be decided upon after competition among the leading British sculptors; and his third ground was, that for a great country like this to refer a decision of this character to an irresponsible Committee was altogether contrary to the way in "which the arrangements of the House ought to be conducted. He, therefore, begged to second the proposition of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Sir Robert Peel), in the hope that the whole question would be referred to a Committee of the House to determine what course should be taken in regard to it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£91,685," and insert "£89,685,"—(Sir Robert Peel,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That '£91,685' stand part of the said Resolution."
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that, of course, he would not attempt at that hour of the night, or at any other time, to convulse the House with peals of laughter, such as had followed the humorous speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel); but he was in a position directly to dispute almost all the assertions which had been made on this subject by the right hon. Baronet. Like his right hon. Friend, he had no particular affection for Royal Academicians, and he had no doubt that they were no more perfect than any other body was perfect. But he was not going, at that time of the night, to ask the House to follow him into the details of the Belt trial, which had wearied the public over and over again for many months together. He was not going to ask the House whether the Royal Academicians were wise men or-not; still less was he going to tread on delicate ground as to the position taken up in regard to this matter by an illustrious Personage who was, by circumstances, prevented from entering into Party politics, but who was anxious to show his desire to do good for the country in maters in which Party politics did not appear. His right hon. Friend spoke of the statue upon the Arch having received the sanction of three different Prime Ministers, and, among others, he mentioned that it had received the sanction of his own illustrious Father. Now, had that been the case, according to his (Lord Henry Lennox's) idea of the matter, he should, for one, have dealt very delicately with the subject; but he could not look upon the matter as one to which the late Sir Robert Peel had given his sanction, because he remembered that one of the first debates he ever attended in the House of Commons took place in the year 1846, when he heard Sir Robert Peel speak upon this very subject, and, perhaps, that was his excuse for intruding himself upon the House that night. On that occasion Sir Robert Peel expressed his disapprobation of the site, and altogether disapproved of erecting it on the Arch at Hyde Park Corner, offering to provide a site in any other
  1134
  part of London that might be chosen. Sir Robert Peel offered a pedestal so long as it was not put on the top of the Arch. Not only that, but if any hon. Member had any doubt as to the opinion of Sir Robert Peel in regard to the statute being placed upon that Arch, he would tell the House what was the opinion of a prominent Member of his Government. This was not, as his right hon. Friend asserted, a National monument, but it was a colossal statue, placed upon an arch against the wish of the designer and architect, and all the world besides. If any hon. Member entertained a doubt as to the opinion of the Government of Sir Robert Peel, he would refer them to the words uttered by Lord Canning, a Member of Sir Robert Peel's Government, on this subject. Writing to the Duke of Rutland, in 1846, Lord Canning said the remonstrances which had reached Her Majesty's Government against placing the statue upon the Arch were so strong, so many representations had been made by the architect of the Arch and statue, and the opinions of every other artist and architect and competent authority, who had been consulted, were so decided that Her Majesty's Government felt they were called on to make a final appeal to the Committee to change the site. If that were to be considered as the sanction of the Prime Minister to the scheme, he did not know in what stronger language a disapproval could have been couched.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the House would, perhaps, allow him to say that it was perfectly true Lord Canning did write that letter to the Duke of Rutland; but the Duke of Rutland said that the Committee declined to acquiesce in the representations contained in it, and Sir Robert Peel said that as the Committee declined to acquiesce he was not prepared to interfere in order to change the site proposed.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet had interrupted him for no purpose. He had never said that Sir Robert Peel objected to the final decision of the Sovereign and the Committee. All he had said was that Sir Robert Peel disapproved of the statue being placed upon that particular site. Sir Robert Peel allowed one of his own Colleages to quote the letter of Lord Canning; and he (Lord

  1135
  Henry Lennox) was present when it was quoted. He, therefore, did not consider that the site in question had the sanction and approval of one of the Prime Ministers who had been referred to. But he really did not know what this "storm in a tea-cup" was all about; because, after all that had been said and done, he did not doubt that if the statue had remained on the Arch, and there had not been any necessity for carrying out alterations, and if no pressure had been put upon his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, it would still have remained in its old position. But the pressure in question had brought the statue of the Duke of Wellington down, and it was admitted on all hands that the statue itself was a perfect monstrosity. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No, no.] When he said that if it had been allowed to remain in its original position it would have been a disgrace to the Metropolis, another of his right hon. Friends, the Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), turned round and said "No, no." But he (Lord Henry Lennox) said "Yes, yes;" and he would repeat that there was a great concensus of opinion that the statue where it was originally placed was a monstrosity. In the course of the present debate the right hon. Baronet had asserted that the views of the general public were in favour of the statue. He (Lord Henry Lennox) had a very different opinion, because, in the very debate to which he had listened, and which he had referred to, the House were told that it was quite indecent—that was the word used—to endeavour to force upon the country a site so dead against the feeling and wishes of the public. He was not going to detain the House by any long speech on this occasion, although, after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, there were several subjects he should have liked to refer to. His right hon. Friend said the removal of the statue of the Duke of Wellington from the Arch might be construed into a desire on the part of the Government to reflect discredit and dishonour upon the most illustrious of all our patriots. He thought that there was one great answer to that assertion—namely, that the man who inherited his name, and almost worshipped his memory, was entirely in favour of the scheme proposed by the right hon. Gen-
  1136
  tleman the First Commissioner of Works. If there were any possible chance that it could be construed into a slur upon the memory of that great man it could not be supposed that the son of the Duke of Wellington would have given his sanction to the scheme of the Government. More than that, could there be any slur or reproach upon this illustrious man's memory by erecting a new statue in his honour 30 years after his death? We should only have three statues of the Duke of Wellington instead of two. When the statue: to which the debate related was placed on the Arch, looking down upon the crowded thoroughfare beneath it, it certainly was a monstrosity compared with the position it would occupy under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. The new statue of the Duke of Wellington would be in proportion to all around it; whereas the old statue was out of proportion to everything that came near it. There were very few ornamental spaces in the Metropolis; and Her Majesty's Government ought not to lose this opportunity of improving the Park for the sake of a maudlin sentimentality. If there had been any question of the statue being cremated or broken down, the case would have been different. But the statue was to be preserved, and at least they would have some chance of forming a conception of its beauty and proportions. Under these circumstances, he, for one, should cordially support the Vote of Her Majesty's Government for £2,000 for the statue, and for the appointment of a Committee to lay out the plans.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: When this Vote was last before the Committee there were several alternatives suggested to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. Almost every Member who spoke had some alternative to suggest, and, as often happened, the many alternatives combined together were nearly able to bring about a defeat of the proposal. On this occasion the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel), whoso reference to the work of my Department I most gratefully acknowledge, has made a definite proposal, and a very simple one—namely, that the statue should be replaced on the Arch from which it had been removed, and on which it was placed much against the wish of many persons of taste, among whom was the late Prince Consort,

  1137
  Now, I venture to think that that is a course which even if the House should reject the Vote now before it it would not adopt. I will freely and frankly admit that if the statue had remained on the Arch, and things had been unchanged, I should not have thought it worth while to make any proposal in the matter. After all, time consecrates many blunders; and I do not think I should have been justified in sweeping away the statue simply because certain defects in it had been pointed out and condemned. But the case now before us is different, because, in consequence of the improvements which we have been carrying out, and which I believe are generally recognized to be very good, the statue has had to come down in the natural course of events; and there has, consequently, been a new departure. It, therefore, appears to me that it would be almost madness to adopt the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet. Now, I am at issue with the right hon. Baronet with regard to a good deal of the historical matter to which he adverts. It is true that in 1838 Lord Melbourne obtained the consent of the Queen to the statue being placed upon the Arch; but in 1846, when it was about to be placed there, a good deal of feeling was aroused, and a debate upon the subject took place in that House, and Sir Robert Peel, who was appealed to to prevent its being so passed, said he was personally opposed to its being placed on the Arch;" and by way of alternative he offered there and then to take a Vote for providing a pedestal for it. Well, Sir, when the Committee refused that offer, Sir Robert Peel said that as Lord Melbourne had obtained the consent of the Queen to the site, he would not alter it. In the following year the statue was placed on the Arch, and no sooner was it done than there arose a chorus of condemnation with regard to it. There was a debate in that House, and the feeling there expressed was unanimous against it. The Government, represented by Lord Morpeth, Chief Commissioner of Works, announced that it was intended that the statue should be brought down. Amongst the first persons who objected to the statue remaining on the Arch was the Prince Consort, and by his advice the Queen ordered its removal. This was stated in this House by Lord Morpeth, who added that it was actually in course
  1138
  of being removed. The Duke of Wellington was then communicated with, and he told the Prince Consort that although he had never wished the statue to be placed on the Arch, yet, as it had been placed there, it was desirable that it should remain. The House of Commons, the Government, indeed, everybody, wanted the statue to come down; and I need hardly remind the House that for months afterwards it was the subject of numerous caricatures; it was said in Prance that Waterloo was at last avenged; and Mr. Decimus Burton was so seriously annoyed with the statue being placed on the Arch that I believe he was for many years prepared to give £2,000 to anyone who would cause it to be removed. The statue, nevertheless, remained on the Arch. But chance at last has offered an opportunity of bringing it down from its eminence; it has been taken down, and the question is as to whether it shall be replaced? I do not think the House will agree to its replacement; and, for my part, I respectfully decline to present a Vote to Parliament for that purpose. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the proposal of the Prince of Wales. I should be sorry if the Committee, or anyone else, thought for one moment that I have endeavoured to shelter myself behind the name of His Royal Highness. So far from that being the case, I have stated, over and over again, that I am responsible in this matter; and if I have named His Royal Highness it has been for the purpose of praising the public spirit with which he has come forward in this matter. Now, it appears to me that the proposal which His Royal Highness offers is, on the whole, the best solution of this question. But another alternative has been suggested, of placing the statue on a pedestal and allowing it to remain where it is, with regard to which I will say that the difficulty in the way of that course being taken is, that the statue is of such colossal size that it would completely over-top every other object in the space adjacent; and, therefore, I repeat that, in my opinion, the proposal of the Prince of Wales offers the best and most reasonable solution of the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the appointment of Mr. Boehm. That gentleman has resided in this country for 30 years; he is a sculptor of eminence; he is natu-

  1139
  ralized here, and is a member of the ! Royal Academy; and therefore I think that, to all intents and purposes, he may be called an Englishman. It is not the first time in the history of Art in this country that an English sculptor of eminence has had a foreign name. Again, Mr. Boehm, I believe, is almost the only sculptor of the day who has executed equestrian works, one of which—the statue of the Duke of Westminster—I think, is amongst the finest of its kind in the country. After all, equestrian statues are rare; and therefore, it seems to me wise to commit a task of that kind to a sculptor who is renowned for his works in that branch of Art. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) has adverted to the question of competition; and with reference to that, I must again repeat that the original intention of having competition in this matter was abandoned for two reasons. In the first place, because I ascertained that three leading sculptors of the day refused to compete—I am not at liberty to mention their names, but it is a fact those gentlemen informed me they would not take part in a competition. But the second reason is that, the present Duke of Wellington is utterly opposed to the course, his own opinion being that it is impossible to get a good work of Art by competition, and he has said that, with such a condition, he would not have consented to take any part in the work. I say, then, it was desirable to get the cordial assent of the present Duke of Wellington to all the proceedings; and I am happy to state that all that is proposed to be done has met with his hearty approval. A letter which I received yesterday from the Duke contains these words with reference to that purpose—"I feel that full respect is paid to the memory of my Father." And I may add that this is one of a series of letters which I have received from his Grace on this subject. Under these circumstances, I venture to hope that the House will assent to the Vote, otherwise they must abandon all hope of decorating the place; and I trust, also, that this proposal will be accepted by the House as affording the best compromise of a very difficult and delicate question.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Government were asking for £2,000 as the first instalment of the sum of £6,000 for the
  1140
  decoration of the West End of London at the expense of the taxpayers of the Kingdom; and upon that point, totally irrespective of the question as to whether the statue should be put up again or be placed on another site, he should, if no one else did, take the sense of the House. He was sure no one in the country wanted to detract from the honour which the nation paid to the Duke of Wellington, or forget its obligations to him; but he thought that the State had amply repaid that obligation. The statue of the Duke had been spoken of as a National monument; but the description was incorrect, because it was a monument raised by private subscription. The National monument was erected in St. Paul's Cathedral, at the Duke's death; and the nation likewise perpetuated his memory by that admirable Institution which bore his name. Rightly or wrongly, the Chief Commissioner of Works had seen fit to remove this monument; and the House was now asked to vote out of the Public Exchequer a large sum of money in connection with the site. His right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works used a word which really disclosed the whole matter. He said the money was wanted for the ''decoration of this place"—namely, the wealthiest part of the wealthiest City of the world. If hon. Members went throughout the length and breadth of London, they would not find any place where property, freehold and leasehold, was of more value than in that part of the Metropolis. Notwithstanding that, and within a week of the presentation of the Budget, in which it was stated that the condition of their finance was such that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was compelled to recede from the pledges given to the people at large with respect to cheap telegrams, the House was asked for a Vote at the expense of the whole community for the decoration of London. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in one of his Mid Lothian speeches, alluded to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he regretted to observe, had, together with the other Members of the late Government, left the House, in connection with a Vote of £2,000. The right hon. Gentleman said—"The Chancellor of the Exchequer who will not save £2,000 is not worth his salt." Now, here was a Vote for precisely that

  1141
  amount, as an instalment of £6,000, which the House might rest assured would not be the whole of the money required. The public would be again called upon in order to make up the deficiency. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow, and other large cities and towns in the Kingdom, had their decorations and their statues of great men; but they never asked Parliament for any public money for the purpose. As a Representative of the taxpayers of the Kingdom outside London, he protested against their being taxed for the decoration of the Metropolis; and he trusted that all Liberal Members in the House would sympathize with him in his endeavour to put a stop to the mendicancy which London was never tired of resorting to for the purpose of getting itself decorated and maintained at the expense of the rest of the community.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should not have addressed himself to this subject but for the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The charm of Art lay in its being eclectic. He had, when this Vote was last before the House, shown his eclecticism by voting against the Motion of the Chief Commissioner of Works. He should on this occasion, however, support the Resolution, because he was always open to conviction, and because he thought common sense was better than consistency. Let the House get out of their heads the names of all those grand people who had been referred to in the course of the discussion, and make use of their own judgment. They had been told to look to the Royal Academicians, and to William IV., as great arbiters of taste; but he never troubled himself about either the one or the other; in the present case he looked simply at the facts as they stood before the House. They had this place in the central part of London. That was one fact; and another was that on that place there stood this monstrous horse, than which there had been no greater curse to any city since the horse of Troy. What was to be done with it? "Melt it, "said some hon. Gentlemen; but would there be a majority in favour of that? ["No, no !"] For his own part, he would like to surround it with trees, paint it green, and try to forget it. But the fact remained; there was the horse,
  1142
  and the country must deal with it. The alternatives were to remove it; to put it upon a pedestal, and to replace it on the Arch. They were not in favour of putting it in the place again; they were not in favour of spending a large amount of money on it; nor were they going to leave it where it was. He thought the Chief Commissioner of Works had made a very reasonable bargain. He had no prejudice in this matter, which was simply a question of figures, and at those figures he desired to look. The Chief Commissioner of Works said that £15,000 or £20,000 would be subscribed by the public for the decoration of the place. ["No!"] Well, say £10,000. Therefore, in consideration of the expenditure of £10,000 on this central part of London, which, might, indeed, be regarded as the central place of the British Empire, the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to give £6,000 of public money. The House might be certain the place would not be allowed to remain as it was; it would have to be decorated; and, that being so, it seemed to him that the Chief Commissioner had made a reasonable and good bargain for them. The only reason against it which operated with him was that given by his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler)—namely, that London ought to defray the whole cost of decorating the place. As Londoners, they had been perfectly free to wander about there, and look at the Duke of Wellington on his Arch; but it must be remembered that they had never been consulted about the alterations at Hyde Park Corner. They were the work of the Chief Commissioner of Works, who was responsible for them to the House of Commons; and, that being so, he hoped they would not "Spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar."
  MR. W. LOWTHERsaid, he was very unwilling to trespass upon the time of the House; but he wished just to say a couple of words. He was aware that sentiment was more difficult to combat than many other things; but there were a great many facts in connection with this matter which they not to forget. They should remember that this equestrian statue was erected in honour of that very great man, the Duke of Wellington; and then they must bear in mind that it was put up in front of his

  1143
  Grace's house—a most unusual honour to pay to a man during his lifetime. They must not forget that the Duke of Wellington—one of the greatest men that England had ever seen—had looked upon this statue, and had approved of it and of its position. They were grateful—not only they, but the whole of England, nay, the whole of Europe, were grateful—to the Duke of Wellington for what he had done for them. The whole world was thankful. ["Divide!"] One moment more, and he had done. He very seldom, indeed, troubled them with any observations; and he did not think anyone had any right to complain of his obstructing the course of Business. He wished merely to say that though he did not advocate the replacing of the statue on the Arch, he still thought that the Memorial, whatever form it took, should be erected in front of Apsley House. In removing it from that position they would be laying themselves open to the accusation of wishing to shake off the hand of the dead man altogether.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that, having been a Member of the Committee on this question, he felt bound to say a word or two. The Committee had given the greatest possible attention to the consideration of the matter. All proposals were examined with care and fairness, and everything was done by the First Commissioner of Works to enable them to come to a right conclusion. The present proposal had been looked into both by the Committee and a Sub-Committee. He was not going to say how many were in favour of the plan, and how many were against it; but this he might state—that it had the approval of a large majority. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had referred to London as mendicant; but he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) could inform the hon. Gentleman that for this improvement at Hyde Park Corner, London had put her hand into her pocket to the extent of £20,000. Did she, then, deserve the phrase "mendicant?'' Had she not paid her full, and more than her full, share for the improvement? To his mind, the improvement was an excellent one, and the sum the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works asked the House to give was a very mild and moderate amount.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 219; Noes 108: Majority 111.—(Div. List, No. 80.)
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to move the reduction of Vote 3, in Class I., of the Civil Service Estimates by £6,525, on account of Kensington Gardens. He did not wish to discuss the matter at any length; but the point to which he desired to draw attention was this—namely, the increased mortality amongst the trees in Kensington Gardens. A few years ago these trees were in a most flourishing condition, and in the hottest days in the year extended a grateful shade to all; but all that had passed away now. Year by year the trees were dying, and it seemed very probable that before long there would be few left. It could not be said that the atmosphere of London killed them, for in the very heart of the Metropolis, in the squares and small open spaces, there were many very healthy trees. What, then, was the cause of the great mortality in Kensington Gardens? He had put Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works on this subject on previous occasions, and had got he did not know what sort of answers, but, certainly, not a satisfactory one. He passed through Kensington Gardens almost every day, but failed to notice that the First Commissioner of Works was making any efforts, or even experiments, with a view to putting a stop to the increased mortality. He failed to observe that anything at all was being done to save the trees. He felt assured that if these trees were on a private estate, their owner would not sit still, with his arms folded, whilst they died and fell. He would call in the services of the tree doctor; he would appeal to men of science; dig about the roots, make experiments, and take every means to discover, if possible, what was the matter with the trees. He expressed a very earnest hope that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had taken this subject to heart, and did not mean to stand by and do nothing; but that he would do something towards discovering a remedy for the condition of things which existed. For hiss own part, he had had considerable experience of trees. He did not profess to be a tree doctor, but he knew something about them; and he

  1145
  had formed a theory of his own with, regard to what it was that ailed them, and he believed—and this theory was supported by very good authority—that it arose through spreading over the roots of the trees the clay from the great number of new houses that had been built in the neighbourhood. His opinion was that the mortality among the trees was caused in that way. Covering the roots and shutting out the air often had this effect; and he noticed particularly that the few trees still flourishing were those not so treated. He, therefore, hoped that the great Officer of the Government who was in charge of this matter would see if he could not do something to discover the source of the evil, and, if possible, to try and remove it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was afraid that he must admit that these trees were in a very deplorable state; and he was afraid it must also be admitted that a very great portion of them would at an early date be destroyed. He did not know of any remedy for the existing state of things. The trees would, no doubt, in the course of time, die, and it was impossible to arrest their decay; but so long as any of them showed symptoms of life he should be unwilling to remove them. He did not like to make a clean sweep of these trees. He believed that the cause of the calamity was that the trees had reached a sub-soil of some bad character; but he did not believe that it was due to the cause mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—namely, a certain multiplication of the drains through house building. No doubt, the result was a very unfortunate state of things.
  Resolution agreed to.

COINAGE AND BANKING ACTS.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. COURTNEY, in moving—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to consider the Weights and Measures Acts,"
  said, he must explain that the Committee was to be set up to amend the Banking and Coinage Acts; but it was found, as a matter of fact, that they would also require to amend the Weights and Measures Acts in some respects, as those Acts spoke of the dimensions of
  1146
  the existing coin. Therefore, as it was proposed to alter the weight of the half-sovereign, it was necessary to amend these Acts.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to consider the Weights and Measures Acts."——(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)presumed that this Resolution was in connection with the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with half-sovereigns, and that a full opportunity would be given for discussing it on some future occasion. He supposed this was merely a formal Resolution, which did not commit the House in any way.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was only a formal Resolution, and certainly would not commit them in any way. Without it the Bill for dealing with the coinage could not be introduced. He would take care that ample opportunity was afforded for full discussion.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the terms of the Resolution which is to be moved in Committee?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The terms are—
  "That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to Coinage, Banking, and Weights and Measures."
  It is merely formal.
  Motion agreed to.
  Matter considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY moved—
  "That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to Coinage, Banking, and Weights and Measures."
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1870, &C.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the creation of Stocks of Perpetual Annuities hearing interest at the rate of Two Pounds Fifteen Shillings per centum per annum, and of Stocks of Perpetual Annuities bearing interest at the rate of Two Pounds Ten Shillings

1147
per centum per annum, and to authorise also the conversion into such Stocks of Stocks of Perpetual Annuities bearing interest at the rate of Three Pounds per centum per annum.
2. Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision for the payment quarterly of the dividends of the said Stocks.
3. Resolved, That it is expedient that the said Stocks he issued on such terms as may be determined hereafter, and that provision be made by the creation of Terminable Annuities for the redemption of any increase of Capital of the National Debt caused by the said conversion.
4. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend "The National Debt Act, 1870," and "The Sinking Fund Act, 1875."
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

MOTION.

  SHOP HOURS REGULATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. "WHITLEY, Bill to regulate the Hours of Labour in Shops and "Warehouses in the city of Liverpool and the vicinity thereof, ordered to he brought in by Mr. WHITLEY, Lord CLAUD JOHN HAMILTON, and Mr. SAMUEL SMITH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 185.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.