Commons Sitting of 23 October 1884

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and having returned;—

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
John Tremayne, esquire, for Devon County (Southern Division); Patrick Joseph Power, esquire, for Waterford County; Ronald Craufurd Munro - Ferguson, esquire, for Combined Counties of Ross and Cromarty.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For Radnor, v. Samuel Charles Evans Williams, esquire, Manor of Northstead; for Stirling, v. Henry Campbell-Bannerman, esquire, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
MOTION.
  SESSIONAL ORDERS—THE METROPOLITAN POLICE — POLITICAL DEMONSTRATIONS.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SPEAKERread the following Sessional Order:—
    "That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid."
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree to the said Sessional Order."
    MR. CHAPLIN: If any apology were needed on my part for intruding between the House and the adoption of this Order, which you, Sir, have just put from the Chair, I think I should be able to find it in certain circumstances which occurred during last Session, and

    47
    which probably many hon. Gentlemen will remember. It will be in the recollection of the House that grave complaints were made one day last Session by certain hon. Members of the obstruction which they had encountered, on the day of the Radical Demonstration in support of the Franchise Bill, in endeavouring to take their places in this House. I myself, on that occasion, ventured to put a Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the subject; and I asked him whether it was with the sanction of the Government, directly or indirectly, that this Sessional Order of the House of Commons had been violated, as it undoubtedly had been violated, on that occasion. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in his most jocose manner, replied that it was certainly not with the sanction of the Government, and that, as far as he was aware, the Order had not been violated at all. I may mention that I had previously informed the right hon. Gentleman, in the few observations I made on that occasion, that I myself had encountered such obstruction in my endeavour to pass through Parliament Street to the House of Commons, that I was absolutely defeated in the endeavour, and that unless I had been a Member of St. Stephen's Club, from which establishment there happens to be a subterraneous passage, I should have been unable on that afternoon to take my seat in the House of Commons at all. I thought that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was so unsatisfactory, that it threw such discredit on my statement, and was so exceedingly wanting in the courtesy I had expected from the right hon. Gentleman, that I gave Notice that I would take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to this question; and it appears to me that the Motion now made from the Chair is a proper and fitting opportunity for me to take that course. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the statement he made, explained, in some detail, the precautions he had taken. In order to make my case good, I will ask the kind attention of the House for a few minutes, and I hope I may not detain hon. Members longer. In the first place, I ask the kind attention and consideration of the House to the terms of the Sessional Order, and, secondly, to what actually
    48
    occurred. The House has heard put from the Chair the Order passed last year, and which it is asked to pass again to-night; and perhaps I may be allowed to point out that these words occur—
    "It is ordered that the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House."
    The Order put from the Chair does not say that "little," but that "no" obstruction shall be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House. Nothing can be more definite or more clear than the instructions contained in that Order. And now let me call attention to what happened in this case. The procession assembled on the Victoria Embankment, and it proceeded from thence along the Embankment, round Bridge Street, down Parliament Street, through Whitehall, and so on to Pall Mall; so that a Member of Parliament who found himself in the particular locality in London between the Victoria Embankment and Parliament Street was absolutely precluded, unless he could force his way through the procession, from taking his seat in the House that afternoon. That was what actually happened to myself. I happened to have business which required me to be between Parliament Street and the Embankment, and when I attempted to cross Parliament Street I found it absolutely impossible. Now, there is no doubt whatever as to the route taken by the procession on that occasion, and no doubt whatever as to its effect upon Members who found themselves in that part of London; and it is upon those facts that I base my case—first, that the Order was distinctly violated; and, secondly, that it was owing to neglect of duty on the part of the present Secretary of State for the Home Department. I should like to ask him this question. Why was the procession permitted to go by that route at all? The natural and convenient course for the procession was by Northumberland Avenue. And why was it permitted to go half-a-mile or a mile out of its way, in order that it might pass by the House of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman told us he had no right to dictate what course that pro-

    49
    cession should take. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear hear!] The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear!" and I quite agree with him on that point; but allow me to remind him that he had the right, and that it was his positive duty, to dictate what course the procession should not take, if that course entailed a positive breach of the Sessional Orders of the House of Commons. It is all the more necessary for me to call attention to this subject to-day when we consider some recent proceedings which have occurred in connection with public meetings on the part of some of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is as well aware as any Member of the House of the blackguardly proceedings that occurred at Birmingham the other day, which are popularly, and, I believe, truly, supposed to have originated with and been conducted by the "Caucus," with which body a distinguished Member of the present Government, the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), it is popularly rumoured, is more or less connected. But if he be connected with it or not, he has certainly, in no adequate terms, condemned, if it cannot be truly said that he has attempted to palliate, and be the semi-apologist for, its proceedings. Then, this morning and yesterday we have read of the occurrences at Dumfries the other day. Such is the extreme chivalry of some of the Liberal supporters of the present Government, that a dastardly outrage upon Lord Salisbury was suffered to occur, although he was accompanied at the time by ladies in his carriage. As we are informed, there was neither hesitation nor scruple on the part of members of the Liberal Party in committing a most outrageous assault upon the noble Lord. Then, I say, as it is becoming more and more clear every day that there is an evident intention and determination on the part of some of the members of the Liberal Party to use whatever violence and intimidation they can in connection with this question, it is the more necessary that we should have a clear and distinct understanding in regard to any future processions which may take place in the neighbourhood of the House of Commons. I want to have a distinct and explicit understanding from the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    50
    as to whether this Sessional Order, which we are asked to place on our Journals, is to be a reality in the future or only a farce? I contend that, owing to his action last Session, it was on that occasion absolutely nothing but a farce, and I want a distinct statement from him that nothing of the kind will be allowed to occur in the future. If we do not get such an assurance, it will become a question whether it is desirable to have any Order of this kind upon the Journals at all. It is quite clear that it is highly objectionable to vest powers in the hands of a Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would not hesitate to enforce them on one occasion and to refrain from doing so on another. And when we consider that there may be demonstrations on both sides—by Conservatives as well as Liberals—[Cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be surprised; but it is as well that if these are to be the methods which, on the Liberal side in the country, are to be resorted to in the future, we should know it. If violence and intimidation and gross outrages are to be practised by them, we shall know pretty well how to take care of ourselves. It is perfectly obvious that, in the hands of an unscrupulous Secretary of State—[Cries of "Oh!"]—of course, I do not refer to the right hon. Gentleman—this is a weapon that might be used in the interests of one Party, and to the serious injury and detriment of the other. I need say nothing further upon the matter. I have endeavoured to state as distinctly as possible the grounds on which I have thought it right and necessary to make these observations to the House. I hope my remarks will have the effect of eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman a distinct and explicit statement that this Sessional Order shall not be violated again; but, as far as he is concerned, that it shall be strictly enforced in future.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, it would be entirely inconsistent with the Office I have the honour to hold, even if it were compatible with my sense of what is proper and fitting on such subjects, to deal with a question of this kind in the partizan tone the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin) has chosen to adopt. What I shall have to say on this subject will be entirely free

    51
    from any spirit of that kind. The hon. Member has chosen to call an me unscrupulous Home Secretary. [Mr. CHAPLIN: "No!" and cries of "Withdraw!"]
    MR. CHAPLIN: I expressly stated that I did not apply that term to the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's explanation; but the statement did not reach my ear. Well, then, having the good fortune to be acquitted by the hon. Member of being an unscrupulous Home Secretary, I hope I may make a statement consistent with that admission on his part. I regard it as the very first duty of any man who holds the Office I hold, quite irrespective of Party, to act in regard to public order without favour to one side or the other. I have always endeavoured to do so, and I shall always continue to do so. The hon. Member has called attention to the Sessional Orders of the House. It is to be regretted that the hon. Member did not discuss the particular case to which he refers at the time it occurred, when the circumstances were more fresh in the recollection of the House than they are now. I had, indeed, thought that the common sense of the House had pronounced upon this matter in July or August last. But the hon. Member seems to have been brooding over it during the Recess, and he has thought it necessary to revive the question. Well, I have nothing more to say on the subject than I did on the former occasion. The Sessional Order was certainly present to my mind at the time of this procession, and I gave orders to the police to protect the accesses to this House, and to see that they were kept clear. When great gatherings of people take place in London, upon whatever occasion, they do cause, and must cause, some inconvenience. An hon. Gentleman in a remote part of London, near where the gathering takes place, may, if he wants to come to the House of Commons, be interrupted in so doing. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) says that I ought to have dictated the route of the procession. I stated before, and I state again, that if I had done so—
    MR. CHAPLIN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain. That was not what I said. What
    52
    I said was that it was not only the right, but the duty of the Secretary of State to dictate the route it should not take, if that route was likely to occasion a breach of the Sessional Order.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, Sir, I do not think there is any great diffierence between dictating the course which the procession ought to take, and dictating the course which it ought not to take. [" Oh, oh!"] At any rate, I apply my observations to the negative as well as to the positive assertion. I say I had no right to dictate the course which the procession should not take. As I understood my duty, and endeavoured to perform it, it was to see that if that procession took place it should cause no inconvenience, or as little inconvenience as possible, to the access of hon. Members to this House. I gave instructions to the police to this effect, and I say that practically those instructions were effectually carried out. As I have said before, it is impossible that, when large gatherings take place, no inconvenience should be caused. But we have had certain gatherings in the neighbourhood of Westminster in the month of November; and I would venture again, in the presence of the Lord Mayor, to allude to a certain gathering which used to take place in the neighbourhood of Westminster on the 9th of November. I do not know whether, since the New Law Courts were removed—for my experience is too recent—whether the Lord Mayor still comes down to Westminster.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): No.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: He does not now come to Westminster at all?
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): No.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, that will be a relief in future; but I am pointing out that, in the good old days, there have been gatherings in the Strand and elsewhere which stopped the traffic, and which filled Westminster Hall, and yet nobody complained of them. Certain inconvenience has been occasioned; but people bear the inconvenience, whether it is a Lord Mayor's Show or a procession of any other description. The police, however, always did their best to protect the traffic. If it were true that this procession had deliberately attempted to interfere

    53
    with the access of Members to this House—
    MR. CHAPLIN: It did interfere.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If it had endeavoured, as the hon. Member says, to interfere with the free access of hon. Members to Parliament, which it did not, then there might be some grounds for his complaint. But when hon. Members recollect the circumstances of the case, and the great number of people gathered together, and remember that although there may have been some slight obstruction, hon. Members were not prevented from getting to the House of Commons, I think this House and people in general will come to the conclusion, that, as regards the procession, it was very well conducted, and as regards the police that they did their duty under the Sessional Order to the best of their ability, and did preserve access to the House of Commons. Now, what is the outcome of the remarks of the hon. Member? What are the alternatives he presents? That I should have prohibited the procession altogether. Does the hon. Gentleman propose that?
    MR. CHAPLIN: I say that such processions are prohibited by the House of Commons.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member proposes that these processions should be prohibited by the House of Commons. Then let him make a Motion to that effect, and we shall see what the opinion of the House of Commons is.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman entirely misapprehends what I said. Perhaps it is very convenient for him to do so. What I said, when he asked me what I would have prohibited, was that he should have prohibited the procession passing by the House of Commons, in order to maintain the Sessional Order of the House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the hon. Gentleman desires to have such a special prohibition, let him bring forward a Motion to that effect. Let him define his prohibition, and let us see what it is he is contending for. I maintain, on the other hand, that in the interests of order it is far better not to interfere with these processions, from whichever side they come. The hon. Gentleman says his Party is going to have a procession, I am quite sure that
    54
    every endeavour will be made to preserve order in his procession, and there will be no distinction made. If I had done in this case what he says I ought to have done, and had said that the procession should not go down certain streets, I think it would have been highly inconvenient, and I should have been undertaking a responsibility in regard to the procession which it was not desirable that the Executive Government should undertake. All that the Secretary of State, in my opinion, can do, or ought to do in such cases, is to employ every effort to preserve order, and to preserve the access to the Houses of Parliament. All I can say is, that that duty I endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to perform; and it is for the House to judge whether that duty was, without inconvenience to any Member in any part of London, substantially performed in regard to the procession to which the hon. Member has referred.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I must confess that I have listened with some disappointment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It does appear to me that my hon. Friend, in calling attention to this matter, deserved a somewhat different answer to that which he has received. I quite believe that the right hon. Gentleman acted, as he thought, for the best; but there are two things which are perfectly clear. One is that the course taken by the procession did interfere, and interfered rather inconveniently, with the access of Members to the House. I will take my own case, and will state what happened to me. I came on that day from some distance out of London, and arrived at Waterloo Station. I took a cab to drive to the House of Commons, and found that I could not cross by Westminster Bridge, but that I had to go all the way round by Lambeth Bridge. I do not make any complaint as to what happened to me; but what happened to me may have happened, in one degree or other, to other hon. Members. I do not put the matter on that ground. What I wish to express my regret at is the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think there is no duty on the part of the Secretary of State to take care that the instructions and Orders of this House, in regard to access being left free, should be ob-

    55
    served. It is futile to talk of gatherings that may take place from accidental circumstances in different parts of the Metropolis, and still more futile to talk of matters so well understood as the Lord Mayor's procession. I am reminded that these Lord Mayor's processions take place in the morning, and at a time when the House is not usually sitting, so that they could not in any way interfere with the access of Members to this House. But it must be remembered that if political processions, organized specially for political objects, and in reference to the action of Parliament—if political processions are to be organized in reference to action still going on in Parliament—there is something more than a mere physical obstruction to Members passing along. You have to consider other possibilities. In the present instance we have nothing to complain of in regard to the conduct of the processionists; but it easily might have been otherwise; and I think it is the clear duty of a Minister who is responsible in such matters to see that proper arrangements are made—at all events, that improper arrangements are not made—which might have the effect of disturbing the easy and proper access of Members to this House. I own that I am disappointed at the language of the right hon. Gentleman; and I hope it may not be taken as an indication of the action which, on other occasions, he may be disposed to take.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in Westminster Hall or in the passages leading to this House during the sitting of Parliament; and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.

  Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
  OUTLAWRIES BILL.
  Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.
NOTICES.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to give Notice that I will, to-morrow, move for Leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Representation of the People of the United Kingdom; and that I will, on Monday, move that the several stages of any Bill relating to the Representation of the People have precedence of all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motion, on every day for which they may be set down by the Government.
  MR. TOMLINSONgave Notice that, to-morrow, he would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he was correctly reported to have said in a speech at Preston Railway Station, on the 26th September—
  "That the Franchise Bill was a very simple measure, but everything was done by the Tories to make it complicated. With that object they tried to bring in the woman's franchise;"
  whether he referred to the Amendment on the Franchise Bill of last Session proposed by the hon. Member for Stoke, and seconded by the hon. Member for Manchester, or what Amendment he referred to; whether he intended to refer to those two hon. Members as having a desire to overweight the Franchise Bill; and, whether he was aware that several Leaders of the Conservative Party had for several years been in favour of the female suffrage?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will answer the Question now. I think that the report, as far as I have heard it read, is perfectly correct. I did not refer to the proceeding of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, who evinced the sincerity of his conduct on that occasion by doing what he was perfectly entitled to do, and what was very inconvenient to the Government and to his Party. I do not think any further answer is necessary.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he has not answered the last paragraph. [Cries of "Order!"] I will put the Question down on the Paper.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: On Tuesday, the 4th of November, to move that no Redistribution Bill will be satisfactory which does not recognize the principle of proportional representation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, with power to summon and examine witnesses, to inquire into the mode in which one of the schemes of Redistribution, which were printed for the private consideration of certain Members of Her Majesty's Government, was obtained and published in The Standard?
  SIR JOHN HAY: To-morrow, to ask leave to bring in a Bill for the redistribution of seats.
  MR. MACIVER: I beg to give Notice that I shall move an Amendment to the Address in the following terms:—To add the words—
  "But we humbly direct Her Majesty's attention to the depressed condition of commerce and agriculture, and regret that Her Majesty's gracious Speech contains no reference to a subject of such paramount importance."

QUESTIONS.

  THE MINISTRY—THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFEasked the Prime Minister, Whether any successor had been appointed to Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, for whose courtesy he was very grateful? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that at present the Admiralty was represented in neither House of Parliament; and he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), therefore, wished to know to what Minister inquiries respecting that Department were to be addressed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I have no statement to make on that subject, except that the hon. Member has, I think, inadvertently fallen into an error. There is one of the Lords of the Admiralty sitting in this House, and any Questions touching affairs relating to that Department can be addressed to him with perfect convenience.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what Privy Councillors there are at present responsible for the affairs of the Admiralty in the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may observe that there has not been for some time a Privy Councillor directly responsible for the affairs of the Admiralty in this House—my hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Campbell-
  58
  Bannerman) not having been a Member of the Privy Council.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether the Government contemplate taking any measures to relieve the anxiety which prevails in the public mind as to the state of the Navy, and particularly as to its sufficiency for the protection of the trade and commerce of the country in the event of war?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will take the liberty of answering the Question in the general terms in which the right hon. Gentleman has put it, which do not precisely correspond with the Notice that he was kind enough to give me; but I will not refer to that. For some considerable time the Admiralty have had the subject of the Naval Establishments of the country under their consideration in a somewhat larger way than must, of course, always be the case with reference to the annual Estimates for each year. The Papers relating to the coaling stations have been recently circulated, and are now in the hands of hon. Members; and the Department will be prepared, in the course of next month, to bring before the House, in whatever form may appear to be most convenient, a statement of their views and intentions generally on that subject.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—BECHUANALAND.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether the statement which appears in the newspapers this morning is correct, to the effect that Sir Charles Warren is to be sent out to the Cape in connection with the present position of affairs in Bechuanaland; and also whether he can inform the House what will be the powers with which Sir Charles Warren will be sent out, and what is the nature of his instructions?
  MR. GORSTasked when the Papers on that subject would be laid on the Table?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, that all he was able to say at present was, that the Colonial Office was

  59
  now in communication with Sir Charles Warren on the question whether he should go out or not; and he was not able for a few hours to give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed answer. As to the Question about those Papers, he (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) wished to express his deep regret to the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that the promise he had made to him at the end of last Session that the Papers would be distributed had not been carried out. The reason for that was the Papers were of a highly confidential character, and the Government thought it so important that they should be given to the House to enable it to understand the matter thoroughly, that the Papers were sent off to the Cape to be submitted to Sir Hercules Robinson and Mr. Mackenzie, that they might go over them and correct them for publication—[Laughter, and ironical cheers]—and the Government only received them back lately. [Renewed laughter.] Well, the hon. Members who laughed and cheered had evidently not had much official experience. They should know that private letters were frequently written by public men referring to other public men in language which, as a matter of fact, they would not like to be published. Those letters referred to personal matters—matters personal to Mr. Mackenzie, and the Colonial Office did not think it right, without Mr. Mackenzie's consent, that they should be published. There was no mystery about the Papers; and, as a matter of fact, they had been laid on the Table. He had been in communication with the Printing Department; and he hoped, by a great effort, to get some copies of them ready by Saturday. The cause of the delay was the necessity of sending them to the Cape.

  THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  MR. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Speech, made by Her Chancellor, and read it to the House.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    FIRST NIGHT.
    MR. E. STAFFORD HOWARD (who wore the dress of a Deputy Lieutenant)said: Mr. Speaker—Sir, I do not suppose that it has often happened that Her Ma-
    60
    jesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne at the commencement of a Session has been so limited in extent, and at the same time has dealt with such important and great questions, as is the case on the present occasion. There may be, however, some hon. Members who are disposed to doubt the necessity for so early an assembling of Parliament as set out in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech; but I do not think they will regret the opportunity which is now offered them of discussing the condition of affairs in Egypt and in South Africa, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to them.
    I think it will be observed with satisfaction that Her Majesty is able to state that her relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be amicable; because, not so very long ago, a portion of the foreign Press attempted to show that those relations were likely to be disturbed in consequence of what had occurred in relation to the failure of the Conference upon Egyptian affairs. I think we ought not to attach too much importance to such statements as these; but, at all events, the country will welcome the assurance contained in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech.
    Sir, the question of Egypt is one which has occupied a great deal of time and attention in this House, and the Mission of General Gordon has excited the sympathy and interest of everyone in this country; I think, however, that by the debates which took place in this House last Session it was made abundantly clear that there were many persons who were more than uneasy at the delay on the part of Her Majesty's Government in sending relief to that gallant officer. The necessity seemed beyond doubt, and, therefore, I believe that everyone will approve the steps which Her Majesty's Government have taken, whilst the progress of the Expedition is being watched with the intense interest which the circumstances naturally excite. I think, Sir, also, that the terms in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech which refer to the services rendered by General Gordon in his perilous Expedition are such as will command the assent of all. The exceptional difficulty and danger of the task he was called upon to perform, the remarkable character of the man himself, the wonderful energy displayed by

    61
    him in maintaining in safety himself and everyone with him in their isolated situation at Khartoum, cut off from all communication with his friends, surrounded by treacherous enemies—all these circumstances combine to make him and his companions the central figures in the thoughts of all who take an interest in what is occurring abroad, and a pride in the gallant deeds of their countrymen. I wish it were in my power to say anything to the House as to the painful uncertainty which surrounds the position of the gallant Colonel Stewart. So far as can be found out, all the fresh information that has been received does not go far to encourage our hopes; but the fact that Lord Wolseley has been sent out to command the Expedition, and that Her Majesty's Government have to ask for additional supplies, show that they mean to spare no effort which may be necessary to open up the route to Khartoum, and to enable General Gordon and those whom he has been helping to defend themselves to return in safety. Whatever may be the opinion of hon. Members as to the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government in relation to the Soudan, I think everyone must agree that, so far as this Expedition is concerned, they are only fulfilling a duty to General Gordon, whose perilous position has been due to no fanciful policy of his own, but to the necessities of the problem which he was sent out to solve. It will be found, I feel confident, that when he is able to make those communications which before long we hope he will be able to make, although his action on some occasions may have caused us surprise, and caused the Government surprise, it will be found that during the whole time he has been loyally endeavouring to carry out the instructions given to him in circumstances of unexampled difficulty.
    Sir, I think, with regard to Egypt Proper, the difficulties of the position in which we are placed are, undoubtedly, numerous; but I believe, also, it will be found that, so far as the reforms which we have been attempting to inaugurate are concerned, a steady progress has been made. As to the present position of the finances of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government have naturally supported the Government of the Khedive in taking
    62
    the steps which were forced upon him, owing to the failure of the Conference upon Egyptian affairs, to solve the difficulty; but I think we may expect that the Government of the Khedive will be able shortly to resume its proper financial position, and that the House and the country will endorse the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The task which has fallen to us in Egypt is not one that is likely to be accomplished in a moment; but I think if we can succeed in time in establishing order and good government in that country, and if in so doing we can establish among the people feelings of respect for us and a recognition of our good - will towards them—I think, if we can do this, there will be some compensation for all the money we have spent and all the infinite trouble we have been exposed to in our endeavour to accomplish that task.
    Now, Sir, it is necessary for me to say a few words on the subject of South Africa. The situation of affairs there is, I regret to say, far from satisfactory; but, at the same time, we must admit that this is a description which I am afraid cannot be said to be an unusual one. I shall not attempt now to enter into the details of what has taken place there, or to fix the responsibility for them upon any particular policy past or present, because I have no doubt that the subject will be fully discussed in this House by those who are much more able than I am to do so, and because to speak of a question of this kind in the spirit of any Party can lead to no good. But I think I may say truly that however easy it is to be wise after events, and to say "You should have done this," or "You ought to have done that," there is no part of the globe in which the British Government have to act where the conditions that have to be dealt with are so complicated, so shifting, and so contradictory as they seem to be in South Africa. The late Government made a very vigorous attempt to unite the conflicting elements in South Africa; the premature attempt at Confederation, however, failed, and I think I may say that the last state of affairs there has been worse than the first. The present Government, on acceding to Office, found themselves involved in difficulties with the Transvaal Government, and those difficulties have continued ever since. Twice have Her

    63
    Majesty's Government attempted to establish a modus vivendi with the Boer Government and people, and twice have the Boers broken the Convention made with them, before, so to speak, the ink was dry; and so people are beginning to ask themselves, not unnaturally, what is the use of making agreements with a Government which seems either unwilling or unable to carry them out when made? Would it not be much better for us to make up our minds as to what we ought to insist upon, and then insist upon its being done? One of the great difficulties which has beset every Government in South Africa has been the undoubted fact that the majority of the Boer population in the Cape Colony has sympathized with their fellow-countrymen in the Transvaal; but there was, I believe, a hope entertained a short time ago that public opinion in the Cape Colony was ready vigorously to support the re-assertion of the Convention which has been broken, and I believe, Sir, that the inhabitants of the Colony are now ready to re-assert that Convention. I hope they will be successful, and that, having done so without the shedding of blood, we shall be able to congratulate ourselves that the question has been settled without another South African War; if not, I do not see that there is any alternative to the pushing forward of those preparations which Her Majesty's Government are already making, which will insure the faithful performance of the Convention, and the security of the Natives to whom we have pledged our word. Sir, I think the lesson which this country ought to learn from these events is that if peace is ever to reign in South Africa, if respect for the British name is to continue there, and if South Africa is to remain an integral portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, we shall have to deal with the matters arising there with a firm and steady hand. There is no more precious trust committed to the care of the Government of this country by the people from whom they derive their power than the national reputation for good faith—there is nothing which they should more vigilantly guard; and while the people of this country are anxious that the Government should avoid all engagements, the difficulties in the execution of which might involve us in embarrass-
    64
    ment and complication, they will always be found willing to support them in rigidly fulfilling those to which they have pledged their word.
    Now, Sir, turning from these important topics, I come to that great question which is the cause of our meeting here to-day. I do not think it is necessary for me to further refer to the circumstances which have called us together; but I may take this opportunity of expressing my most earnest hope that, having been summoned to discuss this question in Parliament, we shall address ourselves to the task of overcoming—not of aggravating — the difficulties of the position. I believe sincerely that it would be both a discredit to the good sense and reputation of the people, and a misfortune to the country at large, if this question be not settled without further agitation. Those who have watched the proceedings at the many meetings held throughout the country will have seen that there has been a tendency on the part of the speakers to deliver their addresses with increased warmth of expression, and on the part of the audiences an inclination to do something more than listen. So that, if there were no other reason for the assembling of Parliament, I think there are many who will agree with me that it is high time to change the scene of the controversy from the platforms of the country to the floor of this House, where, Sir, under your strict supervision, we may hope that our discussions will be conducted with somewhat less excitement, and with a greater desire to arrive at a settlement of this question, than the stimulating atmosphere of public meetings seems generally to promote. Now, in speaking on this question, I wish, as far as possible, to do so without Party feeling, and to approach it with the honest desire of seeing a measure pass which, I believe, will be for the benefit of the people; and I think I am only stating a fact when I say that every Member on this side of the House, except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), came here pledged to support this measure, the natural, unavoidable, and desirable complement to the Act of 1867. From that pledge, Sir, we cannot and will not recede, and we shall fail in our duty to those who returned us to this House if we deliberately adopt any course that would place the fate of that measure in

    65
    the hands of those who are not responsible for it. In every other respect I believe we are most anxious to meet the views of our opponents, and as, with, I believe, the exception of the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), we are all agreed upon the principle of the measure, there seems to be no reason why, if good sense is to prevail, we should not arrive at a settlement of this question. But, Sir, there is one thing which I admit must be first got out of the way, for it has tended greatly to aggravate the agitation which has taken place throughout the country. It will have been observed that in this agitation there are two sections, which seem to be each actuated by an ulterior motive, and not only that, but in whose minds that ulterior motive is the paramount idea—the one section desires to destroy, the other section desires to re-assert, to revivify, if I may say so, the powers of the Upper House of Parliament. Now, I ask this question—Are these ulterior motives to prevent the passing of this great measure for the better representation of the people, on the passing of which all reasonable men have set their minds? Surely both the sections to whom I have referred have reason to be satisfied with the advance that has been made. Those on the other side of the House would do well to be satisfied, I think, with the thousands who have flocked to their standard for one reason or another, and rest for a time with the comfortable assurance to be drawn from that fact before they put the question to any ruder test; while hon. Members on this side must surely be satisfied with the fact that they have brought this great question within the region of practical politics. If they will but remain quiet, and allow their opponents to cherish a little more the delusion under which they labour, it will not be long before they receive a challenge on the longed-for issue. Let each of these sections, then, give thanks for what it has received, and let us proceed to a practical consideration of the work which is immediately before us; and I repeat that it is my conviction that if these ulterior motives can be got rid of there is no reason why we should not come to a settlement. The only condition which Her Majesty's Government lay down is that the Repre-
    66
    sentation of the People Bill and the Redistribution of Seats Bill shall not be made dependent the one upon the other; and I say, without fear, that if Her Majesty's Government were to consent to such a condition they would have betrayed the confidence reposed in them, and would be inviting Parliament to a deliberate waste of time; because it must be patent to everyone who has observed the difficulty of passing any Bill through Parliament that were the Franchise Bill made dependent on the Redistribution Bill the interest in the details of the latter would become so enormous, and the temptation to criticize at length and move Amendments to them, always great, would be so increased, that the discussions would become almost interminable, with the result that there would not be the slightest chance of either of the Bills for the representation of the people passing into law during the present Parliament. If the Government consented to such a course they would be deliberately sacrificing the Bill to which they are pledged, and inviting Parliament to waste its time. Everyone must admit that such would be the case. ["No, no!"] That is our view, although hon. Members opposite do not look upon it in the same light; and therefore we consider that Her Majesty's Government cannot be too strict with regard to the terms laid down. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that hon. Members opposite are possessed with a great suspicion that Her Majesty's Government have two Redistribution Bills in their minds, and that the character of the Bill which they will eventually introduce depends entirely upon whether the Franchise Bill is made dependent on the Redistribution Bill or not. If the Government can pass the Franchise Bill apart from redistribution, they appear to think that so great will be the power they will obtain and the leverage they will get, and so unscrupulous the use they will make of them, that they will produce a Bill which will annihilate the Conservative Party. If, on the other hand, the passing of one Bill is made dependent on the other, they seem to suppose that the Government will be obliged to produce a Bill which will save the Conservative Party from the extinction which they fear. Now, Sir, I want to show how unreasonable these suspicions are. In

    67
    the first place, the Franchise Bill, if taken as evidence of the frame of mind of the Government, goes to show that there is no desire to be unfair to the Conservative Party. What temptation is there for us to pass an unfair Bill? I say, Sir, that the temptation lies entirely in the opposite direction. We have the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that it is impossible to produce any scheme of redistribution not obviously unfair, which will not be Liberal in its operation. ["No, no!"] Well, Sir, that is our opinion, and, that being so, I repeat that, so far from there being any temptation on our part to do that which is unjust, so strong is our position that the temptation lies all in the other direction. For the sake of getting the Bill, we can afford not only to be just, but generous. I am sure the Government have every disposition to meet the views of their opponents, whether it be in securing that the agricultural interest shall not be swamped by the urban, or by giving any other reasonable pledge that may be asked for. But it is said that the Government have no intention of carrying out its pledges. Well, Sir, I reply that that is an unworthy suspicion. I believe that there are enough honest men in this House to see that the Government does fulfil its pledges, and the fact that there are 180 Members of this House who have pledged themselves to the principle of proportional representation is a strong guarantee that nothing unfair will be done in any Redistribution Bill that passes this House. Whether any practical scheme can be formed which will give effect to their views and be acceptable to the country is a matter of doubt; but there is one thing which is not a matter of doubt, and it is that in subscribing to that principle each and all of those 180 Members are bound to oppose any proposition which is designedly calculated to give an unfair advantage or preponderance to any Party or interest. Those hon. Members make a formidable Party, and to my mind constitute a very powerful guarantee that any unfairness in a Bill of this kind will be corrected, and that any attempt to alter what is fair will be successfully resisted. Then, again, there are on this side of the House a large number of Liberal county Members whose natural tendency will
    68
    be to assert the claims of the country to as full a representation as the towns, and to prevent the swamping of agricultural interests by a great infusion of purely urban population. As to the independence of these hon. Members, the Government has, on more than one occasion I believe, discovered that they were not always on their side. Taking all these things together, I feel most strongly that there are, in the present state of this controversy, elements of agreement which ought to prevail. The Government, I am sure, short of yielding the vital point for which they are contending, will go far in the direction of conciliation, and I need hardly add my conviction that they ought to be met in the same spirit; we ought to desire to see the settlement of this question for its own sake, apart from the consideration of the consequences that will result, if it be not settled, grave as they are. Public opinion witnesses to the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of our fellow-countrymen—men and women—who, in spite of our boasted prosperity, civilization, humanity, and religion, are living in a state of degradation and wretchedness, which we know we ought to be ashamed of, and which is not only a disgrace, but a source of danger to the country. And, Sir, while I do not, for a moment, wish to exaggerate the powers of legislation as being greater than those of religion, or of moral or social reform, yet it is through Parliament that the wants of the people find a voice, and through Parliament that their grievances are discussed, and the proper remedies, be they social or be they legislative, are brought before the attention of the public. The disgrace of our great towns is the miserable accommodation for the poor—the hovels in which thousands of our fellow-countrymen are living. The curse of the country is the degradation and wretchedness caused by drink, aggravated, in a great degree, by the system of licensing. None but those who have taken an active interest in matters of this kind know what the feelings of the people with regard to them are. Give these people votes, and we shall find that these questions, and many others like them, will no longer be neglected or tinkered at by a half-attentive Parliament. Whatever can be done by legislation to promote a better state of things will be done, and what-

    69
    ever cannot be done by legislation will be pressed on and stimulated by a widened and strengthened public opinion, and so the position of the country will be strengthened, as nothing else will strengthen it, by the greater happiness, welfare, and contentment of the people.
    Sir, I must conclude the observations I have bad the honour to make on this occasion by asking pardon of the House for having trespassed on its time, and by thanking hon. Members for the kind attention with which those observations have been received. If I have deviated at all from the general lines of usage on these occasions, I must plead, as my excuse, the strong interest which I take in the great measure to be brought before us, and my anxious desire that it will be passed into law during the present Session. Sir, I beg to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey the thanks of this House for the Most Gracious Speech delivered by Her Command to both Houses of Parliament:
    "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty continues to maintain relations of amity with all Foreign Powers:
    "To assure Her Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that, although the information received from the Soudan includes painful uncertainties, yet the energy, courage, and resource conspicuously displayed by General Gordon in the successful defence of Khartoum deserve Her Majesty's warm recognition:
    "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the advance of Her Majesty's Troops to Dongola has for its object the rescue and security of that gallant officer, and of those who have so faithfully co-operated with him:
    "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that in Egypt itself Her Majesty is using Her best endeavours to promote further improvement; and that Her Majesty has given Her support to the Egyptian Government in the difficult financial position in which it has been left through the failure of the recent Conference:
    "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we learn with regret that circumstances have occurred on the South-western frontier of the Transvaal which demand Her Majesty's vigilant attention; and humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, in conjunction with the Government of the Cape Colony, Her Majesty is engaged in considering the means which may be required to secure the faithful observance of the Convention of the present year:
    70
    "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the operations in the Soudan will render it necessary to ask from us a further pecuniary provision:
    "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Bill for the extension of the Parliamentary Franchise will at once be introduced:
    "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our most careful consideration shall be given to any measure which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of Almighty God may attend upon our labours."
    MR. SUMMERS (who wore a Court dress)said: Sir, in rising to second the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech; it will hardly be necessary for me to bespeak the kind consideration and indulgence of the House. That consideration and that indulgence have always been extended to an hon. Member placed in the trying position in which I now find myself; and they will not, I am sure, be withheld from one who, though he may have no other claim upon the attention of hon. Members, has this, at least, to urge in his own behalf—that during the four and a-half years that he has enjoyed the honour of a seat in this Assembly, he has not unduly obtruded himself upon the notice of the House, or wasted any considerable portion of its precious and invaluable time.
    Mr. Speaker, the House will doubtless have learned, with feelings of pleasure and satisfaction, from one of the opening sentences of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, that her relations with all Foreign Powers are of a friendly and harmonious description. By a statement of this character, it is not, I imagine, intended to convey the impression that, since Parliament rose in August last, there has not been so much as a ripple upon the smooth surface of European politics. In dealing with a difficult and complicated question like that of Egypt, and a question, be it remembered, in respect of which each of the Great Powers of Europe has a recognized status and locus standi—it is impossible at all times, and under all circumstances, to avoid the occurrence and recurrence of a certain amount of friction, and, it may be, even of conflict. What we have to congratulate ourselves upon is that, up to the present time, at all events, that friction and conflict have been kept within reasonable limits, and have not assumed

    71
    any serious or alarming proportions. The various Powers of Europe, and more especially the neighbouring Government of France, though they may have differed from us at particular junctures, on particular points of policy, have felt bound to admit the disinterestedness of the aims, and the purity of the motives, by which Her Majesty's Ministers have been actuated. Nor is it, Sir, in any way surprising that differences of opinion should have existed amongst the European Powers. It would, indeed, be the merest affectation to deny that serious differences of opinion exist even within the walls of this House; and there are probably few men of candid and impartial mind amongst us who, looking back upon the connection of this country with Egyptian affairs for the last six or eight years, would not be prepared to make the admission that grave errors of judgment and of policy have been committed by one or other, or possibly by both, of the great Parties in the State. To hon. Gentlemen who may be disposed to condemn without mercy the action of the present Advisers of the Crown with respect to Egypt, I will simply say that it will not be possible for us to pass a final judgment upon their proceedings until we know the end as well as the beginning of their policy. Three years ago I remember to have heard the Prime Minister, when addressing the working men of Leeds, tell them that in all that he and his Colleagues would do in Egypt, they would proceed not for dynastic purposes, not for selfish views, not by any endeavour to make the interests of the English people paramount in the Government of Egypt as compared with the interests of the Egyptian people, but that their great aim and object would be to secure those ends which were for the benefit of Egypt herself. I make bold, Sir, to express my firm conviction that it is precisely in proportion as Her Majesty's Ministers rise "to the height of this great argument," or fall short of it, that they will be applauded or condemned by posterity. Shall I be regarded as a man of too sanguine and confiding a temperament if I venture, at the same time, to see in the reforms that have been already accomplished, and in the Mission of Lord Northbrook, with all that that Mission of necessity involves, sufficient and conclusive evidence that
    72
    Her Majesty's Ministers are redeeming the solemn pledges under which they lie, and are furnishing the world with proof which cannot be shaken that they have really and sincerely at heart the interests and the welfare of the Egyptian people?
    My hon. Friend the Mover of the Address (Mr. Stafford Howard) has dealt so fully and exhaustively with matters relating to the Soudan and South Africa, that it will not be necessary for me to trouble the House with any further observations upon foreign affairs. Indeed, Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, on the present occasion, may be said to reflect very faithfully the mind and feeling of the country, in that it gives especial prominence to one particular topic, and that a question of domestic concern. In my humble judgment, Mr. Speaker, it is matter rather for rejoicing than regret that the great question of Reform, for the moment, at all events, has, like Aaron's rod, swallowed up all other political questions whatsoever. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, no less than hon. Gentlemen opposite, are doubtless filled with the swellings of a just and lawful pride when they reflect upon the wonderful achievements of the men of our race who have gone forth from our shores to plant the British language, British liberties, and British laws in the uttermost parts of the earth. We, on this side of the House, no less than hon. Gentlemen on that, regard the government of the teeming millions of our vast Indian Dependency as, perhaps, the greatest trust ever imposed by Providence upon a powerful and high-spirited people. We likewise recognize, to the fullest possible extent, that Great Britain has duties to discharge, and interests to protect, in almost every quarter of the globe. But whilst we entertain these views, we are, at the same time, most firmly convinced that those are not amongst the least wise of our statesmen and public men who have not scrupled to express the opinion that, after all, it is here in England that the real strength and power and greatness of the Empire lie. How, then, could our Parliaments, how could our statesmen be more wisely or more profitably employed than by seeking to extend the limits of human freedom on English, on Scottish, and on Irish soil? Mr. Speaker, it will not, I

    73
    am sure, be necessary for me, at this time of day, to argue out the Franchise Question upon its merits. By almost universal confession and acknowledgment, the Franchise Bill, which was introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers, and carried through this House by enormous majorities in the last Session of Parliament, was a just, a moderate, and a reasonable measure. It might even be described, without the smallest exaggeration, as an essentially Conservative measure. It left the freemen undisturbed in the counties. It introduced no new principle into the Constitution. It simply sought to extend to householders in the counties those political rights and privileges which, by the Act of 1867, had been conferred upon householders in the boroughs. The remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker, is in reality this—that in the last quarter of the 19th century we should be still discussing the question whether one-half of the nation is any longer to remain in a condition of political dependence and political servitude. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan), whom we are all delighted to find filling, at last, his proper place in a Liberal Cabinet, told us, long ago, if the English agricultural labourer had been born a negro in the United States of America, he would have acquired the suffrage as soon as he had attained his majority; if he had been a peasant of Switzerland, or of France, he would have been in the possession of the franchise for a generation; and if, instead of being an Old Englander, he had been a New Englander, he and his forefathers before him would have enjoyed all the rights and privileges of citizenship for a couple of centuries. The Bill introduced by the Government being then as just, as moderate, and as reasonable as I have described, I proceed to ask the question, What was the reception it met with at the hands of the two great branches of the Legislature? As all the world knows, it met with great and growing favour in this House. If it had simply depended upon the action of the Representative Chamber, the Franchise Bill would, at this moment, have been an Act. Upon the second reading—when we affirm the principle of a measure—it was carried by a majority of 130; and when we went into Committee the majority
    74
    for the Government assumed still more formidable proportions. The just, wise, and statesmanlike proposal of the Government that Ireland should be included within the scope of the measure was carried, not merely by a majority of 130, but by a majority of 195. And when, Sir, we came to the third reading of the Bill, the opposition entirely collapsed, so that it stands recorded on the Journals of this House that the third reading of the Representation of the People Bill was carried nemine contradicente. It is no exaggeration, therefore, but the plain and simple truth, to say that the Franchise Bill went from this House to "another place" with the practically unanimous assent of the Representatives of the people. What happened when it reached that "other place?" I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that I must be careful in the language that I use. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) has his eye upon me, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not the faintest desire in the world to excite his indignation, or to disturb the serenity and equanimity of his temper. I shall not, therefore, say that noble Lords in "another place" rejected the Franchise Bill. I shall not even avail myself of the homely vernacular of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), and say that they "chucked it out." I shall content myself with the assertion to which no exception can, I trust, be taken, and shall say that their Lordships simply refused to allow the Bill to pass. That is the reason, Sir, and that is the only reason, so far as I am able to discover, why Her Majesty, acting on the advice of her Ministers, has summoned us together, after a Recess unusually short, for this extraordinary Session of Parliament. What is to be the issue of our labours? The Franchise Bill, we may reasonably anticipate, will once more be carried by large majorities in the Representative Chamber, and will once more be presented for consideration to their Lordships' House. What is to be its fate? That is the question of all-absorbing interest to us at the present time. We are sometimes told by men of high character and position in the country that it is altogether inconceivable that their Lordships should

    75
    be so wanting in respect and consistency as to allow a measure to pass in November to which they refused their assent in July. I trust, Sir, that such a consummation it is not so inconceivable as some would have us believe. Since July last, many things have happened that might well furnish to the most careless and casual observers ample material for reflection. The ancient right of public meeting has been largely availed of throughout the length and breadth of the land. We have had from week to week, and from day to day, meetings of every conceivable kind and description, ranging from the magnificent demonstrations in the streets of London and of Glasgow to that now historic gathering in the back parlour of a Welsh public-house, which was so select that we are told it consisted only of a chairman, a paid secretary, and a very little boy, but was, at the same time, so influential that we have likewise been told, on no mean authority, that it spoke the voice of Wales. Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege, during the Parliamentary Recess, to attend many large and important gatherings of my fellow-countrymen in various parts of Great Britain; and if the House will bear with me for a few moments longer, I should like to state very briefly, but, at the same time, with perfect frankness, what has been the impression produced upon my mind by what I have actually seen. Of the last and, in some respects, the most marvellous of the celebrated Mid Lothian campaigns, of which I was an interested spectator, I would simply say that, apart altogether from the particular opinions expressed by the Prime Minister at Edinburgh and elsewhere, it must have been matter for general congratulation to find that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was in full possession of all his old vigour, and of all those powers of stirring and matchless eloquence with which he has so often charmed the minds and captivated the affections of the British people. And not, Mr. Speaker, of the British people alone, for that gifted and high-souled Irish patriot, who has recently passed away from amongst us, would have been the first to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded, in a way in which no British Minister ever did before him, in winning for himself
    76
    a place in the hearts of the Irish people also. But, Mr. Speaker, it is not of the Mid Lothian campaign that it is my main intention to speak; I wish, in a few brief sentences, to state to the House what I believe to be the prevailing opinion and sentiment of the vast majority of the electors and non-electors of the United Kingdom on the topics which have so largely engrossed their attention of late. In the first place, then, I believe the people of this country are really in earnest in their desire for the passage of the Franchise Bill with the utmost possible despatch. After the agitation which we have witnessed during the last few months, no hon. Gentleman or noble Lord who has the smallest regard for his own reputation will have the hardihood to get up in his place and tell us that the British people are supine or indifferent on the subject of the extension of household suffrage to the counties. It is true that hitherto they have, speaking broadly and generally, been extremely moderate and good-humoured in their conduct of the agitation in which they have taken part in such vast numbers and with so much public spirit. Nor is the reason far to seek. They believed that there was in power a Government that was fighting their battle for them; and they were so confident of the justice of their cause, that they knew there could be but one issue to the conflict. They believed, I say, in the sincerity and earnestness of Her Majesty's Ministers on the subject of Reform; but it was not, I regret to say, by any means so easy to persuade them that the new-born zeal of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for the extension of the suffrage was above suspicion. I shall be told that many of them are poor, misguided Radicals, who could not be expected to take an impartial view of the actions of right hon. Gentleman opposite. Possibly that may be so. Right hon. Gentlemen, however, have it in their power to undeceive these misguided men by making their actions correspond with their words. Let them vote for the second reading of the Franchise Bill, the principle of which they profess to approve, and they will not only thereby earn for themselves the gratitude of the 2,000,000 of men who must shortly be enfranchised, but they will, at the same time, show themselves to be, in reality as well as in name, the protectors and guardians of the Constitution.

    77
    I know not, Mr. Speaker, what may be the effect of my appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may be that it will fall upon deafened ears; but this I do know—that I can appeal with confidence to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House to strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers, and thereby enable them to raise this Parliament to an elevation to which it has not yet attained, and to make it memorable in the annals of our history as the Parliament which did a tardy act of justice by granting to 2,000,000 of our fellow - countrymen, householders inhabiting the counties, those elementary rights and privileges of citizenship of which they had been too long deprived. I thank the House for the kindness and patience with which they have listened to my remarks, and I beg to second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c."—[See page 69.]
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker—Sir, it is usual for anyone who addresses the House after the Mover and Seconder of the Address to express on the part of the House a sense of the skill and ability with which those Gentlemen usually discharge their duties; and I am sure I may say with regard to both the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-day that we feel and recognize and congratulate them upon their great eloquence and great power of speaking. The hon. Member the Mover has, I think, gone far beyond that, and merits our acknowledgment of the great dignity and good taste with which he has spoken on several very important subjects. I am afraid I cannot altogether speak of the Seconder in the same tone that I should of the Mover, for I think there have been some parts in the latter portion of his address which do not seem to me to be extremely well calculated to promote that which the hon. Mover has so well expressed when he spoke of his desire to overcome, and not to aggravate, the difficulties of the situation in which he said we are placed. It seems to me there were many parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge (Mr. Summers) which are not calculated to assist the discussion of the Franchise Bill when it may come before us; but I would ask the permission of the House to abstain
    78
    as far as possible from now entering into the discussion of that question, as it is a matter which must be brought before us very shortly, and is a matter which ought to be very carefully and very candidly considered. I own I was disposed to derive from the language of the Gracious Speech which Her Majesty the Queen has addressed to us some consolation, and to think that it showed an inclination on the part of Her Majesty's Government to take a broader view of the question of the representation of the people than was taken in the Speech from the Throne of last Session. I was pleased to observe that the Speech on the part of Her Majesty began by saying that she had brought us together
    "In order that we may be enabled at once to give further consideration to the great subject of the representation of the people in Parliament."
    Now, I could not but contrast that with the language used by Her Majesty last February, when, at the commencement of last Session, she spoke of the measure which was to be presented to us as one
    "Which will have for its principal object the enlargement of the Occupation Franchise in Parliamentary Elections."
    That was the minor portion only of the whole subject of Parliamentary Reform, and it was because the Government proposed to deal only with a portion of that great subject that so much difficulty arose. I saw with pleasure that Her Majesty had been advised on this occasion to take a wider and broader view, and to speak of the whole of the great subject of the representation of the people in Parliament; and I feel well assured that if Her Majesty's Ministers are prepared to make proposals to us which are adequately represented by that language, such proposals will receive candid consideration on the part of all hon. Members of the House alike. But it must not be understood that we can in any way depart from the view we have taken in this House and out of the House, that it is essential that this great question should be considered as a whole. I believe that there is a very large and general feeling throughout the country of a desire, as has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Address, that the franchise should be extended. There is no question of that, and that accounts for the very many and very large attendances that have taken place at meet-

    79
    ings held during the Recess on the subject. But that is not the point at issue. It is a question of how we are to bring about that extension of the franchise in a manner consistent with the maintenance of a proper system of Parliamentary representation. We maintain that this is so large and important — so vitally important—a question that the two parts must not be separated in our minds, but must be considered together, and that we must act with reference to the whole subject, and not merely only to a part of it. Therefore, the meetings in the country that have been referred to have been extremely significant, on the side of those whom we have had the honour of meeting, because those have been meetings of persons who were perfectly ready and anxious for the extension of the franchise, and yet who were ready to listen to the arguments and consider the grounds and reasons by which we showed that the two parts of the question ought not to be dissevered. I said I would not attempt at this time to go fully into this matter. I am anxious to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and from the Government what are the proposals with which they now meet Parliament, and what course they propose to take. I can only say, on my own part, and on the part of those who sit on this side of the House, that I earnestly trust that the Government will take such a course as will enable us, consistently with the views we have not harshly but deliberately formed, to co-operate with them in this great measure. Now, Sir, we have been called together for the purpose of dealing with this question; but there are portions of the Queen's Speech which seem to show that even if there had not existed that reason for calling us together, still Parliament would probably have been asked to meet. There is no doubt that very great importance attaches to the other subjects which are brought forward in the Speech, such as to make us rejoice that we have the opportunity of meeting the Government and obtaining authentic information as to these matters. I am glad to believe that we shall receive full information with regard to those subjects; but I do not observe that anything is said as to the presentation of Papers relating to the Egyptian Question. It may be a mere accidental
    80
    slip; but I understand that Papers are to be presented to us in regard to the Transvaal, and nothing is said as to Papers with reference to Egypt. I think that is a very extraordinary omission, for Egypt is a question which is assuming, year by year and month by month, more and more important proportions, and is developing greater difficulties. The Speech informs us that the information received from the Soudan includes "painful uncertainties." The phrase, I am bound to say, I think is original. I do not think that I have ever seen it in any Speech from the Throne before, and I do not exactly know what is its precise meaning. But, undoubtedly, there are most "painful uncertainties," and there have been for some time; and it is with a feeling of serious and deep disappointment that we come together and find that all that Her Majesty's Government is able to tell us is that there are "painful uncertainties" connected with the position of affairs in the Soudan. I was deeply grieved to hear—for I suppose the hon. Member spoke with some official information—the Mover of the Address say that the intelligence with regard to Colonel Stewart is not such as to lead us to form any very hopeful opinions as to his safety. I had hoped that we might find that the Government had some reassuring information, for this is a subject upon which the heart of England is deeply touched. We are anxious indeed to know what is the fate of that gallant man, and whether everything has been done that could have been done to avert the danger. We cannot help feeling that his position, like that of General Gordon, is one that not only calls for our admiration and for recognition on the part of Her Majesty and the Government, but it also requires that we should be assured that everything has been done that could have been done to secure the safety of those distinguished and gallant men. And I am bound to say that, as at present advised, it does not appear to me that the course taken by the Government has been such as to provide for that necessity. I cannot help remarking the way in which the statements in regard to General Gordon and his Mission have gradually developed themselves in the communications that have been made to us. I would ask the attention of the House for one

    81
    moment to these extracts from the official communications made to us. In the Queen's Speech of the 5th of February we were told that Her Majesty had offered the Egyptian Government such counsels as were required by a prudent regard to the amount of its financial resources, and to the social condition of the country—
    "I have also despatched Major-General Gordon to report on the best means of giving effect to the resolution of the Khedive to withdraw from the Interior of the Soudan."
    Have we ever received any Report that answers to this description? I doubt very much indeed whether the Report he did give at all answers to that description. At all events, General Gordon went to the Soudan, as he afterwards tells us, with the full expectation that he was to be supported by the Government. He went out to a position of very great peril and very great responsibility; and from the communications with which we have been favoured by him up to the time when communications were practically broken off, it appears that he had found, by degrees and step by step, that he was not to receive that support upon which he had calculated, and upon which he had founded his hopes and his plans for conducting the operations that he undertook. However, time went on, and late in last Session, on the 5th of August, Her Majesty's Government came down to the House and proposed a Supplementary Vote, not exceeding £300,000, to enable Her Majesty to undertake operations for the relief of General Gordon, and to make certain preparations in respect thereof if they should become necessary. We are not told what has occurred since, but are now informed that the energy, courage, and resource conspicuously displayed by General Gordon in the successful defence of Khartoum deserve Her Majesty's warm recognition. We had heard nothing of the successful defence of Khartoum up to this point, and it occurs to me to ask what is the intention of the Government with regard to Khartoum. What is it that General Gordon is doing there which deserves Her Majesty's recognition, and yet which is consistent with the communications which were made before he went out, when it was understood that Khartoum was to be abandoned? We want to know what is the real state of the
    82
    case; and I presume, at all events, that when application is made to us for money we shall obtain full information on the subject. But I think it would be desirable if earlier than that we could receive from the Government some intelligible statement of what the exact position of General Gordon and of our forces respectively are in Egypt. What is the plan that they have in view, and what is the intention with which that plan is framed? Then with regard to another matter connected with Egypt. I find that on the 14th of August, at the close of the Session, Her Majesty made reference to the failure of the Conference upon the finances of Egypt, and proceeded to say—
    "I shall continue to fulfil with fidelity the duties which grow out of the presence of my troops in the valley of the Nile; and I trust that the special mission, which I have determined upon sending to that country, may materially aid me in considering what counsels to tender to the Egyptian Government, and what steps to adopt in connection with that country."
    Are we to receive any communication as to what the effect of this special Mission has been? Are we to be told what Lord Northbrook advised? Are we to have Papers laid before us? We know that in the course of last Session a Conference was summoned, and that Her Majesty's Government was represented at that Conference, and we know that that Conference failed in its result. We know also that there were in connection with that Conference very important proposals made and very important communications between Her Majesty's Government and that of France. But we do not know what has happened since—we do not know at all in what position matters stand. We were told that they were urgent then, and they cannot be less urgent now, unless something has happened of which we have no idea, and it is very important that we should be told at the very earliest moment what is the position of the Government in regard to Egyptian affairs, and when information is to be given to us on the subject. I have no doubt the Government will give an early day for bringing this matter before us in a Constitutional and proper manner when they ask for the Vote in Supply. But we must not be content with merely having a discussion upon the Vote in Supply for the military operations. We ought to have an opportunity of considering the informa-

    83
    tion which no doubt will be presented to us in regard to the Egyptian policy generally, and the policy which cannot be discussed upon a mere question of Supply. I hope, therefore, that the Government will find time to enable the House to discuss that policy fairly and fully. There is another matter mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, and upon which there is very great and very natural anxiety—I mean the condition of affairs in South Africa. The hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. S. Howard), in his speech, gave us some information—I do not know whether it is to be regarded as official—that preparations are already being made for military operations in the Transvaal. I think we ought to be told whether that is so, and we ought to have full information on that subject. But I observe it is stated in Her Majesty's Speech that Papers are to be presented on that subject; and therefore I do not think it necessary for me now to go further into the question, or to refer to it more, than to make a note of it as one which it will be our duty to further consider on another occasion. One other point there is which I must notice, because it is not included in the Speech. I think that if the information that we have received in the public journals is correct, it is a matter of great interest, on which we naturally expect some information. We are informed that the Government have agreed to join, with the other Powers, a Conference on the subject of the Congo and of West Africa. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] I see the right hon. Gentleman appears to dissent from that. I can only say that the statement is made and published; and if not true, it is well that attention should be called to the subject, because the matter is one of considerable importance, and of great interest to the commercial community of this country, and in regard to the civilization of Western Africa, as well as, indeed, of very great interest generally to all those who are anxious for the promotion and extension of civilization generally; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be in a position to give the House some information as to the position of affairs in that part of the world.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there has been a perfect calmness of tone pervading the speech of the right hon.
    84
    Gentleman, which I shall endeavour to imitate. It appears to me that it is wise that we should keep as nearly as we can to the ancient custom of Parliament in regard to discussions on the Address. Polemical discussion cannot possibly lead on this occasion to any result; and the premature entrance into it has no other effect, I think, than that of rendering it more difficult to deal with the practical issues when the proper time for them arrives. I therefore thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I will endeavour to follow the good example he has set. The right hon. Gentleman began his speech with a just and grateful compliment to my hon. Friends the Mover and the Seconder of the Address for the ability with which they discharged their difficult task. In that compliment I entirely concur; and the only difference from the right hon. Gentleman that I should make is this—that he thought it necessary to draw a distinction between the Mover and the Seconder, which distinction I am not disposed to draw at all. I perfectly admit that the right hon. Gentleman has the entire right to express his own opinion upon matters that were said by either of those Gentlemen; but he will agree with me that, on the occasion of moving and seconding the Address, there is invariably allowed to the two Gentlemen who perform that Office, by the kindness and the indulgence of the House, a certain degree of licence, a certain degree of latitude—I will not say licence—and the sentiments they utter are by no means to be taken as adopted by the House simply because the House concurs in the Motion which they make. With that observation I think the House will not be of opinion that that liberty was exceeded on the present occasion; and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, both my hon. Friends showed themselves to be possessed of a power of speech well entitling them, when they think fit, to take part in the debates and discussions of the House. In referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I will notice first, because I can very briefly dispose of it, the reference to the subject of the Congo—a Conference which goes beyond the subject of the Congo—and I rather think the expression, though I am not quite sure, is that the subject of it embraces Western Africa in general. I am not quite sure of

    85
    the phrase; but in substance I believe I am correct. It was impossible for us to advise any reference to that subject in the Speech of Her Majesty, because it had not reached such a stage of ripeness as would have enabled us to make a positive communication to the House. It was felt by Her Majesty's Government to be necessary to obtain certain preliminary information, and that preliminary information was only obtained in such time as to enable the acceptance of the proposal for a Conference to go from this country so lately as yesterday, from which the right hon. Gentleman will perceive that we were not in a position to make a communication to the House through the medium of the Speech. I believe we shall be able to lay information on the subject before the House very shortly, and I think the House will find that the subject opens hopeful and not unpleasant prospects to the country, so far as we are able to estimate what may probably be the attitude of the Powers on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman has referred with a just reserve to the subject of South Africa. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Address aimed, I think, at depicting what he deemed to be a just position on this subject—namely, that we ought to make up our own minds as to that which we deem to be necessary, either for the honour or for the just interests of the country; and, having made up our minds, to adhere firmly to the intention so formed. That is, I believe, a perfectly accurate description of the present position. In framing the Convention of 1884, we certainly endeavoured to proceed on the lines of moderation; but that was with the view that, having proceeded on those lines, the stipulations contained in that Convention must be respected, and it would be our duty both ourselves to adhere to them, and likewise to expect, and if necessary require, that they should be adhered to by others. That is the direction in which it will be our duty to move. We shall move in that direction, and I think, as far as we are able to judge, in entire concurrence and harmony with the Government of Cape Colony; and I must say, although recent events have been in certain respects painful, yet I will not assume that they have yet received their final colour, even as far as the Transvaal is concerned, while I think we may contemplate with
    86
    great satisfaction this important fact—that, perhaps for the first occasion in the recent history of South African controversy, there is a general sentiment in the population as to the course of policy that ought to be pursued, and the old distinction of Dutch feeling and Anglican feeling, so far as our information yet goes, is no longer in existence. I am not speaking of the population of the Cape Colony. I must not speak as if we were in possession of final and complete information. The House will recollect that these matters are transmitted by telegraph, which, although it has the advantage in giving us information at an extremely early date, yet necessarily limits its character as compared with that given by the old method. But, so far as our knowledge goes, I think I am justified in the statement I have made to the House. With regard to the subject of Egypt, the right hon. Gentleman observed that we had promised information in the shape of Papers as far as South Africa is concerned; but that we had made no similar promise with regard to Egypt. The reason is a very simple one. In the case of South Africa, Papers are laid on the Table from time to time; but in the case of Egypt there has been an almost constant and scarcely intermittent flow; and although it is perfectly true that there is no reference to the subject of Papers in the Speech, yet Papers have actually been laid before the House by my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Those Papers, I believe, will come down to the end of September, and will include general information with respect to Egypt, excepting those matters in connection with finance which are specially embraced in the function of Lord Northbrook, and particularly, I will say, they will give to the House the latest information which we have obtained from General Gordon. The right hon. Gentleman observed that we have been silent for a long period respecting General Gordon. It is quite true, and the reason why we were silent was a very good reason—a reason applicable to the conduct both of Governments and individuals with great advantage; and it is, they should be silent when they have nothing to say. The extraordinary difficulties which General Gordon has had to cope with have had the effect of keeping Her Majesty's Government and the

    87
    country in almost entire ignorance, not so much of his position, but of his views. We have had from other parts incidentally, casually, but still in no inconsiderable quantity taken together, indications as to his actual position, so far as security is concerned; but with respect to his views, I may say that until the arrival of telegrams perfectly recent we have no means of pronouncing upon them. In these circumstances, the course we have taken is, that never has a disparaging or questioning word passed from the mouth, so far as I know, of any Member of Her Majesty's Government. I did think it unfortunate when the right hon. Gentleman himself, at a very early period of the last Session, thought it necessary to say that the Mission of General Gordon had failed. I protested against that declaration at the time, because I felt this—that the Mission of General Gordon must not be considered merely with reference to what it achieved; but also with reference to what it prevented. We must remember the tremendous dangers affecting the whole of Egypt, possibly affecting countries beyond Egypt, which the great catastrophe which happened to the army of General Hicks in November last appeared to threaten. The whole of these dangers have been arrested, and the evil has been kept within local limits through the action of General Gordon; and even if this result had been the only result, it was one of the greatest importance with reference to the welfare of Egypt, and with reference to the state of the Eastern portion of the world. I will only, on the present occasion, refer very briefly to one or two matters mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says that within a short time after the Mission of General Gordon took place he found he was not to be supported. Now, the right hon. Gentleman wall recollect—I do not remember the precise date, I think the 8th of April, but I am not quite sure—a telegram was received from General Gordon, in which he expressed his warm thanks for the support he had received. I think it was earlier than the 8th of April—["No, no!"]—at any rate, on a certain day he expressed his warm thanks for that support. What happened? Almost immediately afterwards General Gordon thought it necessary to centre his policy, and found his
    88
    policy upon the Mission of Zebehr Pasha. With regard to that Mission, that was undoubtedly a great and sudden change of opinion on the part of General Gordon, because very shortly before he had deprecated in the strongest manner the Mission of Zebehr Pasha. Whether Her Majesty's Government were right or wrong in declining to send Zebehr Pasha, they were perfectly aware that it was fraught with great embarrassment to General Gordon, and great difficulty was introduced into their relations with General Gordon. But I may remind the House, in the first place, of the state of opinion which prevailed here with respect to the Mission of Zebehr Pasha—such a state of opinion that I very much doubt whether at that time one-tenth part of this House would have been ready to support or tolerate that Mission. Secondly, I must observe this—it is a most important point—when, unhappily, it came about that immediately after we were obliged to make that abrupt refusal, there came the interruption of the telegraph, and the impossibility of communicating with him and putting him in possession of our ideas, or receiving his ideas; and therefore there was much doubt, much embarrassment, and a state of opinion which I think it may be said that those who differed from us were not slow to profit by, and to lay numerous charges against Her Majesty's Government. However, Sir, that, happily, has passed by, and we are enabled to state what we think with respect to the astonishing gallantry and resource displayed by General Gordon. The House does not commit itself, on the occasion of an Address of this kind, to a single sentiment that is contained in the Speech, and I think it is well that the House should not deviate from that form of proceeding, because the precedent might be dangerous; but I am quite sure that among those who hear me there are many who would very gladly concur in the sentiment of the Speech with regard to General Gordon if the form of our proceedings permitted of such a course, and that the House, as well as Her Majesty, is of opinion that the energy, courage, and resources so conspicuously displayed by him deserve warm acknowledgment. It is asked what we mean by "painful uncertainties." We might, perhaps, if we had not been afraid in a

    89
    case so difficult of placing too cheerful a colour upon intelligence—we might have advised that the Speech from the Throne should say that the general tone and tendency of the recent intelligence from the Soudan was satisfactory. I think, at any rate, it is not going too far for a Minister to express that opinion in the Speech, of course with the reserve that must necessarily attach to any opinion founded on information so imperfect as is ours, and amidst so many uncertainties as attach to a set of circumstances in a country at that distance and existing under these peculiar conditions. But the right hon. Gentleman asked, and was entitled to ask—"What do you mean by commending General Gordon for the defence of Khartoum? And is your policy with regard to Khartoum what it was?" Certainly it is. There has been no change in the policy of the Government in respect to Khartoum. If there had been such a change it would have been the prime duty of the Government to have made it known to the House of Commons. But what we understand, and believe to be the case, from the information before us, is that the defence of Khartoum was concluded by General Gordon to be a matter of absolute necessity, not for his own safety only, but likewise for the safety of those to whom he was committed, and who had committed themselves to him in regard to carrying forward the operations that were necessary to hold off the assailants that surrounded him. That, Sir, is the reason why the words "defence of Khartoum" are introduced into the Speech, and not because we consider there ought to be a retrocession from the policy previously announced. The right hon. Gentleman will now quite understand that "painful uncertainties" refer merely to the grave and serious doubts which I am afraid I must say still hang over the fate of Colonel Stewart. That is a subject on which there will be, as the right hon. Gentleman said, an universal feeling of anxiety and sympathy; and he will, I think, feel that it was a not very unnatural impression on our part that, under all the circumstances, and with the remarkable manner in which Colonel Stewart has participated in these gallant and heroic proceedings, there should be that mention of him in the Speech from the Throne. I do not think there is reason
    90
    why we should abandon hope, though the apprehensions are certainly grave. All that we know about Colonel Stewart is laid actually on the Table, and will, I trust, be in the hands of Members in the course of a few days. Of course, with regard to the question of supporting General Gordon, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have been limited by those peculiar conditions of climate attaching to a country like Egypt, and especially of the use of the River Nile as a means of military operations. It has not been a voluntary or capricious delay on our part; but we have felt that it would be improper to expose a mass of British soldiers, in defiance of all reasonable calculations of prudence, even for such an important object as conveying aid to General Gordon. It was our duty to ascertain, as far as we could, what the condition of General Gordon was; and it was our duty, in considering how aid could be supplied to him, to take into view the best means—even, under the most favourable circumstances, means of extreme difficulty—of bringing the Forces of Her Majesty to the point at which their presence would be useful. The right hon. Gentleman also wished to know what information and when information would be given with respect to the subject of Lord Northbrook's Mission. The present position of that matter is as nearly as possible this—We are under the belief that Lord Northbrook will quit Alexandria to-morrow, and that the space of about a week would bring him back, I hope, safe and sound, to this country. I need not say that it was his duty to avail himself of the whole time of his stay in Egypt—during which he really displayed an activity that we have viewed with pleasure, but with some surprise at the amount of fatigue he was able to undergo—it was his duty to avail himself of the whole of that time before endeavouring to bring into shape the important recommendations that he may have to make. No doubt, shortly after he returns he will have those recommendations in form. It will be the duty of the Government, and, in point of fact, the policy of the Government indicates that the Government recognize the necessity of giving to these recommendations their immediate consideration; and the result of that consideration, and

    91
    the steps they may think fit to take in prosecution of it, will be made the subject of the earliest practicable communication to Parliament. I pass, then, to another question — the great subject that has attracted the heart and mind of the country, especially within the last two months—I mean the representation of the people. The right hon. Gentleman criticized the expressions of my hon. Friend the Seconder of the Address in his able speech; but I think there was an omission in his critical notice which he will forgive me if I supply. He cannot, I think, have failed to observe that while my hon. Friend—both my hon. Friends—delivered their own opinions conscientiously and clearly in respect to the duty of the Government, and the duty of the House to follow a certain course of policy, they both of them, in the strictest manner—and certainly the Seconder no less than the Mover of the Address—abstained from anything that could by possibility be construed as a menace to the House of Lords. Now, considering that the subject of menace to the House of Lords has been long the greatest and most favourite topic of complaint, I think I am right in taking note of, and recording, that undeniable feature of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address. Now, what am I to say of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite upon this subject? He was pleased to take notice of what he thought an improvement in the tone of the Speech from the Throne. He said that—"The Speech from the Throne in February directed our attention particularly to the Franchise Bill; while the Speech from the Throne at present directs our attention to the subject of the representation of the people, which may include a Bill for the redistribution of seats, or any other portion of the great question of Parliamentary Reform." The doubt, the friendly doubt, that has arisen in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, is to know whether we intend to depart from the course we took in the last Session of Parliament. Now, Sir, as far as that doubt is concerned—and a certain degree of pain generally accompanies the existence of doubt on an important subject—I can relieve the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and, in fact, I believe I had relieved it by the Notice I have given to-night that to-
    92
    morrow it will be my duty to move for leave of the House to bring in a Bill for amending the Representation of the People, which is precisely the same title that was given to the Franchise Bill last Session. I observe the technical words. If I had given it more briefly it would have been a Notice to ask leave for to-morrow to introduce the Franchise Bill. The House will, I hope, make no difficulty in giving leave for its introduction. It will then have the Bill in its hands, and then, no doubt, it will be perfectly legitimate for any Gentleman who thinks it his duty to make observations, with whatever scope and breadth he may think fit, on the subject of that Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman used some conciliatory words, of which, I am afraid, I must test the value. Nothing could be more gentle than the tone of the right hon. Gentleman; and I trust it will be felt, even by the younger Members of this House, who have not yet had as much experience as some of us have had of what may be called Parliamentary vicissitudes, and the real difficulties of carrying on public affairs. I trust it may be felt that the difficulties in which we stand involve grave, serious, and solemn responsibilities; and that, whatever opinions we may entertain, and whatever conclusions we may feel ourselves compelled to abide by, the maintenance of that gentleness and quietness of tone, of which the right hon. Gentleman has set us a good example to-night, is a duty incumbent on all hon. Members of this House. Now, Sir, what is, after all, the contention of the right hon. Gentleman? He says there are two parts of this subject. He thinks that the effort of Parliament ought to be how to bring about a proper system of representation; and that this cannot be done unless the two parts of the subject—extension of the franchise and the redistribution of seats—are combined together; they must be considered together; they must be treated as one subject; and he earnestly trusts that Her Majesty's Government will consent to treat them as one subject. What is the meaning of these words? In one sense, and that a most substantial sense, it has always been our desire to treat them as one subject; and here I ought to refer to a particular observation of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the phraseology of the Speech.

    93
    It speaks of Parliament as being brought together to consider the great subject of the representation of the people in Parliament. Well, Sir, what does that mean? Supposing we have our way—supposing that what we think the dictates of wisdom and prudence found their way to the minds of those who are concerned—supposing that, in consequence, the subject of the franchise is disposed of without difficulty—does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that we should be stickling for time on the subject of redistribution? On the contrary, there is no degree of pressure that could be applied to us to which we should not readily answer. It would have been most improper if we had advised the Crown to confine the Speech to the subject of the franchise. It would have been as good as saying that we totally excluded the hope of that reasonable accommodation which, we trust, may be obtained—so much so that we, quite as much as he, from the language of the Speech, desire to treat these two great portions—not the only portions—but these two great portions of the question of Reform as one subject, but as one subject, the parts of which are to be taken in their proper order, and are not to be so disposed and accumulated one upon the top of the other, so that the safety of the whole shall be endangered. It is but right that, without anger or warmth, I should express what I sorrowfully believe to be the true construction of the right hon. Gentleman's words. I am afraid that the true construction of his words is this—that by what he has called, and fairly called, his most "earnest trust," and with the most winning gentleness of phrase, he simply asks the majority in this House to abandon, after the experience of the last two months, the course which they took without and before the experience of the last two months. That is the request of the right hon. Gentleman. The request of the right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, is this—"Adopt our views, pursue our methods of proceeding, recede from every declaration you have made; turn topsy-turvey all that you have said about the absolute necessity for the purpose of practically getting through the subject of separating and severing the Bill upon seats and the Bill upon franchise, and then, when you have gone through that process,
    94
    and undertaken to wear a white sheet, you may rely upon it that we, the minority in this House and the majority in the House of Lords, having completely conquered you, and completely discredited and dishonoured you in the face of those to whom you have made contrary professions, shall be most happy to concur with you in carrying into effect what you propose." Now, Sir, is that a hopeful state of things? Am I wrong in my construction of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman? I would wish with all my heart that some of those interruptions, some of those cries of "No, no, no!" that we occasionally hear from various quarters on the opposite side of the House, were at this moment to arrest my progress and assure me that I am wrong. But I see hon. Gentlemen, like the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) sitting perfectly satisfied with what I have said. They will forgive the musical and gentle tones of the right hon. Gentleman with which his intentions are declared for the sake of the substance contained beneath them. How does this matter really stand? I must, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said, say a few words on my view of the case, and what I think is the view of the Government. They shall be very few; but they will fulfil the pledge I gave; they will contain nothing that ought to irritate or offend, nor will they attempt to discuss the question; they will simply aim at making plain and intelligible the situation in which we stand. There has been some reference to-night, in one of the speeches, to the conduct of the people in the course of the wonderfully active and extended gatherings and discussions on this great subject. There were few, but still there were certain, exceptions to the order and mildness of conduct which have marked the whole conduct of the nation upon the subject. With regard to these exceptions, I learn, like others, through the newspapers, what has happened at Birmingham; and, again, I learnt, if possible, with even greater regret, what happened personally to Lord Salisbury. I then learnt, though it came from the other side, of the outrages that had taken place in the city of Portadown in Ireland. For my part, if I refer to this subject, I must refer to it first with a strong expression of my extreme admiration of the general conduct of the

    95
    people with regard to the whole matter. They have shown the greatest triumph of civilization in the capacity of the masses of the nation—sometimes greater, sometimes smaller — to meet together and to discuss questions of the deepest interest, on which the strongest difference prevailed, and yet show respect for every difference of opinion, and, above all, to maintain absolutely the laws of order. I will not do what I might be tempted to do, and will not express my regret about the language and the proceedings that might have been connected with the origin of these infractions of order; I reserve any criticism of that kind until the period when the subject can be controversially debated, which it cannot be by me to-night. I wish to record in the strongest manner my disapproval—I may say my grave condemnation—of all breaches of order in connection with this question, even under circumstances of temptation, or even incitement. The line between order and disorder is a definite line—the question of what is incitement and what is provocation is open to argument and dispute; but the line of order is a definite line, and the maintenance of it is necessary for the honour of the people. I should condemn any disorder in point of policy; and I should condemn it on principle if I did not believe it to be inexpedient. On this subject I am certain I speak the sentiments of my Colleagues as well as my own. What is the position in which we stand with regard to this great and solemn subject? We have, on the one hand, a considerable majority in the House of Lords which has not faced the plain question of affirmative or negative, but which has, by a collateral movement, arrested the progress of the Franchise Bill. We have, on the other hand, a large majority in the House of Commons, a majority so large that on the third reading it was not thought fit to challenge the delivery of the Speaker's opinion that the "Ayes" have it. I know that we had a discussion in which it appeared, on the testimony of two perfectly credible and most respectable Gentlemen, that both of them had uttered a negative; but I do not think that either of them disguises the fact that the negative was so uttered that it was not meant to reach the Chair; and negatives that do not reach the Chair—I believe I am speaking sound
    96
    Parliamentary Law in saying—are no negatives at all. Well, Sir, that is our view of the position of the two powers that stand face to face; and, disguise it how you may, the real question is which majority is to prevail. Our contention is, Sir, without wandering into the problems of abstract politics — our contention is that upon the facts of the case before us the majority of this House ought to prevail. Well, why ought it to prevail? What is the function of a majority? I own it appears to me to be expected by some of the Party opposite that the minority is to have the privileges of the majority. What I understand to be the right of the minority—the positive right of the minority—is the right to fair, full, and free discussion, so that none of its arguments may be kept back, but always placed fairly and fully in the view of the country. That I understand to be the right of the minority. But, Sir, upon this occasion we have at all times gone further, and, while firmly exerting the right of the majority, and determined never to recede from it—we have always admitted, and not only admitted but asserted, that that right of the majority ought to be exercised in a spirit of equity and gentleness. We have always desired to give every assurance that could be given; we began by volunteering, which was an unusual step, declarations on the subject of redistribution, which, if they were defective, were not altogether unimportant. They were, it is true, my own declarations; but in their general scope they were successively taken up by other Members of the Government—I think by two Members of the Government whom I now see sitting on the Bench—my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain)—as they were likewise in the other House of Parliament. Would it not have been a natural course, if there had been a disposition on the part of the minority to push matters forward, for them to say—"Your declarations are good as far as they go, but they do not go far enough, or they ought to go further; you ought to tell us more about what your intentions are." Is it fair or right that the minority should make upon the majority demands which that majority cannot concede without abandoning all its most solemn pledges? We are ready

    97
    and desirous to meet you by giving you every assurance as to the procedure upon redistribution, which can be given without fatally mixing up together two questions over which, when once mixed, we should have lost all effective power to prosecute to an issue. What is it that you ask of us? It is a surrender at discretion; it is a betrayal of the cause we have taken up. Ask us—and then the gentleness of tone which the right hon. Gentleman observed will be even more appropriate than it was to-night—what you think we can give; but to ask us to surrender at discretion, to ask us to pass under the Caudine Forks, to ask us, the majority, and the large majority of the people who are governed by representative government, to give in to the small, the comparatively small minority in this House which did not think it necessary to assert its convictions on the third reading of this Bill, because there is a majority against it in the House of Lords—do you, as reasonable men, each in your own Chamber, think that that is a demand which it is possible for us to meet? That is your contention; what is ours? Our contention is that while we ought to show all consideration for the minority, who, as yet, have given us no light at all upon the subject of in what any further consideration should be shown—that while we are willing and most desirous to show all consideration for the minority, while our desire is to press to the uttermost the subject of Reform, including the subject of redistribution of seats, to follow immediately upon the franchise, yet we cannot accede to the terms which involve the forfeiture of all our most solemn pledges, of all our deepest convictions, of all our most recent and reiterated declarations. Is our contention, after all, so very unreasonable? Does the right hon. Gentleman see no danger in the state of things that is before him? If this Bill be again—I will not say rejected—but put aside in the House of Lords, does the right hon. Gentleman think that when the controversy is resumed the question of the popular franchise, with or without redistribution of seats, will be the only question raised before the country? [An hon. MEMBER: That is a menace.] Sir, I have hoped against hope; I have laboured with all my heart, to the best of my ability, to confine this controversy within its pre-
    98
    sent limits. I have no doubt there are those who would not be sorry to extend it, and I must say their generosity in consenting to allow me to strive to limit it I am bound to acknowledge; but I am sorry to say that from those who stand in the position of the Leaders of the opposite Party we have heard nothing down to the present time that encourages me to believe there can be any useful result from these efforts. I shall persevere in them notwithstanding, because I am not to assume that there may not be those of different political associations from mine, Members of the Conservative Party, but who, notwithstanding, are not willing to play the rash game of staking the fate of their order and the balance of the Constitution on the opinion they have formed with regard to the severance of the franchise from redistribution. I have been moved by a double motive, and I am moved by a double motive in what I say. We have met here—for what? Not, so far as I am aware, to discuss a new Franchise Bill. I frankly own I have said all I have to say. I believe that the whole of those who sit on this side of the House, or very nearly the whole, have said all that they have to say. Of course, they have no right and no disposition to prevent those who think otherwise from reiterating their arguments if they believe that those arguments are likely to produce any useful effect; but on every ground I cherish the hope that our discussions on the Franchise Bill may not be greatly prolonged, not merely for the important purpose of saving the time of the House, though that is very important in relation to the limits of physical strength—which we so seriously press upon, and in relation to those other subjects which the right hon. Gentleman expresses his anxiety to have time to discuss; but I am afraid a prolonged discussion of the Franchise Bill by this House may not tend to the easy settlement of the question. After all, what we have to do is to make a new appeal to the judgment of the other House of the Legislature. Our opinion is that most important evidence has been brought before the other House of the Legislature within the two months which have just passed. Take it as you like for the present; we shall be ready to discuss that when the time comes. Our desire is, that the con-

    99
    sideration of that evidence should, as soon as possible, for the interests of all, come before the House of Lords, and that it should come not clouded and troubled by the effect of discussions, which might be angry discussions, in this House, with regard to which I am afraid the longer they are prolonged the greater will be the difficulties in settling the question. Why do we desire that this question should be settled? I desire it, I am not ashamed to say, on Conservative grounds. I desire it because I wish to secure the extension of the franchise, and afterwards of redistribution of seats, upon principles or rules, if that word is more applicable, which we have every desire to make intelligible to the House and to Gentlemen opposite. But, besides desiring that, I own I do desire that we should keep the question within its present narrow bounds. I deprecate this extension of the controversy; I do not wish it, and I will not be responsible for adding anything to it. Let Gentlemen who are desirous of combining redistribution with franchise take care lest they combine something more critical than either with them both. To the last I will not abandon the hope even of the Leaders of the Party opposite. Of the followers I cannot help entertaining some considerable hope. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I most earnestly trust that he, while there is yet time, and those who sit around him, will join in the effort to keep this large and important question—I mean this franchise and redistribution question—apart from conjunction with other questions which he assuredly cannot wish to raise. [Opposition cries of "Why not?" and "Order!"] I own, Sir, I am taken by surprise, for I learn it is the desire of some Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative Benches to raise the question of organic change in the Constitution of the country. That is the only meaning which that energetic "Why not?" can possibly carry. I have often thought myself a great deal more Conservative than a great many of them are, and I am confirmed in that opinion by this exclamation. But it is far from my desire to enter into a conflict with anybody to-night. I have merely stated my desire, and I say that even now, at the eleventh hour and past the eleventh hour, I will not altogether allow the hope to be extinguished that
    100
    the right hon. Gentleman may join in delivering this question from the dangerous neighbourhood of another question which, as a Conservative statesman, he ought to be the very last man in the House to wish to see connected with it.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was far from his intention to enter into a conflict with my right hon. Friend or anybody else in the course of his observations; but the last 20 minutes of his remarks contained nothing but direct attack. The right hon. Gentleman disclaimed any intention of using words of menace; but what is his idea of a menace? He warned us against the danger of a great organic change. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would not join in any effort to produce such a change until he had exhausted every other means of dealing with the question.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No; I am not aware that I used those words.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: I will accept any words which the right hon. Gentleman may suggest; but that was his meaning—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No.]—and was so understood by his supporters below the Gangway. The whole of the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech directly menaced the House of Lords and the Opposition in the House of Commons, that if they should not do as the right hon. Gentleman wishes there will be an agitation for an organic change in the Constitution; and he gave us to understand pretty clearly that if that should be the case we need not look for much assistance from him. The right hon. Gentleman began by stating that he had most carefully abstained, during the whole of his Scotch peregrinations, from saying anything disrespectful of the House of Lords.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No; I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that all my efforts had been directed towards narrowing the field of the controversy.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: But how did the right hon. Gentleman proceed to narrow the field of the controversy? He pointed out that during the last 50 years the House of Lords had taken no step for the advancement of public liberty, or for the public interest. That is a very strong statement, and that is the special

    101
    mode which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted of narrowing the field of controversy between the two Houses. Why, the whole of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman had one tendency only—namely, to bring into the disrepute and disesteem of the masses of the people the votes and position of the House of Lords; and the menaces of the right hon. Gentleman have culminated in his speech to-night. As a Member of the House of Commons, I will not shrink from any responsibility that may devolve upon me in consequence of the course which I pursue. We shall have to discuss this Bill when it comes before us. If the right hon. Gentleman can show any other reasons than those hitherto assigned with so little force and effect upon the matured judgment of the country why this question of the franchise should be altogether disconnected from that of the redistribution of seats, let him adduce them. Hitherto, however, we have heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman but the language of menace and violence, and to such language there is only one reply—that we will not be guided by such considerations as the right hon. Gentleman has brought before us.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought it strange that no Member of the Government had thought it necessary to reply to the noble Lord who had last addressed the House. The statements made by the Mover of the Address had confirmed a suspicion he had long entertained, that the question of the franchise did not admit of any compromise properly so called. That hon. Member had said that under no circumstances must the two measures be made dependent upon each other, and the Prime Minister had more than endorsed that view. On the other hand, the Opposition entertained the notion that under no circumstances could the two measures be separated; and they held that an absolute guarantee ought to be given that one of the two Bills should not become law and take effect unaccompanied by the other. The Mover of the Address had told the House that if the Opposition were dissatisfied with the views on redistribution which the Government had expressed, the Government would, by grouping boroughs, or in some other way, prevent the swamping of the agricultural classes by the voters in towns. What was the value
    102
    of such guarantees? In his opinion they were insufficient and unsatisfactory; for the right hon. Gentleman could not guarantee that his Government would remain in Office for three months longer; indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman should meet with his deserts he would not remain Prime Minister for a fortnight. Hon. Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House wished that the Franchise Bill should pass in order that an election might be held under the new franchise with the old constituencies. That was the wish of the extreme Party in the House. [Cries of "No!"] And as that Party almost invariably got their own way, what guarantee could the right hon. Gentleman give that, with the best intentions in the world, he would be able to pass his Redistribution Bill in the teeth of the obstruction of his own Party? The right hon. Gentleman spoke in terms of condemnation of the disorders that had attended some of the franchise demonstrations. But was it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that his language that evening would not be taken as a direct incitement to greater disorders and outrages? The concluding portions of the right hon. Gentleman's speech were nothing else than a prolonged menace against the House of Lords. They might be placed in a serious, grave, and solemn position; but who was responsible for it? Why did the right hon. Gentleman place Parliament and the country in this position by adopting a method of procedure in connection with the question of Reform which no one had more strongly condemned than he had himself? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Never.] The right hon. Gentleman on one occasion characterized as base and contemptible any Government who, when introducing the question of Reform, should omit from their proposals that which was the most important part of the subject—namely, redistribution.
    MR. GLADSTONEasked for a definite reference to the speech which the hon. Member had in mind.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had not the quotation with him, as he had not intended to speak; but he believed his statement was correct. Over and over again the leading Members of the present Government and of the Liberal Party had condemned in no measured terms the method they now proposed to

    103
    adopt in dealing with the question of Parliamentary Reform. From what they had heard that night in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he was bound to suspect that the right hon. Gentleman had throughout some dark intentions on the subject, and that he had adopted this novel method of dealing with it in order to raise a cloud of controversy in the country, which would help to obscure his misdoings. In one paragraph of the Speech from the Throne they wore told that there was painful uncertainty in the information received from Egypt; but that was the character of the whole history of the present Government. Their whole proceedings since they had been in Office had been nothing but a chapter of uncertainties. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his speech, had described the position with regard to the franchise from his view of the case, and had wound up by saying—"Which majority ought to prevail? The majority in the House of Lords or the majority in the House of Commons." In his opinion, the majority which ought to prevail in this matter was the majority which truly represented the views of the people; and when the right hon. Gentleman talked of the accumulated views which he hoped would now be considered by the House of Lords, what was the evidence of them to which he referred? Except in Scotland, where the Conservative Party had always been in an insignificant minority, as far as he had observed the demonstrations that had taken place, a very large amount of feeling had been called forth in support of the action of the House of Lords. That feeling he felt sure would be shown at the next General Election, whenever the Government dared to take an Election, and would have the effect of removing the right hon. Gentleman from a position his tenancy of which had resulted in seriously endangering the country.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, the derisive cheers of hon. Members opposite at the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire's (Mr. Chaplin's) inability to name the occasion on which the Prime Minister had called it base and contemptible were somewhat premature, for he (Mr. Grantham) was in a position not only to name the occasion, but to read the words he then used. It was on the 12th of April, 1866, that he said, after speaking on the importance of redistribution—
    104
    "I had not thought it necessary to say this, because it seemed to me so obvious that nothing could be more contemptible and base than the conduct of a Government which could give forth, with a view of enlisting the generous confidence of its supporters, that it would deal with the subject of Reform and would stand or fall by its propositions, and which all the while could silently exclude from the scope of their declaration all portions of that question, except only the reduction of the franchise, though among such questions we find one only second in importance to that of the franchise itself."(3 Hansard, [182] 1144–5.)
    He had listened with the greatest regret to the language the right hon. Gentleman had used, for it must have been manifest to everyone who heard him that from the beginning to the end of his speech he had but one view in his mind, and that was that the majority in that House which he had led to victory last Session was to be led again by him to victory without the slightest concession being made. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that the minority had a certain right of free discussion, but nothing more, and that the majority had the absolute right to control the practical destinies of the nation. That was not the view which he had always held of the position of a minority, for a few years ago he published an article in a periodical in which he urged the right of a minority to endeavour to change itself into a majority; and he even went so far as to say that it was the right of a minority to do that by obstruction. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said "No;" but that view was expressed in a public print, and the whole subject of that article was the question of obstruction. It was true, however, that at that time the right hon. Gentleman was trying to justify the obstruction of the Irish Members; but it now seemed that the right hon. Gentleman's words applied only when they were obstructing a Conservative Government, and not when the obstruction affected a Liberal Government. The position in which Parliament was placed now was a very simple one. It was similar to that of 1872, when the House of Lords differed from the majority of the House of Commons on the question of the Ballot Act, and refused to pass a Bill which they believed was a bad Bill, and one which would not benefit the country. The Radical majority of the Commons threatened the House of Lords just as much then as now, but the Lords wisely took no notice

    105
    of it; and what was the result? The Government, instead of giving way to temper, gave themselves up to framing a better measure; and after it had passed the House of Commons the following Session it was accepted by the House of Lords, and all true Liberals in the country joined the Conservative Party in saying—"Thank God, we have a House of Lords." It was the Constitutional right of the House of Lords to check hasty legislation. It had often in the past exercised that right to the great advantage and benefit of the country; and he failed to see why it should be now threatened, because on this particular question, which was one of procedure rather than of principle, it ventured to exercise its undoubted right. The Prime Minister had expressed his thanks to the advanced section of his followers for having allowed him to be so moderate. This was somewhat ominous as to the future course of the agitation. The Prime Minister had referred them to the remarks which he made with regard to redistribution when introducing the Franchise Bill, and said they ought to have accepted them as indicating the intentions of the Government; but they were at the time told that these merely represented the views of the Prime Minister himself, and that the subject had not been considered in the Cabinet. It was quite certain that the Conservative Party would not be satisfied with these shadowy allusions to redistribution. They would not put a rope round their own necks, as suggested by the Prime Minister, by passing the Franchise Bill without a Redistribution Bill. A great deal had been said as to the majorities by which the Bill was carried last Session. It was, however, an absolute misrepresentation of the case to state that the Franchise Bill had been carried by majorities of over 100 time after time. The great principle as to the separating redistribution and the franchise was only decided against the Opposition by about 30 votes. Did hon. Members opposite represent the country? He maintained that they did not; and, indeed, the majorities which were held up with such delight did not represent the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves. They voted in fear and trembling of the local wirepullers. One Liberal Member had assured the House that at least 100 of his Colleagues on that side upon the clôture question were voting against their
    106
    conscience, whilst another, last Session, had told them that he had voted black was white long enough. The Conservative Party believed that a majority in the country was behind them in this contest. The meetings held by them would in numbers, intelligence, and influence, compare well with those on the Liberal side. ["Oh, oh!"] Look at Manchester and Liverpool then. Why were they to be led with a rope round their neck? Why were they not entitled to more liberal treatment at the hands of their Liberal opponents? All that the Tory Party asked for was that the Redistribution Bill should become law during the same Parliament as the Franchise Bill. The matter having been so thoroughly thrashed out during the Recess, and in view of the statement that the Conservative Party were prepared to accept the Franchise Bill in the form in which it left the House last Session, he thought it was too bad, after all that had taken place, of the Prime Minister to come down to the House on the first night of the Session, and throw down the gauntlet in the way he had done, refusing any concession of the slightest imporance.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, that whatever inconvenience might have been entailed on many Members of the House by the summons they had received to attend in Parliament that autumn, he felt sure that the gravity of the situation and the subjects referred to in the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne had caused them to come readily together to endeavour to assist by their deliberations in the best conduct of the government of the country. The points alluded to in that Speech were of great and grave importance. They had read with the greatest anxiety the accounts of the Expedition sent out to relieve that gallant soldier, General Gordon; they had watched with some anxiety, which must be shared by his right hon. Friend opposite, the probable cost of that Expedition, and they were desirous to know what means the Government would take to defray its cost, it being one of the canons laid down by the Prime Minister that Parliament should be consulted without delay when expenses of that sort had to be incurred. There was also the question of South Africa, which appeared to be full of the gravest danger to the prestige of this country, to the safety of our fellow-countrymen there,

    107
    and also of those Native tribes whom we were bound in honour to protect. Moreover, the condition of our industrial population in the centres of commercial activity was such as to make them feel the deepest sympathy with the present distress; and he should have been glad to have found some of that sympathy expressed in the Speech, and perhaps some hope held out of an inquiry into the causes of the distress, or an indication that the Government were anxious to seek some measure by which it might be relieved. No less severe was the depression under which the agricultural population were labouring throughout the country. He recognized to the full the benefit which the present low prices conferred on the community in general; but that benefit was purchased at the cost of great loss to the cultivators of the soil; and he should have been glad to see that fact recognized, and the hope expressed that some means might be taken to alleviate the burdens under which the cultivator unjustly suffered. He rejoiced that all the agitation and counter-agitation which had been going on during the last two months—all the irresponsible talk on a thousand platforms—was about to cease; and he hoped that when the subject of contention was brought back to the arena where it could be properly discussed—namely, the floor of that House—the common sense of the whole people of this country would prevail, and it would be possible to find some mode by which a controversy, the prolongation of which could not but be hurtful to the best interests of the nation, though it might serve the ends of extreme Parties, might be brought to a termination. That feeling was much strengthened in his mind when he heard the speech of his right hon. Friend below him that night, in which he expressed, in all truth and honesty, his hope that the Government would take such steps as might enable the Conservative Party to co-operate with the Liberal Party in bringing about the settlement of that question. The Government had found themselves in want of a cry, and had taken up the question only after leaving it alone for four years. They had approached it from the point of view that they could not deal with the two questions of franchise and redistribution together, but could only deal with the more difficult
    108
    one—that of redistribution—by putting under compulsion not only the House of Commons, but also the House of Lords. That method had gone against the strong feeling of the English character. An Englishman did not object to be led; but he did not like to be dragged with a rope round his neck. This was not a question of mere procedure; it was one affecting the future government of this country. If the question of redistribution was fairly settled, great good might come from it; whereas, if it were carried out on Party lines, the government of the country would then be practically handed over to one Party or the other. With reference to the speech of the Prime Minister that evening, he regretted that the Prime Minister had chosen to regard the language of the Leader of the Opposition as an invitation to abjure everything that they had done. The Prime Minister had told them that the Bill was to go up to the House of Lords with fresh evidence of the feeling of the country, and if that evidence had not its weight, so much the worse. But, in his opinion, there was a good deal of evidence on the other side, as had been admitted somewhat tardily by the leading journal. In 1832 they heard of no counter-agitation; there were no great meetings in favour of the action of the House of Lords. While professing a great desire for a settlement, the Prime Minister had made no move in the direction of conciliation. There was now a universal acceptance of the question of the franchise, which had not been the case in March; and he thought that the Prime Minister might have given them some assurance that he was ready to recognize this. He would venture to reecho the words of the Prime Minister, and express a hope that, even at the eleventh hour, it was not too late to recognize the strength of these arguments. It was difficult really to sound the feeling of the country on the question by the meetings which had taken place in the autumn; there were vast numbers, no doubt, who were desirous of the franchise; but there were vast numbers who were apathetic on the subject. In the words of the Duke of Argyll, 2,000,000 of people were looking through the half-open doors. In considering a settlement of the question, it should be remembered that if there was high-handed action on one side it would be likely to

    109
    be followed by stubborn resistance on the other.
    MR. LABOUCHEREremarked that in the Queen's Speech he saw it stated that the energy, courage, and resource displayed by General Gordon deserved warm recognition. But the Government had absolutely no information about what was going on at Khartoum, as General Gordon had sent no despatches. How could they possibly tell whether General Gordon was defending Khartoum with energy and success, or whether he was roaming about the country destroying the Soudanese? What they did know of General Gordon did not increase his confidence in him in the slightest degree. General Gordon's instructions had been to evacuate Khartoum as soon as possible. As far as they could see, he certainly was not fulfilling these instructions, for the latest despatches showed that he was urging the Soudanese to slay the Mahdi. He did not wish to say anything about General Gordon; but he could not suppose that that was really the idea taken in the country or that House of what his duties were. This wonderful General did not send to tell them of anything that was taking place; all they knew was that he had bitterly complained of Her Majesty's Government having wished him to act as they desired, and not as he thought proper. General Gordon's wish was to maintain himself in the Soudan, and to establish there some form of Government which would be supported by us. According to all they could learn now, General Gordon did not appear to be in the slightest danger at Khartoum, but was able to send ironclads to bombard the towns and villages of the Natives. And yet the Prime Minister had told them that these people were fighting for their liberty, and that the Soudan was to be absolutely and entirely independent of the Egyptian Government. What, then, was General Gordon's position? Were they supporting him or not? Were they sending Lord Wolseley to bring him back whether he would or not, or to aid him in those outrageous acts against men who, the Prime Minister said, were fighting for their independence? With regard to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, which told them that further pecuniary provision would be required, he took a Division last Session when only £300,000
    110
    was asked; and when the new Vote should come before the House he would again divide on the subject. He believed that the feeling of the country with regard to Egypt was that we should clear out of it as soon as possible. He did not see why we, who had so many poor people among ourselves, should spend money either to sustain the Egyptian Government or to maintain Gordon in the Soudan. He had the greatest respect for Her Majesty's Government; but he confessed he had never been able to discover what their policy was with respect to Egypt or the Soudan. With regard to the Franchise Bill, the Lords had got another chance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had complained of the words of menace used by the Prime Minister in the controversy. Did hon. Gentlemen know so little of the feeling in the country as not to be aware that if the Prime Minister had not done everything he possibly could to prevent the agitation going further it would have much exceeded the present demands? He could tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was not one of the many meetings which had been held throughout the country at which a resolution would not have been passed almost unanimously for the abolition of the House of Lords, and it was out of respect to the Prime Minister that that had not been done. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the Bill was thrown out again by the Lords the agitation would assume a different character. That was a fact, and not a threat. He was speaking as an out-and-out Radical; and he could assure hon. Gentlemen that he sincerely trusted and prayed that the House of Lords would throw out the Bill, because he thought the time had come when they should do away with that obstructive Assembly. Thanks to the Prime Minister, the Lords had got another opportunity of reconsidering their conduct, and if they did not do so they must take the consequences, for then there would be such an agitation as would astonish Gentlemen opposite. Did those Gentlemen understand that the backbone of the Liberal Party was the Radicals, though they were not fitly represented in that House? There were some very able Radicals in the House, but there ought to be a great many more. There were Gentlemen who on the hustings pro-

    111
    fessed the most noble Radical principles, but when they came into the House forgot those principles altogether; the country, however, was going to take that matter in hand, and was determined that it would be represented by men who would support its opinions. Gentlemen opposite talked of organic changes; but they would be astonished at the changes which would take place in the next five years.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) should have been bewildered by some of the paragraphs in the Queen's Speech, because, certainly, the elaborate eulogiums poured upon General Gordon were very different from what had fallen from Her Majesty's Government on previous occasions. All they knew from General Gordon himself was that he was extremely disappointed with the conduct of Her Majesty's Government towards him. That was pointed out last Session, when such despatches proceeded from General Gordon as had never before been penned by a servant, civil or military, to his employers. But now they were told that General Gordon thanked Her Majesty's Government for the support they had given him. The Prime Minister was within his right in using that expression, because General Gordon, thinking that he was to be supported by Her Majesty's Government, did thank them for it. But from that day to this nothing could be more severe than the remarks of General Gordon on Her Majesty's Government. He was glad that even a tardy recognition had been made by Her Majesty's Government of General Gordon's services. He was not disposed to criticize in a hostile spirit that paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech, except so far as to say that they knew nothing whatever of "the energy, courage, and resource displayed by General Gordon" in his defence of Khartoum. He had no doubt that General Gordon had displayed the greatest energy, courage, and resource; but they were entirely without information on the subject, and, therefore, he looked forward to the Papers that were to be produced with a considerable amount of interest; but he very much doubted whether he should find in them any expression of thanks from General Gordon for the way in which he had
    112
    been supported by Her Majesty's Government. There was one remark of the Prime Minister's which required some explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said that no change of policy was to be followed with regard to Khartoum. He did not believe that it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to carry out the policy they originally announced with regard to it. An observation fell from the right hon. Gentleman afterwards, which clearly indicated that the course originally proposed by the Government as to Khartoum and the rest of the Soudan could not be maintained, because he said that General Gordon found himself under an absolute necessity of remaining at Khartoum for the safety of those who had committed themselves to him. It would be impossible for them to desert the people who had so faithfully supported General Gordon. Such a course would be received with execration by this country; and foreign nations would regard it with contempt. If the Government desired permanent prosperity in Egypt, the peaceful condition of the Soudan was absolutely necessary. He trusted, however, that the Government had given up the idea that the Soudanese were a people straggling for their liberty. Such an idea was totally inconsistent with the position and the Mission of General Gordon. At the end of last Session they had tried to get information as to the amount of money the Government proposed to spend on the Sondan Expedition; but they had failed. Immediately, however, after Parliament separated, the Government began to spend enormous sums upon it; and he asked whether it would not have been candid if they had taken the House into their confidence, and presented it with the estimates of their intended expenditure. The outlay would be very great, and though he did not doubt its necessity, he must attribute it to the pusillanimity and vacillation of Her Majesty's Government in not having adopted ordinary precautions a year, or even eight or nine months ago, which they had been repeatedly urged to do. He noticed that the advance of the troops to Dongola was mentioned in the Queen's Speech. He could not understand on what grounds the name of that place was inserted. He must assume there was some reason for it; but if the troops were to

    113
    be moved there only, it was certain that they would not effect General Gordon's release. He was sure the whole House would sympathize with the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government with respect to the exertions and activity of Lord Northbrook. He (Mr. Bourke) had no doubt the noble Lord had brought to the discharge of the very onerous duties imposed upon him by the Government all that ability and resource for which he was remarkable; but the Government, of course, were responsible for all he did, and he could not help expressing some regret that his first step should have been to advise the Government to break the law of Europe in a very serious manner. The Law of Liquidation was a most solemn compact entered into about two years ago, and the Concert of Europe was maintained more decidedly in regard to the Law of Liquidation than anything else. He did not desire to make the suspension of the Sinking Fund in itself a very great affair; but it was, no doubt, a very great infraction of the Law of Liquidation. It was, in fact, a laying hold of funds by the Egyptian Government when those funds did not belong to them; and it afforded not only a bad example to Eastern nations, but a very mischievous precedent could also be deduced from it by those nations which wished to repudiate their public engagements. All the Foreign Governments had protested against this step, and they had been brought into contest not only with them, but with the Cause de la Dette and the international tribunals. This step was not merely a mischievous one; it was useless, for it only involved a matter of £300,000, and for the sake of this Her Majesty's Government advised the Egyptian Government to take a step so important, whereas it was very well known to financiers that there was a variety of ways in which these difficulties might have been avoided. As it was, the matter was left exactly as it stood before. Passing to another matter, he observed that mention was made of the West African Conference. He attached great importance to that Conference, and he believed that no more important question with regard to the future position of the commerce of this country had ever been raised. The interior of Africa opened up an unlimited
    114
    field for British commerce. In these days of ultra-protective doctrines, it was desirable that England should show that she was in earnest about Free Trade, and should endeavour to secure a free market to our goods, which were now being met with hostile tariffs all over the world. He confessed he was a little nervous about what was going to take place in this Conference, owing to what had already occurred with respect to the Congo. They knew that a most mischievous Treaty would have been concluded with Portugal, which would have had a most disastrous effect upon the commerce of this country, had not the hon. Member for Manchester and others brought the question prominently before the House. The question of the Congo was a very important one. The Government, therefore, ought to be on their guard at the present time, especially considering the course which Germany had taken, and they should ascertain the exact position in which the country stood. England possessed at least 10 or 12 times more interest in these African rivers than all the other nations put together; and it was extraordinary that England should not have been asked her views with regard to the Conference until the last moment. England had already been prejudiced by the agreement between France and Germany. France took good care that her own rivers were excluded from the scope of the Conference; and both agreed that tolls and taxes might be levied on the other waterways to pay for necessary works—a provision under which almost any amount of taxes and differential duties could be imposed. He thought the country would be strengthening the hands of Her Majesty's Government if they made it known that they would be content with nothing less than absolute Free Trade for the great West African rivers, because that would open the door to commerce. It had been stated that if the waters of the Congo and the Niger were free the export of Manchester goods in a limited time would increase by many millions of pounds. In that case, he did not think there was any subject of greater importance than this which the Government could consider. This country might obtain enormous benefit from the Conference if it took place upon proper principles, and if the Government main-

    115
    tained a firm attitude with respect to the Governments of France and Germany. It was grossly unfair for France and Germany to put the Niger and the Congo upon one footing. The Niger had been a river for British commerce for many years. This country had a gunboat there to preserve order, and a British Consul who had made Treaties for the Natives in many parts of the river. The Consul was trusted and looked up to by all the French and German houses, and disputes were settled by him in a satisfactory manner. It was, therefore, the duty of the Government, before they entered into the Conference, to put their foot down and say that the Niger should not be treated in the same way as the Congo, unless all the rivers were made perfectly free.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the remarks of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down divided themselves into two heads—first, those relating to Egypt; and, secondly, those relating to the Western Coast of Africa. In speaking of Egypt, his right hon. Friend chiefly went over the ground with which the House became familiar during the debates of last Session. He did not propose to reply in detail to his right hon. Friend's remarks, and thus inaugurate a debate on foreign policy, as the Government had announced in the Speech from the Throne that it was their intention to ask the House for a further grant, and a proper occasion would then arise. Upon that Vote the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends would have a full opportunity of urging their views. He, however, thought that the right hon. Gentleman was hardly entitled to say that now, for the first time, Her Majesty's Government had spoken in a manner eulogistic of General Gordon, because throughout all these debates they had given to that distinguished man a firm, loyal, and unflinching support. The only attack made upon General Gordon which he had in mind was made last Session by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite at the moment when the celebrated Slave Trade Proclamation became known in this country. Without waiting for General Gordon to be heard upon the subject in his own defence, they began attacking him, because they thought they might thereby strike the Government. The right hon. Gentle-
    116
    man should have addressed his question with regard to military details to another Department of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have surpassed himself on this occasion in his efforts to place a different construction on facts than that they so plainly pointed to. Everybody knew that troops had been advanced to Dongola, and that that place was the centre of military operations in the Soudan. The right hon. Gentleman wont on to refer to the Law of Liquidation; but it was clearly stated by the Prime Minister that, until Lord Northbrook's Report was in the bands of the Government, it was impossible for them to enter into a discussion of the difficult financial questions which that Report would raise. Further Papers in regard to Egypt would be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning. There would also be a Paper containing additional telegrams relating to a subject of painful interest—the doubtful fate of Colonel Stewart. Lord Granville was of opinion that the House and the country would wish to have the information before them; and, therefore, these short telegrams had been put together in a single Paper. Incidentally, there would be found information as to the recapture of Berber by the forces of General Gordon. In addition, he would lay on the Table a further general Paper relating to Egypt, which would come down to the 30th of September last. There would also be a few Papers of considerable interest of rather later date, some giving the latest information from General Gordon. He made no complaint of what the right hon. Gentleman had said about the approaching Conference; but he was struck by the tremendous flourish of trumpets about the horrors of Protection, because it was only a few days ago that Lord Salisbury delivered at Dumfries something like a defence of Protection. It might, therefore, be hoped that the zeal of the right hon. Gentleman for Free Trade would not be confined to the West Coast of Africa, but would also be available for home consumption. What the right hon. Gentleman said about the freedom of trade and navigation on the waters of Africa he accepted in toto in the name of the Government. Throughout the negotiations relating to the Congo the Government had the one object to secure such arrangements as would be most

    117
    conducive to the freedom of trade and navigation. The most important clause of the defunct Treaty from the English point of view was that which proclaimed the freedom of the navigation of the river, and placed it under a Commission, consisting of a Portuguese and an English Member, an arrangement which was attacked with great violence in many parts of Europe as unduly favourable to this country, to which it was said it would have handed over the trade of the river. It was no part of our object to get the trade of the river under false pretences, and the Treaty was attacked on grounds that were mutually destructive, for while it was said here to be unduly favourable to Portugal, it was attacked in France, Germany, and Portugal as unfairly favourable to this country. The right hon. Gentleman did not distinguish between navigation dues and Customs duties, which were totally different. The Portuguese would have had no power to claim navigation dues; they could have been levied only by consent of the Commission; and upon the rivers which would come within the purview of the Conference at Berlin the questions of navigation and of Customs would be treated as two separate questions. What was proposed in the first instance by Her Majesty's Government to Germany, and what had been proposed by Germany and by France to Her Majesty's Government, was that the doctrine of the Congress of Vienna of 1815 in regard to the navigation of rivers in Europe should be applied to the rivers on the West Coast of Africa. The arrangement of 1815 had nothing whatever to do with Customs duties, and applied only to navigation tolls and dues; and the two subjects were not in any way connected. A further proposal was now being made—and the question was raised for the first time—that there should be freedom of commerce in the basin of the Congo; and that proposal, which no doubt must be examined in detail, was one which must be welcome to this country as clearly favourable to British enterprize. A third proposal had been made to the Government—namely, that it should be decided what the formalities were to be which were to make valid any future occupation of unoccupied countries in Africa. It was, no doubt, desirable that that question should be settled, and that through the Con-
    118
    ference the opinions of the jurists of the world should be brought to bear upon the question as they had been brought to bear upon the abolition of the Slave Trade, upon privateering, and upon the question of free ships and free goods. Her Majesty's Government had no hesitation in accepting the invitation to the Conference; and he must protest in the strongest language against the statement that we had been left out in the cold. The proposals made with regard to the Congo, as he stated in announcing the withdrawal of the Treaty, had been the subject of communication with the Powers, particularly Germany, and Germany was only proposing to us what we had proposed to Germany, and what it was therefore known we were certain to accept. On the 30th of July last he stated that the Government, although giving up the ratification of the Treaty, were continuing negotiations with the Powers in the hope of keeping that portion of the Treaty which applied to the Congo the doctrines of the Treaty of Vienna; and the Session before last he stated that the freedom of the navigation of the Congo was the point to which the Government attached the greatest importance. The position of the Government in regard to the Congo Treaty had been the subject of much misrepresentation. For a long period Great Britain stood alone in preventing the operation of the claims of Portugal on the Lower Congo; but that refusal was owing to the manner in which Portugal connived at the Slave Trade. That trade having now ceased, Her Majesty's Government had proposed to recognize the claims of Portugal, conditionally on other nations also recognizing them. On their refusal, however, the Treaty fell to the ground, and Her Majesty's Government recovered their freedom of action. Earl Granville had throughout, as Mr. Stanley said the other day, over and over again shown that the Foreign Office had in view the securing of the freedom of the navigation of the Congo and the Niger. The Government would enter into the Conference with the practical understanding that the rights obtained by the Government under the Treaties which had been negotiated by Consul Hewitt should not in any way be prejudiced. He could not promise the Papers at once; but they should be produced as soon as possible. He hoped the

    119
    explanations he had given would be satisfactory to the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he had heard the statement of the noble Lord with great satisfaction, not unmingled with surprise, because he had inferred from the remarks of the Prime Minister that the state of the negotiations would not admit of any full account of them being laid before the House. The statement that the Government were determined to maintain freedom of commerce would be received with satisfaction by the commercial community irrespective of Party; but it was not clear why the announcement was coupled with a sarcasm directed against a recent speech of the Marquess of Salisbury. The noble Marquess did not complain of evils arising from Free Trade in England; but he complained that we had not used all the means in our power, diplomatic and fiscal, to induce other Powers to adopt a Free Trade policy. Therefore, the action of the Government on the Congo, so far from being in antagonism to the speech of the Marquess of Salisbury, was precisely in accordance with carrying out of the policy recommended in that speech; and if the Government had always been as anxious to induce foreign nations to accept Free Trade as the present Government had been to induce Germany, France, and Portugal to accept it on the Congo, British trade would not be in its present depressed condition. The Prime Minister had stated that it was the determination of the Government to see that the Convention made with the Boers was maintained. In carrying out this determination the Government would receive every assistance from Members on that side of the House. The only difficulty would be in South Africa, and that would arise largely from their previous weakness in dealing with the question. The result of the weakness displayed in 1881 would be that the Boers would never believe we were in earnest until they actually saw the gleam of our bayonets. All these difficulties might have been avoided if Her Majesty's Government had only shown common courage in the management of their South African policy. The Prime Minister's statement with regard to Egypt was somewhat remarkable. He said that the benefit arising from General Gordon's
    120
    Mission was that the power of the Mahdi had been so diminished or so destroyed, [Mr. GLADSTONE: No!]—that a tremendous danger which, after General Hick's defeat, had menaced, not Egypt only, but many other nations, had been averted. This was the first time they had heard anything from the Government about this tremendous danger; and it threw a curious light on the Government policy in Egypt during the last two years. If the Mahdi was such a tremendous danger after General Hicks's defeat, how was it that the Government allowed General Hicks to go into the desert with so inadequate a force that defeat was inevitable? If the Mahdi's power was such a danger to Egypt and to the world, why was General Gordon allowed to go to Khartoum absolutely unsupported by troops? If he had been supplied with a proper force Government might have accomplished all they required at the expense of a few hundred thousand pounds, and rendered unnecessary the present Expedition to Khartoum, which would probably cost £10,000,000. He had always understood from the Government that the Soudanese were people who were struggling for their liberty; but now the Government said that the chief power in the Soudan was a tremendous danger to the liberties of Egypt and to neighbouring nations. The Prime Minister told them he had not at all changed his opinion in regard to the abandonment of Khartoum; yet the opinion of every soldier was that if there were any danger menacing Egypt from the south, that danger should be met at Khartoum; and the Government now admitted that a great danger might menace, and had menaced, Egypt from the south. How, in the face of this fact, could they now venture to compel the Egyptian Government unwillingly to abandon that town? Turning next to the question of Reform, he would say that the Premier had passed a very eloquent and just eulogy on the people of this country for the moderate manner in which, on the whole, the public debates on the franchise had been conducted in every part of the country. But if the people had been peaceable and orderly in the midst of a bitter political controversy, they had been so in spite of the action of Her Majesty's Government. For the first

    121
    time in the history of this country they had seen the unholy and unnatural combination of a Minister of the Crown and the political agitator. For the first time they had seen a Cabinet Minister—he alluded, of course, to the President of the Board of Trade—directly inciting men to disorder and riot. The Prime Minister took great credit to himself for the fact that he had striven throughout to confine the controversy to the question of the franchise. But the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manner's) had pointed out that one of the avowed objects of the Government in not permitting the House of Lords to deal with the franchise and redistribution at once was to make the Members of that House legislate, as he said, with a rope round their necks; and so to deprive them of that freedom which was due to an independent branch of the Legislature. The Prime Minister twitted some Members on that side of the House with being indifferent to preserving the balance of the Constitution; but if the Lords were not to remain an independent branch of the Legislature that balance had already gone. To-night the Prime Minister had been studiously conciliatory in the manner, if not in the matter, of his speech. However, though they could not read the hearts of the Government, it was easy to judge their actions. There was a perfectly plain way by which the Government could show whether they were aiming at obtaining a political advantage by deliberately quarrelling with the House of Lords, or whether their real object was the passing of the Franchise Bill. Did they mean to prorogue at Christmas, or did they mean to adjourn? That was a perfectly plain question, and everything turned upon it. He presumed that if the Lords passed the Reform Bill this Session the Government would fulfil their promise to bring in a Redistribution Bill next year in the confident expectation of passing it. Therefore, it was quite clear that they thought themselves able to pass a Reform Bill and a Redistribution Bill before the end of next August. If then they chose to follow the unbroken precedents of the last 50 years, and to adjourn at Christmas instead of proroguing, so that the Parliamentary period between this time and next summer should all fall within one Session, they would be able, in the course of one Ses-
    122
    sion, to pass a Reform Bill and a Redistribution Bill, and to get over the whole of this controversy with the Lords, to which they professed such loud objection. Unfortunately, however, the limited scope of the Queen's Speech put it beyond a doubt that they intended to prorogue, and not to adjourn at Christmas. This was a clear indication that a majority of the Cabinet were determined to push to the uttermost the quarrel with the Lords, to make what political capital they could out of the operation, and to let the Constitution shift for itself. He regarded with the greatest regret the agitation which the Prime Minister had plainly told them he meant to initiate, supposing that the House of Lords should again postpone the Franchise Bill. He did not see that, from a purely Party point of view, the Conservatives had anything to fear; rather the contrary. The Conservative Party could hardly do otherwise than gain by the fact that the Liberal Party had committed themselves to a reconstruction of the Constitution, inasmuch as moderate men would feel that if a revolution was to be initiated because there existed a difference of opinion on a small question of procedure, the Party which initiated it was no longer worthy of its confidence. He made no complaint of the Radical section of the opposite Party. In thus playing with revolution they only acted after their kind. But he was surprised at the moderate Liberals. They were not less interested than the Conservative Party in the maintenance of the Constitution. If they permitted themselves to be dragged into this agitation, brought about at the bidding of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) and his Friends, an agitation from which they had more to fear than any other persons, and which they had more power to stop, it would be a new and startling proof that Party ties were stronger than almost any ties which could bind men. The Prime Minister's speech had deprived him of any hope which he might have entertained that this question would be settled quietly. He had deliberately told the House that nothing but an unconditional assent to the Bill on the part of the House of Lords would satisfy the Government.
    MR. GLADSTONE, interposing, said, that the hon. Member did not correctly represent what he had said. He had

    123
    said that if the information possessed by hon. Gentlemen opposite about redistribution was insufficient, the proper course would have been to state wherein it was insufficient, and to ask for further information.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURapologized to the Prime Minister. In the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, information about redistribution was all that the Conservative Party wanted. If so, it was manifest that the Prime Minister did not understand the real subject of controversy. The Standard had told them all they wanted to know about redistribution. But, whether or not The Standard scheme was the actual Bill of the Government, there was no security that such a Bill would pass the House of Commons. And even if did, and the House of Lords disapproved any part of the scheme, they would be absolutely precluded from expressing their opinion, since the penalty for such an expression of opinion would be a Dissolution under the old constituencies and the new franchise. What was required was not knowledge of the redistribution scheme, but power to deal with it fairly. What function did the Government wish to assign, either to the minority in that House, or to the majority in the House of Lords, if they were not to be allowed to deal freely with a Bill so vitally affecting the destinies of the country as a Redistribution Bill? Unless that freedom was conceded a quiet settlement of the question seemed to him impossible; if it were conceded, such a settlement seemed to him to be certain.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he wished to ask a few questions relative to the Joint Commission between this country and Russia, which was now on the confines of Afghanistan, for the purpose of settling the North-West Frontier of that country. He wished to know whether the Under Secretary for India could give the House some outline of the objects of that important Mission? Some exception had been taken to the selection of Sir Peter Lumsden to serve on that Commission; but, in his opinion, the Government had exercised a wise discretion in that selection, and, on the whole, he did not think that a better man could have been chosen. The people of India took a deep interest in the question, and it was desirable that
    124
    the instructions given to Sir Peter Lumsden should be laid on the Table of the House. Then he should like to know what position the Representative of the Ameer held on that Commission? Was he merely to advise, or was he to have a voice in the settlement of the boundary between Afghanistan and Russian territory? Then, suppose that some definite boundary was fixed, what guarantee had the Government that the Commission would be a reality and not a sham, and that the boundary would be maintained? We furnished the Ameer with a large amount of money on condition that he let us know what his foreign policy was to be. Suppose that he had reason to fear that Russia was going to overstep that boundary, what would be our position with reference to Afghanistan or Russia? As far as the latter Power was concerned, the boundary would be fixed for strategic purposes. The Ameer would expect us to recognize that boundary wherever it might be fixed. With respect to the Viceroyalty, he did not think that any wiser selection than Lord Dufferin as the successor of Lord Ripon could have been made. Lord Dufferin would be the man to set things right in India with which Lord Ripon had dealt so unsuccessfully. He should also like to ask the Under Secretary for India whether, in the event of there being any difference between Sir Peter Lumsden and the Chief of the Russian Mission with regard to the North-Western boundary of Afghanistan, the former was to communicate with the Home Government or with that of India? He also wished to know how long this Mission was to last? He also wished to know whether, in the event of Khartoum being relieved, General Gordon, who had been appointed by the Khedive Governor General of the Soudan, and had been recognized as such by Her Majesty's Government, would be under the orders of Lord Wolseley, or whether the latter would be entirely under his orders? In the latter case, he was afraid that the cost of the Expedition would be enormously heavy.
    MR. J. K. CROSSremarked, that in reply to the questions of the hon. Member opposite he had to state that General Lumsden had left this country some time ago, under instructions from Her Majesty's Government to settle, in conjunction with the Russian Commissioner, the

    125
    North-West boundary of Afghanistan, and on the 17th of November he would arrive at Sarakhs, where he would remain until the Indian contingent, which had now reached the Helmund, and the Russian Commissioner, met him. The Indian contingent included 200 infantry, and with its followers numbered 900 men. It was quite possible that by the end of November all the parties would have met together, and would be able to proceed on their Mission. Of course, however, Her Majesty's Government could not undertake to fix the time of the arrival of the Russian Commissioner, over whom they had no control. The hon. Gentleman had asked him what would happen in the event of any dispute arising between General Lumsden and the Russian Commissioner. General Lumsden would be in communication with the Home Government, and not with that of India. All such matters, however, would be submitted to Lord Dufferin. The position of the Ameer's Representative would be that he would have no vote, and no voice in the direct fixing of the frontier line; but he would be present as the adviser and the trusted Representative of the Ameer, and would give all necessary information to the Commissioners. As far as the matter had gone at present, the contingent had been received very well indeed, and provisions and stores had been placed for them at the appointed stations, and he understood that everything that had been expected to be done by the Ameer had been done. In fact, the action of the Ameer had been thoroughly cordial, and he hoped that by the time General Lumsden reached Sarakhs there could be no doubt as to the satisfactory result of the Mission. The instructions given to General Lumsden were that he should go to Sarakhs, and there await the arrival of the Russian Commissioner and the Indian contingent, and that he should communicate with the Foreign Office on all matters that were going forward. The arrangements as to where the Commission should start from had not been actually decided upon, nor could they be until the Russian Commissioner had met General Lumsden.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether, when Lord Wolseley arrived in Khartoum, he or General Gordon was to be supreme, especially
    126
    as the latter held the position of Governor General of the Soudan under the appointment of the Khedive? He also wished to know whether the uncandid paragraph in the Queen's Speech declaring that Her Majesty had given her support to Egypt in financial matters was intended to indicate that support in the shape of a guarantee or of a loan would be given to that country? The act of suspending the Sinking Fund on the recommendation of Lord Northbrook was a direct violation of the Law of Liquidation, which had been sanctioned by the Concert of Europe; and he was anxious to know whether that act entailed any financial responsibility on this country? With regard to the question of Reform, it was quite clear that the Government did not attach the same importance to redistribution that the Conservative Party did, and that the Government scheme of redistribution would magnify and stereotype the glaring anomalies of representation that now existed. He wished, however, to call attention to the terrible rebuke which the Prime Minister had administered that night to his Colleague, the President of the Board of Trade. He was glad to see the President of the Board of Trade in his place. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain the history of those riots which he himself incited at Birmingham. He would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he was not in direct complicity and confidence with the acts of outrage which were perpetrated at Aston Park? The right hon. Gentleman had in no degree reprobated those acts, which were of a most outrageous character. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman had commended them in a public address. He begged to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to that fact, because, if the Prime Minister did not condemn those acts, he was as much answerable for them as was the President of the Board of Trade himself. Hon. Members opposite had instituted a system of rioting at public meetings. At Birmingham the Caucus organized a meeting in opposition to the Conservative gathering at Aston Park, gangs of roughs being hired to interfere with the proceedings. That was exactly similar to the action which caused the Government to suspend Lord Rossmore from the Commission of the Peace, only Lord

    127
    Rossmore did not introduce hired ruffians. The Caucus, under the auspices of the President of the Board of Trade, issued a circular on the Saturday before the meeting was held, calling upon Liberals to assemble at the gates of Aston Park; and two Town Councillors, creatures of the Caucus and of the President of the Board of Trade, recommended the ruffians who assembled to take possession of certain planks in order to use them as battering rams against a wall. That was merely a question of burglary; but in addition to that the Caucus were also guilty of forgery, for, at their instigation, a certain number of tickets were fabricated in order that their agents might gain admittance to the Conservative meeting. The Prime Minister had that evening repudiated the deeds of the President of the Board of Trade. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman appeared not to repudiate them. Then he was responsible for them. If Conservatives could not meet without being subjected to attack by miners and others, surely that freedom of speech of which the Prime Minister professed to be so fond would no longer be enjoyed by the minority in political controversies. In conclusion, he thought they were entitled to some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade, whose conduct in this matter seemed very like that of the Anarchists or Nihilists on the Continent.

  AMENDMENT (MR. HARRINGTON)—THE MAAMTRASNA MURDERS—CONVICTION OF MYLES JOYCE AND OTHERS.
  MR. HARRINGTON, in rising to move the following Amendment to the Address:—
  "And humbly to assure Her Majesty that it is the opinion of a vast number of the Irish people that the present method of administering the Law in Ireland, more especially under the Crimes Act, has worked manifold injustice, and, in the case of the prisoners tried for the Maamtrasna murder, has led to the execution of an innocent man and to the conviction of four other persons equally innocent, and that this House humbly assures Her Majesty that it would ensure much greater confidence in the administration of the Law in Ireland if a full and public inquiry were granted into the execution of Myles Joyce and the continued incarceration of Patrick Joyce, Thomas Joyce, Martin Joyce, and John Casey,"
  said, that in rising, at that late hour of the evening, to move the Amendment,
  128
  and in proposing to draw the attention of the House for a moment from the many matters of foreign policy which they had been discussing, in order to bring their notice to another question of no less importance to the good government of the Empire, he had to ask the indulgence of the House, owing to his being taken somewhat by surprise. No doubt, the question of the extension of the franchise was one of very great importance; but it was in vain to extend the franchise to the people if no effort were made by Her Majesty's Government to inspire them with some confidence in the laws of the country. In the absence of any Representative of the Irish Government upon the Treasury Bench—in face of the flight, he might say, of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), and in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—[The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND here entered the House and took his seat.]—he was glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman was now in his place. On the 15th of December, 1882, Myles Joyce, Patrick Joyce, of Shanvallycahill, and Patrick Casey were executed for the murders known as the Maamtrasna murders, and Martin Joyce, brother of Myles, Patrick Joyce, of Cappanachrea, another brother, Thomas Joyce, son of Patrick, and John Casey, of Cappanachrea, were sentenced to penal servitude. There had been cases previously brought under the attention of the House of Commons in which persons had been the victims of mistaken identity; but they were of small importance compared with the case to which he proposed to invite the consideration of the House. In this case, although, no doubt, there was false evidence, though perjured and malignant low-lived characters were employed by the Crown, and though such facts demanded the attention of the House, there was the further and most important charge which he now made — that the officials of the Crown in Ireland, those who were entrusted with the administration of the law, were themselves parties to the conspiracy against the lives of those wretched men. On the night of August 17, 1882, a party of men broke into a house in the village of Maamtrasna, in the County of Galway, occupied by a man named John Joyce, murdered him, his

  129
  mother, wife, and a young daughter, and inflicted serious injuries upon his two sons, the only other occupants of the house, injuries so severe that one of them died on the following day, while the second lay for some time in a precarious condition. Acting on the information of two brothers, named Anthony and John Joyce, the police arrested, on the 20th, 10 men, all of whom resided at a considerable distance from the scene of the murder—some at a distance of seven miles. The story related by the two brothers, supported by the son of one of them, was of an extraordinary character; but, after the customary remands and inquiries, the 10 men were duly returned for trial at the Galway Assizes. "The Prevention of Crime Act" being in force at the time, the Crown took advantage of its provisions to have the venue changed to the City of Dublin, though there was no suggestion in the evidence of the witnesses, and nothing in the circumstances of the case, to warrant the belief that the murder was of an agrarian character. Some days previous to the trial, which commenced on the 13th of November, 1882, before a special jury of the City and County of Dublin, in Green Street Court House, it became known that Anthony Philbin, one of the accused, had become approver, and would be produced by the Crown to corroborate the three Joyces. The extraordinary story told by Anthony Joyce at the trial was that on the night of the 17th of August he was awakened by the barking of his dogs. He got up, went to his door, and saw six men whom he did not know at first, but whom he subsequently recognized as Anthony Philbin, Thomas Casey, Martin Joyce, Myles Joyce, Patrick Joyce, and Tom Joyce, of Cappanachrea. After a time, with nothing on but his shirt, trousers, and flannel vest, Anthony Joyce went to the house of his brother and saw the men go to the house of Michael Casey. When they came out the number had been increased to 10, by the addition of Patrick Joyce, of Shanvallycahill, Patrick Casey, John Casey, and Michael Casey. The witness and his brother John followed the men to the scene of the murder. It was clearly established that the night was dark, and that the men had blackened faces. Every bit, therefore, of Anthony Joyce's story was incon-
  130
  sistent, as it would have been impossible for him on such a night to have discerned from his house even the figures of the men as they passed, and much more impossible to recognize their faces. A similar story was told by John Joyce; and this was the evidence upon which these 10 men were arrested. He (Mr. Harrington) charged the Government with suppressing certain depositions which were needful to the proper elucidation of the case, and he pointed out that he might indeed found the whole case he had to bring forward upon the single circumstance of the actual murderers having blackened faces. He challenged the Government to show the House that, from the beginning to the end of the trial, which lasted seven days, one word was said by the Crown counsel, or by the counsel for the defence, of this circumstance of the men having blackened faces. After the trial, depositions were made by two of the men who were executed—Patrick Joyce and Patrick Casey—in which, whilst proclaiming their own guilt, they pronounced the third man—Myles Joyce—to be innocent. These depositions had not been produced before the House, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would produce them, even now, he would at least have done something to ease the public mind. Depositions were also in existence, proving beyond doubt that those who took part in the murders had blackened faces. Yet that fact was deliberately withheld at the trial; for when the solicitor for the defence applied for copies of the depositions, the representatives of the Crown, in a wicked and murderous manner, kept from him the dying depositions of the two lads. But, fortunately, the Irish Government had not it in their power any longer to suppress this evidence, and he should be able to show that not only was it before the lawyers for the Crown—the Attorney General of the day (now Mr. Justice Johnson), Mr. Murphy (now Mr. Justice Murphy), and Mr. Peter O'Brien, Q.C.—but that their attention was specially directed to it. He had, in his hand, the brief used by one of these Crown counsel at the trial. He also had a copy of the brief used by the counsel for the prisoners, and he should be able to show that only such documents were given to the solicitor for the defence by the Crown Soli-

  131
  citor, as would fit in with the theory of guilt which he wished to establish, so as to secure the hanging of these unfortunate men. The depositions which were suppressed would undoubtedly have convinced any jury that, however guilty or innocent the men might be, the evidence on which the Crown proceeded was from the beginning a fabrication. If the Government wished to clear the character of their officials from the stain of perjury and conspiracy to murder, they would be anxious for inquiry. Whether they conceded or refused an inquiry, public opinion in Ireland was already made up on the subject, and nothing would remove the public belief that the Crown officials had sacrificed the life of Myles Joyce. The name of the Crown counsel to whom the brief belonged was not written upon it, but the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland would easily recognize the handwriting of the marginal notes. The counsel had employed his pencil during the swearing of the jury, and wrote down three columns, one for the sworn jurors, another marked with the letter "C," which was the initial letter of "Catholic," and the third headed "Sturdy." That was the manner in which the Government officials endeavoured to command respect for the law in Ireland, by marking every man who belonged to the religious faith of the majority as an outcast, whose oath was not to be trusted. From beginning to end of this extraordinary case, as it had been presented to the Court in Dublin, none of the witnesses were allowed to utter one word about the murderers having blackened faces, or wearing disguises; and, although the Crown lawyers brought the little boy, Patrick Joyce, upon the witness table, and declined to examine him, on the plea that he did not know what would happen to him if he told a lie, yet that proceeding was merely a trick to throw dust in the eyes of the Judge and jury, for three months earlier, on the day succeeding the murders, the boy had been sworn, and his dying deposition had been taken and made a legal instrument capable of being used as evidence on the trial, by Mr. Brady, one of the fortunate men who were thrust into the Magistracy under the Crimes Act. That boy's deposition detailed the circumstances of the murder, and would not have supported the perjury which
  132
  brought about the conviction of Myles Joyce, for he said—"Two or three men came in. They had black on their faces." The deposition was signed "A. Newton Brady, R.M." It was A. Newton Brady, R.M., who took the deposition of this little boy, and of this little boy's brother, and who conducted the case from beginning to end. It was he who also took the depositions of the two unfortunate men who declared their own guilt and the innocence of the man who was executed with them. But he and Earl Spencer had evidently made a compact that these depositions should never see the light, and that the public, although they might have their suspicions, should never have a clear knowledge of their guilt in connection with these cases. The production of this little boy in the witness chair was, as he had said, an empty farce, for appended to the deposition of the boy in the Crown brief was a note from Mr. George Bolton, the Crown Solicitor, which was well worthy of the consideration of those who wished to investigate this matter fully. The note in question was as follows:—"Patrick Joyce has recovered, but his evidence is worthless." Deny it as they might, there was this damning evidence in the handwriting, he might say, of the Crown Solicitor, that the Crown prosecutors were not to examine this boy on the trial, but that the Executive Government had determined to sacrifice these men, in order to appease the cry for blood that had been raised by the English newspapers. The little boy—Patrick Joyce—might be found at present at Artane Industrial School, and the Crown could examine him if they liked, as he (Mr. Harrington) had done, and see if the statement which he now made corresponded with the statement which he made to the Resident Magistrate on the day after the murder. The case, as he had said, might be allowed to rest altogether on this one circumstance of whether the men who had committed the murder had or had not blackened faces. There was no theory whatever by which they could reconcile the evidence of the three independent witnesses with the fact of the men being disguised. The fact was, that Anthony and John Joyce lived in eternal enmity with the men against whom they gave evidence; and whether they had themselves concocted the story,

  133
  or whether they were instructed by the police or any of the magistrates or officials, he contended that the case equally demanded the clearest and fullest inquiry. It was after the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartingtnn) in that House had promised an inquiry into the revelations made by the informers in connection with this case, and after Earl Spencer had refused an inquiry, that his suspicions were aroused that Earl Spencer, and Brady, Bolton, and others acquainted with the case, had a strong and vital interest in keeping the truth from the public. The fullest inquiry was demanded, if they wished to sift, to the bottom the infamous transactions connected with the trial, and to show that the Crown officials had not sanctioned a cruel conspiracy. He (Mr. Harrington) had himself spent some considerable time in hunting up evidence in regard to this case. He had gone down into the locality, and taken with him the official map that was used by the Crown at the trial. He invited the Members on the Treasury Bench to send any impartial man into the district, and he would be very glad to leave to such a person the whole question of the guilt or innocence of the unfortunate man who was executed. What he had to charge against the Crown officials was not alone that they proceeded upon the extraordinary story of these men, but at a time when they knew it to be perfectly false. He should be able to show from the handwriting of the officials themselves, that although one of the approvers offered to give the Crown the true version of the murder, as he preferred doing, and telling the truth, the Government would not accept his evidence until he finally consented to perjure himself. It was only by perjury that he was able, therefore, to save his wretched life. The evidence at the trial was confined to three witnesses who might be called independent. Their evidence, however, was corroborated by that of two informers—Thomas Casey and Anthony Philbin—one of whom, as a matter of fact, was not present at the murder, and knew nothing about it, although he was easily able to perjure himself. He had heard the evidence repeated in his presence no less than 12 times; and, therefore, it was not a difficult matter for him to corroborate it.
  134
  Still, strange to say, in spite of this, the two informers did not agree in the evidence they offered at the trial. One of them alleged that there were 10 men present at the murder; whereas the other said there were 12, and gave the names of two additional men—Patrick Kelly and Michael New. Extraordinary to relate, instead of that discrepancy between the evidence being pointed to by the learned Judge who tried the case, as a ground of suspicion against the testimony of these men, it was the main point upon which Judge Barry relied as confirming the testimony of both. Judge Barry said, in so many words, that the very discrepancy between the evidence of the two men afforded confirmatory proof of the truth of their statements as to the murder. Now, these two men, who, in an endeavour to save their own lives, swore away the life of an innocent man—these two men had since come forward and said, openly and publicly, that the testimony they gave to the Crown was altogether false. The statement now was that there were only seven men engaged in the murder, and that six of those who had been charged by the Crown were wholly innocent, and knew nothing about it. It was further stated that, at the present moment, two of the actual murderers, including the man who really planned the murder, were living in a locality well known to the police, and that another of them was now in England. He thought he should be able to show, still further, that not only had the Crown full knowledge that the actual murderers were living in the locality, but that they were a ware that the man who planned the murder, who paid for it, and who assisted in committing it, was still living in the locality, and that at the time the Crown proceeded to try these 10 unfortunate peasants, five of whom were still in gaol, the Crown had full knowledge that they were innocent, and that other persons were guilty of the murder. He thought it necessary to press that extraordinary fact upon the attention of the House. The allegation now made by the informers was, that seven men were present at the murder, and that they never came into a line of march at all; that they saw no men passing by the house, and that if they had passed by no one could have seen them. The allegation now made by one of the informers was, that a man named John

  135
  Casey, who had lived at enmity with the unfortunate man who was murdered, was the actual instigator of the murders. Strange to say, John Casey was arrested by the police on the morning after the murders. Knowing the relations which had existed between Casey and the unfortunate man who was killed, the police suspected from the first that he was the man who had concocted the murder, and had paid the perpetrators of it for carrying it out. That man was still living in the locality, having been discharged from the custody of the police, although they knew perfectly well that he was guilty of the murders. He was arrested on the morning after the murders, and the police knew then, and knew now, that he was at the bottom of them. He should be able to show, from the handwriting of the Crown counsel engaged in the prosecution of these unfortunate men, that, at the time he was pushing the law as closely as he could against the men in the dock, he, at least, suspected that the man, whom he (Mr. Harrington) now alleged to have planned the murder of the Joyce family, was at the bottom of the whole transaction. He found in the Crown brief, amongst the evidence prepared by the Crown Solicitor to rebut any alibi that could be produced by the prisoners, an information made by John Casey, of Derry. This was the man whom he (Mr. Harrington) alleged to have planned the murder, to have paid for the murder, and to have held the light while it was being committed. This was Casey's statement—
  "I remember the night of the murder. I slept in a room in my own house. My three sons also slept in the house; their names are John, Stephen, and Malachi. I do not know any other Malachi Casey. I accused John Joyce, three years ago, of stealing sheep from me. Sheep have been stolen from me during the last three months, and sheep have been stolen from other people at the same time. I did not go to either the wake or the funeral."
  These words were underlined in the brief of the counsel for the Crown, who wrote on the brief underneath them—"Suspect had him murdered." That was a very significant fact, which had been very carefully concealed. It was impossible now to conceal the fact that, while the Executive Government were attempting to hang these 10 unfortunate prisoners, the Crown counsel had a full knowledge
  136
  as to the man who had really committed the murder, and knew, further, that the evidence on which he was proceeding against the prisoners, whether they were guilty or innocent of the murder, was absolute perjury. The evidence upon which the Crown proceeded in the trial of the eight men, after the two informers, Anthony Philbin and Thomas Casey, had been taken away, was what Lord Spencer now called three independent witnesses — Anthony Joyce, John Joyce, of Derry, his brother, and Patrick Joyce, of Derry, John's son. No doubt, that evidence was supported by the testimony of the two approvers. What was the evidence they had now against the men in gaol? He did not think the House would ask that the evidence to support the innocence of these men should be stronger than the evidence upon which they were sentenced to death. And yet he should be able to show that the evidence on which they were prosecuted, and upon which three men were executed and five others were still suffering penal servitude, stood upon lower footing, and more questionable testimony, which no rational man would credit. They had, first, the revelations made by the two approvers on the trial completely contradicted by themselves. Their characters could have become no worse than they were before, seeing that, at the trial, they stood in the position, not only of approvers, but self-confessed murderers. But what was their most recent testimony supported by? From the passing of the sentence upon the men now in gaol, four out of the five now undergoing penal servitude had never ceased to protest their innocence of the charge. That was not a slight fact in the case, but an extremely strong fact; because it was only four out of the five who made these representations, and those the very four the approver stated to be innocent. He (Mr. Harrington) would read an extract from a letter of one of them to his wife. At the end of the letter the writer said—
  "Dear Mary, it is very hard to be here for a crime that I know nothing about. Thanks be to God I know nothing whatever about it. But I fret more for you and the children then I do for myself, for you know God is good, and we will all be happy yet with the help of God. Let me know when you write have you any pigs, how the crops are, and did you pay the rint yet, and I hope you and I will be happy

  137
  together yet, with the help of God. No more at present from your loving husband,
  "JOHN CASEY."
  The letter was dated Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, 15th of Jane, 1883. In another letter, dated the 27th of June, 1884, the same prisoner said—
  "I hope you and the priest will petition the Lord Lieutenant as quickly as possible. It is very hard for me to have been in prison and separated from my family, especially as I am innocent. Let me know are the crops promising this year. I hope Peter and father will mind the children in my absence. I hope that will not be very long. Keep good courage, and I will do the same. I hope everything will come to light hereafter. I don't expect to be always here."
  Martin Joyce, brother to Myles Joyce, who was executed, and of Patrick Joyce, who was also in gaol, wrote to his wife from Mountjoy Prison on the 5th of September last—
  "I hope that God, in His just mercy, who saved me from death, will yet show to the world my innocence of any participation in the crime for which I am the innocent sufferer.—Your affectionate husband, MARTIN JOYCE."
  These were extraordinary circumstances, and fully corroborated the later evidence of the approver. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would draw attention to the fact that the men who made these protestations of innocence had not been found guilty by a jury, but had pleaded guilty. That could easily be explained; and when the House knew the facts, he thought hon. Members would attach very little weight indeed to the circumstance of these unfortunate men having pleaded guilty, instead of waiting to be tried and being found guilty by a jury. As he had already stated, eight men were charged. They were taken 200 miles away from their home to be tried by a special jury, who did not understand their language. Their own solicitor and counsel did not understand their language, nor did the Court understand it. They were as absolute strangers in Green Street Court House, in Dublin, as if they had been translated from another sphere. On the evidence adduced at the trial, the jury were only eight minutes deliberating upon a charge which involved the life of the first unfortunate wretch. In the next case, the jury, having the same evidence to go upon, were only 10 minutes deliberating as to the fate of
  138
  the unfortunate peasant before them. The third jury was empannelled to try Myles Joyce. No alibi was attempted on his behalf, because there was no one to prove it, except his unfortunate wife. The evidence upon which Myles Joyce was tried was precisely the same as that upon which the other prisoners were tried. The verdict was a foregone conclusion, and the Dublin jury simply spent six minutes in deliberating upon the verdict. As he had no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland would refer to this part of the case, he thought he should be able to show the House that there was nothing whatever in the fact of the rest of the men having pleaded guilty which was worthy of the consideration, of the House. Their circumstances were such—a chain of evidence had been wound around them in such a manner—that there was no salvation whatever for them. Nevertheless, they steadily refused to plead guilty until they were waited upon by their priest, who told them that although they were innocent it would probably be better for them to plead guilty, and in the end their innocence would come to light. There was proof that they were led to expect, that if they did plead guilty, their lives would be spared. What were these wretched, unfortunate peasants, wholly ignorant as they were of the language in which they were being tried, and of the proceedings of the Court, to do? He would read the observations made by the Judge in sentencing the second prisoner — Patrick Casey — to death. Mr. Justice Barry, in passing sentence, said—
  "Patrick Casey, after a most patient trial, you have been convicted by a jury of your fellow-countrymen of the crime of murder. The murder charged against you, in the indictment on which you have been convicted, is the murder of Bridget Joyce. But the evidence has established clearly and conclusively, and so as not to leave a doubt of your guilt upon the mind of any sane person who has heard or read that evidence, that you not only murdered Bridget Joyce, but four other persons on that one occasion."
  That was the language addressed by the learned Judge to the second person tried; and a few minutes after he had used that language, in the presence of the jurors who were waiting to try the next case, the jury was empannelled to try the third unfortunate prisoner—Myles Joyce. He (Mr. Harrington) asked the

  139
  House to bear in mind that the remarks of the Judge were heard by the persons empannelled to try Myles Joyce. Therefore, when the priest pointed out to these unfortunate men that it would be better for them to plead guilty, and thus avoid capital punishment, they followed his advice and pleaded guilty, although they were really innocent of the crime of which they were charged. They could see nothing before them but the prospect of an ignominious death; and surely the circumstances were such as to induce ignorant peasants of this description to say they were guilty, in the hope that they would not only save their lives, but, at the same time, have an opportunity of vindicating their character hereafter. There was another circumstance, which he had not touched upon yet, that corroborated the revelations made by the two informers, and which had not been contradicted. He had informed the House that the approvers had completely contradicted the evidence they gave at the trial. They now asserted, in the most open manner, that they were forced to give that evidence, and that it was the only door open to them in order to save their own wretched lives. He thought he had shown how the last statements of the approvers were corroborated in the most striking way by the protestations of innocence on the part of four out of the five men now suffering penal servitude. There was, however, another extraordinary fact. There were five men suffering penal servitude. One of these five men was still alleged by the approvers to have been guilty and to have actively participated in the murders. From the first day of his conviction—from the first day the sentence of death originally passed upon him was commuted down to the present moment, that prisoner had never said one word by way of protesting his innocence; whereas the four men who were now alleged by the approvers to be innocent had expressly, in every letter they had written, protested their innocence. He would go farther. The man who was alleged to have been guilty had not been altogether silent upon the subject. His last letter home, he (Mr. Harrington) had been able to get some information about during his visit to the locality. It was an extraordinary document. The man requested his wife to go to "the master," meaning the land-
  140
  lord, and get him to intercede with the Lord Lieutenant in order to enable him to make a statement, which, he said, although it might be of no good to himself, he, at least, ought to be allowed to make for the sake of the innocent men who were now in gaol with him. Here, then, they had this extraordinary evidence—stronger than anything which the Crown produced at the trial—that four men who were alleged by the approvers to be innocent, had protested their innocence from the commencement; whereas the man who was alleged by the approvers to be guilty had never made a protestation of innocence, but, on the contrary, had asked to be allowed to make a statement in order to get out of gaol four innocent men who were incarcerated there. He (Mr. Harrington) had the best grounds for saying that this man was not only willing now to make that statement, but that 12 months ago he did make it before certain magistrates in Galway Gaol. But the fact had been suppressed, and was only known to the officials of Dublin Castle. As they knew how much that statement would affect their character, and what a damning effect it would have against them, they had studiously kept it out of the public view. He challenged the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland to produce that statement and submit it to the House. He believed it would be found that it fully corroborated the statement made by the approvers, and the statement made by these four prisoners who had been continually protesting their innocence. It came also from a man who acknowledged his own participation in the murder. It further corroborated the declaration made by the two men who suffered the extreme penalty of the law, the day before the execution, when they acknowledged their own guilt, but confirmed the innocence of Myles Joyce. It further corroborated the statement of the two sons of John Joyce on the morning succeeding the murder of their father, one of whom died from the injuries he had received. There was another fact which bore upon the testimony of these approvers. The approver Casey, in the revelations he had made, said that as they were proceeding to the scene of the murder, they called at the house of another man who resided about half-a-mile from the place, and endeavoured to

  141
  enlist him in their murderous enter-prize. Casey had given to him (Mr. Harrington), in the course of a long interview with him, the name of the man at whose house they called His name was John Joyce, the same as that of the murdered man, and he was a nephew of the man who was alleged by Casey to have planned and paid for the murder, and to have been present himself, taking a guilty part in it. Joyce would not corroborate the testimony of the informer to him (Mr. Harrington); but, although he refused to corroborate it in words, he gave a corroboration which carried conviction much more strongly to his mind than if the man had expressly stated his agreement in so many words. In the visit he paid to Joyce he was accompanied by a rev. gentleman who was connected with the district. He asked Joyce if it was trite that four of the men pulled him out of bed in order that he might take part in the murder. With some adroitness Joyce endeavoured at first to dodge the question, and made several efforts to avoid giving a direct answer. At last, the rev. gentleman told him expressly to answer the question "yes" or "no"—whether, on the night of the murder, the approver Casey, and three other men, went to him and endeavoured to bring him to the murder. To which appeal, Joyce answered—"Don't press me, father." Now, to his (Mr. Harrington's) mind, there could be no clearer corroboration. The man was evidently unwilling to incriminate his uncle, nor would he tell a lie to the priest by denying what had taken place. Therefore, every circumstance stated by the approver in his recent examination was confirmed by an investigation of the locality, and an inquiry upon the spot. Unfortunately, these men had been found guilty by a jury who had never been in the district, or even seen it, and they were tried by a Judge who also knew nothing of the locality. They were tried as absolute strangers, just as though they had been taken into another sphere in order to be tried there. An application made to the Court to enable the jury to go down to the locality and inquire into the extraordinary story told by the independent witnesses, was refused. No effort was made by the Crown to satisfy the public that there was any real desire on their part to have the law impartially administered,
  142
  lest such a course might have deprived the Crown prosecutors of the blood of the victims they were so anxious to sacrifice. The revelations made by the approver Casey were made, sometime ago, before His Grace the Archbishop of Tuam, in whose diocese the parish of Maamtrasna was situated. His Grace sent forward a representation on the subject to the Government, and, after pressure had been brought to bear, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War promised distinctly that if the revelations made by the approver were brought before the Government, they would deem it their duty to inquire fully into them. His Grace the Archbishop had brought them to the notice of the Government, if Earl Spencer could be called a portion of the Government. A communication was duly addressed by the Archbishop to Earl Spencer, setting forth the revelations which had been made by the approver. What was the result? What kind of an inquiry took place? What did Earl Spencer do? He actually employed to draw up the reply the two most guilty criminals in the whole case—Mr. Brady, the Resident Magistrate, who took the depositions of the dying boys, who, from first to last, had known all the facts of the case, and who was the moat guilty of all in suppressing the truth; and George Bolton, who was almost equally guilty. These, of all persons in the world, were the men employed by Earl Spencer to reply to the Archbishop's letter, and they were the persons who were most concerned in procuring a verdict of acquittal, for themselves. They prepared, in reply to a letter of His Grace the Archbishop of Tuam, a long Memorandum, and Sir Robert Hamilton appended his name to it, as he was in duty bound, so that it did not go forth to the world as the statement of Messrs. Brady and Bolton. He (Mr. Harrington) thought he should be able, when he compared the real facts of the case with this attempt on the part of the Crown officials to whitewash themselves, to show to every rational man that the approver and murderer Casey, perjurer as he was, was telling the truth, while Brady and Bolton were telling an infamous falsehood. Here was one allegation made by Casey the approver, which was admitted by Sir Robert Hamilton, who simply personated Brady

  143
  and Bolton in the matter, by appending his name to the Memorandum. Both the Memorandum and the deposition of Casey agreed, to a certain extent—that Casey made an offer to the Crown prosecutor to give evidence; Casey stated that the offer was made two days before the trial was to come on, and he said that he made the statement to Mr. Bolton in the gaol. He subsequently saw Mr. Bolton in the Governor's office, and he said—
  "Mr. Bolton was sitting down with his shoos off, warming his feet to the fire. He said, 'Well, Casey, are you going to make a statement?' or something like that. I made an effort to save those who were in. I said, 'The men that did the murder are outside yet, and these men in here are innocent.' He said he had more than that from the Joyces and from my brother-in-law, Philbin; that Philbin swore I went to the house for him, and that he met me in the field. I am not sure whether it is then Mr. Bolton read Philben's statement for me, but I am quite certain that he read it for me. He would not accept my statement, as I would not make it agree with my brother-in law, and he called the warder and sent me away."
  He (Mr. Harrington) asked the House to bear that fact in mind. The assertion in the Memorandum prepared by Sir Robert Hamilton and published in his name, was this — that the statement which Casey made on that occasion was precisely the same which they accepted from him two days subsequently — namely, on the opening day of the trial, and that Mr. Bolton did agree to accept that information. He would read Casey's statement of this transaction, and read the statement of it which was put forward by Sir Robert Hamilton, asking the House to consider which of the two was more in agreement with common sense and reason. This was the statement made by Casey—
  "The trial was to come off on Monday. I saw the Governor on Sunday evening, about 4 o'clock, and I was talking to him. I told him about my meeting with Mr. Bolton. Question—Had you made up your mind this time to corroborate Philbin?' Answer—'I was making up my mind for it; but I was putting it off for the last moment.' The Governor said to me, if I wished he would speak to Mr. Bolton. I did not then give a decided answer. The next day was the day of the trial. When we were going into the van I saw Philbin going away in a cab. The other men went into the van."
  The Government statement was that the Crown officials agreed to accept Casey as an informer the day before the trial; yet he was brought out in the van with
  144
  the other men, while the other approver was conveyed away separately. Mr. Bolton's statement was that the agreement had been come to at the first interview, and, on the face of it, the statement of the informer was much more credible than that which had been made and published with the authority of Sir Robert Hamilton. Casey continued—
  "When we were going into the van, I saw Philbin going away in a cab. The other men went into the van. I was the last to go in, and I then said to the Governor that he might speak to Bolton. I had not given him an answer the night before. We were then brought to the Court. The nine of us were in the room, back of the dock, and my name was called."
  He (Mr. Harrington) would now read the account given by Sir Robert Hamilton, who first published the note of Casey to the Crown Solicitor, asking for an interview. The Memorandum went on to say—
  "This note was written by Casey, and handed by him to the Governor, with a request that he would have it sent to Mr. Bolton, and it was accordingly transmitted, and until the receipt of it, Mr. Bolton had never spoken to the man, nor had he ever seen him, except when brought up as a prisoner in Court. The Attorney General at the time was in London, and Mr. Bolton at once consulted the counsel for the prosecution, who directed him to see Casey, and be in a position to report to the Attorney General on his return what his evidence would be, but to make no statement and hold out no hope to Casey that he would be accepted as an approver without the Attorney General's authority. Mr. Bolton thereupon went to the prison, and saw the prisoner, not in his cell, but in the Governor's office. The Governor was present at this interview, no other persons being there, and it is untrue that Mr. Bolton used any threat to the prisoner, or made any suggestion to him as to what his evidence should be, or in any manner whatever pressed him. Mr. Bolton told him what he had been directed to tell him by the Crown counsel, and Casey then told Mr. Bolton what he had to prove in reference to the murder, which closely corresponded with his subsequently written statement. It is to be remembered that this happened on Saturday, the trials being fixed to commence on the following Monday, and that the case was considered by the Crown as being perfectly complete and conclusive against all the prisoners. The nature of Casey's evidence having been reported to the Attorney General, it was determined to accept him as an approver. On the following Monday all the prisoners were brought down to Green Street. Immediately on their arrival, Casey sent a message to Mr. Bolton by the Governor, saying he was anxious to see him."
  He (Mr. Harrington) asked the House whether that statement did not brand, as a falsehood, the first statement, that

  145
  the Crown had agreed to accept the former information given by Casey? If, on Saturday, the Crown Solicitor agreed to accept Casey's evidence, would the motion for a second interview come from the Crown Solicitor or from the approver? Was it not more likely that the statement of the approver was true—namely, that in the first instance he would not swear what was false; but after he had been making up his mind as to the statement he was expected to make, and when he had screwed up his courage sufficiently to comply with the requirements of the Crown Prosecutor, he then asked for a second interview? He contended that the admission that the statement came from him, and not from the Crown Solicitor, was the clearest proof in the world that a change had come over his mind, and that he was willing to do what the Crown Solicitor was urging him to do. But there was another thing which showed more clearly still than that admission that the statement of Sir Robert Hamilton was an infamous falsehood. It was this—that Casey said Mr. Bolton went down into the passage below the Court, accompanied by Mr. Brady, and the Governor of the gaol. Bolton called him out and informed him that his evidence would be accepted, provided he told the entire truth. Did not that, in the mind of any intelligent man, prove conclusively that there had been a divergence between Mr. Bolton and the approver, and establish also that Casey had hesitated to do what the Crown Solicitor was urging him to do—namely, commit perjury, and swear away the lives of these men? Then there was another proof, which nothing could get over—not even the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland—and that was, that while the Crown had accepted the statement of Casey, the late Attorney General for Ireland (the present Mr. Justice Johnson), in his opening statement of the case, mentioned that only one approver was coming forward to corroborate the evidence of the witnesses; while he never said one word as to any evidence to be offered by the second approver, Casey. Was it not, then, clear that the statement published by Messrs. Brady and Bolton was an infamous falsehood on the very face of it, and an endeavour to deceive the Government and public in Ireland? If the Crown had agreed, on Saturday, to accept
  146
  the evidence of Casey, did it not stand to reason and common sense; was it not in accordance with legal procedure and with the duty of the Attorney General, that, having the knowledge that two approvers would be examined for the prosecution, he should stand up in Court and make reference to the evidence of one approver only, stating that he would be examined, and no other? He (Mr. Harrington) thought that the evidence was as clear as noon day that, in their attempt to acquit themselves, these officials had deliberately lied. But there was a Providence watching their actions, forcing their hand, and compelling them to speak the truth, although they were endeavouring to commit falsehood. These were the independent inquisitors, on whom Earl Spencer relied to vindicate his conduct in Ireland—the two men most guilty in the transaction—who gave to the counsel for the defence, what purported to be copies of two depositions in the case, who suppressed the fact that the two boys had made dying depositions which they never gave into the hands of the counsel for the defence. But that was not the only portion of the evidence suppressed by the Crown. When the letter of the Archbishop of Tuam appeared, the whole scene changed, and it was then for the first time that the fact came to light that two informers had made depositions in gaol. Application was made for copies of the depositions on the first day of the trial by the counsel for the defence. Neither the counsel for the defence, nor the Attorney General for Ireland, had heard anything about the depositions in question. Again, application was made for the deposition of the approver Philbin, and although that deposition had been made six or seven days before the commencement of the trial in July, yet the copies were not supplied; and when application was made in Court for either a copy of the deposition, or a postponement of the trial, both applications were refused, and the wretched victims hurried to their fate. The public in Ireland had been, therefore, kept in a state of complete ignorance as to what depositions had been made, nor did they know that any interviews had taken place between the parties in question. He asked hon. Members to look carefully over the

  147
  matter that had been suppressed by the Crown, and compare it with the testimony given afterwards in the approver's chair. He believed that no one in that House would deny that, if a copy of the depositions had been handed in to the counsel for the defence, it would have been sufficient to have brought out whether the approver's statements were true or false, because there was a considerable divergence in them. Therefore, he asked hon. Members to conclude that, by the suppression of these important documents, the Crown were keeping from the hands of the counsel for the defence weapons which might have possibly saved the lives of these unfortunate persons, and prevented the fearful crime which had been committed in Ireland, as well as the odium which must attach to their system of administration there, unless the Government at once instituted an inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. He had already drawn attention to the suppression of one of the depositions made by the boys on the morning after the murder, and he would now say that in the Crown brief which had fallen into his hands there was established a clear case of conspiracy to murder on the part of officials in Ireland which no amount of shifting should prevent the public from knowing. In that brief the deposition of the boys was set forth, the one corresponding as nearly as it could with the other. It was a strange fact that the important statement of the boys was noted on the margin of the brief of the counsel who had the case in hand, and yet he never, by word or suggestion to the counsel for the defence, intimated that such statement was contained in his brief. That being so, he (Mr. Harrington) asserted, with the fullest knowledge of the responsibility that attached to his words, that the Crown officials were committing a crime nothing short of murder by suppressing for their own purposes, to save their reputation with the Government, this important testimony. In concluding, he would say that it was not for the purpose of satisfying Irish Members on those Benches that the Government were now asked to take up this matter. As far as it was possible for men to make up their minds, they had done so on this question already; they knew the facts of the case before the very im-
  148
  portant document he had referred to came into his hands, which it did after the concluding letter of the series in which he had published his case had appeared—it came in corroboration of that case, and enabled him to take the initiative in this question. He was able to say, with the knowledge he had previously possessed, that he had never entertained the slightest doubt of the innocence of that unfortunate man, who declared on the scaffold that he knew nothing of the murder for which he had been sentenced to death. There remained now no doubt as to those who were interested in having the murders committed, and yet the Government allowed them to walk about, associating with the people of the district; they knew that perjury had been committed; but rather than discredit the story put forward, and deprive their officials of the glory of having sacrified 10 or 12 unfortunate peasants, they refused to make any endeavour to convict the actual murderers. It was not to appease Irish Members on those Benches that it was necessary to institute the inquiry asked for. He said that if the Government did not immediately grant that inquiry, the public in Ireland would never be satisfied, and that from the lowest official engaged in this transaction up to Earl Spencer, who had the depositions before him, and who had ample time to telegraph to the gaol and clear up any doubt that existed, before consigning Myles Joyce to a murderer's grave, the verdict would be that there was a conspiracy to murder these unfortunate people. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In the ninth paragraph, after the word "us," to insert the words "and numbly to assure Her Majesty that it is the opinion of a vast number of the Irish people that the present method of administering the Law in Ireland, more especially under the Crimes Act, has worked manifold injustice, and, in the case of the prisoners tried for the Maamtrasma murder, has led to the execution of an innocent man and to the conviction of four other persons equally innocent, and this House humbly assures Her Majesty that it would ensure much greater confidence in the administration of the Law in Ireland if a full and public inquiry were granted into the execution of Myles Joyce and the continued incarceration of Patrick Joyce, Thomas Joyce, Martin Joyce, and John Casey."—(Mr. Harrington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor,)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.