Commons Sitting of 18 February 1886

A Member took and subscribed the Oath, and another Member made the Affirmation. MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading
—Parliamentary Franchise (Extension to Women)*[70].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—
Shop Hours Regulation [56].

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
John Aloysius Blake, esquire, for Carlow County.
The Honble. Edward Marjoribanks, for Berwick County.
The Right honble. Sir William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt, knight, for Derby Borough.
Alexander Asher, esquire, for Elgin District of Burghs.
The Right honble. Anthony John Mundella, for Sheffield (Brightside Division).
Cyril Flower, esquire, for Bedford County (Luton Division).
The Right honble. John Morley, for Newcastle upon Tyne.
The Right honble. John Blair Balfour, for Combined Counties of Clackmannan and Kinross.
The Honble. Charles Robert Spencer, for Northampton County (Mid Division).
The Right honble. Edward Heneage, for Great Grimsby.
Charles Russell, esquire, for Hackney (South Division).
The Right honble. George Otto Trevelyan, for Hawick District of Burghs.
The Right honble. Joseph Chamberlain, for Birmingham (West Division).
The Right honble. Sir Lyon Playfair, K.C.B., for Leeds (South Division).
Robert William Duff, esquire, for Banff County.
The Right honble. Hugh Culling Eardley Childers, for Burgh of Edinburgh (South Division).
The Right honble. Henry Campbell-Bannerman, for Stirling District of Burghs.
George Granville Leveson Gower, esquire, for Stafford County (North Western Division).
Sir James Porter Corry, baronet, for Armagh County (Mid Division).

NEW WRITS ISSUED.
For—
Flintshire, v. The Right honble. Richard de Aguila Grosvenor, commonly called Lord Richard Grosvenor, Chiltern Hundreds.
Somerset County (Southern Division), v. The Right honble. Frederick Edward Gould Lambart, commonly called Viscount Kilcoursie, Vice Chamberlain of the Household,
Cardiff Borough, v. Sir Edward James Reed, K.C.B., Commissioner of the Treasury.
Borough of Grantham, v. John William Mellor, esquire, Judge Advocate General.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
The Right honble. William Ewart Gladstone, for Edinburgh County.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received the following Communication from the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions:—
St. Andrews Election.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
Unto the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, Andrew Rutherford Clark, Lord Rutherford Clark, and Robert Lee, Lord Lee, two of the Judges of the Court of Session in Scotland, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in Scotland, pursuant to "The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868," and "The Parliamentary and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879," do hereby certify, That, at the conclusion of the trial of an Election Petition, at the instance of Sir Robert Anstruther, of Balcaskie, Fife, baronet, a candidate at the Election for the St. Andrews District of Burghs in December 1885, praying to have it determined that the double Return made at the said Election was an undue Return within the meaning of the said first-mentioned Act, and that the Petitioner was duly elected, and ought to have been returned as Member for the said District of Burghs, which trial was on the 15th instant, and on this day, holden before us in Edinburgh, we did find and determine that the said Return was an undue Return within the meaning of the said Act, and that the Petitioner, the said Sir Robert Anstruther, baronet, was duly elected, and ought to have been returned as Member for the said St. Andrews District of Burghs.
Given under our hands at Edinburgh, this 16th day of February 1886.
AND. R. CLARK.
ROBERT LEE.
The evidence taken at the trial, under the authority of the Shorthand Writer of the House of Commons, is transmitted with the foregoing Certificate. A. R. C.
R. L.
Ordered, That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith with the last Return for the St. Andrews District of Burghs, and amend the same by striking out the name of Stephen Williamson, esquire.
The Clerk of the Crown attending, amended the Return accordingly.

POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Sir, I wish to give Notice that I shall, on Monday, move to refer the question of the Procedure of the House of Commons to a Select Committee. I may add that it was our intention to propose that this Select Committee should be of a number considerably exceeding the usual number of 15. Perhaps I may be permitted to go further, and state for the convenience of the House, and as far as we can forecast it, the course of Public Business. First, with respect to the Address—which comes on to-night—it may be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen to know that we propose, after having fully considered the subject—a novel one in some points of view—to accept the Address in substance exactly as it is—that is to say, the portion of it which may be considered to be virtually adopted by the House down to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), which was carried by a majority; and likewise the remaining portion of the Address down to the close, as far as the substance is concerned. But the lapse of time requires some grammatical changes—strictly and purely grammatical—to make the Address congruous and consistent with reference to the circumstances which now exist. I could state those grammatical changes; but I think they would be hardly intelligible to the House, and that I had better reserve them. Then, Sir, I have to say that, that being the case, we should not be able to give our assent, I am afraid, to any Amendments that might be moved to the Address—one of which we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Mr. Magniac)—for the obvious reason that if we were to entertain any one Amendment we could not consistently refuse our assent to the introduction of other subjects, and I think considerable confusion would probably result. I may also say, in regard to one of the Amendments of which Notice has been given, relating to the crofter population, that my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Trevelyan) will tonight give Notice of his intention to introduce a Bill, on a very early day,
  582
  with reference to that subject. So much for the subject of Procedure, and so much for the subject, urgent undoubtedly, of the crofters. After that the House will, I am sure, have regard to the date which we have now reached. We are now at the 18th of February. There are Right days at the command of the Government, according to the usage of the House, between this time and the 22nd of March, on or about which date it is absolutely necessary to introduce a Financial Bill for the purpose of observing the law in regard to the Accounts of the year and passing the Estimates. These Right days, we must calculate, will probably be required in the main for disposing of the Supplementary Estimates of the present year, and for dealing with the great Votes of the Military and Naval Services, in order to place those Services in cash, and, in conformity with usage, to enable the Business of the country to proceed in a regular manner. We do not, therefore, contemplate any serious interruption to that course of Business within the period I have named. An hon. Member opposite, the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston), has given me Notice of his intention to ask a Question to-morrow with respect to the state of Ireland, and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as regards Ireland. I will anticipate the answer to the Question as far as I am able, because I have no doubt the House will make all due allowance for the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding all the information I can give. Sir, from the first moment—and the first moment has hardly passed since the Cabinet met for the first time on Monday—we have made our first care the state of Ireland, and the subject will be one occupying our unceasing attention. I may say—for, indeed, it has been announced in the addresses of various Members of the Government to their constituents—that we do not propose to meet the case of Ireland by suggesting to the House, at the present moment, the re-enactment of repressive criminal legislation. Of course, we are well aware, as the hon. Gentleman who has just given his Notice has observed, that the state of Ireland requires the closest attention, and is not to be disposed of by merely negative assertion. Our desire is, and our endeavour will

  583
  be, to introduce measures of a positive and substantive character in the House, which may deal with the case of Ireland in the various aspects in which it is now presented to us, both in respect to social order, which must necessarily be on all occasions the question first offering itself to the notice of an Executive Government, with respect to the great subject of land, and with respect to any measure which requires attention in connection with the future government of Ireland, and the method of that government. The time which will necessarily be occupied with the financial Business of the year will be studiously applied by us to maturing as rapidly as possible—[Laughter from the Opposition] —I do not know whether the implication is that there are Gentlemen in this House to whom the state of Ireland is a subject so easy that they have in their minds, ready for production, some simple and satisfactory method of dealing with it. That is not our view of the matter. Our view is that the subject is one of the greatest importance, and one of very great complexity and of enormous responsibility. Therefore, we shall not fear to ask the House for such time as may be necessary for us to give the subject the consideration which we think it requires. I was about to say that after that necessary financial Business has been gone through—and I named the 22nd of March as the date when the House will probably have disposed of the most urgent matters of Supply—by that time I shall hope to be in a condition to make some further indication to the House as to either the whole or some part of the proposals we may have to make for dealing with the substantive and positive—and I hope in a somewhat permanent form—with the great question of the state of Ireland. That, Sir, is what I have to say on the subject of the course of Public Business. If there is any other question which hon. Members wish me to answer I shall be very glad to do so.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: We shall, Sir, I apprehend, upon the resumption of the debate on the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, have an opportunity of commenting upon the somewhat surprising statement of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the intentions of the Government towards Ireland. It would
  584
  not, of course, be in Order for me to make any comment upon that matter now; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to inform us precisely of the grammatical Amendments—as he has been pleased to characterize them—which it is the intention of the Government to make in the Address, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them before being called upon to resume the debate. I would further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will place on the Paper the terms of the Reference to the Select Committee on the subject of Procedure; and whether it is his intention to frame any Resolutions or Standing Orders of the nature of those which I placed on the Paper when I was responsible for the Business of the House, in order to give that Committee some material for its consideration with the authority of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Undoubtedly I will place upon the Table the terms of the Reference to the Select Committee as we shall propose them; and I will then make such a statement of our intentions in regard to the proceedings of the Committee as I hope will, in substance, meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to the grammatical Amendments which we propose to make in the Address, I will explain them at once to the right hon. Gentleman, if he has the Address in his hands and will be good enough to follow me. I conceive the Address to have been substantially, though not formally, adopted by the House down to the word "tenure" in the paragraph relating to agriculture which was adopted upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Col-lings). The first Amendment is in the paragraph relating to Ireland, in the last paragraph but one of the second page, the ninth line from the bottom of the page. The next paragraph will not require any amendment whatever, as far as I can see, until we get to the word "leads," towards the close of the paragraph. When we get to near the end of the paragraph, in the fourth line from the end, I shall propose to substitute the word "led" for the word "leads;" and in the last line but one to substitute the word "look" for the word "looks." The next paragraph relates to the mea-

  585
  sures which it was the intention of the late Government to submit to Parliament; but as we could not very well recognize any responsibility in reference to their intentions, I propose to substitute the word "would" for the word "will," in the first line of that paragraph. In the last line but one of the same paragraph, after the word "Ireland," I propose to substitute the word "was" for the word "is;" and after the word "measures," in the same line, to substitute the word "would" for the word "will." The next Amendment is one which is intended to correct an error in the original drafting of the Address. The last paragraph but two of the Address runs thus—"Humbly to thank Her Majesty that a Bill for facilitating the sale of Glebe Lands," and so forth. That passage will require the insertion of certain words. We do not mean to be critics of the style of those who have gone before us; but we think the paragraph requires the insertion of some words to thank Her Majesty for making known to us that the Bill for the sale of Glebe Lands "would" be introduced. Then, in the second line, I propose to strike out the "word" will," and insert the word "would." The next paragraph—the last but one—does not appear to require any amendment whatever; and in the last paragraph we propose to strike out nearly the whole of the second line. The paragraph now runs—
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall he given to the subjects which Her Majesty has recommended to our attention, and to the measures which may be submitted to us."
  Of course, we cannot refer to the subjects and measures which the late Government proposed to submit; and we, therefore, propose that the last paragraph should read as follows:—
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us."
  These are the Amendments which we propose.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE—GREECE AND TURKEY.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether
  586
  he is in a position to inform the House as to the condition of the affairs of Greece; what action Her Majesty's Government will take in the event of the Greek Fleet attempting to attack the Turkish ports; and, whether the Government is acting in concert with all the Powers of Europe; and, if not, what Powers have dissented?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I should like to answer the Question with the greatest caution. I should have answered with greater advantage if I had had a little Notice of the Question; but I have before me the substance of a statement which will be made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords. My noble Friend and his Colleagues with him are of opinion that it would be most injurious that there should at this moment be any ambiguity as to the views and intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It might be most injurious to leave in doubt what those views and intentions are. We recognize the critical state of affairs in Eastern Europe, and we are aware how much depends upon the action which may be taken in respect of Greece. The affairs in the Balkans are by no means settled; but, of course, those affairs may be very materially affected by what happens in regard to Greece. Reference has been made in the Question to the Concert of Europe, and it is a matter of full satisfaction that the Great Powers of Europe have been acting together upon this occasion; and in the spirit of that Concert we shall, undoubtedly, continue to act. It is a great satisfaction to us to be able to follow without any deviation, so far as I am aware, in the course which appears to us, according to our best knowledge, to have been marked out by our Predecessors in Office with respect to this very important question of peace in Eastern Europe. On entering Office I may say that the very first step taken by us was to ascertain precisely—in fact, it was taken by myself individually at the moment when I had accepted Office at the hands of Her Majesty—to ascertain exactly the state of the engagements of the late Government—that being the point which it was our first duty to consider—and to let it be known beyond all possibility of doubt that these engagements would be strictly adhered to. Of

  587
  course, it is possible to draw a distinction between engagements and the policy which led to those engagements; but I am bound to say that, while adopting the engagements as a matter of good faith, we see no reason to separate ourselves from a policy which we believe to be directed to the peace of Europe and to the maintenance of public right, and I must also say, in our judgment, to the true interests of Greece herself. I think that is the substance of what will be said by my noble Friend in the other House.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I only further wish to ask whether all the Powers are in concert on this question, or whether there is anyone dissenting?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Note which formed the basis of our proceedings is a Collective Note to which all the six Great Powers are parties; and all the six Powers have, I believe, in the strongest manner, as far as I am acquainted with their proceedings, urged upon Greece the wisdom and expediency of adopting the course recommended in the Note.

  THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS— EXTRAORDINARY TITHE.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked the Eight honourable gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, Whether he has seen a Report in The Tunbridge Wells Advertiser, of the 5th February instant, of a trial in the Tunbridge County Court of Kent (Eden v. Vinson), by which it appears that a Mr. Charles Gideon Stevens, a witness who described himself as "the Agent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners" assisted the Vicar of Ticehurst in the levying of a distress for extraordinary tithe; and, whether it is part of the duty of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or their agents to assist clergymen to distrain for the recovery of extraordinary tithe; and, if not, whether the Commissioners will instruct their agents not to interfere in such matters in future?
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY, in reply, said, Mr. Stevens was not an agent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that it was no part of the duty of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or their agents to assist clergymen to distrain for extraordinary tithes; and they were
  588
  not aware that in any case any of their agents had ever interfered in such matters.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—MOUNTJOY CONVICT PRISON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the representations made by the Catholic Chaplain in Mountjoy Convict Prison, and published in the last Report of the General Prisons Board, with regard to the punishments inflicted in that prison; and, whether it is a fact that men, the majority of them weak in body as well as in mind, sometimes to the number of twelve or fourteen at a time, are chained at the right wrist and the right ankle with a chain varying in weight from five to ten pounds, and sometimes so kept day and night, without intermission, for months?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I have seen the chaplain's letter referred to in the Question, and have been furnished with a Report from the General Prisons Board, from which it appears that the mechanical restraint of a chain is adopted in the case of certain refractory convicts, and it is used in England as well as in Ireland. It is regarded as of a more humane character than the alternative of separate confinement, as it permits of dangerous prisoners taking exercise and being employed in public work. It is never applied until after medical examination; and. prisoners wearing it are put under periodical report with a view to its removal as soon as safety permits. The Medical Officer of Mountjoy Prison states that—
  "In no case has he or would he certify a prisoner to be fit for such restraint if he were weak in body or mind."
  If the hon. Member will kindly look at Appendix 31 of the Board's Annual Report he will see that particulars are published of all cases in which convict prisoners have been placed under this or other restraints. I should add that the heaviest chain applied is stated to weigh only 4½lbs., while a lighter one is generally used; and that, at the present moment, out of 698 male convicts in Mountjoy Prison, only three are wearing chains.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to

  589
  read, on this question, the Report of the Royal Commission which reported a few years ago.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—SUICIDES IN GALWAY GAOL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed, from the last Report of the Prisons Board, that the only prison in which suicide occurred in the year 1884–5 was Galway Gaol; and that there, within twelve weeks, three prisoners committed suicide by hanging; and, whether any special investigation was made into the circumstances of the prison, or the treatment of the prisoners therein?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The three cases of suicide referred to by the hon. Gentleman were investigated by Coroner's inquests; and the jury decided in each case that no blame attached to any of the prison officials. In one case a special inquiry was held by a member of the Board, who came to a like conclusion. The prison was visited three times last year by Dr. MacCabe, Medical Officer of the Board; and he certifies that the treatment of the prisoners there is humane and considerate.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND) —REPORT OF INSPECTOR ON THE PROPOSED AMALGAMATION OF PORTIONS OF THE DONOUGHMORE UNION WITH THE UNIONS OF ROSCREA AND ABBEYLEIX.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board have yet considered the Report of their Inspector upon the proposed amalgamation of portions of the Donoughmore Union with the Unions of Roscrea and Abbeyleix; and, how soon their decision will be made known?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The Report has not yet reached the Local Government Board. I understand the Inspector awaits some important Returns to enable him to complete it.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE BARROW.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Royal Commission, ap-
  590
  pointed last year to inquire into the drainage of the Barrow, has yet rendered its Report; and, if not, how soon it is likely to finish the inquiry?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY)(who replied) said: Sir, as the Irish Government are responsible for this Commission, my hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has asked me to answer this Question. The Report reached us yesterday, and will be laid upon the Table without loss of time.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—THE LONG VACATION.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will consider the possibility of making arrangements for preventing the annual delay in Taxation and other Chamber business during every Long Vacation in both the Queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL), in reply, said, he had drawn the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the inconvenience referred to, and he hoped steps would be taken to remedy it. Indeed, some steps in that direction had already been taken.

  BURIAL ACT, 1880—BURIAL AT CHELMSFORD.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen in The Essex Weekly News, of January 15th, a statement to the effect, that at the burial of Mrs. Grinter, of Springfield, Chelmsford, a Wesleyan, under the Burial Act of 1880, the grave was dug in an isolated portion of the burial ground, near a rubbish heap, and where the mourners had to stand nearly ankle-deep in mud; and also that the gates of the churchyard through which the burial ground is ordinarily approached were locked by order of the Reverend A. Pearson, the Rector, and the mourners wore obliged to enter through a gate used only for carts and workmen; whether ho will inquire into the facts of the case, and, should they be authenticated, if he will cause proceedings to be instituted against the Rector for obstructing the burial; and, if he will consider the expediency of including in any measure for improved local government the transfer of the control of parochial burial grounds to authorities elected by the parishioners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member I have to say that I have received a Report from the clergyman of the parish, together with a map, showing the exact arrangement of the ground. It appears that the gate made use of on this occasion was certainly the nearest approach to the grave, and the only public entrance. Considering, however, the inclement state of the weather and the presence of the heap of rubbish, of which the clergyman said he was not aware, it would, no doubt, have been better if the gate had been unlocked and access allowed by the cleaner path. But it does not seem a matter for any further interference on the part of the Secretary of State. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I am not at present in a position to express any definite opinion.

  POORLAW—OUTDOOR RELIEF DURING THE EXISTING DISTRESS.
  MR. ISAACS: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private Notice— namely, Whether, having regard to the large amount of distress now unhappily prevailing consequent upon the want of employment among artizans and others, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to name an early day for the discussion of the Motion on the Paper suggesting that the Local Government Board should be instructed temporarily to relax their rules as to the granting of outdoor relief?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Perhaps the hon. Member will put the Question to the President of the Local Government Board, as it more regularly refers to that Department, and the Question is new to me.
  MR. ISAACS: I put it to the President of the Local Government Board, and it was at his suggestion that I now ask the Prime Minister the Question. I have copies of the correspondence. ["Order!"]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (after a brief consultation with Mr. CHAMBERLAIN)said: I understand that there is a mistake on the part of the hon. Member. The effect of the answer of my right hon. Friend was that he had not control of the Business of the House.
  MR. ISAACS: And suggested that I should put the Question to the Leader of Her Majesty's Government. I beg
  592
  to throw myself on the indulgence of the House while I read the letter received from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I should not have taken this step if my statement had not been doubted. [Cries of "Agreed!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: There does not seem to be any need of explanation on the part of the hon. Member. If he proposes to put his Question to the Prime Minister he is perfectly at liberty to do so.
  MR. ISAACS: I have put the Question, and the Prime Minister has suggested to me that I should have addressed it to the President of the Local Government Board. I did so address it.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will address himself to the President of the Local Government Board he will, no doubt, receive an answer.
  MR. ISAACS: Then, Sir, with the leave of the House I will address the Question to the President of the Local Government Board, and I will take the opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the letter which I hold in my hands from the Local Government Board was written at his direction—
  "Sir,—I am directed by Mr. Chamberlain to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 9th instant, and to remind you that it is not within his power to regulate the Business of the House of Commons. Mr. Chamberlain can only suggest that your Question might be addressed to the Prime Minister on the re-assembling of Parliament?"
  I thereupon wrote to the Prime Minister a letter, of which I have a copy, telling him it was my intention to address a Question to him on the re-assembling of the House.
  MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain what the Question put to me is. Certainly, I admit the authenticity of the letter which the hon. Member has just read. He has not, however, read the letter to which it was a reply; but that was to the effect that he had a Motion on the Paper, and he wished to know from me whether the Government would give facilities for its discussion? I made the reply which the hon. Member has read. Of course, I assumed that he would communicate with the Prime Minister, and gave him full Notice that he proposed to ask a Question with regard to the Business of the House. I may add that if the hon.

  593
  Member desires to call attention to the subject-matter of his Motion I cannot conceive that he will have any difficulty in doing so during the debate on the Address, and I shall be prepared to give him any information in my power.

  DISTURBANCES IN THE METROPOLIS —ACTION OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT —EXPLANATION.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have to ask the Secretary of State for Home Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice — namely, Whether he will give the House any explanation of the entire absence of any preparation for the maintenance of order in the streets of the Metropolis on Monday week last, on the occasion of a demonstration in Trafalgar Square; why a small mob was allowed to commit riot and robbery for nearly two hours without any attempt whatever being made during that time on the part of the authorities to put an end to the disturbance or to arrest the offenders; whether stops have been taken to prevent the possibility of the repetition of such disgraceful proceedings; what orders were given to the police by the Home Office on the occasion referred to, and how the sufferers by the disturbances are to be compensated?
  LORD ALGERNON PERCY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I would ask him whether he will state to the House the precautions, if any, taken previous to the meeting in Trafalgar Square on February 8 to prevent a breach of the peace at that meeting; what orders the police had received as to their behaviour at the meeting; and from whom those orders had proceeded; what communications and orders had passed between the police and the Home Office during the day of February 8, and at what time such communications took place; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to provide full compensation for those who have suffered loss of property, and in some cases ruin, in consequence of the riot of February 8?
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will, before he answers the Question, give to those who think that the conduct of the police in this matter has been grossly maligned an opportunity of discussing that most important question?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): I have received on this most important question, as my hon. Friend has just said, no less than 11 Notices of Questions; and I am most anxious to give the House the very fullest answer in my power to those Questions. It appears to me, considering how much those Questions dovetail into each other, and refer to different times and different days in connection with the events of last Monday week, that perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, instead of giving a dry answer to each Question as it comes up, I give to the House a narrative, as short as I can make it, of the events to which these Questions refer; and then, if I have missed any point in these Questions, I will conclude by answering that particular point separately. If that is the wish of the House, I will give now the best narrative I can of this most lamentable event. I returned on Saturday, late in the evening, from receiving from Her Majesty the Seals of the Home Office; and on Monday the 8th, at 11 o'clock in the morning, I took over the business of the Office. It was my first duty to see the principal officers of the Department itself, and also to see the principal officers of the Departments under the Home Office. Of the latter, of course, the Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of Police were among the first; and I specially requested them to see me as early as they could in the day, in order that I might ask them what had been done in respect to the meeting in Trafalgar Square, which was gathering at the very time I saw them. I saw them, I think, between 12 and 1 o'clock that day, and I asked them to tell me what arrangements they had made in view of that meeting. They assured me they had taken ample precautions for the preservation of the peace; and they told me they had given the same assurance to my right hon. Friend and Predecessor (Sir E. Assheton Cross), who held the Seals of the Department up to the evening of the previous Friday, and whom they saw on Friday morning. They told me more than they had been able to state at that time to my Predecessor, because they were able to give me the exact number of persons whom they proposed to employ. They had decided to employ on

  595
  the occasion 560 men in reserve round Trafalgar Square, besides the double patrols in the Square and the men who were necessary to guard the Monument and the works in the Square itself. The House is doubtless aware that on these occasions it has never been the custom— indeed, it has always been considered unwise—to show what is called the entire force you have at your disposal, from the natural fear of irritating the populace by showing a large number of policemen; but the whole of that force was, as I have said, in the immediate vicinity of the Square—part of it in the Square itself, and 560 men at the police office close by, and in what is known as the St. George's Barracks, on the North side of the Square. I asked the Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner whether they were aware of the special character of the meeting—that this meeting was not, as many of those with which they had to deal—called and frequented by persons with one single object, but was a meeting in which two antagonistic bodies were expected to take part. They told me they were fully aware of, and had made full allowance for, that fact; that they had determined to bring together a very much larger force of police than would have been brought together under ordinary circumstances; and they explained to me the communications which had taken place on the subject, and what was the opinion of what was known as the Working Men's Committee—I believe the proper title is the London United Workmen's Committee—who wrote to them for the first time on the 1st instant, the Monday preceding the Monday to which I am referring. That is the answer to one of the Questions. They said that not only had they provided a very much larger force of men than would have been the case under other circumstances, but that the Chief Commissioner himself would be on the ground during the day; and that was, I believe, the case. Perhaps, in passing, I may inform the House that it is not the custom of the Police Department to submit detailed arrangements as to the handling, or as to the numbers, of police on these occasions to the Home Office. All that is done—and this was done in the present case—was to furnish the Home Office with the printed order, detailing the number of men, and how they were to be employed; and that,
  596
  which is sent as usual to the Home Office for record, was received by the Home Office in the early part of that day. Well, Sir, with these assurances and these details given me by the Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, I felt no anxiety as to the power of the police to deal wisely with what might arise in the course of the day. During the day I remained at the Home Office, except for a little more than half-an-hour, till half-past 7 that afternoon, attending to the regular work of the Office. At about half-past 6 o'clock I received from my own house in Piccadilly a note relating to other matters, but which mentioned that there had been a riot in Piccadilly— [Laughter]— and that certain damage had been done. [Renewed laughter.] It is not, Sir, a laughing matter, and I am stating to the House precisely and frankly what occurred. I at once telephoned from the Home Office to Scotland Yard, asking for information on the subject of the message which had so reached me; and a little before 7 o'clock Sir Edmund Henderson and Colonel Pearson, the Chief and Assistant Commissioners of Police, came to the Home Office, and told me, in general terms, what had happened during the day, especially what had happened since the meeting had broken up—that a disorderly body of men went Westward, doing great damage on the way, through Pall Mall, up St. James' Street, in Piccadilly, and then, after passing through the Park, in South Audley Street and North Audley Street. Sir Edmund Henderson reported to me that at that time there was no further disturbance, and I told him to be careful to report anything which might arise, and if there was any renewal of the disturbance. However, Sir, nothing of the kind occurred. Perhaps, at this moment, I might say, what is evidently not the impression of some hon. Gentlemen, that it is not, and never was, usual, during the progress of meetings of this character, to make periodical reports to the Secretary of State. I have made careful examination of the question, and I am stating what has strictly occurred. It is obvious that, in the case of an ordinary meeting, any interference by the Secretary of State would only hamper the operations of the police. But it is usual, and also proper, to report any incident of great

  597
  consequence external to the meeting; and in this case I am only telling the House, without any remarks or observations of my own, what Sir Edmund Henderson told me—that ho was waiting, before informing me of what had happened, for full reports from the several Inspectors of the divisions. I make no remark upon that statement. I proceed to what happened on Tuesday. I came to the Office very early in the day, and I considered what were the duties that were incumbent upon me. It appeared to me that three duties lay before me—first, to take most active steps to prevent any recurrence of anything approaching the disorders of the day before, and also to take the most efficient steps to calm the public mind. The second was the duty of punishing those who instigated the riot of the day before; and the third was to inquire whether the proceedings of that day were due, in any degree, to official neglect. The first was our primary duty, and I will tell the House what I did in that matter. In the first place, I instructed the Chief Commissioner of Police at once to strengthen his force by calling up all the recruits who had been already accepted. This gave him immediately an additional force of 600 men, and those I arranged with him should be sent at once to the less exposed divisions of the town, so that the best men could be brought in from those divisions to help to keep order in the more exposed and central divisions. In the second place, I asked the War Department to instruct the General Commanding the Home District to hold at our immediate disposal men belonging to each battalion of the Foot Guards and each regiment of the Household Cavalry, and thus in that way to add several thousand men to the force we might require to meet any emergency. Lord Wolseley, the Adjutant General, came to the Home Office, and these arrangements were concerted with him; and I made also the necessary arrangements for magistrates to accompany the military force who might be called out to assist the police. Thirdly, I instructed the Chief Commissioner to take all possible measures to calm the public mind. I will here say at once there is no truth whatever in the statements which have appeared to the effect that orders were issued, either by the Home Office or the Police Authorities, to barri-
  598
  cade streets or houses, or to warn tradesmen to shut up their shops. I have looked very carefully into this, and I find these rumours which have been so prevalent were absolutely without foundation. ["No, no!"] It is possible, of course, that out of 13,000 constables, some individual constable, without authority, may have used language which was not of a prudent or pacifying character; I have to say distinctly that no such orders were either directly or indirectly given by the Home Office, or by the heads of the police, and that these remarkable telegrams I have received during Tuesday and Wednesday, each of which was the subject of investigation, were thoroughly unfounded. The result of these measures was that by Thursday these apprehensions had calmed down, and the public felt that the arrangements made by the police under our superintendence were sufficient. The second duty which it appeared to me was incumbent upon me was to bring the instigators to justice, and I tell the House what we did in this respect. These instigators were not persons connected with either the Fail-Trade movement or the leaders of the unemployed, who had convened the meeting; but they were the Socialist agitators, who came in such numbers to the Square. No delay was allowed to occur in dealing with these men. Early on Tuesday I called a meeting at the Home Office of the three Under Secretaries there, of one of the Commissioners of Police, and of the Treasury Solicitor; and, after taking preliminary steps, those gentlemen met again a short time afterwards in the afternoon, and the Attorney General was present on the occasion. We decided at once that the head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Police—that is, Mr. Monroe—should at once collect evidence, and, with the aid of the Treasury Solicitor, should get up as rapidly as possible a proper case for summary proceedings against these people; and on Wednesday, the following day, the evidence so collected was reported to me at the Home Office. On Thursday a fresh meeting of those who had met before took place at the Home Office, at which the whole of the evidence collected was carefully considered; and I then found that the prevalent opinion was that proceedings ought to be taken, not in the

  599
  nature of summary proceedings, but that the people ought to be committed, if the magistrate would commit them, for trial in the usual way by indictment. This view was supported by the most eminent legal opinion; and I have to tender my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), who was the Attorney General in the last Liberal Government, and who, in the necessary and enforced absence of the present Attorney General that evening, rendered us most valuable assistance. I gave, accordingly, final instructions on Friday to the Treasury Solicitors for the necessary steps to be taken for the prosecution of these persons. The summonses were, I believe, issued on the following day. They were returnable on Wednesday last. The four defendants were brought before the magistrate, and from that moment the matter left my hands, and will be dealt with according to the usual process of law. So much for the steps which we took to punish the instigators of these riots. Meanwhile we were considering the third branch of my duty in this respect —that is, the best way of inquiring into the disturbances, and especially into the conduct of the police in connection with the matter. My personal difficulty, in which I am sure I shall have some sympathy from the House, was that I had only gone to the Home Office on the very day that the Department itself was new to me. I had never served as Under Secretary at the Home Office. I had no knowledge of the police arrangements, except that which any Member of the Government might have; and I thought I should be undertaking a very serious business with considerable inexperience if I decided to act alone in an inquiry under these circumstances. I therefore asked four Gentlemen to associate themselves with me in conducting this inquiry—four Gentlemen whose names I thought would be a sufficient guarantee that the inquiry would be conducted in a most thorough, most impartial, and most intelligent manner. The results of the inquiry will not relieve me of a single shred of responsibility. I wish to state this to the House in the most emphatic terms. Although associated with me in making the inquiry, they will have nothing to do with the action which it will be my duty to take in consequence of what is disclosed by this in-
  600
  quiry, which I shall take strictly on my own responsibility. The aim of the inquiry was to ascertain who was to blame, and why and wherefore this system has broken down. Those who are associated with me in the inquiry have met four times during the present week, after the preliminary meeting of Saturday last; and I may state to the House that at this moment the inquiry approaches completion, so far as the conduct of the police on Monday last was concerned. I hope it will be completed before next Monday. I shall lay the Report on the Table without any delay, and with it a Memorandum of the decision at which I have felt it my duty to arrive; and I feel confident, when the result of this inquiry and the evidence and the whole proceedings of those who have acted with me and my own decision in the matter are laid before the House, both hon. Members and the public outside will be satisfied that the inquiry has been a most searching one—that no stone has been left unturned to get to the root of the matter, and to do so without bias or prejudice. I greatly regret that the inquiry is not completed at this moment; but when the evidence and the proceedings of the Committee are before the country I think it will be seen that that was entirely inevitable. I feel it my duty to acquaint the House with this— that the evidence has disclosed a state of circumstances in respect to the administration of the police which will require my serious attention with the view to an immediate remedy. There seems to be some misconception with respect to the relations between the Home Office and the Police Authorities. These relations are practically the same as those of the Secretary of State for War with the General of an Army in the field, though in each case, whether with respect to the War or Home Department, administrative and financial questions are submitted to and dealt with by the Secretary of State, and he is responsible for the appointment of the principal officers. The details of movements of such as those on Monday week are purely under the responsibility of the Chief Commissioner, and a perusal of the evidence we have taken will show this clearly. But if, after the inquiry is complete, a change in any respect of this kind appears to me desirable, I shall lose no time in making any necessary

  601
  amendment, and at once communicating to Parliament my intentions. I have, in the course of this narrative, answered several of the Questions that have been put to me. As to those put by the late Home Secretary, I think he will find that I have substantially answered them, except, perhaps, as to the last, which refers to a matter which is the subject of the inquiry now proceeding, I shall prefer not giving an answer now. The Questions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) also refer to matters which are subjects of the present inquiry. In reply to those Questions that I have not yet answered, I may say that efficient steps had been taken to prevent a repetition of such occurrences. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow asks me two Questions. One is, whether it was true that the powers of the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police are so circumscribed as to render him powerless in the case of the recent riots? No; there is no truth in that. The powers of the Commissioner of Police were ample and full, as I have described. He then asks me whether there is any truth in the statement that the Chief Commissioner made an application to the Home Office for necessary powers, and that these were refused? No, Sir; there is no truth in that statement. The Commissioner of Police made no application for any power which was refused. In reply to the Question of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Algernon Percy), I have to say, positively, that no special orders were issued to the police as to their behaviour at the meeting in question. Their orders are contained in the Regulations of the force. The noble Lord also asks me whether Her Majesty's Government propose to give any compensation to the persons who suffered in the riot? I can only say, in answer, that compensation to persons who suffer by riots is supposed to be regulated by law; but I cannot say that in my opinion the law is clear; and it, therefore, is not in my power at this moment to give any opinion as to what compensation—as to how persons who have suffered can receive compensation for those losses. I hope I have now answered clearly all the Questions that have been put to me.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to ask why some portion of the 500 men who were in reserve were not used to arrest
  602
  the riot during the two hours which it lasted? I am informed that 50 men at any time during those riots might have put a complete stop to the riots.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to ask, in the first place, whether the right hon. Gentleman has told us everything which took place between the Home Office and the Police Authorities during his period of Office? Whether any communications had been made further than he has told us by himself or the Under Secretary of the Home Office with the police in reference to these transactions; and I also wish to ask as to the statement he has made that the Home Office were not in the habit of having communications with the police in the course of the day when a meeting was to take place? I was astonished by what he stated of the matter, because, by the experience I have had at the Homo Office, it entirely differs from the usual course. I have had constant communications with the police. I also wish to ask how it happened, if there were these reserves, none of them were brought forward, when it was clear that a small amount of force would have stopped the riot? I wish to ask, also, whether any mounted police were on duty at the time, because they are extremely useful? The right hon. Gentleman has made a full and long statement; but I think he has not satisfied the House on the real point which it wanted to know, as to how this matter happened; and I think we ought to have some opportunity of discussing this at greater length than we can now, because he has had the opportunity of making this statement, which it is impossible to answer or to make any comments upon, as it would be out of Order. Therefore, I wish to ask what opportunity will be given of discussing this question?
  MR. PICTON: I also wish to ask whether it is a fact that at the very time the mob was marching along St. James's Street and Piccadilly breaking windows a considerable force of police was idly guarding Buckingham Palace, where there was no riot; and whether any denial can be given to the allegation that warnings had been given to the shopkeepers in the City by the police?
  MR. CHILDERS: Two Questions are put to me almost in the same words by the right hon. Gentleman and by my

  603
  right hon. Friend; and those are how it was that these people were in the position to commit this riot? To that Question I can only say that it is what we are carefully inquiring into. The fact is that a large body of men went away westward from Trafalgar Square, and they committed these depredations; and the question we are examining at this moment is how they came to be allowed to do so, and that is the question which the Police Authorities are inquiring into, and as to which it would not be proper for me to say more. My hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) asks me a Question whether there was a force near Buckingham Palace? It is perfectly true. There was in the Mall a considerable force of police, and the circumstances under which they were sent there are also amongst those being investigated. The right hon. Gentleman also asks me if other communications passed between the Police Authorities and the Home Office? So far as I can ascertain there were none. I can only speak of those which passed between myself and others. I am told that none passed either between myself or other members of my Department and the Police Authorities. As to the alarming rumours in the City, it is perfectly true I received a telegram from a Gentleman who is a Member of this House, and I believe an Alderman of the City. He sent to me a very alarming telegram begging me to take steps to prevent what was going to happen. We have nothing to do with the City Police whatever. The City Police are under the control of the Corporation, and we referred to Colonel Fraser to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the rumour, and we were told that there was no foundation for the rumour. That shows how easy it is to circulate unfounded rumours. The right hon. Gentleman also asks me whether any mounted police were present? No mounted police were employed during the day. He further asks me a Question which I thought I had already answered. I can only speak for myself, but I have asked the officials at the Home Office and Scotland Yard, and they both tell me that during the progress of a meeting it is not customary that communications should pass between Scotland Yard and the Home Office. I am informed that it has only been done in one case, during the great Reform Bill of 1884, when two
  604
  communications were made to my right hon. Friend. With respect to the general practice as to these meetings, I think I said before that it is not customary for communications to pass between the head of the police and the Home Office until the meeting is over; but I carefully excepted from my statement any allusion, as a question of duty, of reports made of occurrences after such as those which took place on Monday week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will wait for the result of the inquiry which is being got through with as fast as possible. The Committee sit four hours daily, and the evidence is being printed from day to day; and not an hour will be lost in laying it before the House, together with such decision as I have arrived at.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: At what hour did the right hon. Gentleman receive the telegram from the City?
  MR. CHILDERS: It did not come on Monday at all, but either on Tuesday or Wednesday.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman made use of one observation which might lead to misconception. I understood him to say that the inquiry was to ascertain who was to blame for the riot. I presume he used it in the sense as applying to the police?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I wish to ask whether any information reached the Home Office on Tuesday, the 9th, the day after the riot in the West End, of alarming rumours prevailing in the South of London to the effect that a great body of men were marching from Greenwich and Deptford, in consequence of which many thousands of persons assembled in Newington Butts and Causeway and at the Elephant and Castle, and created so much alarm as to cause the shopkeepers to close their shops; and, if the rumours reached the Home Office, what steps the right hon. Gentleman took to allay the alarm?
  MR. CHILDERS: It is a rather difficult Question to answer off-hand. Undoubtedly on Tuesday and on Wednesday very alarming rumours did reach the Home Office. In every case we made inquiry, and found those rumours were, almost without exception, unfounded; and we did our best to allay public uneasiness by instructing the police to give in-

  605
  formation that there was no foundation for the rumours.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman what facilities he will give the House for discussing the matter?
  MR. CHILDERS: I can promise to do nothing more than to lay on the Table as early as possible the evidence now being taken before the Committee; it then rests with the House.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government will answer the Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is impossible for me to enter into that question. We must have an opportunity of seeing the evidence and the Report before we can fix any day; besides, after what I have stated about Supply, I cannot pledge myself by giving any precise undertaking.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department whether there is any truth in the report that while the mob were breaking the windows in Pall Mall 50 police were marched across Waterloo Place to the Duke of York's Column, with distinct orders not to interfere; and whether 15 police were not afterwards sufficient to prevent the mob from proceeding from Oxford Street down Bond Street?
  MR. CHILDERS: The noble Lord has given me Notice of some; I will ask him to give me Notice of all his Questions. No order was given by anybody for the police not to interfere. As to the movements of particular bodies of men, I could not answer the Question without Notice.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to indorse what has been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir Robert Fowler)—that the House should be allowed full opportunity of discussing a matter which is a disgrace to the Metropolis and a discredit to the Police Force. I am surprised that no one has got up—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the right hon. Baronet will confine himself to putting a Question.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Yes, Sir; I will. I wish to ask whether an opportunity of discussing the matter will be given on Monday?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am myself in favour of discussing the question; and, so far as I am concerned, there will be no delay in placing the Papers before the House.
  MR. PULESTON: Will the Papers be printed?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I wish to know whether this Court of Inquiry, when it is established, will be precluded from reporting that the Home Secretary himself is to blame?
  [No reply.]

  ITALY—ARREST OF PROFESSOR NICHOL.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether he can give the House any information as to the arrest at Naples, reported in to-day's Times, of Professor Nichol, of Glasgow University; and, what steps have been taken by the Foreign Office to procure Professor Nichol's release?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Foreign Office are not in possession of full details connected with Mr. Nichol's arrest; but having heard of the fact, and at the instance of his family, the Secretary of State immediately instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, by telegraph, to address prompt representations on his behalf to the Italian Government. The charge against Mr. Nichol was that he had carried a swordstick in the street, an act which, as we are informed, is severely dealt with by the law of Italy. I am happy to say that Sir John Lumley, on the day following, informed Lord Rosebery, by telegraph, that Mr. Nichol was not in custody, and had arrived at Rome from Naples. The Italian Government have shown great courtesy in the matter, and it is now believed that it will be disposed of by the imposition of a fine.

  THE DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS— PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. LLEWELLYNsaid, he wished to make an explanation. He understood that certain words of his at a poli-

  607
  tical meeting in the country had given offence to the hon. Member for Northampton. He desired to withdraw the words, and to express his regret to the hon. Member and the House for having used them.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he need hardly observe that he accepted the withdrawal of the words in the spirit in which it was made.

NOTICE OF RESOLUTION

  EAST INDIA, BURMAH (EXPENSES OF MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH): I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will move—
  "That, Her Majesty having directed a Military expedition of Her forces charged upon Indian revenues to be despatched against the King of Ava, this House consents that the revenues of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the Military operations which may be carried on beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions,"
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Is it absolutely necessary to move that on Monday?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I believe it is quite necessary.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [FIFTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question, as amended [26th January.]—[See page 92.]
    Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he thought the House would agree with him that it was not very easy, on the first blush, to follow the explanation which had been given by the Prime Minister of the course which he and the Government intended to take with reference to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. At first he did not himself fully understand it; but, so far as he had been able to realize the effect of it, he would ask the leave of the House to
    608
    call attention to what that effect must be. There were about that explanation, in a very remarkable degree, evidences of the appropriateness of that epithet which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to himself—"an old Parliamentary hand." It was a very skilful way of getting rid of the difficulty, and of a disagreeable subject, and of preventing, as far as possible, any discussion of it by the House of Commons. It was on the 10th paragraph of the Address that the late Government was defeated; and the 11th paragraph was that which dealt with the agitation for the Repeal of the Union. Now, no Amendment was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; and, in point of fact, there would be no opportunity of referring to that subject in the debate on the Address, or, so far as he could see, until a long time after the 22nd of next month, unless some hon. Member who had not already spoken called attention to it. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had unfortunately already spoken; and, therefore, he (Mr. Plunket) ventured to call the attention of the House to the position in which they now stood. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, in substance, he was prepared to accept the Address; but what did that mean in the light of the qualifications given by the right hon. Gentleman when the Address was last discussed? The right hon. Gentleman said that by no means involved any acceptance of the statements in the Address; and in order to make that clear the right hon. Gentleman proposed to strike out certain words enumerating the subjects to which consideration was to be given, and to substitute the words "the measures which may be submitted to Her." Thus the Government were avoiding all reference to the question of Ireland, the subject upon which the late Government were really and practically defeated, and the question which was absorbing the attention of the whole country at this moment; and, instead of leading public opinion, the Government were depriving Parliament of the opportunity of discussing this question beyond the point to which it had already gone. That course was fatal to the best interests of the country. It would not be possible on that occasion to enter upon that large subject. But he desired to call the attention of the House to the position in which they

    609
    stood—not for the purpose of Party recrimination or Party advantage, but speaking as an Irishman—[Laugher.] He was, perhaps, entitled to say to the hon. Member interrupting him that he had lived longer in Ireland, and knew more of Ireland, than he did — he told the Prime Minister most seriously and solemnly that if he permitted that question to drift away to some time in the dim and distant future—if he did not assure them that on the 22nd of March Parliament would have an opportunity of gravely discussing his proposals— as any settlement would be better than the state of unrest in which the country now was—every energy for good in Ireland would be completely paralyzed. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, would he go out into the open with his proposals, whatever they were, and give the House an opportunity of discussing them? Would he give his Colleagues in the Cabinet an opportunity of discussing them? Ho trusted the House would pardon him if he spoke warmly. That great question of the Repeal of the Union had been brought much to the front, partly by the fact of the return of 86 Members pledged to that policy, and partly by the existence of an organization in Ireland which was overpowering the Government of the Queen in that country. The late Government had met Parliament with a definite proposal to deal with the organization which had set at defiance, and to a great extent overpowered, the Government of the Queen in that country, and with a definite declaration on the question of Repeal of the Union. They had made a distinct declaration of policy on the question of Repeal, and offered a direct challenge on the question of bringing forward a measure to deal with the organization which he referred to. But the Prime Minister, for his own part, declined to take advantage of the proposals of the late Government, or to be "led into a trap" by taking up the challenge thrown down; but immediately afterwards, on a side issue, which had nothing to do with the real issue, defeated the late Government, and took upon himself and his Colleagues the responsibility of dealing with this great subject. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the Address in answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, but
    610
    told the House also that for the present he did not mean to take any measures at all of a coercive character to put down the National League in Ireland, but in tended at some distant date to name certain measures dealing with the Land Question, and any other question which might call for the attention of Parliament. What was the practical effect of this very skilful manner of dealing with the subject? It left the National League in possession of the field. It left the National League triumphant through a great part of Ireland, and postponed to some distant date the discussion of the question of the Repeal of the Union; and this after the encouragement which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the agitation by everything he had said and done. The great charge against the late Government was that it had, by the experiment of dispensing with exceptional legislation, purchased the support of the Separatist Party in Ireland at too high a price. He thought that the present Government was open to the charge that after that experiment had failed they had adopted the same course of procedure—they proposed to proceed in Ireland without exceptional legislation at double the price. How had that arrangement been brought about? By reliance on the vague phrases used by the Prime Minister, which might mean anything or nothing, that there was nothing in the agitation which meant the Repeal of the Union. He had stated that he would insist on the authority of the Crown and the integrity of the Empire, and such Parliamentary guarantees as might be necessary to preserve that integrity. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was gracious enough to say that there was nothing that he could see in granting Home Rule that interfered with these conditions. The hon. Member was, of course, willing to let the Government down as easy as possible; but on this question they had the fresher mind of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who stated that nothing short of absolute and uncontrolled independence would meet the demands of Irishmen——
    MR. DILLON: I beg to say that I did not use those words, nor was I reported as having used them.
    MR. PLUNKET: Of course, if the hon. Member said he did not use those words

    611
    he would withdraw them at once. He had the report of what the hon. Member had said. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) stated that although he might be called an extreme Irishman, he would say that he, for one, was ready to shake hands with Englishmen. They would turn over a new leaf in regard to them if they would restore to them the complete and absolute power to make laws for their own country. Those were the words used by the hon. Member; and he (Mr. Plunket) had not misrepresented his meaning.
    MR. DILLON: You used the word "independence" where I said "absolute power to make laws."
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he thought that he had not misrepresented the meaning of the hon. Member to any considerable extent. He believed that the powers the hon. Gentleman asked for could not be reconciled with anything but a separate Legislature, uncontrolled by the British Parliament. No Member of the House would be more sincerely glad than he if it were possible to devise some means by which the views and desires of hon. Gentlemen representing a large number of constituencies in Ireland could be met and reconciled without setting up a separate Legislature, which, he believed, would be fraught with consequences the most fatal to the best interests of his country, and which must quickly lead to the separation of the two countries. Now, in what position would the matter stand? When, at some distant period, the right hon. Gentleman would be compelled to come forward with his policy on this subject— for the hon. Member for the City of Cork was very willing to make a surrender of the Government as easy as possible, for he would gain everything by the delay—the question would then be lifted out of the category of measures which great statesmen had frequently declared could not be entertained as a practical proposal. This was because it was believed to be deadly and destructive to the best and most vital interests of the country. Besides, the measure would, in the meantime, receive the reputation of having the, at least, qualified support of the Prime Minister. They would find that those who were their enemies in Ireland would have their hopes raised to the utmost; and the task of dealing with the question,
    612
    and, in the end, disappointing those hopes, would be more difficult than ever. The Government would find many of their friends in Ireland fall away from them, because they could not expect men to stick for ever to a cause that seemed hopeless and helpless. He did not expect the Prime Minister to bring forward his proposals at once; but he, for one, desired to enter his protest against a policy which he feared was too likely to be to the convenience of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, letting this question drift along.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): Sir, I rejoice to hear a speech from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) on the subject of Irish policy. If there is anything to regret in the existence of the late Government, it is that the right hon. Gentleman—one of the greatest ornaments of the House, and an Irishman of whom Ireland is proud—was dumb on the question of Ireland. Tonight we have heard what Lord Beaconsfield called the "first wild shriek of liberty." In July and August last, when the most important determinations, which changed for ever the policy of the Irish Government, were taken by the late Administration, I desired, above all things, to know the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon those critical decisions. On that occasion we had speeches from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), then the Member for Woodstock, explanatory of that policy. There were speeches from the late Solicitor General (Sir John Gorst) which we do not forget, nor the response they received at the hands of the Ulster Members. Mr. Gibson, then one of the most distinguished Members that ever sat for Dublin University, who was subsequently Lord Chancellor of Ireland, approved of the Irish policy of the late Government. In the Recess we had a remarkable revelation from the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) at Sheffield, in which he stated that a consultation had been held many weeks before the last Liberal Government was turned out as to the course of Irish policy without the knowledge and without the responsibility of Government, and that the Gentlemen who afterwards formed the late Administration were

    613
    determined to take a different course. Those were important decisions affecting the present situation, and it is surprising that the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) was not then heard. The right hon. Gentleman complains of delay on the part of the present Government in stating a definite policy for Ireland, and asserts that the late Administration had made up then-minds as to what they were to do in reference to the National League. Is that a fact? Did the late Government announce a definite policy on that subject in the Queen's Speech? What was the meaning of those "hypothetical paragraphs?" "What was the meaning—to borrow another phrase from Lord Bea-consfield—of that "transient and embarrassed phantom" which went upon so hurried a mission to Ireland? The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), in an address to his new constituents at Paddington, described the late Administration as a fortunate Government till the day of the Queen's Speech, when it met for the first time with a bit of bad luck. But the fortunate Government which met with a bit of bad luck on the day the Queen's Speech was settled lost "a respectable and estimable Nobleman" (the Earl of Carnarvon), who, to use the language of the noble Lord, threw up the government of Ireland. That was the Government which had so decided a policy, and which had made up its mind with regard to Ireland. But the noble Lord, in this same speech which he delivered the other night to his new constituents, stated that he had no particular reason for doubting that Lord Carnarvon had differed from the Members of the late Cabinet. Well, I should have thought that it ought not to be a difficult thing for one Cabinet to describe the sentiments of another upon a given policy of the Government. The noble Lord is not positive whether the late Lord Lieutenant for Ireland did or did not agree with the policy of the last Cabinet; but I will assume that he did agree with his Colleagues. Then why did this estimable Nobleman throw up the government of Ireland on the day the Queen's Speech was delivered? Then there is another official who is not altogether regarded as immaterial to the government of Ireland — I mean the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. But he has not even been mentioned, and
    614
    until within a few hours of the special mission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) one would have supposed that the late Government never knew of such a person as a Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, responsible for the government of Ireland. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) also disagreed, but for what reason we have no information. All we know is that after the special and inspired mission of the right hon. Gentleman to Dublin in the position of Chief Secretary, the eminent and estimable Nobleman left Ireland; and the change of policy of the late Government, agreed upon, it appeared, in December, was then announced to the public. That is the history of what I venture to say will remain to the latest period of political history the most extraordinary paragraph ever occurring in a Speech from the Throne. But we are almost as badly off as the late Government, for if their Lord Lieutenant threw up the government of Ireland, ours has hardly arrived there. Now, if a Government which had been in Office seven months could not announce a policy because their Lord Lieutenant had thrown up the government of Ireland on the day of the meeting of Parliament, it would certainly be unreasonable to expect the present Government, whose Lord Lieutenant had hardly reached Dublin, to make a definite statement with regard to their Irish policy. We must have time to receive official information. I know we are inferior to the late Administration, because the noble Lord has told us that their determination not to renew the Crimes Act was taken weeks before they took Office.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, never. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, that is my recollection, and I think if the noble Lord will consult the unauthorized version of his speech I am not very incorrect.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman leaves out a very important qualification. I said some hon. Gentlemen who formed the late Administration came together some time before the question of renewing the Crimes Act came up in Parliament, and came to the conclusion that in absence of official information that might be subsequently furnished, it did not

    615
    appear on the surface of things that there was cause for a renewal of it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sorry I did not read this qualification. There is not the least doubt that if a Government finds information that leads them to reverse their policy they will do so. I admit that it was a very important decision; and though, no doubt, the noble Lord wished it kept a secret, as it was from his own Party, people are indiscreet, and it must have got out. But I will not dwell on that except to say it is not usual and not very prudent for a Government with responsibility to come to such a determination. But I do not feel justified in detaining the House upon what is really a question how long we shall continue to debate the Address. We cannot be expected now to make a declaration of Irish policy. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has said he will make his declaration at as early a period as he prudently can. The difficulties surrounding the question, the complexity of the social condition of Ireland, and the difficulties of the political situation, have been admitted. We must be cautious, and must discuss this matter in as temperate a spirit as we can. No man can admire the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman more than I do; but the question is hardly improved, nor can it be determined, by eloquence. There are hard questions of fact to be dealt with. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government does not intend at the present time to make any proposal, and has given his undertaking that this matter shall be brought forward at as early a period as the difficulty and complexity of the question will permit. It is premature and profitless to proceed with an imperfect discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) says the Prime Minister proposes a skilful course; but I say it is a common-sense course, and that any other would have only provoked the bitterest discussion upon a question not yet ripe for discussion, and upon which we are not prepared to announce a policy.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he should not have taken part in the debate if it had not been for the remarkable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), in reply to the temperate request of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket). They
    616
    were now asked to assent to the Address in reply to the Speech, which contained paragraphs declaring that the Union was a fundamental law of the Realm, and announcing that measures for the restoration of social order in Ireland were to be introduced. Now the Prime Minister asked them to assent in substance to those paragraphs.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Assent to the whole substance of the Address.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Assent to the whole substance of the Address; and what his right hon. Friend wanted to know was, whether they were to assent in all sincerity, or merely for the purpose of gaining time and lulling to sleep suspicions which the right hon. Gentleman had created in every part of the United Kingdom? To this request they had the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) just delivered, which was merely a repetition of one of his hustings harangues. It was unwise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call attention to past controversies; and if the Government did not tumble to pieces in the next few weeks, his impression was that the right hon. Gentleman would be very glad not to be reminded of the expressions which he had used in those speeches of his. The last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman addressed a public audience, subsequent to the elections, he made certain remarks of a peculiar character. He declared that he was not anxious to turn out the late Government. What he wished was "that they should stew in their own Parnellite juice." And he proceeded to say—
    "They would then stink in the nostrils of the country; and when they were flung, discredited and disgraced, to the country, the nation would pronounce final judgment upon them."
    That was the opinion the right hon. Gentleman expressed a few weeks ago with reference to one section of that House — the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer still entertain the same views?—because, as had been pointed out, the National League were, at the present moment, in a great part of Ireland in possession of the field. Was it to be supposed that because, in June last, the late Government were not prepared to renew the Coercion Bill, the present Government—

    617
    things having developed much since in Ireland—were justified in withholding all mention of their policy for the reason stated? What was that reason? That, although the Government came into Office on the Irish Question, they were in such a position that they were not even ripe for the announcement of any policy. Speaking for himself, having lived a large part of his life in Ireland, he would, under the same circumstances, arrive at the same decision which he arrived at last June as to the Coercion Act; and if the right hon. Gentleman thought they were wrong, he might have reflected upon the argument of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who stated that it would he absurd with the one hand to largely extend the franchise, and with the other deprive the Irish people of their civil liberties. This only showed that greater value ought to be attached to their ultimate decision, because they had shown that they wore most reluctant to introduce coercion. As the late Government had been practically turned out on the Irish Question, their Successors ought to be prepared with an alternative policy. What was the course which the Government proposed to take? They proposed to leave them absolutely in the dark for a month as to their Irish proposals, and then to commence an examination of the question.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have commenced it now.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: You have commenced it now?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, the examination which had commenced was to apply to a noble Lord (Lord de Vesci), one of the most prominent members of the Loyal and Patriotic Union. Why, the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the very policy which he had most energetically condemned a short time back. Some years ago a proposal was made to examine into the grievances of Ireland, with the view of suggesting some remedy, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself with great clearness on that policy. Here was the passage which he happened to come across a few days ago—
    "What is the proposition? He (Mr. Butt) says great dissatisfaction exists in Ireland, and we are to promise to inquire, with a view to a removal of this dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction exists in a country, does he think the
    618
    vague promise of an intention to inquire into it can be held a fitting mode in which a great Assembly like the Imperial Parliament should meet that state of things? I say, on the contrary, it is a dangerous, a tricky method for Parliament to adopt to encounter national dissatisfaction, if it really exists, with the assurance that may mean anything or nothing, which may…attract a passing breath of popularity, but which, when the day of trial comes, maybe found entirely to fail them. It is a method of proceeding which, whatever Party may be in power, or whatever measures may be adopted, I trust this House will never condescend to adopt."
    That was the course which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were now adopting. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Well, if any Minister would get up and state that they had made up their minds on the two important questions mentioned in the Address, they would remove many doubts entertained in different parts of the country. During the recent elections the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) was very sarcastic on the course adopted by the late Government. He spoke of it as a policy of "soft words and hard cash." If they had initiated such a policy, they did it for the purpose of preserving the Union; but the Government was now borrowing the policy of soft words and hard cash, as far as could be made out, to undermine the Union. If there was any one person in the House who ought to have been prepared with a policy, and to whom they had a right to look for explanations, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No man had used such violent language towards the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He recollected him denouncing the doctrines of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as those of assassination and treason, and he declared that the object was to gain "nefarious ends by felonious means." That was the language the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied to an Association which he proposed to leave paramount over Ireland, and who, to-night, declined to indicate any step for putting down what he had so strongly condemned. When, last year, the danger in Ireland of the extension of the franchise was pointed out, the Prime Minister, when confronted with the possibility of 85 Members being returned to Parliament pledged to Home Rule, said ho had sufficient confidence that hon. Mem-

    619
    bers would be true to themselves, and that any combination for the Repeal of the Union would be met by the English and Scottish Members. Well, 85 such Members were returned, and the right bon. Gentleman was true to himself, because the moment he found he could not obtain Office without the co-operation of those 85 Members their cooperation was invited. The circumstances under which they now met were of a very grave character; and they desired some more definite expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government than any that had as yet fallen from them. He admitted that they had only been a short time in Office; but during the last six years they had held Office continually, with the exception of about six months. It was often supposed that in Ireland those who were opposed to the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the separation of the two Kingdoms incurred great obloquy; but the person whom the Irish bated above all was a treacherous friend; and that was the part which Her Majesty's Government had been playing. Either the Government intended to maintain the Union, or they did not intend to do so. The longer they delayed in announcing their decision the greater would be the difficulties which they had to encounter. On that side of the House, therefore, they asked for further information to be given, not in any Party spirit, but in all sincerity, because they considered themselves bound in duty to do so.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not propose to take up much time in replying to the speech just delivered by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), and which, he could not help thinking, must have been prepared in consideration of some different course than that which had actually been taken by the Government. The noble Lord had spoken as though the Government were asking the House to pledge itself definitely to views to which the noble Lord and his Friends were opposed in the matter of Ireland. On the contrary, the Government had accepted in the usual form the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech, and was neither giving any pledge nor asking any pledge from any Member of the House. The noble Lord, however, wished to obtain a pledge; for he asked,
    620
    both at the beginning and end of his speech, whether the terms of the Address were to be accepted in all sincerity as committing the House and the Government to the propositions contained in the Address? The noble Lord had bad a larger Parliamentary experience than he had had himself; and the noble Lord ought to know, by this time, that the Answer to Her Majesty's Speech was always so worded as to commit the House to nothing except that they thanked Her Majesty for giving them the information contained in the Speech. In fact, throughout the whole Address they re-echoed each paragraph of the Queen's Speech; and, of course, as a matter of Constitutional law, it was perfectly understood that Her Majesty, in giving them that information, was acting on the advice of the Government which was in power at the time when the Speech was delivered. Under these circumstances, he wished it to be distinctly understood that, in accepting the Address to the Throne practically as it had been prepared by the late Government, they were not asking the House to pledge itself to anything; and they did not consider that the late Government, in putting the Address before them, asked them to commit themselves to anything either. The noble Lord now said that the time had come when the Government must express themselves definitely on the question of Ireland. The noble Lord had even gone so far as to tell them that they had turned out the late Government on the question of Ireland. Clearly the late Government had fallen because it was utterly impossible that it could retain Office any longer. He thought it would have been a little more decent if they had left Office a little earlier. As a matter of fact, it had been absolutely beyond the power of Gentlemen on his own side of the House to keep it in Office any longer. It was a physical impossibility to keep an empty sack upright; and the late Government had been in that position when they had met Parliament without having any policy at all, either upon the question of Ireland or upon any other question. Had the late Government bad any policy on any subject? Had they any policy, for instance, with regard to the question of the condition of the agricultural labourer upon which

    621
    they had fallen? Well, perhaps they had had two policies; but the two had been utterly different, and inconsistent with each other. There had been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman who had been the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chaplin), which had been announced in the beginning of the evening of the debate; and then they had had the totally different policy of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) who had preceded him in the Office which he now held. Now, hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much interested in the condition of the unemployed, and wished to call the attention of the House to it by the Queen's Speech. But had hon. Gentlemen opposite any policy with regard to relieving the distress of the unemployed? As to Ireland, they had had no other policy than one of hypothesis. It seemed that oven in a Tory Cabinet they had not altogether been a happy family; and it was only under the pressure of actual Parliamentary conflict that they had made up their minds to say something definite. The noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) had informed the House that he had warned them as to the danger of extending the franchise in Ireland. But what was the action taken by one of his noble Colleagues? In a speech which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had just delivered he had reminded them of the dangers incurred by conferring the franchise on the Irish people, and the inevitable result of creating a majority hostile to our institutions. At the time when the question was being discussed a Motion had been made by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodrick) to refuse the extension of the franchise to Ireland. The noble Lord had then spoken of this proposal as a reactionary one, and as a slur and a stigma upon that country.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I was below the Gangway then.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINwanted to know if the noble Lord's opinion changed in accordance with the particular seat in the House on which he sat?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not suppose that anything said below the Gangway could possibly bind anyone sitting here.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the views expressed by the noble Lord had been those of a large section of his Party, of the right hon. Gentleman who was now the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), of Lord Iddesleigh, who was then in that House, and of the noble Lord the Member for East Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and some six or seven prominent Members of the then Opposition, who had walked out of the House rather than vote in favour of the Amendment for refusing the extension of the franchise to Ireland.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he had not been near the House at the time.
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAINsaid, the right hon. Member for West Bristol had been worse than he had supposed. It appeared that on the occasion of this important Amendment, which, according to the noble Lord, was calculated to prevent great disaster, and the return to that House of a vast majority of Irish Members, whose action would betray the interest of the country, the right hon. Gentleman was not anywhere near the House. Then the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) told them that they had turned out the late Government upon the Irish Question. That was not the fact; but, oven if it were so, surely the noble Lord did not moan that they were to have an alternative policy the first day they entered Office. That view was a different one from that which had been consistently held by the Tory Party for almost a generation. Sir Robert Peel had refused to prescribe until he was called in. It was perfectly monstrous to ask them, in a matter of this difficulty and complication, to come to a conclusion on all the details of their policy in a few days, when, by their own confession, the Members of the late Government took six months to consider their policy, and had not come to a conclusion even then. In a speech, again, which the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made at Sheffield he had referred to the sources of accurate information which the late Government had I possessed with regard to Ireland, and had told them that weeks before the late Government had fallen they had come to a conclusion. They had been told at first that there had been nothing which

    623
    would warrant the Government in applying for exceptional powers in Ireland. When had the late Government received the information upon which they had determined to apply for these exceptional powers? All that the Queen's Speech had done was to express the opinion that it might be necessary, under certain circumstances, to make some further proposal on the subject. On the Thursday when Parliament met for the discussion of the Queen's Speech the Government had no policy, although they had had six months in which to get special information. The late Government had had six months' official information, and the reports and the advice of the Nobleman whom they appointed as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and whose services were deemed so valuable that he was appointed to this position—though it was known, that he could only hold it for six months; and yet they could not make up their minds that it was necessary to introduce coercive measures. Then came the little incident to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred. They sent a distinguished Member of their Administration (Mr. W. H. Smith) as Chief Secretary to Ireland; and within 24 hours information sent by him by telegraph was deemed sufficient to outweigh all the previous information supplied to them by Lord Carnarvon and by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In 24 hours there was a grand new policy, and a declaration that the Government had determined upon coercive measures. The motives which led them to adopt this policy, when they knew that they were going to fall on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), were very obvious. The present position was a very simple one. The Irish Question was a matter of the utmost gravity, complexity, difficulty, and importance. As it presented itself to the present Government, it was a question of much greater gravity and importance than that which the late Government appeared to have considered it. They, it appeared, had only this simple point to decide—whether or not they had sufficient information of outrages in Ireland to justify them in introducing a coercive or restrictive measure. But the present Government had always said that nothing could induce them to limit their consideration to such a point as that without considering the condi-
    624
    tion of the Land Question and the demands now for the first time formally promulgated by Representatives who were clearly entitled to speak for five-sixths of the people of Ireland. These were all questions which Her Majesty's Government insisted on considering together; and they had so far extended the limits of the inquiry, and made it the more desirable that time should be given for arriving at a conclusion. If hon. Members asked them to-night to declare their policy, they would frankly tell them that they had not one to give. They pledged themselves to pursue an inquiry which should enable them to state their policy. That inquiry commenced on Monday. It was one not yet concluded. It was their desire and intention to conclude it at as early a date as possible; and as soon as they could his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had stated that the result of Her Majesty's Government's deliberations would be communicated to the House.
    Amendment moved.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not wish to prolong this debate to the inconvenience of the House; but the circumstances under which the House has met this evening are of a very peculiar and grave character, and there are certain matters on which I think Members of this House have a right to ask for the clearest and fullest information. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for technical reasons of procedure, has not been able hitherto to take part in the debate which has been going on; but the Amendment which is now before the House will afford him an opportunity of answering any inquiries, if he thinks it wise or prudent to do so. The Government have told us that it is not, at the present moment, in their power to lay their statement of Irish policy before Parliament. They have not told us at what time they will be able to make that statement. The Prime Minister seemed to think that on or about the 22nd of March this might be done; but, fortunately for the public, a day has been definitely mentioned in the House of Lords by the Representative of the Government there on which the Irish policy of the Government is to be disclosed. The date is a most interesting one, though of a most ominous character; for it has been stated in the House of

    625
    Lords to-night that the day on which the Irish policy of the Government will be disclosed to Parliament will be the celebrated 1st of April. I cannot think it accidental. I imagine it must be a coincidence that the day has been chosen for the commencement of the Government's Irish policy. But there are indications of a policy on which I think we have a right to question the Government. We have a right to question the Government on the indications of their policy, which are afforded by the appointment as Chief Secretary of the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). We have a right, before we part with this Address, to ask that right hon. Gentleman, who has avoided taking part in this debate as yet, whether he still adheres to the sentiments about Ireland which he expressed a short time ago—in the month of January—at Chelmsford—sentiments which were distinctly made, which were evidently most carefully prepared, and in giving which to the public he expressly said that he spoke "advisedly." We have a right to know—for he does not require time to make up his mind on this subject—whether he adheres to the policy which he then considered necessary? I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of honour, and I am perfectly certain he is not only acquainted with, but is possessed by, all the honourable traditions of English statesmanship. Would the right hon. Gentleman have stated as definitely as he did that nothing short of the "absolute and total removal "of the Irish Members from Westminster was necessary in January, and take Office in a Liberal Government in the month of February prepared to abandon that policy? I know he would not; therefore, there is an indication in the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman of the policy which the Government are going to pursue. If this is so, why could not the Government state it now? The Prime Minister has seen many Governments come into Office; and I would ask him, was there ever a Government which came into Office which did not, at the earliest moment, afford to Parliament a general outline of what their policy was to be? The late Government, at all events, did not err on that point. They occupied precisely the same time as the present Government
    626
    had occupied in getting themselves together; and on the day they met Parliament my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) stated clearly to the House what the general outline of their policy would be, not only with regard to Ireland, but with regard to the general affairs of the country. But there is another thing on which we are bound to ask for information. I have alluded to the indication which is afforded us of the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland by the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle; but there is another indication which, if possible, is stronger still. When I look on the distinguished array of right hon. Gentlemen opposite I miss a well-known face. No light, or ordinary, or trivial reason can be alleged why I do not see opposite to me the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). Viewing the great position which the noble Marquess occupied before the country and in the Liberal Party, viewing the fact that almost since the year 1859 or 1860, in every Liberal Government which has existed since then, the noble Marquess has taken a part—and in the last two Liberal Governments a most prominent part—I say we are entitled to ask, solely on public grounds, why the noble Marquess has refused to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government? Bearing in mind the unequivocal and straightforward manner in which the noble Marquess has, on more than one occasion, given to the public his views about the government of Ireland, the absolutely unequivocal manner in which he has pronounced for the maintenance of the Legislative Union between the two countries, we are entitled, in the absence of any explanation, to assume, even more positively than we assumed from the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, that the policy of the Government towards Ireland is not the maintenance, but the destruction and the repeal of the Legislative Union; and I will appeal to the noble Marquess to say whether we are, or are not, justified in arriving at that conclusion? These are points on which the public require information. The whole country wants to know from one of the men at the head of public affairs—one whom

    627
    the Prime Minister specially referred to in his first Mid Lothian address—why he no longer is a Member of the Government of the Queen, and why he no longer is willing to co-operate with the present Prime Minister? I think that we are pretty correct in surmising that the same reason that brought about the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle led to the exclusion of the noble Marquess. If Repeal of the Union is your policy—and obviously it is, because I do not believe that on any other question the noble Marquess would have parted from you—if that is your policy, why cannot you say so in general terms? You could say merely that the Government have come into Office to carry out the policy of independence which five-sixths of the Irish people demand. That must be your policy, judging from the inclusion in the Government of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, and from the exclusion of the noble Marquess, and why not avow it? There is a reason for this delay, and beating about the bush, and these references to old speeches—a most incautious proceeding of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Laughter.] I speak with the utmost seriousness. I believe that the Repeal of the Union would be a fatal policy for Ireland; but if there is a policy which can by any means be more fatal it is the unnecessary prolongation, for the lowest Party purposes, of the dreadful state of uncertainty which exists in that country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that he would destroy the late Government because their Irish policy was inadequate. That was the statement of the Irish Chief Secretary, who brushed away all the nonsense about three acres and a cow.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I made no statement of that kind.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have a very clear recollection of reading the right hon. Gentleman's speech with the greatest interest and attention; and I noticed with the utmost delight— not only for controversial purposes, but generally for the credit of the new Government—that he stated in so many words that what the late Government fell on was the question of Ireland, and what the present Government had come
    628
    in upon was the question of Ireland. If I am wrong in that I apologize to the right hon. Gentleman; but if he will do me the favour of referring to, I think, his first speech at Newcastle, he will find I have not misrepresented him. That being so, the Government are hardly entitled to the large amount of time which they claim to decide on their Irish policy; and, certainly, if it is to be put in the form of a Bill they may take more time. But respecting the general outline of their policy with regard to social order, the question of legislative independence, and the Land Question, they are bound to take the public into their confidence at a far earlier date than the 1st of April. But if they will not accede to this suggestion, the right hon. Gentleman will not think it unreasonable in us to call upon him, missing from his side one of his oldest, his most tried, his truest, and one of his most experienced Colleagues, to say why that noble Marquess no longer forms part of his Government. To that information the public is entitled. I have risen to extract it; and I do not think that any Member will assert that it is an unreasonable or unjustifiable proposal.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I shall not attempt to interest or amuse the House by following the speech of the noble Lord in the spirit in which it was delivered. If I understand him rightly, he, on the first day of our meeting Parliament three days after our first Cabinet Council, thinks it necessary to accuse us of unnecessarily prolonging the state of uncertainty in Ireland for the lowest Party purposes. This is what he is throwing off in the character of a Member of the Opposition. That is the accusation for which he thinks he has already got sufficient ground. All I can say, Sir, is this—that if that be the spirit in which, either by the Government or by an Opposition, either by a Liberal Party or by a Conservative Party, or by an Irish or Nationalist Party, tie great questions connected with the condition and future of Ireland are to be treated in this House, it is idle for any man, or for any set of men, to address themselves to the settlement of the difficulty. Hope is extinguished, and nothing but despair is found in its place. I shall not, therefore, reply to the noble Lord in the spirit of that speech. I have laid down a resolution

    629
    for myself, and I will adhere to it as long as human nature will permit me, that in addressing myself to this, the most difficult and arduous of all the questions which in 53 years of political life I have had to deal with, I will renounce from the very first every motive, every topic, every phrase of Party accusation, and will studiously avoid to the best of my humble ability, and with allowance, perhaps, for human infirmities—I will studiously avoid every word which can justly excite a sentiment of animosity, either on the part of Gentlemen opposite or on the part of those Irish Members now constituting a large majority with whom upon so many occasions in the former Parliament we were so frequently in conflict. That, Sir, is my apology—an apology which will, I hope, last and hold good for some time—for not noticing the accusations of the noble Lord. Nor will I comment on the circumstance of his striving at the very first moment of his appearing on the Opposition Bench to envenom this difficult and arduous question by the introduction—[Cries of "No!"] Well, I would take away even that word if you like. To envenom a question, I think, is not an unnatural comment upon the speech of one who, before he has facts, either good or bad, to speak upon, thinks it necessary to accuse us of prolonging the state of uncertainty in Ireland for the lowest Party purposes. I will say nothing to perplex or embarrass the question; and, therefore, instead of saying to "envenom" it, with regard to the meaning of the noble Lord, I will answer it in such respects as it has reference to me with respect to my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). I heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) a compliment to my noble Friend in the debate on the Address, on account of the clearness with which he, at any rate, had delivered his sentiments on the subject of the Repeal of the Union, and had exempted himself, therefore, from all necessity of further appeal on that subject. Then I apprehend, if I am competent to speak, there can be no doubt or question whatever about the views of my noble Friend in that matter. In respect to the conduct of my noble Friend, the noble Lord appeals to me to
    630
    explain the motives for that conduct. It is, however, not my duty. It would be a gross intrusion on the rights of my noble Friend were I to undertake anything of that kind. Whether there be occasion for the question or not, it is a proceeding entirely unprecedented in this House to call upon any one Member of this House to explain the motives of another. With respect to the legitimate portions of the appeal, and questions of the noble Lord, I will answer. The noble Lord says that the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) is an indication of the spirit and tendency of the Government. Well, Sir, he has asked my right hon. Friend whether he adheres to the expressions of a particular speech delivered by him. I cannot presume to doubt, speaking for a Colleague, that to the general purport and spirit of his expressions he adheres. For my own part, I am not in possession, nor would it be possible for me to be in possession, of all that has been said, or even all the important declarations that have been made by my Colleagues; but this I will say—that, so far as I know, the opinions of my right hon. Friend—and I have had some opportunities of learning thom—I anticipate the greatest advantage from the accession of my right hon. Friend to the Government; because I believe that in a perfectly open and liberal spirit he will apply himself to the consideration of this difficult subject, and will afford to us the most valuable assistance in our efforts at its solution. Now, the noble Lord appears to think that I am bound, on this occasion, to discuss the Repeal of the Union. Sir, I do not mean to discuss upon this occasion any Irish question whatever. If I enter upon a discussion of the Repeal of the Union on this occasion, how am I to resist, as I have intimated my intention to resist, the appeal which the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien) is of course, from his position, perfectly entitled to take, that upon this occasion we shall discuss the subject of evictions in Ireland? That is a question of the deepest interest, and of greatest importance; and there are many other questions of the deepest interest, and of the greatest importance, which are open and before the public mind with respect to Ireland. For example, the question of

    631
    social order in Ireland may admit, and does apparently admit, of doubt as to the manner in which it should be dealt with. But were I to discuss one point connected with this social order, or with the integrity of the Empire in Ireland, on this occasion, I could not refuse to go over the whole circuit of those great and important subjects with the certainty of occupying much of the time of the House, and with no advantage whatever. I pass on from this portion of the speech of the noble Lord with one observation. The noble Lord has said that whatever indication may be drawn from the appointment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Morley), he must observe that the intentions of the Government are to be inferred from its general composition and its general temper. It would have been a singular thing if we had inferred the intentions of the late Government from the speeches made by the noble Lord while he still sat below the Gangway, and when nobody could be bound at all by the utterances he gave forth. Sir, the noble Lord has appealed to me on another point, which is this—he says that he appealed to me to know that upon every occasion Governments have begun with a general declaration of policy. I answer the noble Lord frankly in the negative. It has not been the rule for Governments to begin with a general declaration of their policy. Upon rare and exceptional occasions declarations of that kind may, perhaps, have been made; but I would almost venture to say, fully admitting the truth of the noble Lord's observation, that I have witnessed the entrance of many Governments to power, and I would venture to say that, excepting in, perhaps, two or three instances out of something like from 15 to 20, no such thing has been done. The earliest case of an important Government which I was connected with was the Government of Sir Robert Peel. In the case of Sir Robert Peel's Government, which entered Office in September, 1841, the policy of the Government was inferred, if I remember right, from what had taken place out-of-doors; and although Sir Robert Peel came into Office known to be a friend of the principle of the Corn Law, but intending to amend the Corn Law, five months were allowed to elapse before Sir Robert Peel declared his intentions with regard to that
    632
    law. Now, with respect to the case the noble Lord quoted, he says that when the late Government entered Office the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) declared the policy of the Government. What policy did the right hon. Baronet declare? Let no one suppose for a moment that I am finding fault with him. I received the statement of his policy in a spirit with which I think I may say the spirit shown tonight does not correspond. The opening statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was perfectly judicial, was a statement that there was much in the conduct of Earl Spencer that he disapproved, and the statement that the late Government had determined to try the experiment of governing Ireland without the aid of the old method of repressive criminal legislation. They were not prepared, in the state of circumstances they had before them, to apply to Ireland the old method—which they considered an antiquated and very doubtful method—of repressive criminal legislation. That was the length to which the right hon. Gentleman went; and I am bound to say that I think it was as far as he could be fairly expected to go. Well, Sir, that length w e have gone already; that declaration we have already made. It is made in our addresses to our constituents. It has been made by me in this House. I have told you that according to the knowledge we are able to acquire of the condition of Ireland, although that condition is grave, and requires our closest consideration with a view to remedy, yet that we are not prepared, and do not think we should be justified in the state of the facts as they have come before us, in asking you at this moment to choose for your form of remedy the mode of repressive criminal legislation. We have gone, Sir, a great deal further on our accession to Office than the right hon. Gentleman went; because while he in a very great degree, I think, confined himself at that time, with the exception, perhaps, of a very limited reference to a renewal of the Land Purchase Act—while he confined himself in the main to the great negative announcement, which was, in point of fact, a most important announcement, of policy, and was destined, as he ought to have seen, to exercise infallibly, whoever might be in Office, a most important influence on the future policy of

    633
    this country with regard to Ireland— while he confined himself to that negative statement, we have not confined ourselves to such a negative statement; but we said that it will be our duty—that it is our immediate duty—that it is a duty the execution of which has already been begun—to consider carefully and in detail what are the measures of a positive and substantive character which we ought to adopt by way of applying a remedy to what, I think, on all hands, amidst all our differences of view, is admitted to be the greatest evils. Therefore, what I say is this—the noble Lord found it necessary to have six months of experience and inquiry and consideration about the state of Ireland; and at the end of that time he had not been able to make up his mind whether coercive legislation was or was not necessary. He admitted an approximation towards making up his mind. He thought it was likely to be necessary; and he introduced that somewhat novel form in the Queen's Speech of acquainting the House with the workings of the mind of the Cabinet on this difficult and doubtful subject, affecting the condition of that country. That, Sir, is the answer I have to make to the noble Lord, and indeed substantially it amounts to this. The noble Lord says that to ask till the 1st of April as a date is requiring a time unreasonably long. Well, Sir, I would say it appears to me that that is rather a questionable declaration on the part of the noble Lord. The noble Lord took six months to consider whether he should or should not apply coercive legislation in Ireland, and could not make up his mind.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Where does the right hon. Gentleman gather that?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: From the Queen's Speech, which you advised.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURUHILL: The Queen's Speech was adopted before Parliament met.
    MR. W.E.GLADSTONE: Exactly so; I am perfectly aware of that circumstance. Queen's Speeches are not made after Parliament meets. He made up his mind, I admit, in three days afterwards; and it is a subject as to which it will be necessary to question the Members of the late Government what were the events which passed in those three days which made them adopt the resolution
    634
    they announced; what was the course of events with regard to outrage, evictions, and order, and the various points bearing on the subject; what were the events that occurred between the 21st of January, when the Speech was made in this House, and the 25th of January, when we were told that, in 24 hours, the policy had been declared—what were the facts belonging to these four days which caused the mind of the Government to be changed? We are very anxious that the House and the public should be in possession of the interesting information; and that information will be most interesting, as beating upon the actual political situation, as well as upon the views and proceedings of the late Government. Sir, we have frankly given a pledge to the House that no time will voluntarily be lost by us; that we have before us a great and complex question, the most complex I have ever had to deal with. If I am told that the uncertainty in Ireland has been unnecessarily prolonged—I must say I am so desirous to avoid crimination that I do not like to make the reply that suggests itself to me—I want to know why it is that the public mind has been in a state of uncertainty as to the Government of this country and the mode of treatment of Ireland since the result of the General Election became known? Why was it that we heard so much, and hear so much to-night, about the overthrow of the late Government, as if, forsooth! it was a remarkable circumstance that this House should not be contented with the continued maintenance of a Government that had 250 supporters out of a House of 670 Members. It would be a marvellous thing, if a debate be raised, whether on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) or on the prospects of the Irish Question, that this astonishing event should take place—that a Government with 250 supporters should continue to sit upon a Bench which is uniformly occupied by those who have the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, or, at the very least, by those who have some reason to suppose that the House is not prepared to do otherwise than support them. Well, Sir, when the late Government—and I do not make any accusation about it—determined that with their 250 supporters they intended to

    635
    meet Parliament, I did not, in my own mind, condemn them; but I said this— they are perfectly aware of the principle that a small minority of this House, those connected with a small minority of this House, are not the persons who are intended to carry on the government of the country; and the conclusion I came to was this—that they were going to continue their association with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to endeavour to examine whether they could not meet this great Irish question with some worthier, safer, and more permanent method than the old, often and unsatisfactorily-tried method of special criminal legislation. Sir, I should have rejoiced if that had been the case. [Opposition laughter.] I hear the jeers, if I may so call them. They proceed from Gentlemen who are shocked at the very barest idea of friendly relations with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and almost every man of that Party. How many Members of the Party opposite are there who gave utterance to such an idea in July last, in August last, in September last, in October last, or in November last, or until the elections were decided, and that influence upon the English boroughs had been secured, which has so greatly contributed to swell the ranks of the minority opposite into a respectable minority? I was drawn into this remark from the interruption which came from that quarter of the House, and which actually suggested to me an idea I had no intention of expressing. I should have rejoiced if Her Majesty's Government had arrived at the bold resolution to face this question as a substantive question, and to act on the proposition which the Earl of Carnarvon gave utterance to in the House of Lords at the end of the last Session, that you could not be always resorting to coercion; that you must look for something better than coercion as a means of governing Ireland; for I am quite sure of this—that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Marquess of Salisbury had been able to brace themselves to such a resolution, it is possible that they might have given dissatisfaction to a portion of their own Friends; it is possible that they might have made one of those Party sacrifices which seem now to have gone out of fashion, but which, in other days—the
    636
    days of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington—were deemed the highest honour—namely, when they saw the opportunity to serve the country, to cast to the winds every consideration of the effect upon the Party, and to secure to the nation the benefits which they alone—Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington—were capable of securing. I believe that is the case we have before us; but I do not presume—I feel the overwhelming difficulties of this question to any Government that takes up the matter—the late Government came, I think, to a wrong decision; but such are the difficulties of the case that I do not presume to blame them. I had thought, and I still think, that there were some among them who would have been able to face the danger and the difficulty. I have a strong impression that men among them, and eminent men among them, were prepared to take that course. They could not command union among themselves, and before their difficulties they have fallen. Of their action I say I do not complain. I make no charge against them. In doubtful cases and in entangled cases of this kind it is very easy to make accusations, and the more violent the accusations are the more easy it is to make them and the louder are the cheers they evoke. I wish to renounce all feelings of that kind. We have before us a severe labour. We will not lose any time; but continue to address ourselves, as we have addressed ourselves, to it. We will not rest upon the example of the noble Lord, and say we must have six months' experience, inquiry, and consideration before we do what he did not do—arrive at a conclusion. I have been bold enough to indicate to-night—so earnestly was I desirous to meet the feeling which must prevail in this difficult state of circumstances—that within no long time after the necessary transactions connected with the Estimates are concluded, I hope to be able to open to some degree the views of the Government with regard to those positive and substantive measures of a remedial character for Ireland which we may separate by calling them the question of social order, the question of the land, and the question of Irish government; but which I believe are essentially associated together by bands so strong that it is not in the power of man to disjoin them. We can do no more.

    637
    We cannot speak of the future. We stand in an attitude in which it would have been absurd, and in which we would have been guilty, if we had pretended to do more than I have indicated. I hope the House will accept our declaration in the good faith in which it has been given, and not approve the noble Lord's attack, and accuse us of prolonging uncertainty about Ireland for Party purposes. All these charges of the noble Lord we pass by with considerable equanimity; we shall strive to do our own duty to the best of our ability, and the best of men can do no more.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I had some expectation that the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) might have answered the appeal of my noble Friend near me (Lord Randolph Churchill), which certainly was addressed more directly to him than to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). But the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks, in the course of his speech, which I think it is necessary, very shortly, to notice. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to question the conduct of the late Government in resolving to meet Parliament after the circumstances of the General Election. I can only say that that was a decision which we arrived at, to no small extent, upon the statements of the right hon. Gentleman himself as to his own position. We had the best of reasons for believing that he, at any rate, did not consider that he commanded a majority of the House of Commons. Whatever be our position in regard to this Assembly, in our belief no Party has a majority in this House. There are three Parties in this House, and time alone can show which has the confidence of the House of Commons. But no sooner did we meet the House, and announce a policy with reference to Ireland which included, but was by no means solely composed of, repressive legislation, than there was that combination between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his followers and those hon. Members who sit in that (the Irish) quarter of the House, by which he succeeded in obtaining that majority on which, I suppose, his Government is now based. I repudiate the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that our pro-
    638
    posals with reference to Ireland were solely composed of coercive legislation. In our belief, and in the belief, I suspect, of many others besides ourselves—I suspect in the belief of the noble Marquess the Member for Eossendale—the primary and most urgent necessity in the present condition of Ireland is to secure the supremacy of the Government of the Queen throughout the whole of that country, and vindicate the authority of the law. But when we undertook to submit to Parliament measures for that purpose, at the same time we undertook, if we were successful in passing those measures, that they should be immediately followed by further legislation on the great question of the land, with which, I may venture to say, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has, in past years, shown himself singularly qualified to deal. But what is the present condition of affairs? I do not complain, for a moment, that the right hon. Gentleman has not disclosed to us his Irish policy to-night; but what I do think, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), is that this House, and especially Members connected with Ireland, have great cause to complain that, after all that has been said by right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite with reference to this question, the declaration of that policy is to be postponed for more than a month to come. Now, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that this matter has been his daily and his nightly study. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), one of his principal Colleagues, that the result of the General Election in Ireland had made it imperative that attention should be immediately called to the condition of the country. Therefore, this question has not for the first time occupied the attention of the Members of the present Government on their accepting Office. It has occupied their attention, by their own admission, for many weeks past; and the only thing, in fact, of which they could stand in need when they assumed Office was that official information which, of course, is only at the disposal of the Government of the day. Well, now, what was our conclusion on the official information

    639
    which reached us, and which, we very acrefully considered, with reference to the state of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has twitted us with having been six months in making up our minds as to the policy——
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I found no fault whatever with the Government for taking six months to make up their minds; I found fault with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) for demanding from us a declaration on the first day of our meeting Parliament as a Government.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Well, but, Sir, it is not accurate—it is not the fact—to say that we took six months to make up our minds in the matter at all. We arrived at a certain conclusion, which we announced to the House after our acceptance of Office, with reference to the non-renewal of repressive legislation for Ireland. We stated, at the time, that we came to that decision in the belief that the powers of the ordinary law would be sufficient to enable the Government to deal satisfactorily with the state of Ireland. That, of course, was a decision that required time to test. It was tested throughout the autumn—I announced myself, during the autumn, that if we found that the powers of the ordinary law were insufficient for the purpose we should have to apply to Parliament for further powers. At the time that Parliament met in January we were in this most difficult position—that my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Carnarvon) had resigned that post, and the Minister primarily responsible for the government of Ireland was necessarily new to his work. What did we do? We did not alter our policy between the delivery of the Gracious Speech from the Throne and the day upon which I announced the intention of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) to bring in a Bill for dealing with the National League and other societies of the kind. But we stated plainly in the Speech from the Throne that—
    "Although there has been during the last year no marked increase of serious crime, there is in many places a concerted resistance to the enforcement of legal obligations, and I regret that the practice of organized intimidation continues to exist."
    The Speech went on to say—
    640
    "No effort will be spared on the part of my Government to protect my Irish subjects in the exercise of their legal rights and the enjoyment of individual liberty. If, as my information leads me to apprehend, the existing provisions of the law should prove to be inadequate to cope with these growing evils, I look with confidence to your willingness to invest my Government with all necessary powers."
    That was the statement in the Speech. What did it point to? It pointed to this—that we had not, at that time, actually decided what were the precise means by which the state of things which we described would be most successfully met. That was a matter which necessarily had to occupy very grave attention; and as soon as it was possible I stated to the House the decision at which we had arrived upon the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. I will venture again to assert that there was absolutely no change between the declaration in the Gracious Speech from the Throne and the announcement subsequently made to the House of Commons. That announcement was based upon the very serious fact which appears somehow to have been forgotten or overlooked by the Government in the course of this discussion. We stated our opinion as to the serious condition of Ireland in regard to social order, and the necessity which had grown into existence of adopting exceptional measures for dealing with it. Were we right, or were we wrong, as to the facts of the present social condition of Ireland? Were we right, or were we wrong, as to the power exercised by the National League in many parts of the country, as to the supersession by the National League of the ordinary government of the country, and, indeed, of law itself in many cases? If we were wrong, if the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. John Morley) has different information from that which reached us, if he can show that the state of Ireland is not what it was described to the House of Commons by my right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), then let him say so to the House. Let him put that information before the country, and no one will receive it with greater pleasure than the Members of the late Government. But if we were right in our estimate of the condition of

    641
    Ireland, then all I can say is this—that it appears to me nothing can be graver than the responsibility which the present Government are incurring by postponing for more than a month any attempt to deal with a state of affairs which would be a disgrace if suffered to continue in any civilized country. The right hon. Gentleman, I remember, in one of his speeches, twitted us with what he supposed, at the time, to be our policy of neither governing Ireland ourselves, nor allowing Ireland to govern itself. Well, Sir, it seems to me that, at any rate for some little time to come, he will be following a course precisely similar to that which he so wrongly attributed to us. He is Chief Secretary for Ireland; but I will venture to say this—that in the present state of affairs in many parts of Ireland he is Chief Secretary by the grace of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and is compelled to act according to the bidding of the National League. Well, if that be not so, let him show it to the country. Let him come forward and prove that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, who spoke to-night, was wrong in his description of the condition of the country, and then the Government will have said something in justification of their present position. Before they came into Office they pressed on us, through the Prime Minister, the immediate necessity of dealing with this question. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Of declaring your intentions.] Well, of "declaring our intentions" as to the mode in which this question should be dealt with. He told us "that whatever should be done for Ireland should be done with all the promptitude that the nature of the case required." Whatever we thought adequate for the case, whether with respect to social order or the land, "let us know what it is; state it frankly to the House." That is now our demand to him, and that demand cannot be met by a postponement of the whole question for more than six weeks. Looking at what we believe to be the present condition of Ireland, I think nothing can be graver than the responsibility which, is incurred by any Government of this country in doing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University so well described as "allowing matters to drift," I trust we may have from the right hon. Gentleman who has succeeded to the
    642
    very difficult Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and whose abilities, I am sure, we all admire—I trust we may have from him some statement which may, at any rate, show that he is sensible of the grave nature of the organization with which he has to deal, the objects at which it is aimed, and the evils from which the country must suffer if it is not coped with in a very different spirit from that which has animated the speech of the Prime Minister to-night.

    SCOTLAND—CROFTERS AND COTTARS.
    MR. MACFARLANE, in rising to move, as an Amendment, the insertion, at the end of the 15th paragraph, of the following additional paragraph to the Queen's Speech:—
    "This House humbly expresses its regret that in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech the reference to the condition of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of a vague and indefinite character, and contains no satisfactory assurance that such Legislation as the serious nature of the case demands will he undertaken, and is of opinion that, until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland People has been passed into Law, the Civil or Military Forces of the Crown should not he employed to evict those People from their hereditary homes,"
    said that, no doubt in common with a great many, the House would be glad to hear the announcement of the Government, that, on Monday next, it was their intention to bring in a Bill to deal with the Land Question in Scotland; but it was a question of great urgency, and he regretted that that declaration on the part of the Government did not meet the case which he proposed to provide for, if the House would accept his Amendment. His Amendment was not to force the Government to legislate for a settlement of the Land Question, for he imagined no pressure was required to be put upon any Government to compel them to see the absolute necessity of legislating upon the question with a view to its settlement. It was different a few years ago, when he first took the liberty—which was then thought to be a great liberty—of moving on this question. It was considered a great liberty because, though he was a Scotchman, he represented an Irish constituency. That reproach'—if reproach it were—could no longer be applied; for he had come back now to the House without that stain upon his character; and he appeared, as a

    643
    Scotch Member, to plead as earnestly as he could on behalf of those people in whose interests he had put down his Amendment. He had no wish to take up any long time in discussing the question, because his proposition was a very simple one. He could multiply instances by the hundred where, in public meeting, resolutions were carried, praying that House to grant suspension of eviction, pending the passing of the legislative measures proposed by Government. His proposal, he thought, was not without precedent; because, although not in the exact form, it contained the substance and spirit of the ill-fated Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880. He moved, on this occasion, to ask this High Court of Parliament to grant an injunction to restrain one of the parties to a suit from ruining the other, pending the decision of this High Court on their case. That was literally the issue that was raised by the Amendment. It was an appeal for injunction against one who had the whole power—the power of totally ruining and banishing if he chose—from their native homes as many as happened to reside on his property. He had no doubt there were plenty of good landlords in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; but it was not the good landlords, but the bad landlords, they had to legislate for; and he was only now asking the House to compel the bad landlord, who brought shame upon the others, to do that which the good landlord would do of his own accord. By the law of the land a landlord had perfect liberty to evict a man, whether in arrears or not, upon six months' notice; and the reason he asked the House to accept his Amendment was because, before it was possible for the Government to pass their Bill through Parliament and bring it into effective use, the eviction season would have passed. Hundreds of evictions were now threatened in Scotland; people were having notices served upon them; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) knew perfectly well that in the month of May the eviction season would set in, and in order to prevent that he moved his Amendment. To show the urgency of what he asked for, he would cite a few instances, but without giving the names of the people or the places. The statement was that last Martinmas a number of crofters were
    644
    served with notices of removal. They had all their rents paid, and their crofts consisted of 2½ acres of the poorest soil. These crofts were in the immediate vicinity of the mansion house, and were of a character that no farmer would pay more than £12 for the whole seven. Yet the laird derived £84 a-year from these crofts. These people went on to say that it was impossible for them to pay these rents, and that hitherto they had been paid by contributions sent by their friends in the South. In their present circumstances they could not see what they were to do. They must submit to the law, and therefore prepare for eviction. None of them were in arrears, and they could only rely upon the Legislature passing some measure to stop these repressive and inhuman practices. In another case, reported by the Press on the 11th of February, it was stated that a meeting was held at Cromarty for the purpose of approaching the landlord for a reduction of rent; and the statement was that Mrs. MacKenzie declined, and said she would "put the whole estate under fallow rather than give one sixpence of reduction." These were the statements that came from a people in a state of despair. In most of the cases in which evictions were threatened it was, no doubt, on account of heavy arrears; but how did they arise? They were carried forward from one tenant to another, these being kept upon the factor's books in terrorem over the tenants. For instance, £6 was fixed as the rent in the books, but £5 was all that was paid; but after a time the tenant found that £1 a-year had been accumulating as arrears which provided the excuse for eviction. There had been no disturbances and no outrages of any kind throughout the whole of Scotland. This was a peaceful, legitimate, and Constitutional demand that was being made; and he appealed to that House, to the Gentlemen who voted for the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, who voted for similar measures for Ireland, for the Land Act in Ireland, and for all the legislation that had taken place in Ireland, to do something for the corresponding classes in Scotland, and not leave them in destitution because they were peaceable. Let them not teach them to break the law— that was a lesson that had been taught in Ireland; but he hoped that his court-

    645
    trymen would not learn it. Legitimate legislation was what they required; and he asked the House, as a first step, to stand between them and a wrong-doer, and not between them and good landlords—though even good landlords in Scotland had far too much power—more power than ought to be trusted to any individuals. They could sell their land if they chose to Mr. Winans, and the sale would entitle him to give six months' notice to the whole of the native population who were not under leases. He appealed to the House and the Government to stand between those people and what was practically sending them out of the country. These people were attached to their own country, and he wanted to see them living in their own glens and native hill-sides, and not dwelling in the slums of big cities. He wished they had more of them in that position. If they had, they would not hear so much about the distress of the unemployed. There was plenty of land for the unemployed if they could get it to cultivate. He had not brought a large number of cases before the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; but it was not because he had not the cases to bring forward in witness of what he had said. The nest time this matter was brought forward he would read case after case and take up hour after hour. He moved this Amendment with regret. He should have preferred if he had been in a position to move this Amendment when the late Government were in power—or rather in Office, for they never were in power. He was quite sure there were hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who would have supported this Amendment under those circumstances, but who, under existing circumstances, would not be able to support it, and he thought he would probably have carried it. He believed the present Government seriously meant to deal with this question, and that they would deal with it in a very different fashion from the way in which they proposed to deal with it last year, for a great many things had happened since then. But if the Government were prepared to take away from the landlords the power of evicting the people for no cause, why would they not do it by accepting this Amendment two or three months in advance of their Bill? He should be obliged to ascertain by a
    646
    division the state of opinion in the House upon the question, so that they would know who were their friends and who were the foes. In conclusion, he bogged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
    DR. CLARK, in seconding the Amendment, said, he wanted to bring before the House some facts in regard to the position of the crofters at the present time. Two or three years ago the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) managed to get the time of notice for eviction changed from six weeks to six months; and they knew that already a large number of crofters had received that six months' notice. Under the Scotch Act those who were in arrear might be turned out if they were 40 days in arrear before some date in May; and what he feared was that a large number of crofters who were utterly unable to pay rent in consequence of the new condition of things would be turned out. The crofter did not so much make his living out of the land as on the sea; and the crofter, in his capacity as fanner and in his capacity as fisherman, had lately met with an unparalleled condition of depression. As a farmer his stock had fallen about 50 per cent in the last two years. In his own county in six months the value of stock had fallen nearly 40 per cent, so that if the crofter sold his stock to try to pay his rent, even then he could not pay it. Of course, the large farmer felt the depression nearly as much as the crofters, and they also required protection. Only they had got capital, and the landlord might think twice before he killed the goose that laid the golden eggs—before making the capitalist farmers bankrupt. The crofter had been paying a great deal for his land because it was near the sea; but the depression in the land had not been so great as was the depression in the fishing industry. The poor people were told to go to sea and fish; and now, just as they were driven away from off the best tracts of the land, the steam trawlers came and drove them away from off the sea by destroying their gear and nets. The condition of things in the fishing industry was very deplorable. During the summer a large section of crofters from Ross-shire and Inverness-shire came round to Wick for the summer fishing, and expected to

    647
    make what would pay their rents and keep their families. But, unfortunately for the crofters, last year nearly all the fish-curers went bankrupt, so that men who a few years ago were worth £20,000 were now only worth a few pence. The fish sent to Germany and other foreign countries last year did not bring to many of the curers a price sufficient to pay the cost of the barrels in which they were packed, while there was great competition from other sources, and the price of the Norway fish had been reduced, altogether making a most unfortunate state of things. The fishermen had been content to get 5s. or 10s. in the pound from the curers, and next year it was difficult to conceive what their condition would be. One reason for the deplorable condition of things was because of the action of the Railway Companies, who had so much abused the power given them by Parliament to make a differential rate of carriage, which was much against the home producer, and in favour of foreigners. They charged no less than £4 per ton for fish, while they bought salt at 22 s. and potatoes at 30 s. But the crofter, though he was now, from circumstances which he was not able to control, unable to pay his rent, did not forget his right to the land. The homes of the crofters were generally those which they had themselves built, and they were beginning to feel desperate. He thought the new Scotch Secretary should think twice before he sent troops to the Highlands to teach the Highland people what had been often taught the Irish people— namely, that law often meant organized injustice. They wanted to get from the Government and the House an assurance that the men who were unable to pay rent from causes beyond their control should not be sent adrift, but should be secured until some remedial legislation was enacted. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Argyllshire.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the 15th paragraph, to insert the words,—" This House humbly expresses its regret that in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech the reference to the condition of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of a vague and indefinite character, and contains no satisfactory assurance that such Legislation as the serious nature of the case demands will he undertaken, and is of opinion that, until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with
    648
    the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland People has been passed into Law, the Civil or Military Forces of the Crown should not he employed to evict those People from their hereditary homes."—(Mr. Macfarlane.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RODERICK McDONALDsaid, he had lived for 20 years among the crofters, and could bear out the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire. The fishery was in a dreadfully bad state, and the crofters were quite unable to pay their rents, which were greater than the holdings were worth. It was not proposed that the declaration in the Amendment should last for years, but only for one year, by which time the ejectment season would have passed, and they hoped for a satisfactory measure enacted by the Government. Surely for one year the landlords could afford to let the matter lie. If the landlords meant to force the people to pay rents it simply meant driving them off the land, and they all knew the results. An eviction was simply a sentence of death to many of those people. It was all very well for the landlords to say—"We must have our rights;" but the people had rights as well as the landlords. In the Highlands many of them had rights superior to those of the landlords. How many of the proprietors had bought the land? The Argyll and Sutherland families had paid nothing for those lands on which these crofters lived; and he hoped that in this 19th century such landlords would not be allowed by means of evictions to turn the people adrift. In many cases the land had been kept for the landlords by the strong arms of their forefathers, and by nothing else. It was no use trying to get blood out of a stone, and it was no use trying to get money from the crofters, because for a long time they had paid their rents from money they did not get from their crofts, and now they had no more to pay. He would heartily support the Amendment, hoping that by this time next year they would have no need for such a Motion.
    MR. PICTONsaid that, as an English Member, he desired most heartily to support the Amendment. He had taken means of informing himself on this subject, and he was persuaded of the urgent necessity of speedy legislation. But

    649
    speedy legislation would not be sufficient if evictions were to be allowed to go on in the interval. He had no sympathy with men who could and would not pay their rent; but occasions sometimes arose when a large number of tenants could not pay owing to special circumstances; and then it was only fair that other portions of society should take their part in the burden, and not throw it all on the poor. The Report of the Crofters' Commissioners in 1884 was a lamentable indictment against the whole system of the North-Western Highlands; and this state of things had been growing worse ever since, and evictions were becoming more and more cruel. The Report showed that a social revolution had taken place in these districts, in the course of which the poor toilers had been the sufferers, while the owners had up to very lately been the gainers. The Report showed that there existed a patent contradiction between the Statute Law and the immemorial tradition and custom of those districts. It also gave instances in which whole communities had been driven from the land, and had been huddled between the mountains and the sea on comparatively bare and barren tracts, on which the utmost industry would not enable them to live in any comfort. Eights had been unjustly invaded, and he hoped that the House would not trifle with this matter. Mr. Angus Sutherland, the late crofter candidate for Sutherlandshire, recently gave an account of what was known as the Rosehall case. He stated that in 1845 the estate of Rosehall was purchased by I Sir James Matheson, who promised the tenants that they would never be removed from their holdings, at any rate so long as he lived. The tenants accordingly reclaimed much of the land, and made great improvements. The estate was then sold, or rather exchanged for another, and all the tenants were served with notices to quit by the new landlord. They were compelled to accept the landlord's terms or forfeit all their improvements; and thriving tenants were thus turned into rack-rented feuars. He said it was incumbent on the Government to take good heed lest the extreme pressure of what might be legal rights, but were moral wrongs, should drive along-suffering people to desperation, and bring about bloodshed and disorder in hitherto comparatively peaceful regions.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. TREVELYAN): I have listened with great pleasure to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton); but, in some respects, I could almost have wished that the hon. Member had deferred his speech for a few days. I have no doubt, from his intimate knowledge of the Highlands of Scotland, he has much in reserve to tell us; and I should be glad if, some throe or four days hence, on the Motion for the introduction of the Crofters Bill, and still more on the second reading, he moves again the sympathy of the House as he has moved it to-night. I cannot but think that his speech, and the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), are somewhat premature, or somewhat tardy. They are premature if they are intended to excite the interest of the House in those provisions which the Government intends to bring forward, and which, I earnestly think and trust, will be of a nature, if not to satisfy, at any rate to gratify, those hon. Members. But they are tardy as applied to the present condition of the House of Commons and the Government. The Amendment to the Address which the House is asked to entertain to-night states that the House humbly expresses its regret that in the Queen's Gracious Speech the reference to the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of so vague and indefinite a character; and contains no satisfactory assurance that such legislation as the serious nature of the case demands will be undertaken. That is the Preamble to the Amendment. I am not here to defend, I am rather here to adopt, the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech; but if I were here to defend it. I should say that the line and a-half referring to a measure for mitigating the distressed condition of the poorer classes of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland would cover legislation of a sort which might be very satisfactory oven to advanced Members of this House. But if there might be some justice in the Amendment throe weeks ago, there is none now; because the Government, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, has promised—not that it considers that legislation about the crofters is of great importance, but that it considers it almost paramount, for the very first Notice of a measure that has been

    651
    given by the present Government—at any rate, the first Notice of any measure of importance—has been for a Bill for improving the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I ask the House whether it is a fair reward to a Government which has shown itself so anxious to grapple, and to grapple rapidly and thoroughly, with this great question— whether it is fair to reject the earnest appeal of the Prime Minister, who has given this pledge, which you may be sure he will make good—not to insert Amendments in this Address; and I think hon. Members will have to show very strong cause indeed for inserting this Amendment, because it is an Amendment of a very serious nature. The Amendment, after the Preamble that I have quoted, goes on to declare that the House is of opinion that until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland crofters has been passed into law the Civil and Military Forces of the Crown should not be employed in evicting the people from their hereditary holdings. I earnestly trust that before voting hon. Members will consider the very serious nature of the Amendment for which they are voting. The hon. Member for Caithness-shire (Dr. Clark), in his interesting speech, referred to the great distress of the fishing population, and to the manner in which they are suffering by the competition of trawlers, and by the discriminating rates of railways. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Caithness whether the fishing population of the Western Highlands are the only fishing population in the United Kingdom that are suffering from bad trade and depression? If that is not the case, why should we adopt such a strong remedy as that of suspending the ordinary operation of the law in their case, and in their case alone? I must frankly own that I would not assent to such a proposal. Before adopting it, two facts would have to be established. One of these two facts would be that the population that was going to be specially benefited by such a very strong proposal as this was suffering from any great grievance of a nature requiring to be remedied, or from any great danger; and the other thing that would have to be established would be that it had been
    652
    up to this time entirely neglected by Parliament. But are the people of these Highlands and Islands suffering under any very great grievance from evictions, or from any danger of evictions? I am glad to think that at a time like this in England and Scotland the landlords are treating their people with that sort of consideration which ought to exist between the landlords and the tenants. ["Oh, oh!"] I will not say it is being done everywhere; but I know of many cases in England and in Scotland where large reductions are being given, and very freely given—permanent reductions—and where the eviction of an old tenant is the very last idea that would occur to the mind of the landlord. But are the Highlands of Scotland at this moment the districts where there is an exception to this rule? Are the Highlands, during the last two years, districts where evictions are being ruthlessly carried out? If there can be any charge brought against the late Government, or against the Government which preceded it, it would be—not that evictions in the Highlands were too easily carried out, but that, practically, there were no evictions at all, even where rents could not be obtained. There is no part of the country in which, at this moment, there is such immense and such general arrears as in certain parts of the Highlands; and to tell the House of Commons that during the last six months, that during the last two years, there have been any exceptional crop of evictions is to tell them something which is not a fact; and, unless it is confirmed by the most powerful evidence, the House could not be induced to accept such an extremely strong Resolution. But it is not the case. There is a general feeling among the landlords of the Highlands, as there is a feeling in the House of Commons, and in the country in general, that the crofters of the Western Islands are in a very unsatisfactory condition, which ought to have been altered long ago by legislation, and that that is the district in which, of all others in the country, the power of eviction ought to be less ruthlessly and most mercifully used; and I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that there is no district in these Islands where the people have been in less danger of eviction than they were in the crofting districts of Scotland. Now, I come to the question of what

    653
    has been done for the crofters in this respect by the House of Commons. Never was so strong a Resolution passed, giving so very marked a lesson in the direction of doing the utmost to mitigate the rights of landlords to the Executive Government, as the Resolution that was passed on the 14th of November, 1884, at the instance of a distinguished Irish Member, who has vindicated his right to take up the cause of the crofters. The Resolution was as follows:—
    Resolved "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or to apply such other remedies as they deem advisable; and that this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission at page 110 of its Report, that 'The mere vindication of authority and repression of resistance would not establish the relations of mutual confidence between landlord and tenant, in the absence of which the Country would not be truly at peace, and all our inquiries and counsels would be expended in vain.'"
    That is the Resolution under which, at this moment, the Highlands of Scotland are being administered—the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons, giving the greatest moral sanction in its power to the theory that the rights of the landlord should not be pressed. On that Resolution the landlords of the West of Scotland have acted, and since that Resolution was passed evictions have not been oppressive; and to say that they were numerous would be to say something which is very far from the fact in the Western Highlands. While I may have been willing to give a passive assent to that Resolution, I cannot go further; the Government cannot go further, and lay down the opinion that the law is not to be supported. The hon. Member asks whether the Government would be prepared to send troops to enable Mr. Winans to make any fresh evictions in order to extend his deer forests? During the last six months, under a Conservative Government, no troops have been sent into that district; and I do not think it is very likely that, under a Liberal Government, any troops will be sent for such a purpose. We desire to find a remedy, not in making any declarations of this sort, but in bringing in and pressing forward a Bill giving the largest measure of protection and comfort to the crofting population that the general sense of the
    654
    country and the wisdom of Parliament will allow us to give. I am bound to say I was rather struck by the speech of one hon. Member who represents the crofters, and by the fact that he insisted so very much upon one side of their difficulties and grievances—namely, that of the want of fixity of tenure and of fair rent, while he said so little of what I believe the crofters themselves feel is at the bottom of their difficulties, and that is the want of more land. I hope I have given sufficient reasons to induce the House to sympathize with me in my earnest appeal to the hon. Member and those who act with him not to press this Amendment on the Address. If he does press it he will be sure to find in the Lobby against him many right hon. Gentlemen who sympathize with his clients with a sympathy almost as strong as his own, and some who have a knowledge not immensely below even his great knowledge of what they really want. I wish to present a further argument to the House relating to this subject. It is a most important thing that just at this moment we should not pass a Resolution of the House of Commons which weakens the authority of the law, which refuses to allow the Government to discriminate between those cases in which rent is retained in the hands of the person who is able to pay his rent, and between those cases in which a crofter is suffering hopelessly under arrears brought about by an oppressive state of the law. There is another reason connected with the Western Highlands why, at this moment, we cannot afford to relax the authority of the law. There is the question of rates. The authorities have great difficulty in getting rates from the occupiers, and from other people besides; and if the House of Commons pass this Resolution, which I feel bound to say is an unjust and an improper one, and, in face of the legislation which the Government promise, a most unnecessary one, you will weaken the hands of the parochial authorities in collecting those rates, and bring about a state of things which will be most disastrous and most discreditable, and, to the education of those districts more especially, perhaps quite fatal. I trust that what I have said will not be considered as in any way showing a want of sympathy with the condition of the crofters; but I earnestly hope, in view of what I have

    655
    said, and the promise of the Government to introduce a measure, the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he begged to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment in the Ministry as Secretary for Scotland. He seemed, however, to be but imperfectly acquainted with the condition of the Western Highlands. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman possessed any exact information as to the number of evictions, or the number of notices which had been served to produce evictions at the coming term. He had been informed that no fewer than 200 notices of eviction were served to become due in May last year. A difficulty arose as to the interpretation of the law. The crofters claimed the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act; and it was found upon trial in Edinburgh that the landlords must give six months' notice to the tenants, they having failed to do so. He had observed from the newspapers that some landlords had served notices of eviction in a wholesale manner. Those notices would come into force on the 15th of May next, and it was then that the difficulties of the situation would arise. Then was the time when the landlords in the Highlands would have to appeal to the forces of the Crown in order to carry out those arbitrary and unjust evictions. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) did not ask the suspension of evictions to be carried out indefinitely, but only until the Bill of the Government came into effect. It was feared, and with too much reason, that a great number of evictions would take place in the Highlands in May next. Notice had been served by the landlords to that effect; and if the Bill of the Government became law, it would not come into operation in time to prevent the landlords carrying out the evictions at Whitsuntide. He thought the House was called upon to express its opinion on this question, and to say that the civil and military powers of the Crown should not be used for evicting tenants in the Western Highlands of Scotland. Unless the Government adopted some such opinion as this, there was great reason to apprehend serious difficulties in Scotland in May. The responsibility for maintaining the
    656
    peace of those districts would rest upon the right hon. Gentleman. He should be sorry to encourage any movement for the non-payment of rent; but those acquainted with the condition of the Highlands knew that the tenants had not, at the present time, the means of paying, either from farming operations or from fishing; and he thought Parliament ought to intervene to prevent the landlords taking advantage of such a state of circumstances to evict crofters. There were many cases in which the holdings of the crofters were worthless for the purpose of making rent. They were really a foothold for the men on the soil, and the rents had always been paid from fishing, or by some members of the family going to some other part of Scotland and paying the rent of those who remained at home. He considered that the case was sufficient to justify the action which the hon. Member had recommended to the House. The suspense of evictions would only affect bad landlords; and he thought the case of the crofters was quite as strong as that of the Irish peasants when the Government brought in a Bill in former years to suspend evictions. The people in the Western Highlands were a law-abiding, godly people, and no one would accuse them of turbulence unless they had good cause for the complaints they had made; and he should have thought the Government, under very difficult circumstances, would have been very glad to accept the Motion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished to join the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) upon his appointment. The right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his speech, shown an earnest sympathy with the grievances of the crofters, and in the indication which he had given that it was the intention of the Government to deal with those grievances in a strong Bill. At the same time, he thought that, in the language used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the suspension of evictions, he had taken a somewhat unfavourable view of the case of the hon. Member for Argyllshire. He thought that, at this moment, the relations between landlords and crofters in the Western Highlands were very much strained; and there was a fear that, unless notices of eviction

    657
    were withheld, trouble would ensue in that region at an early date. On the whole, however, he thought the hon. Member would be wise in listening to the appeal which had been made to him, and not press his Amendment in view of the Bill promised by the Government.
    MR. BOYD KINNEARsaid, that there were one or two points in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on which he wished to make a brief remark. The first was the statement that had been made as to the improbability of troops being employed to carry out evictions under a Liberal Government. But it was a fact that under the last Liberal Government troops were sent to carry out the service of writs, the result of which would be the eviction of crofters; and, therefore, there could be no security that this would not happen again merely because a Liberal Government was in power. Another statement was that there existed in other parts of this Kingdom a general depression in agriculture calling for a remedy; but that was no reason why the remedy desired in this case should be refused because it did not embrace every other case. There was, however, one point in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland which would lead him to join in urging the withdrawal of the Amendment; and that was the promise given that in the proposed Bill of the Government it was intended to take powers for preventing evictions in all cases in which they ought not to be carried out. ["No, no!"] If it were not so he was very sorry, and in that case he did not see that it was easy to avoid voting for the Amendment. True, it proposed the stoppage of evictions of every sort, and he could not honestly support a Bill which should involve that principle, because there might be cases in which evictions might be legitimate and proper. There might be cases in which tenants could pay their rents and would not. The law ought to distinguish between the two classes of cases. But this could easily be done in any measure to be introduced. If he were mistaken as to the scope of the Government Bill, it was the duty of Scottish Members and of Liberal Members from every part of the Kingdom to vote for the Amendment. What he desired was that such modifications should be introduced into the present law as would be necessary to make it
    658
    more consistent with justice. No law would command the respect of the people of this country except in so far as it was based on justice. The great changes in circumstances which had taken place since the bargains and leases were entered into should be taken into consideration. Those changes had not been brought about by the landlord or the tenant. They had come upon us by causes altogether beyond the control of any human being; but it ought to be recognized that they were upon us. As he had said, what he and others desired was to modify and alter bargains entered into, so as to make them what fair and just-minded men would enter into at the present time. He would support the Amendment.
    MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD: I only rise, Sir, on account of an observation which was made by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), which, although not intended to be used in an offensive sense, was to the effect that the words in the Address may mean no more than that a measure was to be introduced for relief by the parochial authorities. I have no desire to protract the debate upon the Address; but, as such a suggestion has been made, I think it right to state publicly that there was no such intention on the part of Her Majesty's late Government in placing those words in the Queen's Speech; but, on the contrary, it was our intention to introduce a measure which I think the hon. Member for Argyllshire and the Members from Scotland who have spoken in this debate would have found to have been a somewhat comprehensive measure. I have only to say that no description of that measure could have been more unlike reality than the suggestion which the hon. Member for Argyllshire has made. I think it is necessary, however, to give some explanation on behalf of myself and my Colleagues in the late Government who propose to vote against this Amendment. We vote against it because we are satisfied that it can serve no good purpose. It expresses the regret of the House that in the Queen's Speech—
    "The reference to the condition of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of a vague and indefinite character;"
    whereas it is proposed to amend that condition by the Bill which is promised

    659
    to be brought into the House. The latter part of the Resolution, if passed by this House, will declare—
    "That until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland People has been passed into Law, the Civil or Military Forces of the Crown should not be employed to evict those People from their hereditary homes."
    Such a Resolution ought not to be passed. The word "satisfactory" is itself most vague. Satisfactory to whom, the nation or the crofters? and satisfactory on what basis? I have, therefore, no hesitation in supporting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    MR. M'LAREN: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has made an appeal to the Liberal Members to vote against this Amendment. He tells us that it would be injurious and improper in us to carry this Resolution in the face of the promise which Her Majesty's Government have made to deal immediately with this pressing question. But in the same speech he was candid enough to tell us, from his knowledge of the measures of the Government as a Member of the Cabinet, that the Bill proposed to be introduced will not deal with the salient point of the Amendment. He intimated that the Bill will contain no provision for suspending the process of evictions, which hon. Members from Scotland assure us will be put in force about Whitsuntide. A few Sessions ago we had a similar Amendment proposed in the Address by Members from Ireland; and the present Prime Minister on that occasion accepted the principle in the analogous case of that country. He caused a Bill to be brought in dealing with evictions, in the shape of compensation for disturbance; and so important was that Bill considered that all the Business of the House was suspended in order that it might be passed. We do not ask now for any revolutionary measures, or that criminals or offenders should be supported; but we simply ask that these unfortunate crofters who have had notice of eviction served upon them shall not be evicted unless their case does not happen to come within the four corners of the Bill. In the event of the Bill becoming law, I presume that it is
    660
    impossible to pass it between this and Whitsuntide; and I suppose that the landlords are not disposed to give any pledge that they will not carry out evictions in the meantime. We simply ask now that the Liberal Party, who have come back from the country pledged to deal with this Land Question, should give effect to the pledges which they gave to their constituents, and take the only opportunity which offers itself between this time and Whitsuntide to obtain a declaration from the Government that they will not use the Civil or Military Forces at their disposal for the purpose of carrying out evictions. The Government, not with any intention of being unfair, but owing, I presume, to a mistake, have mixed up this question with the analogous question of a refusal to pay rates and taxes. My opinion, and that of those who are acquainted with this part of Scotland, is that the refusal to pay rates and taxes has arisen from abortive attempts to enforce evictions for non-payment of rates. But the principal persons who are refusing to pay rates and taxes are not the crofters, but the landlords who have been evicting the crofters. All I ask is that the Forces of the Crown should not be used in turning out these unfortunate crofters pending legislation to meet their case; and unless I receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Scretary for Scotland that it is proposed to withhold the employment of the Forces of the Crown for that purpose I shall vote for the Amendment, and I trust that other Members on this side of the House will take the same course.
    MR. DONALD CRAWFORD: I am very unwilling to protract the debate; but I think that the speeches which have already been made would convey a wrong impression to the House, and induce it to be believed that a majority of Members, who sympathize with the case of the crofters, are in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane). I think I am justified in speaking in the name of those who sympathize deeply with that part of the population, because in regard to my own constituency—North-East Lanark—although it is not a crofter constituency, and although it consists of a hard-working and industrious population engaged in industries different from that of the crofters, I may say that no

    661
    question was pressed more strongly upon my notice during the election than the subject of the crofters; and there are very few Members in the House whose acquaintance with the Highlands of Scotland dates as far back, in the early period of their lives, as my own. I confess that I am not surprised, for certain reasons, that this Amendment has been put forward. In the first place, I think that the hon. Member for Argyllshire is justified in the observations he made with reference to the paragraph in the Address to the Crown. If anything more than some eleemosynary measure of relief was contemplated by the words which have been placed in the Address, I think that those words have been chosen with singular infelicity. There is also this further point. After the Resolution which was passed last year there was a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government— the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone)—dealing with the subject. That Bill might easily have been passed in the course of last Session; and the Prime Minister made an appeal to the late Government, when the change of Government occurred and they came into Office, that that Bill should be passed. That appeal was not listened to, and the request of the present Prime Minister was rejected; and I think that much allowance must be made for the crofters, after the patience which they and their friends have manifested, in seeing legislation promised year after year which would give them relief, but which, when the moment comes when it ought to be carried to completion, has been, by one accident or another, retarded and set aside. I submit, however, that there is scarcely anything which could justify such a sweeping interference with the ordinary action of the law in the enforcement of contracts as is proposed in this Amendment. I say "scarcely anything" because I think there is one state of circumstances which might justify it; and that is if evidence were produced of a systematic intention to evade a Bill just coming on by evicting as many persons as possible for the purpose of getting such evictions carried out before the Bill was passed. But we have no evidence of that kind, and no allegation of that nature at all; and although the hon.
    662
    Member for Argyllshire has said that he could string a number of instances together and lay them before the House, if it would not weary the House, he did not do so. Well, I appreciate his generous consideration for the House in that respect; but I submit that it is absolutely necessary to lay such evidence before the House before such an interference with the action of the law as this could be agreed to. It is a far more sweeping measure than the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, because that Bill proposed to arrest evictions under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whereas in this case we are asked not to proceed under an Act of Parliament, but arbitrarily to stay the hands of the authorities. I think that the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland ought to satisfy the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment, and I hope that he will not press the Resolution. I can assure the hon. Member that there are many hon. Members in the same position as myself, who have the warmest sympathy for the object which he has at heart, and who will vote with him and speak for him if necessary, unless the promised measure is one of a thoroughly liberal and satisfactory character, and one which will completely satisfy the just demands of the crofters.
    MR. SAUNDERS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has been pleased to state to the House that, in his opinion, scarcely anything can justify the adoption of this Amendment. Now, it appears to me that the case should be put the other way. Can anything justify the evictions which will take place unless this Amendment is passed? The very fact that the Government have promised to bring in a Bill to improve the condition of the crofters shows that these impending evictions will take place under unjust conditions. As an English Member and as a Member sitting on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, I am desirous of finding any reason, if I possibly can, for adopting the appeal which is made to us on behalf of the Government; but I can find no such reason. It is perfectly clear that no Bill can be introduced and carried through this House which will prevent the evictions which will take place next May, if the Amendment which has been proposed is not carried. I, therefore, cannot absolve

    663
    my conscience from the necessity for voting for this Amendment, whatever inconvenience may arise to Her Majesty's Government in consequence. I am quite sure that if hon. Members realize the fact that the vote they are now about to give may cause hundreds of honest men to be evicted from their homes they will hesitate before they reject the Amendment which would save the crofters from such a fate.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 234: Majority 130.—(Div. List, No. 4.)
    Another Amendment made.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to he presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Mr. GLADSTONE, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. SECRETARY CHILDERS, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, and Mr. ACLAND, or any Three of them:—To withdraw immediately:—Queen's Speech referred.

  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  Report of Address brought up, and read, as follows:—
  MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
  "WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to convey to Your Majesty our thanks for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's relations with other Powers continue to be of a friendly character.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that the difference which existed, when Your Majesty last addressed us, between Your Majesty's Government and that of Russia, on the subject of the Boundaries of Afghanistan, has been satisfactorily adjusted, and that, in pursuance of a Convention which will be laid before us, the English and Russian Commissioners; with the full concurrence of Your Majesty's Ally, the Amir of Afghanistan, have been engaged in demarcating the frontier of that Country. We assure Your Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that Your Majesty trust
  664
  that their work may tend to secure the continuance of peace in Central Asia.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that a rising in Eastern Roumelia has given expression to the desire of the Inhabitants for a change in the political arrangements under which they were placed by the Treaty of Berlin, and that Your Majesty's object, in the negotiations which have followed, has been to bring them, according to their wish, under the rule of the Prince of Bulgaria, while maintaining unimpaired the essential rights of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that under a Convention, concluded with the Ottoman Porte, Commissioners have been appointed on behalf of England and Turkey to confer with His Highness the Khedive, and to report upon the Measures required for securing the defence of Egypt and the stability and efficiency of the Government in that Country.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that, greatly to Your Majesty's regret, Your Majesty was compelled, in the month of November, to declare War against Theebaw, the King of Ava; that acts of hostility on his part against Your Majesty's subjects and the interests of.Your Majesty's Empire had, since his accession, been deliberate and continuous; that these had necessitated the withdrawal of Your Majesty's Representative from his Court; and that Your Majesty's demands for redress were systematically evaded and disregarded.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that an attempt to confiscate the property of Your Majesty's subjects, trading under agreement in his dominions, and a refusal to settle the dispute by arbitration, convinced Your Majesty that the protection of British life and property, and the cessation of dangerous anarchy in Upper Burmah could only be effected by force of arms.
  "We assure Your Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that the gallantry of Your Majesty's European and Indian Forces under Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Prendergast rapidly brought the Country under Your Majesty's power; and we humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has decided that the most certain method of ensuring peace and order in those regions is to be found in the permanent incorporation of the Kingdom of Ava with Your Majesty's Empire.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that the time which has elapsed since Your Majesty assumed the direct Government of India makes it desirable that the operation of the Statutes by which that change was effected

  665
  should be carefully investigated, and for commending this important matter to our earnest attention.
  "We assure Your Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that a protracted negotiation respecting the rights of the Republic of France on the Coasts of Newfoundland under the Treaty of Utrecht has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion by an Agreement which will be laid before us and before the Legislature of Newfoundland as soon as it assembles, and that an Agreement has also been made with Spain, securing to this Country all commercial rights granted to Germany in the Caroline Islands.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that our consent will be asked to Legislative Measures rendered necessary by a Convention, on the subject of International Copyright, to which Your Majesty has agreed.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Estimates for the Expenditure of the ensuing year, which have been framed with a due regard to efficiency and economy, will be submitted to us.
  "We assure Your Majesty that we learn with regret that no material improvement can be noted in the condition of Trade or Agriculture; and we thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty feels the deepest sympathy for the great number of persons, in many vocations of life, who are suffering under a pressure which Your Majesty trusts will prove to be transient; but we humbly express our regret that no measures are announced by Your Majesty for the present relief of these classes, and especially for affording facilities to the agricultural labourers and others in the rural districts to obtain allotments and small holdings on equitable terms as to rent and security of tenure.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has seen with deep sorrow the renewal, since Your Majesty last addressed us, of the attempt to excite the people of Ireland to hostility against the Legislative Union between that Country and Great Britain; that Your Majesty is resolutely opposed to any disturbance of that fundamental Law, and that, in resisting it, Your Majesty is convinced that Your Majesty will be heartily supported by Your Parliament and Your People.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that the social no less than the material condition of that Country engages Your Majesty's anxious attention; that, although there has been during the last year no marked increase of serious crime, there is in many places a con-
  666
  certed resistance to the enforcement of legal obligations; and that Your Majesty regrets that the practice of organised intimidation continues to exist.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has caused every exertion to be used for the detection and punishment of these crimes; that no effort will be spared on the part of Your Majesty's Government to protect Your Majesty's Irish Subjects in the exercise of their legal rights and the enjoyment of individual liberty, and that if, as Your Majesty's information led Your Majesty to apprehend, the existing provisions of the Law should prove to be inadequate to cope with these growing evils, Your Majesty looked with confidence to our willingness to invest Your Majesty's Government with all necessary powers.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Bills would be submitted for transferring to Representative Councils in the Counties of Great Britain local business which is now transacted by the Courts of Quarter Session and other authorities; that a measure for the reform of County Government in Ireland was also in preparation; and that these measures would involve the consideration of the present incidence of local burdens.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for making known to us that a Bill for facilitating the Sale of Glebe Lands, in a manner adapted to the wants of the rural population, would also be submitted to us; as also Bills for removing the difficulties which prevent the easy and cheap transfer of land; for mitigating the distressed condition of the poorer classes in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland; for the more effectual prevention of accidents in mines; for extending the powers of the Railway Commission in respect of the Regulation of Rates; and for the Codification of the Criminal Law.
  "We assure Your Majesty that we join with Your Majesty in trusting that results beneficial to the cause of education may issue from a Royal Commission which Your Majesty has appointed to inquire into the working of the Education Acts.
  "We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and that we earnestly trust that, with regard to these and all other matters pertaining to our functions, the keeping and guidance of Almighty God may be vouchsafed to us."
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Before the House passes through this stage of progress, I should like to say a few

  667
  words with, reference to some of the Irish questions raised by the Address, and which may be raised again on this stage of Report. An Amendment to the Address stood in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien). That Amendment referred to the case of the Irish tenant farmers, and to the rigour and hardship of Irish evictions, and made an appeal to the Government in something like the same spirit as the appeal made on the part of the Scotch crofters by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane). We might have pressed that Amendment to the Address, and there were many reasons why it might be supposed that we ought to have done so; but hon. Members with whom I have the honour to act considered it better, on the whole, not to press the Amendment at the time, and under the circumstances. We felt fully, of course, the responsibility we undertook in refraining from pressing so important an Amendment. We feel most keenly, I need scarcely say, the hardships and. miseries to which the Irish tenant farmers are exposed, and the dangers and penalties almost certain to fall on them during the next few months, or during the next few weeks, by the system of evictions in Ireland. We know full well, to our sorrow, what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government called a "shower of snow flakes" in the shape of eviction notices. These snow flakes are already beginning to fall, far and wide, over Ireland; and we know well the power of that "shower of snow flakes" to extinguish the fire on many a hearth. It was not, I need not say, from want of knowledge, or any want of appreciation of the importance of the Amendment, that we did not press it. We had more than one reason for the course we have decided upon taking. One reason was that we knew the Government has only recently been formed; that it is acting now under difficult conditions; and we cannot expect Ministers to be ready with a full and clear programme of policy on all points. Another reason was—we thought, if we pressed forward the Amendment, we might be misleading the Government and the House with regard to what we believe to be the relative importance of the great questions belonging to Ireland, and which will have to be discussed in this Session
  668
  of Parliament. We do think that the Government might have announced something in the nature of a measure to prevent indiscriminate evictions all over Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan) was very strong in some of the statements which he made as to the use of Her Majesty's Forces in carrying out evictions in Scotland. He reminded the House that there had been little or no use made of the troops of the Queen to enforce the carrying out of evictions under the Tory Government, and therefore that it was not likely that there would be much use made of them under a Liberal Administration. I think he was reminded on his own side of the House that there was no such absolute guarantee for the crofters of Scotland in that matter; because, under a previous Liberal Administration, the Forces of the Crown had been used to carry out evictions there. I would hope, however, from the statements that have been made, that the Government at present in Office will be inclined to do all that they can to save and protect the unfortunate tenant farmer, and to stand between him and the reckless use of the landlord's power. A law may be used so as to be either undiscriminating and merciless, or it may be so used as to be discriminating and merciful. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. J. Morley) will endeavour to use his great power and influence to make the law discriminating and merciful as regards the tenant farmers of Ireland. I hope he will consider and distinguish between one eviction and another, and endeavour to use his power—and I am sure he is so inclined—in a manner to show mercy to those who would pay and meet their demands if they could, but who, from distress and poverty, have been forced into the condition of hopeless debtors. But whilst we thought all this, there were reasons, as I have said, to induce us to forego the moving of the Amendment. We did not wish to mislead the Government and the House as to our idea of the relative importance of the Irish questions. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in his statement this evening, told us that the Government intend to deal with three important subjects concerning Ireland. First, the question of social

  669
  order in Ireland; next, what he properly called the "great question" of land in Ireland; and, thirdly, the question of the future government of Ireland. Now, we were under the impression that if we brought forward an Amendment specially dealing with the Land Question, and no other Amendment, on the Address, we might lead the Government and the House to believe that we considered the Land Question the most important, and the most pressing of all the Irish questions of the Session. Mr. Speaker, we are not under that impression. I wish it to be distinctly understood by the House—and I believe I speak the unanimous voice of the National Party in this House—that we consider the great question of Irish National Self-Government above and beyond in importance all other questions, and compassing all other questions around in its magnitude and strength. Indeed, if that question were settled, all other questions would settle themselves. [Ironical cheers from the Opposition.] I perfectly understand that cheer from the Benches near me; but I can assure those hon. Members that even in their interests—in the interests of the landlord party—it would be better by far that the question of Irish National Self-Government should be settled in advance of all other questions. The Land Question might, no doubt, be settled before the question of National Self-Government. But the landlord party of Ireland in this House may be certain that if the settlement of the Land Question is to come before that of National Self-Government, the settlement will be a more arduous one than a settlement that comes after the arrangement of the greater question. Now, the Party who were in Office— the late Government—had an admirable chance of settling the question of Self-Government if they could only have brought up their minds to the level of the crisis. They might easily have carried a measure of Home Government, for they would necessarily have had the support of a large number of Members on the other side of the House below the Gangway, and they might have carried it, not only through this House, but most easily through the House of Lords. But somehow they lost the opportunity. They went near bringing the horse to the fence, but were not willing or able,
  670
  at the last moment, to take the jump. As Atterbury said to Swift—"There was a great opportunity lost for want of spirit." Then came that mysterious change in their policy of which we, the outsiders, only see the outward and visible signs, but about which I think there will be a great deal of very curious history to be written for the instruction of a future generation. The sending over to Ireland of a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) from this House on a mission of inquiry, and the proposed visit of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), are amongst the incidents that will have to be recorded. They first sent over an inquiring Gentleman, a Gentleman with an ear-trumpet, and now they are going to send over a noble Lord with a war-trumpet. The speeches of the noble Lord on this subject remind me of a character in one of Charles Dickens's books—the famous Sim Tappertit. You remember that Tappertit is under the impression that a great social revolution is about to go on, and he declares that "something will come of it—I hope it mayn't be human gore." Thereupon he rushes forthwith to revel in as much of that said human gore as ho possibly could. I hope the noble Lord is not about to emulate the mission of the immortal Tappertit. His sacred mission has, I trust, nothing to do with human gore; but I do not think we can congratulate him on this newest effort of the Tory Party to make history in Ireland. The Home Rule Question is now in the hands of Her Majesty's present Advisors; it is placed especially in the hands of one of the greatest of English statesmen, that statesman who, beyond all other men, is qualified, and I believe is anxious, to bring it to a satisfactory settlement. There is one other reason, and I desire this to be brought to the front. Though the statesman now at the head of the Realm is vigorous and equal to the great task, we cannot count upon very many years of his active services; and it is on him we chiefly rely, among all English statesmen, for the carrying through of this great measure of National Home Rule. Among English statesmen at present I can see no one anything like so well qualified as the present Prime Minister to settle the question

  671
  of Irish Home Government. Any statesman so inclined can accomplish the settlement of the Land Question; but at present I see no one so well qualified as the present Prime Minister to settle the Home Rule Question. That is, therefore, another reason why we are most anxious and most eager that there should be no misunderstanding as to the order in which these questions should be taken; that it should be clearly understood that the question of Home Rule must take precedence of every other. The Irish Representatives and the Irish people are anxious to settle the question of Home Rule, and are clear that it must come first. Nor would it be possible for us to accept with goodwill any programme or arrangement which would put that question later in point of time than any other of the great questions affecting the future of the country. These are the principal reasons why we forbear from pressing the Amendment. We claim precedence for the great national question of Home Rule over every other question affecting Ireland. We make that claim in the name of the Irish people, and in the interest not only of the Irish people, but of the English people as well. The tenant farmers of Ireland will undoubtedly suffer in the next few months. They have suffered much already; but they are a patriotic and self-denying class of men, and they will thoroughly understand why the Irish Members of the House of Commons demand that the National claim shall have precedence of any claim they have to make. I would, therefore, strongly urge on the Government, if they are determined to deal with this great question of Home Rule, not to interfere with the chance of a satisfactory settlement by postponing it to any question of secondary interest, however intrinsically important that question may be. Most cordially do I wish that the Prime Minister and his Colleagues may be able to settle this question, and most cordially should I rejoice if my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should have a share in the great honour and gratification of bringing this long and perplexed dispute to a satisfactory conclusion. I urge upon him and. all the Members of the Government to take it from me, as the strong and unanimous feeling of the Irish
  672
  people, that until this question is settled nothing can be settled; but when this question shall have been once dealt with in a satisfactory way all the other difficulties will disappear and melt away almost in a moment.
  MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Sir, I did not think that I should ever agree in any point with any hon. Gentleman who sits below the Gangway; but on this occasion I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down on one point, and that is that Her Majesty's Government should deal, in the first instance, with the question of Home Rule in Ireland. I quite reciprocate the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman that that is the question of the hour, and that to deal in the first instance with social order and then with the question of land, holding out and dangling before the eyes of the Irish people the possibility of English concession which should culminate in the immediate future in the establishment of an Irish Home Rule Parliament, would be about the most disastrous course of policy which this House has ever pursued. I think we have a right to expect that Her Majesty's Government will give, not only to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but to one-third of the Irish population whom I and other Members from Ulster represent, a distinct answer as to their intentions about a separate Legislature in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government has informed the House to-night—the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has told us that it is not fair to expect that when they have assumed the reins of power for so short a time they should be able to give to the House a clear definition of what their Irish policy will be. Certainly, I should not be so unfair as to imagine that we could ask them to place on the Table all the details of a complicated policy. But, Sir, we have had distinct indications that there exist in the Cabinet of the right hon. Gentleman three distinct ideas upon the subject of a separate Government in Ireland. We have the speeches which have been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley). We have also the speeches of the hon. and learned Attorney General the Member for Hackney (Mr. C. Russell). But, more than that, we have had a telegraphic announcement of Home Rule policy from the Prime Minister himself;

  673
  and as the right hon. Gentleman has never denied the accuracy of that telegraphic announcement, I may take it for granted that, at any rate in the month of December, the right hon. Gentleman had become a convert to the policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House of Commons to the remarkable fact that that suggestion of Home Rule being conceded to Ireland was the most expensive announcement ever made. Never, I think, was so costly an announcement made to England as upon that occasion. The very idea that the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to favour a Home Rule policy sent down the shares of the Bank of Ireland 45 per cent. [A laugh. Hon. Members below the Gangway laugh at that statement; but they have no money in the Bank of Ireland. Railway as well as Bank shares fell in an equally alarming manner. Every preparation was made for a political exigency of a most difficult and dangerous kind; and in the North of Ireland we prepared for civil war. [Laughter.] I speak in the House of Commons exactly as I would speak in Ulster, because I state what I know to be absolutely true; and that is the effect which the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman had upon the condition of Ireland. That effect was evidenced by the effect it had on his own Party in England, for it was not simply upon the imagination of excited Orangemen that this new policy of the Prime Minister produced an effect, but also upon his own Party; for we found that the moment that indication of policy was given his own followers in England took action, and declared that they did not coincide with that new policy. Consequently, it was something far more serious than one of those reports which occasionally find their way into the public Press. I think when the House of Commons recognizes the fact that even the supposition that a responsible Minister should conceive the policy of conceding Home Rule to Ireland had such a disastrous effect upon Ireland, I venture to say that the House of Commons may realize what effect the reality of Home Rule would have. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has told us, in the speech he made at the commencement of the debate upon
  674
  the Address, that he has been thinking of I this Irish Question and its solution both night and day. Therefore it cannot have come upon him unawares. Is it too much, then, to expect of him that he will give us some definite declaration—"aye" or "no"—whether he has decided to concede the request made to him by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)? I think it is a very reasonable request which the Loyalist part of the Irish population, forming one-third of the entire population, make upon Her Majesty's Government. We are placed in a very peculiar position at the present moment. We are told that until the 1st of April we shall not have any definite indication of what Her Majesty's Government's policy will be. One of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke to-night—I think it was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)—told us that they have at the present moment no policy on the subject. But the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has given us an indication of how he intends to form a policy—he intends to enter into correspondence with the Irish people. Now, I do not think that that is a practical method, or a satisfactory manner of finally determining what the ultimate destiny of the Irish population shall be. The question of Ireland is to undergo a kind of incubation at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman; and the final hatching of the egg is to be some measure which will give peace to that country, That is a proceeding which I venture to protest against in the name of every man who values the peace and happiness of Ireland. But until the 1st of April we are to have no opportunity of speaking in the House of Commons upon the nature of the legislation proposed to be introduced for Ireland. Therefore, I must say a word as to the line on which that policy is to go. We object to Home Rule in Ireland for two reasons. We object to Home Rule because we believe that legislative separation would be an unmixed evil to Ireland herself. I admit, however, that that is a matter of opinion. Secondly, we object most strongly to the Home Rulers. There is one fact in the calculation which is an absolute certainty, and I think it may facilitate the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in his efforts to solve the Irish problem.

  675
  That certain fact, Sir, is this—that there is no doubt whatever as to the hands into which the reins of Government will fall if Home Rule is conceded. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Have the Gentlemen into whose hands the reins of power will fall given us in the past any indication of their power to carry on successfully the government of Ireland if they obtain supreme power in that country? If I were to give the character in which I view hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, I might probably be looked upon as a prejudiced witness. ["No, no!" from the Home Rule Members.] I am afraid, notwithstanding, that it might be so; and, in fact, I might be called to Order if I used language as strong as that which I propose to read in a quotation. The words are those of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself in a speech which he delivered at Leeds. It is not what may be called absolute ancient history, because the right hon. Gentleman made the speech only five years ago. I admit that in the course of five years people do sometimes change their minds; but I think that if the right hon. Gentleman has distinctly changed his mind since this speech was delivered he would undoubtedly, from the very high position he holds in the country, have said that he had changed his mind on so very important a point. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said in describing the Party of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—
  "For nearly the first time in the history of Christendom a hody—a small body—of men have arisen, who are not ashamed to preach in Ireland the doctrine of public plunder. I take as the representative of the opinions I denounce the name of a gentleman of considerable ability—Mr. Parnell, the Member for Cork, a gentleman, I will admit, of considerable ability—hut whose doctrines are not such as really need any considerable ability to recommend them. If you go forth upon a mission to demoralize a people by teaching them to make the property of their neighbours the object of their covetous desire, it does not require superhuman gifts to find a certain number of followers and adherents to a doctrine such as that."
  If I had used that language, I expect you, Sir, would have called me to Order. For my own part, I should never have thought of describing hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway as robbers led by a robber chief. But these are the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime
  676
  Minister, and the House will easily understand why even an Eastern dervish would object to place himself at the disposal of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. At that time the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had 40 followers. It is, therefore, our business to call the attention of the House to the fact that we absolutely accept this definition of the character of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his followers as being perfectly correct. The House will easily understand that we have the most determined intention of opposing to the uttermost any Government formed of men of this description. But, perhaps, the House may imagine that we exaggerate the situation; and that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends form a Government the minority will be treated with perfect fairness by that Assembly. Perhaps the House will allow me to read an extract from a speech delivered very recently by a rev. gentleman, a supporter of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; and if this speech describes accurately the treatment that we, the Loyalists, believe we are to receive if the hon. Member for the City of Cork ever succeeds, as I believe he never will succeed, in dominating the policy of Ireland it is necessary I should read it to the House. The speech was delivered in Dublin in the course of the late election for North Dublin, or rather upon the declaration of the poll. The language used was not altogether Parliamentary; but I think it is essential that the House should be acquainted with the kind of language which is used in Ireland by supporters of the hon. Gentleman. This speech appeared in The Freeman's Journal, in The Irish Times, in The Dublin Express, and in other papers; and I, therefore, suppose that it may be admitted to be accurate. As I have said, it was delivered at the declaration of the poll for North Dublin by the Rev. Father Beehan, who said—and I hope the House will pay attention to this quotation, for, at any rate, the words are remarkable—
  "The Castle officials, with distended abdomens, would have to go, for it is time for them to be on the run. They (the Nationalists) were not struggling merely for a green flag; they wanted three meals a day—[Cries of "Treason!"]—good clothes on their backs—[Cries of "Shame!"]—and employment for honest men." ["Shame!"]

  677
  That does not apply to hon. Members below the Gangway.
  "The election was over, and the real struggle was to begin now. What they wanted now was the spoils—the loaves and fishes of all those fellows who had the monopoly up to this. They wanted men of their own to he the officials for this country, to fill every situation and every occupation that they were qualified for. From the highest to the lowest, and the topmost man in the Castle must make way for one of theirs, and the lowest official in the poorhouse yonder must he replaced by one of theirs. What did their opponents do in their day? They kept everything to themselves; and now they might thank God that they (the Nationalists) gave them raw and unboiled justice."
  Now, Sir, that is exactly the point that we thoroughly understand in Ireland. We have got sufficiently epicurean tastes not to desire that the article should be cooked for us at Westminster—[An hon. MEMBER: You have cooked juries.] The raw and unboiled article which would be served up by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends would entirely disagree with the constitution of the Irish Loyalists. Therefore, we ask the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, in dealing with this question, to consider first of all the character of the men into whose hands the Government of Ireland must inevitably fall as described by their own Chief, and then to come to the House of Commons and say, with that character staring them in the face—"We have, nevertheless, consented to dismember the Empire, in order to satisfy men who have been described so aptly and so justly by the Prime Minister of England." I cannot believe that the House will ever consent to dismember the Empire on these terms. What would they gain? They would be supposed to gain one great advantage, and that is in the absence from this House of the Irish Members. But according to the scheme indicated they would not gain that advantage. You would have them here still. Indeed, Ireland appears to me to be to England what the Old Man of the Sea was to Sinbad the Sailor. Ireland has got its legs round England's neck. Take care, lest in taking Ireland off you do not break England's neck. The hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends appear to take this position in the House of Commons. They do not advocate a policy; but the hon. Member stands here as a political Warwick—to make and unmake Ministries at his will.
  678
  In the calculation the hon. Gentleman has made he has overlooked one great political factor. He may succeed once in performing this operation; but he has overlooked one factor which he will find in the end omnipotent to crush him and his objects, and that is the patriotism that is to be found in Ireland, and the love of England still to be found in the House of Commons. I have no doubt that when the House of Commons is brought face to face, as it must be in the immediate future, with the fact that in Ireland they must learn to face and crush the organization of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork is the head—that they must either do that or dismember and destroy the Empire to which they belong, they will form one united Party, and be able to deal most easily with the hon. Member and his followers, retaining still the honour and glory of England and the welfare of Ireland.
  Address agreed to: —To be presented by Privy Councillors.

  SUPPLY.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER)intimated that the House would be asked tomorrow to go into Committee of Supply.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked what the Estimates were which the Government proposed to take to-morrow?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Civil Service Supplementary Estimates.
  Resolved, That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
  Estimates referred.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Resolved, That this House will, Tomorrow, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
  SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
  (Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Burt, Mr. Macnaghten Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Rathbone.)
  SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.

    [BILL 56.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I hope the House will allow me to proceed with the second reading of this Bill. The object of the measure is to provide that no child or young person employed in a shop shall be worked for more than 12 hours in a day. The second reading was passed by the House last year without a division. It has been said that the Bill has since undergone some modifications; but that is not so. The Bill is practically the same measure as was adopted last year. We did not propose any inspection last year, nor do we do so now; because we believe that it would be to the interests of all shopkeepers that the others should conform to the law. This is no question between shopkeepers and their assistants. The great majority of shopkeepers are anxious to close earlier. I have been several times asked whether there is really any need for this Bill; whether it is possible that any large number of young persons are actually employed for more than 12 hours in the day? On this point I may remind the House that last year I had the honour to present Petitions from almost all our large cities, and finally one monster Petition containing many thousands of signatures. A meeting was held last June in support of this Bill, which was warmly supported by the Bishop of London, Cardinal Manning, Earl Stanhope, Lady John Manners, and Mr. P. Harrison, while the Chair was taken by that eminent Judge, Lord Bramwell. Lord Bramwell is well known as a staunch supporter of individual independence, and an opponent of Government interference and over-legislation. But he warmly supported the present Bill. He said—
    "No one had a doubt of the propriety of laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals. That must be admitted to be a right thing. Why? Because they were helpless; because they could not protect themselves. But they were not more helpless than the child—a two-footed creature, who was subjected to the orders and control of those against whom he was powerless to struggle. It could not be doubted that the Bill which Sir John Lubbock had brought forward was one which ought to receive the approval of that meeting. He believed a shortening of the shop hours would be a good thing for everybody concerned. He believed it would be a good thing not only for those who worked in the shop, but for their employers. It would diminish expenses, and the workpeople would be fresher and more vigorous
    680
    in the service of their master than they could possibly be now."
    The Shop Hours' League have also collected a great deal of evidence on the subject—evidence which I am sure no one can read without warm sympathy and compassion. To make my case complete the House will, I hope, allow me to give one or two cases.
    Louisa B——, aged 19, drapery, four and a half years at Battersea.
    "My hours are from 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., and on Saturdays until 12 p.m. As to meals, we are supposed to eat our food as quickly as possible, and then return to the shop. I was in perfect health when I entered the business, now I often feel ready to sink down for want of fresh air and rest. Before the end of the day, and especially on a Saturday, I feel exceedingly weary and depressed, and have difficulty in standing until the clock strikes 12. I am quite unfit to attend a place of worship on Sunday morning."
    Amy J. L——, aged 19, drapery, King's Gross.
    "I have been in business three years at Poplar, Hackney, and where I am now. At Poplar the hours were 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., at the other places from 8.15 and 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 and 10 p.m., and at 12 p.m. on Saturdays. It is often 12.30 and 1 on a Sunday morning before we get out of the shop. Meal times, about 20 and 25 minutes for dinner, and 15 minutes for other meals. I was in perfect health when I first went into the business. During the last 18 months I have been away from business three times through illnesses, which the doctor said was through the long hours. If I had a little out-of-door exercise I should be much better; and I think it might be arranged for us to sit some time during the day when we are not busy. I am always thankful when Sunday comes; but I am never fit to go to a place of worship till night."
    E.M.—in a shop in Camberwell—says—
    "Went into business between 15 and 16 years of age. The average hours are from 8 and 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 and 10 p.m., and from 11.30 to 12 p.m. on Saturdays. In my present situation we have no stated time for meals. We eat as quickly as possible, and then hurry back to the shop. Never before I went into business did I know what illness was; but since have scarcely known what it is to be free from pain. I have overflowing of blood to the head, which causes me to swoon after standing a long time. I scarcely know what it is to stand with ease for the violent pains in my feet and legs. My feelings at the end of the day are so dreadfully low and weak that I scarcely have the strength to undress. I never feel thoroughly rested when I have to get up."
    Another girl, in a shop at Deptford, said—
    "I begin at 8 a.m. and leave at 10 p.m., Saturdays 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. We have from 15 to 20 minutes allowed for each meal. We are very often called forward from our meals

    681
    to the shop to attend to customers. We leave our meals half consumed, and then the food is either cold or we get no more. When apprenticed to the drapery my health was good; but it is gradually failing, and the doctor says I am in a consumption. I am, therefore, obliged to leave at the end of the month. I have never been able to get for a walk except on a Sunday, as no respectable girl cares to go out between 10 and 11 at night. After the fatigue and worry of the week I am so thoroughly worn out that my only thought is to rest on a Sunday; but it goes too quickly, and the other days drag on slowly."
    It is stated that probably one-half of the drapers' assistants in London never enter a place of worship, and those who do are so drowsy that they can scarcely keep awake. The cases I have given are by no means of an exceptional character. In Islington, out of 250 shops counted, 200 were open at 9.30 p.m.; at Hackney, 150 out of 200 at 9.30; in Hammersmith, 200 out of 250; in Kentish Town, 120 out of 175; in Bow, 125 out of 175; in Bermondsey, 320 out of 400 at 10 p.m.; in Lambeth, 350 out of 450; in Battersea, 140 out of 200; Poplar, 120 out of 150; at Stoke Newington, 225 out of 300; in Whitechapel, 475 out of GOO at 10.15; while on Saturdays a large proportion of these shops continue at work till midnight. It must also, of course, be remembered that the assistants have to go on writing some time after the shops are closed. I have no reason to suppose that these districts are worse than others; they are merely taken as samples. Thus, as the assistants begin work, on an average, about 8 in the morning, their actual working hours are from 1G to 17 in one day, and from 13 to 14 on five days in the week. Probably it would be within the mark to say that the majority of shopkeepers' assistants work from 75 to 90 hours a-week. I have taken these illustrations from London; but the evil is by no means confined to the Metropolis. In Liverpool it is deeply felt, and my hon. Friend the Member for that City had last year a Bill dealing with the subject. The Shop Hours' League have instituted inquiries, and they state that at Brighton, for instance, the hours are about the same as in London; in Bristol they are excessively long; at Chester, Derby, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, and elsewhere they are about 80 per week. At Manchester most of the retail shops have terribly long hours. At Rochdale "they are far too long, and we do not
    682
    know how to shorten them." The Bill contains no new principle; it merely extends to shops that which is already the law in workshops; it suggests no machinery or inspection; it involves no expense; it would not interfere with trade; there would not be a yard of stuff or an ounce of tea sold less than now; and we should lengthen and brighten the lives of thousands of these poor children. Just let me ask the House to consider what 14 hours of work mean. We cannot reckon less than seven for sloop, one for breakfast or supper, half-an-hour for dressing and undressing, one hour for buying necessaries, doing their room, &c., and if we allow an hour for getting backwards and forwards we have accounted for the whole 24; and not a moment is loft for amusement, or self-improvement, for fresh air or family life, for any of those occupations which cheer, brighten, and ennoble life—in fact, we literally say that not only have they not a moment to themselves, but they are so hard worked that at the end of the week they are fit to drop with fatigue. I am convinced that all London would gain if the shop assistants had greater opportunities of intellectual, moral, and spiritual improvement. Moreover, the cruel effect of the long hours is considerably increased by the fact that the unfortunate assistants have to stand the whole time. This long standing is a terrible evil. How injurious standing is we may clearly see from the fact that though customers remain in a shop for so comparatively short a time they are invariably accommodated with seats. Considering, however, the relative need of rest as between the assistants and their customers, it must be admitted that the seats are on the wrong side of the counter. This is, happily, no question between shopkeepers and their assistants. There is no such difference. I believe the shopkeepers are almost as anxious to close as the assistants themselves. Perhaps, then, it may be said, why not leave the matter in their hands? Because in almost every case the arrangements for early closing have been rendered nugatory by the action of some very small minority among the shopkeepers. Over and over again we read that the shopkeepers in a given district are anxious to close, and have all agreed to do so with,

    683
    perhaps, a single exception. But that single exception is fatal. One after another the rest gradually open again, and the whole thing breaks down, and thus a small minority tyrannize over the rest. It seems clear that nothing but legislation can remedy the evil. Voluntary action has been tried and failed over and over again. For instance, in 1872 a South London Drapers' Association was formed in order to shorten the hours. An influential Committee was formed, and about 250 drapers joined the Association. After much labour and expense, and a great deal of canvassing, they agreed to close at 8. This arrangement began on the 2nd of September; but it lasted only about a fortnight. One by one the shops kept open. At last only the 20 Committee men were left, and then the whole movement collapsed; but before finally breaking up they met and passed a unanimous resolution that nothing short of legislation would suffice to shorten the hours of labour in retail shops. I might quote many other cases, but will only refer to one. At Sunderland a similar attempt was made, but very soon broke down in the same way. Indeed, the great majority of shopkeepers would, I believe, welcome a Bill which would prevent a small minority of unprincipled competitors from obtaining an unfair advantage. The question naturally arises whether the passage of this Bill would have the effect of throwing young persons out of employment? Now, in the first place, it is estimated that from one-half to two-thirds of the shop assistants are young persons ranging from 12 to 21 years of age, and the conditions which regulate their employment would govern the rest. Moreover, the great majority of shopkeepers would be only too glad to close if the remainder would do so. There is, indeed, one objection to factory legislation which does not apply to a Bill like the present. It is obvious that interference with manufacturers, if carried too far, might drive them out of the country, and thus, by depriving our factory population of work, defeat its own object. In such a measure as I am venturing to recommend there is no such danger. The shops, on the whole, will obviously do as much business, whether they are open 12 hours or 14, though the shopkeeper who keeps open may fetch away a little business from
    684
    his more merciful or considerate neighbour. No one, then, can say that our proposals are of a character to injure trade, while they would brighten and prolong the lives of thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS: I entirely agree with the principle of the Bill. I think it is a sound one, in the interests of the community and of young people themselves. I certainly feel that young persons between 13 and 18 years of age ought not to be allowed to work more than 12 hours a-day; but I believe that the Bill will not entirely meet the circumstances of the case. I have had a great deal of communication with persons engaged in business on the South side of London; and I venture to say that the circumstances under which the businesses are carried on there are altogether different from those which apply to businesses in the West End of London, and that it might be injurious to the interests of trade to include indiscriminately all businesses in this Bill. I hope, therefore, although I cannot object to the second reading of the Bill, that after it has been read a second time my hon. Friend will agree to refer it to a Select Committee. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the principal traders of South London—the head of a very large firm indeed—and he tells me that they are obliged to begin business at 8.30 in the morning. They have to carry on the business, which is that of a drapery establishment, until 12 o'clock in the day, when the business itself begins to slacken; and from that time until 8 in the evening—I am speaking of a part of the Metropolis where almost the whole of the community are a labouring people—the writer informs mo that he might, for all practical purposes, shut up his shop. But at 8 in the evening the business begins again, and it is found necessary to conduct the greater part of it between 8 and 12 o'clock at night. I cannot help thinking that if the Bill of my hon. Friend were referred to a Select Committee we should get evidence from persons engaged in business under different cir-

    685
    cumstances from the shopkeepers and tradesmen of the West End, and that we should get some evidence which might enable us to modify the provisions of the Bill, so as to render it useful to all classes of the community. I am afraid that if we pass it in its present form it may press hardly upon many persons who are not in over-flourishing circumstances at the present moment, and who will feel inclined to say that we have been legislating for the poorer parts of London on lines altogether inapplicable, however suitable they may be for the West End of the Metropolis. Firms like those of Marshall and Snelgrove and others may be able to shut up their establishments at 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening; but in districts inhabited by the poorer classes I am quite certain that the shops have to be kept open for a much longer time. This correspondent of mine says—
    "From 8 until 9.30 we take as much or more money as in the whole of the previous part of the day."
    He states, further—
    "Trade is not prosperous at the present moment."
    And, speaking, perhaps, a little angrily, he asks—
    "What is the need of legislation of this kind?"
    He calls attention to the fact that most of the shops at present voluntarily close at 5 p.m. upon one day in the week; and he adds that the condition of the assistants employed in the shops is improving every year without pressure being brought to bear upon the employer. I believe that that is the case. I cannot, as I said at first, resist, and I do not think that I ought to resist, in the interests of humanity and good sense, the second reading of this Bill; but I do trust that when it has been read a second time my hon. Friend will have no objection to refer it to a Select Committee. The time of the Session is very early; and I hope that every Member who would serve upon the Committee would be anxious to report at as early a date as possible. I hope, also, that the Committee would be able to find out means by which businesses which require longer hours than others may be satisfactorily conducted.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I should like to say a few words before the Bill is read a second time, seeing that the matter is one which must come under the cognizance of the Home Office. I have not yet had time thoroughly to consider the whole question; but as far as this Bill lays down that young persons between the ages of 13 and 18 should not be worked more than 12 hours in the day, which is the main provision of the Bill, I think that everyone in this House will agree that young persons of that ago should not be overworked. The Home Office look upon women and young persons such as these as being under their charge with respect to the amount of work which they may be called upon to do; and I cannot deny that it is a sound principle they should not be worked more than 12 hours. That is the principle of the Bill, and on that ground I shall not object to the second reading. But I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the Bill as it stands is altogether unworkable, and that it would not be possible to accept its provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) says that the Bill proposes to exclude from its operation those employed in licensed public-houses and refreshment bars; but these appear to me to be the persons who, of all others, require protection, and who should not be allowed to be employed for more than 12 hours a-day. Therefore, I do not think that that is a provision which the House ought to adopt. Then I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Bill does not propose to appoint any additional Inspectors; and yet the object of the Bill is to extend the provisions of the Factories and Workshops Act of 1873 to persons employed in shops. But if you do not employ persons to carry on the duty of inspection, how are you to enact that these young people employed in shops are to come under the provisions of that Act? Without some provision in regard to inspection I am afraid the Bill would be altogether unworkable. I will only say that I will consider very carefully the nature of the provisions of the Bill, and will be prepared to state my view at a later stage. I would, therefore, respectfully recommend the House to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass; but I hope my hon. Friend will allow some

    687
    interval to elapse—say six weeks or so—before taking the next stage, so that we might, in the meantime, have the advantage of the advice and opinion of those who are interested in the matter, and who will necessarily be entrusted with the working of a measure of this kind. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers) that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, I have no very strong opinion upon the matter; but I will be prepared to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), if he will consent to defer the Committee stage for a few weeks.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I hope that we are not going to discuss all the Bills that are down upon the Paper. I think it would be a wise plan to adjourn the House after we shall have disposed of this Bill. In my opinion it would be wise to adjourn before we come to the next Order of the Day. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that he agrees with the principle of the Bill. I confess that I do not see anything in the principle of the measure, or the form in which it has been drawn, to which I object; but I would strongly recommend the hon. Baronet in charge of it (Sir John Lubbock), at this early period of the Session, and after the appeal which has been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman, either to postpone the Committee stage for six weeks, or else to refer it to a Select Committee. Such accurse would not amount to the shelving of the Bill, but would simply insure that the question would receive full consideration, especially in regard to the difficulty which has been raised as to the class of persons to which it ought to apply. My own view is that the very wisest course to take, at this early period of the Session, would be to refer it at once to a Select Committee, in order that its provisions may be thoroughly discussed. I am quite sure that a Select Committee would be able to report long before the six weeks which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. I therefore hope that the hon. Baronet will accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers), and refer the measure to a Select Committee; and after this Bill has been disposed of I hope the House will consent to ad-
    688
    journ without proceeding to discuss any of the remaining Orders of the Day.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Sir, I should wish to make one or two observations, as I happened to be the Chairman of the Factory and Workshops Committee, which some years ago sat and considered this very question. I may say that while we were very ready to give relief to young persons employed for long hours, yet, for the reasons given in our Report, we did not see our way to do so in the case of shop-workers. If the House will refer to this Report of the Committee they will find a great deal of information given on the evidence of persons from many quarters of the Kingdom. The question presented a good deal of difficulty; and I am of opinion that domestic industry is a thing with which it would be inexpedient to interfere, and that legislation upon it would probably do more harm than good. We must all feel very much sympathy with young persons, women especially, who are employed for long hours; and it is within my knowledge that young women are often employed for 14 or 15 hours at refreshment bars. That is much longer than the time during which young people are employed in shops, or, at least, in such as are attached to dwellings where they take their meals. Therefore I am glad my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) has exercised caution in giving assent to the Bill. I believe that hon. Members will, on consideration, see that there is great reason for caution before giving scope to their benevolent ideas with reference to this question.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Sir, I should be very glad to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers). If the House agrees to the second reading of the Bill I will then move that it be referred to a Select Committee.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    Motion agreed to.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: Sir, as the hour is late, and the next Bill on the Paper is an important one, which there will be plenty of opportunities of con-

    689
    sidering hereafter, I shall now move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I rise to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The action of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the adjournment of the House is but too transparent, and it is one which I think ought not to be passed over without comment. At this hour I am not, of course, disposed to go against the will of the House; but I cannot agree to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman until it is ascertained. The next Bill upon the Paper is one of which the right hon. Gentleman does not entertain a high opinion; and that, no doubt, is the secret of his wish for the adjournment. But I do not see why we should not use the opportunity which is now before us of considering that Bill, as it is yet early—[Laughter]—in the morning. If I have the privilege of moving the second reading I shall not occupy more than five minutes in giving reasons in support of the Bill; and certainly there is no reason which I can see why the House should not be asked to agree to that Motion. I hope Her Majesty's Government will not accede to the Motion for the Adjournment without a more definite reason than that given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, of whom the Earl of Beaconsfield once said that no sooner did we begin business in February than he wanted to know when we should rise for the Easter holidays. I trust the House will not agree to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 142: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 5.)

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN).— [BILL 70.]
  (Mr. Woodall, Sir Robert Fowler, Mr. Houldsworth, Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Yorke.)
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN).— [BILL 70.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEY: Sir, when I opposed the Motion for the adjournment of the House I promised that I would
    690
    not occupy more than five minutes if I had the privilege of moving the second reading of this Bill, and I intend to keep that promise. I must apologize for appearing hero for that purpose, because my name is not upon the back of the Bill; but the House will be a ware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall) has accepted the position of Surveyor General of Ordnance, and I can only regret that the Bill has now passed from his hands. In the meantime, until further charge of the Bill is taken by some hon. Member, I have promised to look after it. Sir, the simple ground on which I shall ask the House to accept the measure is one which I believe will commend itself to hon. Members on this side—it rests upon the principle laid down some years ago by the present Prime Minister, that the franchise ought to be extended in every ease unless it was barred by personal unfitness or political danger. Now, I think it is impossible to allege that the enfranchisement of women comes within either of these qualifications. We have already given the franchise to women in the election of school boards, and also in the election of municipal councils, and in each case in the opinion, which has been verified by experience, that they were not personally unfitted to exercise the franchise. Now, what is the allegation made as to the political danger of giving them the franchise? I say it is an allegation which I am ashamed to hear, and one which I think those who make it ought to be ashamed to utter. They say that the giving of the vote to women would be politically dangerous; they refer to Primrose Leagues, and say that it will add to the Conservative strength in the country. Now I do not believe that. The experience we have had of the use of the vote given to women in connection with school boards and town councils is not consistent with that declaration. That experience shows that women are divided in opinion very much as men are between the two political Parties; and there is no reason to believe that the extension of the franchise to them would lead to any increase of Conservative strength. Even if it were so, I should not hesitate to extend it to them. I hope that the support of hon. Members who sit on this side of the House will be given to the Bill, and that they will not

    691
    say that they oppose the enfranchisement of women because they believe it will benefit one political Party more than another. Now, I believe that if there is any fear of danger from the Primrose League, and from the introduction there from of women into politics—an introduction not of a direct character—that such fear or such danger will be lessened, if not altogether removed, by giving women the privilege of claiming to vote; for, in my opinion, it is simply because they have not been allowed to have the vote as a privilege and as a right, and to feel what they owe to the country in giving their vote, that we have witnessed the action of women in respect of some elections which does not appear to have been inspired by the best possible motives. But, Sir, I look to this gift to have the greatest influence over the character of women themselves. Because it will give them a larger range of ideas, because it will introduce them to the highest and best in the public life of the country, I would give the franchise to women. I would give them the franchise even if I anticipated some temporary political danger. But there is no ground whatever for that anticipation; experience has shown that the danger is imaginary. There is only one other observation I wish to make, and that is in relation to the framing of this Bill. This Bill proposes to give the electoral vote to all women, being single, unmarried, or widows, who possess the same qualifications in respect to property which now gives to men the right to vote. I do not think it can be seriously said that danger would attach to the gift proposed to be given by this Bill; and I most sincerely and confidently recommend the Bill to the acceptance of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. PULESTON: I do not propose to detain the House more than one moment. What I am particularly desirous of saying is that a large majority of the Members of the House will support this Bill upon grounds altogether different to those stated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney). It is not for the House to consider whether there is any fear of danger involved in the en-
    692
    franchisement of women—the question is purely and simply whether women are entitled, under our Constitution, to the franchise. The supporters of this measure claim that the franchise rightly belongs to women. Personally, I do not share the opinion the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) entertains as to the effect which will not be produced, nor do I share his opinion as to the effect which will be produced, by the passing of this measure. Single women or widows who pay rates and taxes either have a right to the franchise, or they J have not. I claim that they have a right to it. It was felt by many that the passing of the Franchise Bill last year afforded Parliament a fitting opportunity of adopting the principle embodied in this Bill. I regret to say, however, a great many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), and others whom I see sitting near the hon. Gentleman now—though pledged to the principle of this Bill, deliberately voted against the proposal to engraft it upon the Franchise Bill. I contend that there would have been very little difficulty in passing through both Houses a clause embodying this principle in the Franchise Bill, because it was shown that a very large majority of the Members of both Houses were then in favour of the enfranchisement of women. Such being the case, and knowing as we do that at least 100 Members upon the Ministerial side of the House pledged to support the Bill in obedience to a Party Whip deliberately went into the Opposition Lobby when the question was introduced during the passing of the Franchise Bill, I trust the second reading will be agreed to without further delay.
    MR. EVERETT: I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this Bill. I am fully convinced that there is no class of people now exercising the franchise in this country who would exercise it more intelligently and more independently than would the class this Bill proposes to enfranchise. I know many women who, but for the fact that they are women, would be voters, and they feel most keenly the deprivation they suffer in not being allowed to exercise any influence in the passing of the laws of this great nation. We have a lady as the Sovereign of this

    693
    Realm; we have admitted ladies to exercise votes in respect to the lower departments of public life; and to exclude them from any voice in the doings of this House, where measures more important than any others are debated and passed, appears to me to be a very unreasonable and inconsistent proceeding on our part. With the certain knowledge that a large number of this class of persons would exercise the franchise intelligently, independently, and with an earnest desire to do good to the country, I most heartily support the second reading of this Bill. I believe that by passing this measure we shall still further add to the strength which was given to the nation by the extension of the franchise during the last Parliament.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I appeal to the House whether the length and character of the speeches to which we have just listened is not a very good argument that this is not the hour or the occasion on which we can properly debate this measure? Whether the Bill is a good or a bad Bill it is a very important Bill. It proposes an enormous and unknown addition to the franchise—an addition to the franchise of a class of persons totally different from those who have hitherto voted. It comes, too, on the very morrow of the largest addition to the franchise we have ever had, when I think everyone might have wished and have expected there should be a little breathing time to see how the addition of last year worked. It is only by the merest accident that it has been possible to bring this Bill on to-night—a Government night—and now we are asked to hurry it through with five-minute speeches. I dare say the speeches are excellent. Still, they are only five-minute speeches, and a Bill of this sort should not be dealt with in five-minute speeches. In point of fact, if the Bill is read a second time now it will, for all practical purposes, have been read undebated; and to carry a Bill of this nature, excellent as it may be—and I am not inclined to admit it is excellent—would be nothing less than a scandal: it would be a misfortune, because it would lower very considerably the national respect which is entertained for the way we do our business. I wish to spare the time of the House, and therefore I do not now argue the Bill on its
    694
    merits, as I should have done at another and more reasonable hour; to-night it is quite sufficient to argue on the points I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney), who moved the second reading, pointed out that it was only proposed to enfranchise widows and spinsters, and not married women. Whether that is an advantage in itself or not—whether it is an encouragement of morality or not, I will not say. But this I do say—that the safeguard is tainted with the proverbial worthlessness of all safeguards. We know that a safeguard, generally speaking, amounts to dust to be thrown in someone's eyes. If we allow dust to be thrown in our eyes in this case, we shall in a short time see very respectable married women clamouring at our doors and demanding a share in the government of the country.
    MR. JAMES STUART: I, Sir, also intend to make a short speech, although short speeches have been so much complained of by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Beresford Hope). I am rather astonished that it should be felt that to debate a subject in five-minute speeches, if they are to the point, is a disgrace to this Assembly. I am sure that a Bill like this, which has been so long before the country, and so frequently before the House of Commons, is much more effectually dealt with in such short speeches as have just been deprecated than in long speeches. I have to argue in favour of this measure in the briefest possible manner. It is a measure of justice, Mr. Speaker; and on that ground I, for one, base my support of it. We give the franchise to classes or bodies of persons for a double reason—first, because they have their own interests to protect; and, secondly, for no less a reason—namely, that it is very difficult to ascertain what will benefit a given class of people, or what is the best way to deal with their difficulties, unless we have the opinions of that class before us. There is no officially recognized method by which the opinion of any body of persons is brought to the notice of this House, other than the recording of votes at the ballot. Women are at this moment gifted with a considerable amount of political influence. That political influence is now exercised free from any responsibility, and that is an evil and a misfortune. If we could stop their political influence we might get

    695
    rid of the misfortune; but we cannot do that now; and, therefore, why not attach responsibility to it? I believe that the varied misfortunes which have been so repeatedly foretold and indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University to which I have the honour to belong will vanish under the happy touch of responsibility.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I do not propose to detain the House even for the proverbial five minutes, but merely wish to add one argument which seems to have been overlooked by hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken—an argument which, I think, is not unworthy of the attention of the House. It appears to me that one of the best arguments in favour of granting this measure of justice to those who have been denied it so long is that women, as the mothers of future generations, can and do exercise considerable influence upon the minds of those who are to come after us. We have every reason to believe that it will be to the interest of generations yet unborn that the mothers of our posterity should be able, by having the vote, to take such an interest in political matters as will enable them to educate properly the minds of their children. For during the early years of childhood, when the infant mind is most open to receive impressions, it is from the mother, rather than the father, that the child derives that instruction which it most readily assimilates. No one can have studied the history of this country without knowing that this question has been debated many years; and, therefore, if we can dispose of the subject now in five-minute speeches much good will result.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I am one of the many new Members of the House; and if I feel a little diffidence in making a short speech upon this Bill, the House, I am sure, will accord me its indulgence. Sir, it does astonish me, as an Englishman and as a Member of this deliberative Assembly, that at 1 o'clock in the morning, and in three or five-minute speeches, a great Constitutional change—a change greater than any that has ever been effected in any country in the world—should be made by a jaded Legislature. ["Oh!"] I suppose that I, a new Member, feel more tired than experienced Members, and that I have used an improper word. I heard some hon. Members who sup-
    696
    ported this Bill speak of having had experience of women franchise. Where? I think that it is only in the somewhat wild States of America—the Mormon State, for instance—that the franchise has been given to women. We are asked to make this enormous Constitutional change on such experience as that. The speeches of the two Members who last addressed the House were, I consider, strongly opposed to the measure. Those hon. Members spoke of the weight and importance in the country of married women. All the advocates of this measure based their support of it upon the circumstance that the grievance which one sex suffers springs from the action of the other sex, and that those grievances cannot be redressed because the one sex have not the vote. Now, the grievances of which women complain spring from the marital relation. I suppose, quite unconsciously, I have been very amusing; but if we read The Woman's Suffrage Journal, a copy of which was sent to me to-day, we find that it is because of the behaviour of the husbands, and the rights which they exercise over the property of their wives, that the women demand the franchise. It is because husbands come home drunk and kick their wives, and sometimes injure the children—it is for all these reasons, which seem to me to be associated with the marital condition, that the franchise is wanted for women. Well, the hon. Members who bring in this Bill propose to give the franchise to women who know nothing about these reasons, widows who had known something about them, and spinsters. Let us reverse the case. Let us suppose that in this country the franchise was conferred upon women, and not upon men, and that we, the men, wished redress from the grievances which we suffer from the women, those grievances arising only as they can arise, out of the marital relations. I have repeatedly said I suppose I am very amusing; but I would respectfully ask the House what grievances spinsters and widows suffer from men? Well, should we be satisfied if it was proposed to give the franchise only to old bachelors and widowers? The hon. Member based his argument upon the question of personal fitness, yet he seeks to exclude the fittest of their sex who are selected for the

    697
    most important function. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter; it is getting beyond that. We are excluding the most fitting of their sex—namely, those who are selected for the most important functions. All the grievances suffered by women arise out of the marriage relation. Most Members in this House are desirous of seeing classes represented, and the class of women who suffer grievances at the hands of men are not the spinsters and widows, but the married women; and if women are to be represented at all, the married women ought to have their interests represented in Parliament. My hon. Friend on my right says that married women do not pay taxes; but that is not the point. The point is whether we shall give women, as women, the vote, or not. Further than that, if we pass this Bill, it is inevitable that we must eventually admit women to Parliamentary representation. I will tell the hon. Member why I think so. Will women be satisfied by being represented by persons of the opposite sex? Is it likely they will be satisfied by the franchise being given to widows and spinsters? It appears to me inevitable that they would demand to have women Representatives of women. We are not satisfied unless we have class Representatives; and it is obvious that the women will not be satisfied unless they are represented by their own sex. I have only one word more, and that is that a measure so important as this—more important than any Reform Bill that was ever introduced, whatever its scope might ultimately be—ought not to be left in the hands of a private Member, but should be dealt with on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: I have risen so often in past Parliaments to discuss this question that I should not have taken part in the debate on this Bill if it had been brought on under ordinary circumstances. I do not intend to discuss the merits of the question now; but I think that an opportunity should be afforded for those who oppose the measure to be in their places. My hon. Friend was within his right in moving the second reading of this Bill; but I think I am also within my right in saying that it was not expected that the second reading would be taken to-night. That being so, I will not detain the House by entering into arguments to
    698
    show that this is a very grave question. We all admit that; for it is clear that the Bill would interfere with the political prospects of this country—and still more so on any future extension of the franchise hereafter. Such a question does not deserve to be dealt with in five-minute speeches. In this new Parliament, when the subject was being discussed before Members who had, probably, never heard it discussed before, I think that so important a measure should not be introduced for the first time at this hour. At all events, it cannot be dealt with, at least, from the point of view of those who oppose it in five-minute speeches; for they have much to say upon the subject, and the opportunity is not afforded them to-night to discuss it. I appeal to those who support the Bill. If it is to have any weight in the country, will it not be better, before voting for or against so grave a change, to learn the views of the occupants of the Ministerial Benches? I will keep my word, and I will not take part in the discussion of the Bill; but those who are opposed to the principle of the Bill ought to have an opportunity of addressing the House; and, therefore, with a view of enabling others to discuss the question, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Henry James.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): There is a great deal of force in what my right hon. and learned Friend has said upon this subject. When the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) suggested that we should adjourn the House I quite concurred and voted with him, and I am sorry that the majority was not in favour of adopting that course. Although, after all, we might deal with small measures on the first night of a Session, it has never been according to custom to deal with Bills of first-rate importance on such occasions; and, as everybody knows that this is a measure of first-rate importance, nobody expected that it would come on at this Sitting. My right hon. and learned Friend thought very properly that so important a question should not be taken when none of the Leaders of the Party opposite are in their places. It is perfectly certain that this division

    699
    will be regarded in the House and in the country as a snapped division. Everybody knows that it is so. Nobody expected that the question of female suffrage would be dealt with to-night; and it would not be fair to the House or to the country that in a new Parliament, and at such an hour, a question of such magnitude should be dealt with in this absurd way. I shall certainly support the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend for the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not second the proposal, because the Motion for the adjournment of the House was suggested by him to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary.
    SIR JOHN GORST: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) rose, he had no intention of moving the adjournment of the debate until it was suggested to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have heard a great deal on previous occasions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about submission to the will of the House; and if ever there was a division taken which showed the will of the House, it was that which was taken a short time ago, when the House deliberately decided that it would deal with this question now. What is the objection to this course? It is that the question has not been adequately discussed. If this was a new question, there might be a great deal in that argument; but it is a very old question, and has been discussed over and over again; and although we have had amusing speeches to-night, there has not been one single new argument advanced on one side or the other. Now the House, which is a full one, has decided that they would come to a division on the second reading to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, and we all know, that there will be ample opportunity for those who oppose the Bill to express their opinions upon it in its future stages; but I do not suppose that there are half-a-dozen Members in the House who have not made up their minds upon this subject years ago; and all I ask is that
    700
    in this full House, in obedience to the will of the House, we shall be allowed to express our opinion on the second reading of this measure. Under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Motion to a division; but if he does, I trust the House will adhere to its former decision.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to point out to new Members what the Motion for Adjournment really means. If the Motion for Adjournment is agreed to, all hope of passing the Bill must be abandoned, for it will inevitably be blocked or talked out on future days, and would have no chance whatever of being passed. The proposal to adjourn the debate is exceedingly disingenuous; but the effect of it, if passed, would be to prevent the Bill now before the House having any legislative effect. The supporters of this Bill are entitled, when they get a chance, to bring it forward; and they should have the courtesy of the House extended to them now that they have secured an opportunity of doing so.
    MR. JAMES STUART: The history of this Bill shows that, for many years past, it has always been lost because of having been talked out on a Wednesday, or because of having been blocked after half-past 12 o'clock at night. On that ground, and because the measure has been fully discussed over and over again in past years, I beseech the House not to lose this opportunity of passing the second reading of the Bill, but to allow the subject a fair chance of being considered by the new Parliament.
    MR. PULESTON: Reference has been frequently made to-night to the position of the Bill, and its chance of coming on again if this opportunity is lost. I may be allowed to suggest what will be easily understood by everybody—that if we take a vote on the question of the adjournment, it will be a direct vote against the second reading of the Bill, and not only a direct vote against the second reading, but against the principle of the measure. I would point out that this is not the first, or the second, or even the third time that this and similar Motions have defeated the Bill; and I shall be curious to know, after we have taken the division, how many hon. Gentlemen pledged up to the eyes to support the measure have gone into the Lobby on a Motion of this

    701
    kind to defeat it, as they did last year when the Reform Bill was before the House.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: I wish to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Sir William Harcourt) for one moment. It will be in his recollection that many Members on this side of the House, during last Session, and at a critical moment in the progress of the Reform Bill, deliberately supported the Government when they appealed to us not to give our votes in favour of this measure. Well, to-night I have been reproached by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) for the course I took on that occasion. I would remind him that I got up on that occasion, and appealed to the House net to jeopardize the measure before it, but to postpone the vote on the principle of the proposed change to a time when the matter could be decided on its merits. I consider that that time has now come. I should be quite content if 25 out of every 100 Members have made up their minds on the Bill. When the Reform Bill was before us, and that curious move was made by the House in the sudden conversion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were supposed to be supporters of this measure, I had an idea that the feeling then was that it would embarrass the Government to extend the franchise to women, and might lead to the defeat of the Franchise Bill. I would remind my hon. Friend that it will be found that all those who honestly express themselves in favour——
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that of the adjournment of the debate; and I would remind the hon. Member that he must confine himself to that.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 102; Noes 159: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 6.)
    SIR HENRY JAMES: I would crave the indulgence of the House just to say one word. I am not disposed, if I may say so, to press this matter further. We have made our protest in asking for the adjournment of the debate; but as the adjournment has not been agreed to, and as there is so large a majority against it, it would, it seems to me, be discourteous to continue further opposition. I would appeal to the opponents of the Bill not to take a division against
    702
    the second reading. If we do the result may be misunderstood in the country. For my own part, I shall take no share in any division, as I think it desirable to make our stand on another stage of the measure.
    ME. CREMER: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) appeals to hon. Gentlemen below him to postpone the consideration of the measure. I wish to observe that there are many Members of the House who would have been glad to have spoken on the subject if an opportunity had been afforded them—hon. Gentlemen who feel very strongly on the subject before us. For myself, I should be sorry to separate myself from my political Friends; but, in common with many others, I feel very strongly on the matter, and should have liked to have spoken. We have, however, come unprepared to do so, not anticipating that the subject would come on to-night; and, under the circumstances, I think we are entitled to ask the indulgence of hon. Members.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 2nd March.
    Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr. John Talbot.)
    House adjourned at half after Ono o'clock.