RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 05 March 1886 vol 303 cc20-53

MR. LABOUCHERE

, in rising to move the following Resolution:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is inconsistent with the principles of Representative Government, that any Member of either House of the Legislature should derive his title to legislate by virtue of hereditary descent, said, that the Prime Minister had lately described himself as an "old Parliamentary hand;" and, though he himself would not have ventured to speak in such terms of the right hon. Gentleman, it was obviously the doing of one who thoroughly understood Parliamentary tactics that Motions such as the present were arranged to come on upon Fridays. By this arrangement Members were asked not to vote according to their opinions; but it was asked that all those who wished the government of the country to be properly carried on should vote against any Motion standing on the Paper on these occasions and in favour of going into Supply. He maintained that if this were insisted on, and if hon. Members were to be told that whatever was the grievance brought forward, and however strongly they might think on the subject, as a matter of fidelity to the Government, they were to vote against it, discussion would be an end. He trusted, therefore, that the Prime Minister would allow them to vote upon this Motion according to its merits, and he hoped that this would extend to the occupants of the Treasury Bench. He was sure that many of thorn entirely agreed with the Motion which he had brought forward, and he had no doubt that they had been delighted when they saw that he had put it down, and that they were most anxious and eager to vote in favour of it. At the last General Election they had had an authorized programme and an unauthorized official programme. The unauthorized programme went somewhat further than the authorized one; but it seemed to be in accordance with the wishes, opinions, and views of that House, since it had been upon an item of the unauthorized programme that the late change of Ministry had taken place a few weeks ago. Besides these, the people had a programme of their own. It was expected that the Government would shortly propose a radical change in those fundamental laws which regulate the legislative relations between England and Ireland, which hon. Members opposite regarded as the very basis of the Constitution. But they had a grievance on this side of the Channel as well as the Irish, and that grievance affected the Irish as much as it affected themselves. They desired to repeal any species of union between the elective legislator and the hereditary legislators, and both in Ireland and England they asked that that union should be treated as they would treat the Castle in Ireland. Last year they had passed a Reform Act. Some time before that Lord Beaconsfield, in speaking of the House of Lords, had said that it practically represented 26,000,000 of population in this country who had not votes. No Conservative would raise that argument at present. They had taken away that electorate from the House of Lords, and the decisions of the House of Commons were now, to all intents and purposes, the decisions of the whole country. Such an argument was only possible when representative government was a mere sham. The country was now becoming democratic, and hereditary legislators were an anachronism in a democracy. There were Liberals, perhaps, who thought differently. The term "Liberal" was at present a somewhat vague one; and, for his own part, he did not profess quite to know what a Liberal was. He himself was a Radical, and consequently he knew what Radicals were. Owing to the indepen- dence and frankness of their nature, Radicals sometimes differed upon small points; but they were entirety united in this opinion—that all legislative rights should spring from the people, and they all objected to the existence of any hereditary Legislature in this country. If any hon. Gentleman told him he was a Radical and took an opposite view, he would say to that Gentleman, with the utmost respect, that he regarded him as a humbug. If such an hon. Gentleman was under the impression that he carried his constituency with him in opposition to the Motion which was now brought forward, he would recommend him to consult his constituency. He thought that there had not been one Radical or Liberal meeting during the whole of the last Election campaign at which this Resolution would not have been carried almost unanimously; and if any Gentleman questioned that—he referred to Gentlemen on his own side of the House—let him call a meeting of his constituents, and let him decide by what they thought. He was himself in favour of a single Chamber; but his Motion did not go so far as that, and the House was not asked to give an opinion upon that point. Perhaps the House had not made up its mind whether there ought to be one Chamber or two. It was true, however, that they had the highest authority—he was speaking of hon. Members opposite—for the existence of a single Chamber. Lord Beaconsfield himself had said that nobody wanted a second Chamber, except a few disreputable individuals, and that it was a valuable institution for any Member who had neither distinction nor character nor talents. [Cries of"Where?"] Well, it was in one of Lord Beacons-field's early works, and he never clearly gathered that his Lordship had altered his opinion. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckinghamshire (Captain Verney) had put down an Amendment to this Motion. He confessed he could not quite make out what that Amendment meant; but, so far as he could understand it, it seemed to imply that the second Chamber was an evil, but a necessary evil, and that they should be satisfied with the evils which they had, and should not fly to others that they knew not of—in fact, that they might go further and fare worse. But, in his own opinion, the House of Lords was not quite so innocuous. It was powerless for good, but it was powerful for evil, as he trusted he would be able to show them. Up to 1832 the aristocracy had been paramount in this country not only in the House of Lords, but in the Executive and in the House of Commons. In 1797 a Petition had been presented to that House, representing that 306 Members were almost entirely returned either by noblemen or borough-mongers who wanted to become noblemen. Since 1832 popular government had advanced by leaps and bounds, and there was now a permanent antagonism between that House and the other House. In these two Houses they had two antagonistic principles, which could no more unite together than oil and water. Who was the first Peer in ordinary cases? He did not wish to make personal remarks, but they knew very well that the first Peer had very often been a borough-monger, or a person who had done some service, or a Court favourite. The other day he had asked the Secretary to the Treasury a Question with regard to the services of the ancestors of one Peer. The hon. Gentleman had evaded the Question, and had asked him to go back to sixteen hundred and something to find out what they were. He had before maintained that because a man had been clever and had gained a Peerage it did not follow that his son was clever too. The Prime Minister had once contested that proposition, and cited the case of the two Yorkes, father and son, who had been Lord Chancellors; but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to mention that the second of them felt so strongly that he was not fit for the position that he had blown out his brains as soon as he had gained the appointment. Peers, like humbler individuals, had mothers as well as fathers. They did not spring from the heads of their fathers, as Minerva had sprung from the head of Jove; and, in fact, mothers had as much to do with the intellect of the son as fathers had. Painters, poets, or lawyers were not hereditary. It was true that in France there had been hereditary lawyers; but one of the first things the Revolution did was to sweep away hereditary lawyers, as he would have that House sweep away hereditary Peers. If there were to be hereditary legislators they did not adopt the right plan. They ought to find the most intelligent persons in the country, take them when young, bring them up to be legislators, and, when they had reached the years of maturity, marry them to Girton girls, and then, perhaps, they might get some sort of result. But when the hereditary Peers had condescended to be born, what was their training, and what were their amusements? Were they such as were likely to make them efficient legislators? In the House of Lords there were Peers connected with the Naval and Military Services. Now, though, no doubt, military training made a good soldier, no one would assert that the training of a soldier was good for making a legislator. The Peers lived in the country and were great Thanes—bulls of Bashan—great men in a small locality. When they came to London for the season they occupied their time much as most idle men did. He had never seen in what they did or said any sign on the part of the great bulk of Peers of any attempt to educate themselves for the duty of legislators. One would suppose that they would go to the House of Lords to learn how to legislate. What was the fact? Hon. Gentlemen sometimes went themselves to the House of Lords to look on, and he thought that the best cure for those who admired the House of Lords was to go and look at it when sitting. On great occasions they flocked up from all parts of the country, and sat on their Benches like sheep, and voted like sheep; but, on ordinary occasions, a visitor would find some Peer making a speech to half-a-dozen others until the dinner hour approached, when all present vanished like ghosts. The mass of Peers did not attend except when some great division was to take place. They did not, like Members of the House of Commons, attend regularly to learn their business. Some Peers, no doubt, had devoted themselves to politics. But how were they rewarded? We were so exceedingly grateful to them for doing it, that, whenever their Party came into power, we at once gave them some Office, and felt proud of their condescension in taking into their charge some portion of the affairs of this great Empire. No doubt, there were some excellent men in the House of Lords who were exceptions; there were men like Lord Salisbury and Lord Rosebery, who were exceedingly able men; but there were albinos in Africa, and this fact did not entitle anyone to describe the Natives of Africa as white men. They knew that every Member of this House possessed the greatest wisdom; but in a former House of Commons there were some fools, and they could not say it was a House of fools because there happened to be half-a-dozen fools among them. Neither could they say the House of Lords was a House of wisdom because it contained a few able men. The fact was that their system was this. It was as if they took a lady's lap-dog and bred it up in a drawing-room, and then imagined he would turn out a good sheep-dog. Their whole system was bad. It was said that the House of Lords did not entirely consist of hereditary Peers, and that it was constantly being recruited from the cream of the nation. But was that the fact? Who were the Gentlemen who were ordinarily made new Peers? Some of them were politicians, but politicians who had been bores and nuisances in this House, and were kicked upstairs. It was not generally the rule to select the new Peers from politicians, but to select Gentlemen who were rich men, who had inherited large estates, or who had made large fortunes and bought large estates. He would take an instance, since it was one of the latest, the case of Sir Henry Allsopp. He selected the case of this Gentleman not invidiously, for he believed he was a most respectable man, but as being a typical one. This Gentleman brewed beer, and by so doing he acquired a fortune. No one could say that he distinguished himself very much as a politician. No doubt, he voted very often for his Party in the House of Commons, and very likely he subscribed to the Carlton Club. As a consequence, Sir Henry Allsopp was made a Baronet. No one objected to Sir Henry Allsopp or anybody else being made a Baronet. It would be almost cruelty to animals to refuse anyone a Baronetcy who asked for it. A Baronetcy pleased the Gentleman himself, and was a matter of perfect indifference to everyone else, except, perhaps, his wife. He would as soon think of refusing a thistle to a hungry and pleading donkey. But Sir Henry Allsopp was not satisfied with his Baronetcy, and he was considered worthy of the dignity of a Peerage. This afforded good cause of complaint, for it gave him and his descendants the hereditary right of legislating for the country. It was often said that the House of Lords was retrograde. This was scarcely surprising. What was the first step that Sir Henry Allsopp took when he had become a Peer? He wrote to The Times complaining that he had been described as a brewer, and saying that he had ceased brewing; and at a bucolic festival which occurred in the country shortly afterwards, when his tenants congratulated him on being made a Peer, some gentlemen present suggested that Lord Hindlip was descended from one of the Plantagenet Kings. He (Mr. Labouchere) had taken this Gentleman as an instance, and he did not exactly know whether or not he had a son. An hon. Member near him said he had a son in this House. Well, would that hon. Gentleman, if he survived his father and went up to the other House, prove a useful Member of that House in connection with commerce? Would he allude to the paternal butt? In all probability he would think much of his Plantagenet ancestors, and that the respected vendor of intoxicating liquor, to whom he owed his title, would be entirely forgotten. He did ask upon what principle in the world were they to assent to Sir Henry Allsopp's son, grandson, and great-grandson hereditarily ruling over them? The House of Lords consisted entirely of men belonging to one class, whereas the boast of the House of Commons was that in it every class was represented. Last year one of the reasons given for reducing the expenses of elections was that poor men might come into the House, and now there were nine working men sitting on that side of the House. Lord Salisbury had said that— In these days any institution that is sectional in its character, and has not the interest of the whole community for its object, is necessarily doomed. Trying the House of Lords by this test, Lord Salisbury ought, if he considered the matter, and happened to have a seat in the House of Commons, to support this Motion. There were in the Upper House 402 hereditary Peers. They owned among them 14,000,000 acres, producing a rental of £12,000,000, which was an average of 35,000 acres each, and an average income of £30,000. A great deal had been said about the Irish Land League; but could anyone conceive a more pernicious Land League than that which existed in this country? Of course, being landlords; they legislated in the interests of landlords; and, as a consequence, our Land Laws were the disgrace and opprobrium of the country. These Gentlemen beat people off the land to make way for game; there were vast tracts of land uncultivated. Even at death they shirked paying the Death Duties; the farmers had no fixity of tenure; and the labourers were almost starving. Moreover, these Gentlemen appeared to think that 35,000 acres was the proper share for a gentleman; but when starving labourers came forward and asked for a miserable three acres and a cow they were treated with contumely. What could be more absurd than to suppose that any single class, when they had the power, would legislate for any class except themselves? They might as well, in an assembly of cats and mice, imagine the cats would legislate in the interests of the mice. It might be thought that, being so rich, these noble Lords were personally independent. But was this the case? A more self-seeking body of men did not exist. ["Oh!"] He would prove it. There were three Orders of Knighthood which were conferred without any pretence of merit in the recipients, being simply given for the purpose of keeping them sweet, as he might call it, to the Government. In addition, almost half the Peers were Privy Councillors, and a large number of them were Lords Lieutenant. When a Ministry was turned out, Gentlemen in the Upper House fought hard for places with a salary. They were ready to accept a place in the Government or at Court, and to perform duties which Gibbon said the noblest of Roman Emperors would not have caused the meanest patrician to do for him. One Gentleman got a sum of money for looking after the Queen's dogs, another Gentleman for looking after the Queen's horses, and a third for looking after the Queen's footmen. He had been counting up what they received from the State, and, leaving out of consideration the sums received by Royal Peers and Bishops, Members of the House of Lords annually received out of Government funds £338,776. When it was proposed that Members of the House of Commons should be paid, it was said that this would be degrading, and would destroy its independence. Yet a very small sum of division showed that these hereditary Peers, notwithstanding their vast wealth, were paid out of the public Treasury an average of £700 per annum each for their services. But that was not all; they had relatives. There was a very valuable book published annually—namely, The Financial Reform Almanack, [Much laughter.] He could understand that some hon. Members opposite did not like that publication. It appeared from it that the relatives of Peers had received from 1855 up to the present date £120,000,000 sterling. As some slight mistake might have been made in the calculation, he would deduct £20,000,000 from the total. Surely £100,000,000 was a very considerable sum for some 400 or 500 families to have received from the Exchequer in 30 years. It appeared that each Duke had, since 1855, had 56 relatives living upon the public Exchequer. It might be asked why not, on the ground that these relatives were just as good as other people; but it must be remembered that other people also wanted to live. In 1873, the present Prime Minister stated that there were multitudes of competent men who would gladly take the places of the worst paid public servants. Lord Palmerston used to say, "The best man for a place is the man I like best;" and so, apparently, thought the Peers. Last year the House of Commons passed a Corrupt Practices Act. He regretted that its scope had not been extended, so as to include the cases of corrupt practices occurring in the other House. Hereditary legislators possessing hereditary votes seemed to consider that they had a perfect right to take them to the best market. An ideal Upper Chamber would be above all partizanship, and would hold the balance equally between the Parties in the Lower Chamber. Did the House of Lords perform any such office? ["No!"] There was no more partizan Assembly in the country. The air of the House of Lords was too foul and stagnant for Radicals to live in it. There was no Radical there; even Liberalism drooped in that House. The Upper House was an Assembly of Conservative partizans. Therefore, when the Conservatives were in power the House of Lords was per- fectly useless, because they concurred, as a matter of course, in everything proposed by the Tory Government. But when the Liberals were in power the success of their measures depended upon the goodwill of the Conservative Leaders in the Upper House. At the beginning of the last Parliament a Bill was brought in by a Liberal Prime Minister enjoying the confidence of the country for the purpose of providing compensation for disturbance in Ireland. The Government held that the Bill was necessary in order to enable men to rule justly in Ireland, and yet the Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords. Remembering that fact, he laid every outrage that had been committed in Ireland since that period at the door of the other House. Of the measure in question the Prime Minister had said— It was an Act which would have averted by far the greater part of the dangers and difficulties that have arisen. The House of Lords had committed one of the most deplorable errors of judgment which ever misled or bewildered a public Assembly. Then the House would remember that later in the existence of the late Liberal Government a Franchise Bill passed through the House, and that the House of Lords consequently refused to pass it. The Conservatives in the country were apparently opposed to it. What followed? There was an Autumn Session, and the Prime Minister had to go hat in hand to the Leader of the Conservative Party and make terms with him, the Conservatives being at that time in a minority in the House of Commons. It would be remembered that when Amendments were afterwards proposed by a Liberal Member, the reply in many instances that came from the Ministerial Bench was that such Amendments, although not objectionable in themselves, could not be acceded to by the Government, because they were not within the scope of the bargain made between the Leaders of the two Parties. That was an instance of the way in which the Upper House acted as a Tory Caucus. Now, was not such a state of things extremely humiliating? He could understand that Conservatives wished to perpetuate such a state of things; but he was surprised that there should be Gentlemen on his side of the House who also wished to perpetuate it. He could only suppose that they were afraid of their own principles; that after professing those principles on the hustings, in order to secure their return to Parliament, they were exceedingly grateful when they found that the action of the House of Lords was likely to prevent the embodiment of those principles in legislation. What was the spirit that animated the House of Lords? Lord Hertford, who had all the attributes of an average Peer, had lately stated that the speeches of Mr. Chamberlain and others belonging to that right hon. Gentleman's Party were incentives to disorder and riot, and that the Attorney General had delivered revolutionary speeches; and the noble Lord asked whether it was not a strange thing to put a man in the position of Under Secretary for Home Affairs who at onetime was under police surveillance? He added that he supposed we might soon see a notorious burglar, like Peace, supersede Sir Edmund Henderson at the head of the police, and went on to say— It behoved them all to do their best to spread loyal and Conservative principles, so that when the time came they might get rid of the Socialistic, Republican, Radical Government, and put in its place one containing men like Lord Salisbury and other noted Conservatives. The spirit disclosed in the remarks of Lord Hertford animated nearly the whole of the House of Lords, and it was high time that Liberals should proclaim that they would not be coerced and bullied any longer. Now, what was the position of affairs? The Prime Minister had recently returned to power with a large majority from England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland; and it was his intention to produce on the 1st of April—[Mr. GLADSTONE dissented]—well, some time in the month of April, a scheme which he had not yet revealed, but which in all probability would be a scheme of Home Rule for Ireland. Lord Salisbury, however, had declared that if such a scheme were proposed the House of Lords would fulfil their duty and reject it. Lord Salisbury thus claimed the right to veto any measure passed in the House of Commons, and to provoke a Dissolution at his pleasure. He held that that would be an outrageous right to grant to anybody; but Lord Salisbury was the very last man who ought to possess such power, because he was the candidate for the Premiership at the last General Election, and the country had declared that it had no confidence in him. That he should be able to prevent the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury from carrying out the policy which he held to be desirable would be most monstrous. Liberals, it appeared, could only hope that they would be able to bribe the other House into agreeing to the wishes of the House of Commons. Much was sometimes heard about the integrity of the Empire; but he had observed lately that the rights and property of landlords were also much talked about, and it was possible that the House of Peers would allow the integrity of the Empire to drop out of sight if clauses were inserted in the contemplated legislation for the purpose of giving to the landlords far more than they had any right to expect. When Liberal reforms were proposed in the House of Commons, were Liberals always to be threatened with a Dissolution, and to be forced to bribe or coerce a privileged class into agreement? Lord Beaconsfield once stated that the legislation of the future would be in the direction of weakening the great landed class in the Constitution. He could only hope devoutly that it would. It seemed to him that, in accordance with that sound principle, they ought not to maintain the existence of an hereditary class of landlords, who openly avowed, that they were there in order to prevent the House of Commons doing that which was for the benefit of the country. Even in Liberal Cabinets the baneful influence of the House of Lords was felt. In the last Cabinet there were, perhaps, not quite so many Peers as usual; but almost every Member of that Cabinet was a relative of a Peer. The only two who were not were the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister for War (Mr. W. H. Smith). And what did the aristocracy say of them? They contemptuously admitted them, and said—"We will admit Marshall and Snelgrove." In the present Cabinet, too, there were a good many Peers, and two Members of the Government outside the Cabinet were Peers. There were two objections to that. One was that a Peer, when he was a Member of the great Executive Council of the Nation, must have very great influence; and, as a rule, Peers were not so liberal as Members of the House of Commons. Therefore, that was a bad thing. But a stronger objection was that the great Offices of State ought to be represented by their heads in the House of Commons. No doubt their subordinates were very excellent and intelligent Gentlemen; but he had always observed that when a question was asked of any one of them, they said that the noble Lord at the head of the Office had said so and so. If the House of Commons did represent the country, the heads of the great spending Departments should sit in that House. The evils of the House of Lords were obvious. Almost every other institution in the world had some counterbalancing advantage; but the House of Lords was the only Assembly that he ever knew of that had absolutely no counterbalancing advantage. The Peers might be very excellent men, but being in the other House they might as well live in the planet Saturn. Lord Salisbury had said that the abolition of the House of Lords would lead to the establishment of triennial Parliaments. His reply to that was that he wished there were now triennial Parliaments, as they would be a very good thing. He thought they could not too often consult the electors. But they were also told that the House of Lords saved the country from hasty and precipitate legislation. When did they ever do that? For an instance of that they would have to go back to the last century, when the House of Lords threw out Fox's East India Bill. It was perfectly true that that was an act on their part to which the constituencies of the country agreed; but it must be remembered that the majority in the House of Commons at that time bore the reflex of the aristocracy, and the constituencies did not represent the people. Was it humanly probable that the Members of the House of Commons, elected by the country as their Representatives, would deliberately say—"We will act in such a manner that the country will not approve of us?" Members of that House were far more likely to know the will of the people, and to act according to it, than the House of Lords, who did not and could not know it, and lived far away up in the moon. When once a Bill had passed the House of Commons, it was perfectly certain to become the law of the land, no matter what the House of Lords did. The people had invariably stood by their own Represen- tatives, and when the House of Lords had appealed against the House of Commons it had been proved by the result that the House of Lords had been in the wrong and the House of Commons in the right. It was absurd to talk about the House of Commons being precipitate. Precipitate! Why, it was the longest-winded Assembly in the world. It was very seldom, however, that the Lords threw out Bills. They were a very great deal too astute; they mutilated and marred Bills, or, rather, they did that when the Liberals were in power, but when the Tories came into power they introduced a Bill containing the very same provisions. He would give two instances of that. In 1868 a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons and passed, which did something towards doing away with the unhealthy dwellings of the artizans; but the House of Lords struck out all the clauses relating to unhealthy dwellings. Seven years later, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was Home Secretary, he brought in a Bill replacing those very clauses which had been struck out of the Bill of 1868 when the Liberals were in power. He did not think he was exaggerating in saying that the right hon. Gentleman had frequently boasted of that Act to the country as a proof of what he and the Conservatives did for the working classes. Again, in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1871, the House of Lords inserted clauses against picketing; and yet in 1875 they brought in a Bill doing away with those very clauses. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite to show him one single useful act the House of Lords had done during its whole career. Their action had been one consistent war against all reform, municipal and Parliamentary, against all the sound doctrines of political economy and commerce and religious equality. Their mission had been to obstruct, and mar, and mutilate every sound Bill that had passed the House of Commons. He did not say that they were worse than other aristocracies. He did not say that they were worse, even, than other men. He had no doubt that if any other class was given such honour that class would legislate for itself. He even believed that the purest and best of men—he alluded to journalists—would do the same. They were told that it would be impossible Constitutionally to abolish the Hereditary Legislature. Lord Salisbury, speaking a day or two ago, had said that the abolition of the House of Lords could only be achieved by violent and revolutionary means; and then this defender of the Constitution went on to state that if this inevitable struggle took place the House of Lords should not have to rely upon the high sanction of Constitutional authority, but should have just a taste of physical force in the background as well. The late Secretary for India (Lord Randolph Churchill) had also said in Ireland that there would be a taste of physical force even if Lords and Commons passed a certain law. But why could not the House of Lords be ended Constitutionally? Nothing could be more simple than to create 300 Peers and swamp the present House. He really believed there was such patriotism on the Benches on which he sat that he could find 300 Gentlemen upon them who would ascend the political altar of their country and sacrifice themselves in that way. But if there was to be a struggle between the House of Lords insisting on maintaining their present position, and the vast majority of the people of this country, with their Representatives, insisting on an alteration being made, physical force would not be of any great avail, even if Lord Salisbury led it. An hon. Gentleman had put down an Amendment to his Motion, to the effect that he wished the House of Lords should be reformed in accordance with the principles already recognized in the constitution of that House. But he would point out to the House that he was not asking them to decide between the system of one Chamber and another; but he wanted to reform the House of Lords, not in accordance with the principles already recognized, but in accordance with the principles recognized by every sane and sensible man outside the House of Lords. The reform that he wished for was that the hereditary legislators should disappear. The lines of demarcation between Parties were very artificial at this time. What united the Liberal Party was a personal tie to the Prime Minister. They were faithful to the Prime Minister owing to the great services he had performed for the Liberal Party. He believed that the only men in that House who really knew their own minds were the Radicals. After the Reform Bill of last year they were landed in a Democracy, and Democrat and Radial were convertible terms. Democracy re- cognized no class distinctions, no hereditary legislators; and Democrats regarded a Hereditary Legislature as an insult, an absurdity, and an abomination—they regarded such an Assembly, claiming to overrule the decision of the Representatives of the people, as a baneful and pernicious institution. In the great tribunal of the country the case had been heard and judgment had been given; and the country called upon the House to give effect to that judgment.

MR. DILLWYN

seconded the Resolution.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inconsistent with the principles of ^Representative Government, that any Member of either House of the Legislature should derive his title to legislate by virtue of hereditary descent,"—(Mr. Labouchere,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BRODRICK

said, he thought that the hon. Member for Northampton, in the interesting exhibition which he had just afforded them, had hardly treated the subject with the seriousness that it demanded. The hon. Gentleman's description of the composition of the House of Lords was an extraordinary caricature and a ridiculous exaggeration which would not be received with much respect in the country. There was no class of men which was more violent in their vituperation of the House of Lords than the Radicals when on the war path, and yet whenever they found themselves with a Peer who adopted their own views, there was no body of men more ready to idolize him and throw themselves at his feet. The President of the Local Government Board had, as everybody knew, spoken very strongly against the Upper House, and he had pointed out Lord Salisbury as one of those who "toiled not neither did they spin," urging that his opinions in regard to artizans' dwellings and social reform should be accepted with some reservation because of his aristocratic feelings. That was an indictment against every Member of the other House; but a few weeks afterwards the right hon. Gentleman went down to a political meeting in the country, and having succeeded in getting a young Peer of no great experience or services—the Earl of Durham—to take the chair for him, he pronounced an elaborate eulogium upon him, as being one of those who, having come forward to assist the Radical Party, could never be accused of neither toiling nor spinning. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose opinions on this subject had peculiar force, because unless he was grossly maligned he would not be averse to take his seat in the House of Lords, and on the formation of the present Government had been willing to face the dismay of the Legal Profession by accepting the Woolsack. That right hon. Gentleman went some time ago to speak in Dorsetshire, and he invited to take the chair a Peer who had since been rewarded with the Office of Postmaster General; and the right hon. Gentleman said that if every Peer was like Lord Wolverton no one would take objection to the House of Lords. All that showed that it was the politics and not the composition of the other House that they were asked to deal with on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Northampton did not deny that there was a useful minority in the other Chamber. The fact was, that this minority was really a majority. Now the present House of Lords consisted of 521 Members. Of that number 182 had previously sat in the House of Commons, and had therefore experience of legislative work from having contested and being chosen to represent constituencies. Surely those who were fit for the work of legislation in one House could not lose their qualifications by being transferred to the other. Then there was the class of Peers who had held, not mere ornamental posts, but high administrative, judicial, and other offices, the permanent civil servants, and, again, men like Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester, who had peculiar knowledge of the Services to which they belonged. They mounted up to 50 more. Again, there were 26 Bishops who had risen by no hereditary rank, but solely by their own merits, to the positions they occupied, and who, it could not be doubted, if they had followed other than spiritual functions, would have been found well qualified by education and cultivation to legislate for the country. There were altogether between 250 and 260 men, or rather more than half the House of Lords, who belonged to these classes. It was, therefore, preposterous for the hon. Member to speak of the House of Lords as if capable men in it were as rare as albinos in Africa. Why, there were in the Upper House no loss than eight Peers who had sat side by side with the present Prime Minister in different Cabinet?, but who had not on this occasion found their way there. The hon. Member had been guilty of the grossest exaggeration in regard to the sums of public money paid, as he represented, in pampering hereditary legislators. He challenged the hon. Member to show the House how he arrived at his calculation that £380,000 per annum of public money was enjoyed by Members of the House of Lords. He believed that there were not at this moment more than 30 paid Members in the other House; and he felt satisfied that the hon. Member could not produce authentic documents to prove his extraordinary calculation. Again, great ignorance existed as to the proportions of Peers who attended in the other House. He admitted that a certain number of Peers did not attend to their functions, and he should be as much inclined as anyone to say that those of that Body who did not value their privileges should not be enabled to exercise them. But he had taken the statistics of attendance for a period of eight years. During that time from 330 to 400 Peers who attended the House spoke and voted, and the average amounted to 340 per Session. He did not, of course, say they were there every day; but the average for one year before Easter, although there were no divisions and few debates of importance, was 120. The hon. Member said that the House of Lords, as at present constituted, was a body of partizans. But whose fault was that? Since the Reform Act of 1832, of nearly 200 Peers added to the House of Lords more than two-thirds had been added by Radical Administrations. These, then, were the "spawn of corruption, and blunders, and wars of the dark ages of history," of whom the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had spoken. Why did Peers who were sent up from that House become Tories? It was, he believed, because they had no occasion to be afraid of constituents as to the course they pursued with regard to legislative measures; but then it had to be remembered that they voted according to their principles. It had often been said that Radicalism was a good faith to begin life in, but it got stale in middle age, and it was a bad faith to die in. That was evidently the view shared by those who went to the House of Lords. What the hon. Member and his Friends really wanted was a House of Lords consisting of Radicals, hall-marked by the Caucus. If they looked at the work of the House of Lords fairly, he did not think they had much reason to complain; but he would like to see a body of life Peers added—men of legislative instincts and experience, who might replace those who could be deprived of their legislative functions through non-attendance on their duties, as that would strengthen the House. He asked the House to note the circumstance that the hon. Member did not say that he wished the offices attached to the Court to be abolished, or the salaries connected with the appointments done away with. It seemed to him that he would evidently be satisfied if his Colleague the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh), and perhaps Mr. Schnadhorst became Master of the Horse and Master of the Buckhounds in succession to the present holders of these offices. As to the action of the House of Lords with regard to the Bills sent up from the Commons, that action, he thought, must, on the whole, be regarded as beneficial. It had been said the House of Lords never did anything to the advantage of the country; but he utterly denied the accuracy of that statement. He thought the hon. Member was unfortunate in his comparison in taking as an illustration the last Reform Bill. Could any hon. Member doubt that the hands of the Prime Minister were strengthened for carrying out the Redistribution Bill by the action of the House of Lords? The result of their action in that instance was that a more complete measure of Reform was produced than they could have expected in the fifth year of an expiring Parliament. Much exception had been taken to the action of the House of Lords in throwing out the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. It was quite true; but the House of Lords thought that the series of measures which the Prime Minister had brought forward would not result in the pacification of Ireland. Would any hon. Member say that those measures had had this result, or even that the present attempt of the right hon. Gentleman was one which justified those measures and the strain which he had put on Parliament during all those years? The strongest position of the House of Lords was in reference to measures which had not received due consideration from the country. The hon. Member had said that the issue of the Home Rule scheme of the Prime Minister was in the hands of Lord Salisbury. He need hardly remind the House that no hint of the scheme of the Prime Minister was given to the country until a fortnight after the General Election.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)

I broadly contradict that statement. The declaration was made on the 13th September, and nothing whatever was ever added to it.

MR. BRODRICK

Did the right hon. Gentleman in November ever make any declaration with respect to large schemes dealing with land in Ireland?

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I spoke of the Government of Ireland. No declaration was made as to land.

MR. BRODRICK

I said scheme.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

No scheme was hinted at.

MR. BRODRICK

said, the fact of a radical and complete change with respect to Ireland was first brought before the country broadly in the month of December, at the very moment when the constituencies, having given their verdict, could not be consulted on it. The House of Lords could ensure a due attention by the Government of the day to the wishes of the people. The House of Lords had shown its usefulness in many ways, and they had a right to ask that their House should be fairly judged on the measures they had promoted. He was surprised to see how many of the questions on which the minds of labourers and artizans were excited had been first brought forward and debated in the House of Lords. The questions of the transfer of land and the freedom of entail were subjects which, but for the initiative of Lord Cairns, would certainly have not been treated in the last Parliament. Reference had been made to the subject of artizans' dwellings. Would the hon. Member deny that the question of artizans' dwellings coming so prominently to the front were due entirely to the action of Lord Salisbury in writing an article in a magazine, afterwards bringing the matter before the House of Lords, and moving for a Royal Commission? Take, again, the question of intemperance. The House of Lords appointed a Committee to inquire into the matter, and a Report had been presented to Parliament. He hoped that in the Local Government Bill of this Session some attempt would be made to grapple with this question. No hon. Member would deny that the Select Committees of the House of Lords were attended with greater vigour than those of the House of Commons. He had often heard lawyers bear a tribute to the superior way in which the Private Bill Committees were conducted by the Peers in comparison with those of the House of Commons. Again, the House of Commons might imitate without any derogation of its dignity the businesslike manner in which the Business of that House was transacted. With regard to the strictures of the hon. Member on the composition of the late Cabinet, and the number of Peers and relatives of Peers which it included, he denied altogether that those criticisms were either just or fair. The last Cabinet represented the people as truly as did the present Cabinet, and this could be tested by the reception half-a-dozen Members of either Cabinet would receive at popular gatherings in the country. He hoped the House would not be hurried into a decision adverse to the hereditary principle. When we had a body of Peers who had given their services to the country, as many of the Peers had done, with all the knowledge they had of Quarter Sessions business and of local government, with the experience many of them had gained in the House of Commons, and the advantages others possessed in having filled high governing offices, we ought to halt before we condemned the hereditary principle. If it were necessary to modify the working of that principle, he did not think there would be any difficulty about doing that. It was said that this House had already emancipated itself from the influence of the other House, and the day might yet come when the impulses of this House after an election might be advantageously restrained by the more settled habits of thought which were favoured by the independence of the other House.

BARON F. DE ROTHSCHILD

said, he should not have spoken but for a sentence in the speech of the hon. Mem- ber for Northampton. He understood the hon. Member to say that one reason for sweeping away the hereditary system was that the unsatisfactory character of our Land Laws was due to the abominable and disgraceful conduct of the landlords. Although he was as staunch a supporter of the Liberal Government as the hon. Member himself, he could not assent to the charges which he understood the hon. Member to make, and, therefore, he must be allowed to protest against them.

MR. LABOUCHERE

corrected the hon. Gentleman with a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.

BARON F. DE ROTHSCHILD

said, he had understood the hon. Member had spoken of the disgraceful conduct of the landlords. This country had achieved historic greatness long before the democratic principle had asserted itself in the composition of the House of Commons; and, therefore, if landlords had exorcised the influence with which they were charged or credited in the past, it must be admitted that they had done something to promote the historic greatness of the country.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said, that the hon. Member for Northampton could scarcely have intended to do irreverence to the memory of his uncle, who was a Peer, so that the hon. Member was himself a relative of a Peer and one of the class of whom he had affected to speak so contemptuously. The real intention of the hon. Member must be something different from that which was suggested by the guise he assumed; and for the meaning of his speech, as for that of a manifesto of the Prime Minister, you must read between the lines. The hon. Member would not favour a retrograde measure; it would be one to deny the value of the hereditary principle; and, therefore, the House must in this case look deeper than the surface for the springs of human action. The doctrine of evolution was announced and established by Darwin. His investigations were carried further by Mr. F. Galton, who studied not merely the transmissibility of physical qualities in the lower animals and man, but also the transmissibility of intellectual qualities and the heredity of genius. It was some 10 or 15 years since he read Mr. Galton's book, the scope of which was that genius was hereditary. Mr. Galton took certain classes of persons who were more noted than others, who were eminent above their fellows, and he looked into their parentage and relationships. The body of men he singled out in order to prove his case was the House of Lords. Although there were varieties of degree in genius and ability in that House, yet it was found that elevation to that House did mark some degree of eminence over the ordinary run of men. Consequently, a philosopher, a man of science, studying the question said that a body of men which did include men of more or less eminence afforded him the illustration he required in order to prove the hereditary quality of genius. The author said that not only was genius transmissible from father to son, but it was curious to find traces of it in the ancestors and collateral relatives of distinguished men, in brothers, in uncles and nephews, and even in female relatives. If Mr. Galton's investigations were worth anything, they proved that the possession of particular qualities had something to do with the accession of men to the Peerage; and, therefore, the abolition of the House of Lords would be a retrograde measure which it was inherently improbable that the hon. Member for Northampton, as an advanced reformer, would desire to support. Looking to the terms of the Resolution, it was not desirable to discuss the merits of the existing Assembly; it would be time to do that when such a Resolution was moved by a responsible Minister. It was said that long ago many persons were promoted to the House of Lords because they were relatives of persons of unruly wills and affections. The hon. Member might make the best or the worst of the amours of Charles II.; and, indeed, he would give the hon. Member all the 17th century. The House was probably familiar with a publication which was named on the principle of Iucus a non lucendo. That publication brought the hon. Member in, as he had stated himself, £5,000 a-year. Judging from analogy, the hon. Member did not wish the House to support this Resolution. The publication to which he referred was hardly anything else than a Court Circular. It was nothing but a record of all the sayings and doings and tittle-tattle of the Court, and nobility, and gentry of the Realm. If the House of Lords were abolished, that paper would no longer bring in £5,000 a-year. It was absolutely im- probable that anyone would wish to lose £5,000 a-year. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman, in conducting his publication, was most pronounced and particular as to the minuteness and accuracy of his information about any Royal Family; and if he could find out that the Princess of some obscure German Principality took three lumps of sugar in her tea, and could convict a contemporary, not so well-informed, of the glaring inaccuracy of saying that she took two, he chuckled for a month over the transaction. After that, he turned round and, by the assistance of his staff of gossip gatherers, vilified the very people whom he had been describing. The outside public would naturally think that anyone who should act in that way was a very mean and contemptible person. But the true conclusion was that the hon. Gentleman so acted in order to win sympathy for the persons he attacked, and in proposing this Resolution he was actuated by the same motives. There were one or two other matters in which he had acted in the same way. In what he advocated he wished to be defeated. On a former occasion, the hon. Member propounded a scheme of Home Rule, and it was so ridiculous and impracticable that it settled the question for a century. No doubt, the hon. Gentleman brought forward the scheme because he was desirous of maintaining the unity and integrity of the Empire. Again, in the clôture debate, when hon. Members feared that freedom of debate would be curtailed, the hon. Gentleman said that if a Radical Government were in Office and proposed a measure, he would give the Conservatives half-an-hour to pass it. That was the reductio ad absurdum, and it was clear that the hon. Gentleman, by acting in that way, wanted to defend the rights of minorities. He hoped he had proved, by the analogy of these cases, that the hon. Gentleman did not want the House to pass this Resolution, that he brought it forward with a deep meaning, and that he did not mind being thought con-contemptible and mean. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

MR. SPEAKER

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not pursue that line of observation; he was not entitled to apply such language to another Member of the House.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said, he would at once withdraw the expression. What he intended to show was that the hon. Gentleman did not mind having his motives misconstrued, and that he could in a new and unsuspected way promote a good object. He would therefore vote, as he was sure the hon. Member wished him to vote, against his Resolution. For his own part, he did not ask for any reward for having discovered the real nature of the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman would send his gossip gatherers down to his neighbourhood, he might find something that would suit him; but he should consider himself fully remunerated for being vilified in Truth.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)

I shall have the honour of voting this evening in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, though I shall not be able to justify my vote on precisely the same principles, so far as I am able to understand them, as those which characterized the latter part particularly of his speech. The early part of it, with respect to heredity, I thought to be extremely interesting, particularly had we been a metaphysical society, and, no doubt, there was a considerable degree of truth in it; but I do not think we can found ourselves broadly upon the propositions he advanced. I thought it right to leave the debate to proceed for a certain time without intervention, because I was not able to join issue with the Mover of this Motion in terms as broad and as unqualified as I thought probably hon. Gentlemen opposite might be disposed to adopt. I am very glad that the question has been stated on both sides, by the Mover as by the hon. Member who replied to him, with so much precision; because mixed with all the sarcasms of the Mover of the Motion there was, I thought, in the speech he delivered much of a substance of a very grave and serious nature. I will make the admission also that I thought the hon. Member opposite defended the House of Lords with great ingenuity and talent. But, Sir, my position is not that of either the one or the other. I am not able to adopt the defence of the legislative action of the House of Lords that was given by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said, very naturally I think, that this House has very little reason to complain of the House of Lords. But I want to know who in this House have very little reason to complain? As for the hon. Member himself, I admit that he and his Friends have had very little reason to complain of the House of Lords. But I am bound to say, without entering into details which would be fitter for some other occasion and for a more searching debate, I cannot deny that I think the nation has much to complain of in regard to the legislative action of the House of Lords. And the hon. Member himself distinctly indicated that such must, at any rate, be our belief, because he said that the indictment against the House of Lords, which in terms purported to be that the House of Lords was made up of partizans, really meant that they were Conservatives. That might be perfectly true; but if the House of Lords are from year to year, from Parliament to Parliament, from generation to generation, deliberately and consistently Conservative, and if at the same time the country, as tested by General Elections and at the very least 11 out of 13 Parliaments, has been Liberal, it is assuredly no very great error to say that a case may have happened which may incline a Liberal Parliament to make some complaint of the action of the Conservative House of Lords. Sir, I cannot agree with the hon. Member that we are very much indebted to the House of Lords for its conduct with respect to the Franchise Bill. He said that by means of the conduct of the House of Lords we were enabled to carry the Redistribution Bill, as to which he thought even I should have admitted that it was in the power of the minority of this House, with the use of its Forms, and without recurring to the extreme use of its Forms, to check, and effectually to render futile, the action of the majority. But, although it may be perfectly true that after once rejecting the Franchise Bill, after causing the country to be agitated through an autumn, and after having presented to it the second issue of a most formidable conflict, the House of Lords did then give way, I cannot help saying, why was that course not adopted on the first occasion? It was not owing to any change on our part. There was nothing done by us on the second occasion which we did not from the first make known our readiness and desire to do. ["Oh, oh!"] Nothing whatever. And when I am told that the House of Lords gave way upon the second occasion, it reminds me of an observation which is almost always made on the occasion of public festivities, when the speaker—particularly if he is a Liberal speaker, I am bound to say—is charged with the business of returning thanks for the House of Lords, and that stock observation is as a capital panegyric on that illustrious Assembly, that the House of Lords never pushes its resistance to measures sent from the other House of Parliament to the point of causing revolution. Well, that is perfectly true; but is that a reason why we ought to be contented and pleased with the action of the House of Lords? My reasons for opposing the Motion of my hon. Friend are in brief these two. In the first place, I never, I believe, have voted upon a question of importance for a declaration of an abstract opinion in regard to a matter involving deeply the public interests unless I was able to follow up that Resolution by action. I do not press that hard upon my hon. Friend. I cannot wonder that hon. Members in this House frequently find it a necessity for themselves in the difficulties in which they are placed, in order to give effect to their opinions, to resort to the proposal of abstract Resolutions. But there is some difference in this respect between the position of independent Members and the position of those who hold Office. As regards those who have for the time or the hour the honour of being Ministers of the Crown, the adoption of a Resolution of this kind is a virtual promise to give it effect. In my opinion there is nothing which would so much excite the suspicions of the House, nothing which would throw it into such a mood of vigilant jealousy, as the detection of any tendency on the part of the Ministry to deal in promises in lieu of dealing in performances. [Ironical cheers.] I understand the meaning of that cheer, but I do not think it is a very sharp one. I think that the promises of which I speak are promises embodied in the Resolutions of this House. I apprehend that with regard to the action of a Minister, unless the Gentlemen who cheer may think it is perfectly possible—and, perhaps, such is their opinion—for him to do everything at once, and without a moment's consideration—I apprehend in regard to his future conduct, what he may do next week or next month, when he speaks of anything in the future he may be said to deal in a promise. That is a necessity of the case, and no such necessity is incumbent on this House. With respect to these promises, they are promises of action; but the practice to which I now refer is not a form of action, it is a form too often of evading action, and of keeping an engagement in the letter, while in act there is no fulfilment of it in the spirit. But I cannot say that I could entirely adopt the Resolution of my hon. Friend, even if we were in a condition—which we are not—to deal with the great subject of what is called the reform of the House of Lords. We have reached a point—and it is worth remarking—at which all hon. Gentlemen appear to admit that there ought to be reforms in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman opposite had not only made that admission, but he had made it as an assertion, and he appears to hold that opinion with vigour and decision. The question of what those reforms ought to be—when we come to it—is a very large question, indeed, and I do believe that when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—should it be his fate—comes to deal practically with this subject, he will find it a larger subject than he is disposed at the present moment to imagine. I was rather struck by hearing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) say in warning tones to-day that we ought to think once, twice, and thrice before proceeding to deal comprehensively with the case of the House of Lords, because it reminded me that I once used that very expression myself in a public speech, and that upon my having used that expression there was founded a series of volleys from the whole Tory Press of the country which nearly blew me to pieces; and they said it was a clear proof that as "he had only to think once, twice, or thrice, and then to do it he entertains the most revolutionary doctrines." Such is the effect produced by change of times. But my hon. Friend has paid to-day an indirect compliment to the Bishops, for he proposes to condemn by his Resolution—

MR. LABOUCHERE

De minimis non curat lex.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

If my hon. Friend considers that de minimis non curat lex disposes of the question of the episcopal seats in the House of Lords, I gather that to be a declaration by my hon. Friend that when Motions are made in this House on the subject he will not condescend to take any part either by his speech or by vote. My hon. Friend has, at any rate by silence, given his sanction to the episcopal seats in the House of Lords. Perhaps he will say he did not mean that. Then, Sir, I will say that that illustrates one of the objections I take—namely, to dealing piecemeal with this subject. This great question ought not to be prejudiced by premature discussion. You ought to leave the whole field open, and you ought not to narrow or restrict the means of future action by laying down beforehand a limited condition that whatever you do you will totally abolish the hereditary principle. I am not going to ask the House to affirm anything about the hereditary principle. I am not myself entirely inclined to its total abolition. I have said, with regard to the legislative action of the House of Lords, that I cannot defend it. I cannot deny that there is a case for large and important change—change very difficult to effect, but change for which there is sufficient and ample reason. But do not let the hon. Member suppose that when he talks of abolishing the hereditary principle he is propounding an opinion which it will be as easy to give effect to as it is undoubtedly popular and musical to the ears of men. The House of Lords has, in my opinion, great sources of strength in this country quite apart from its legislative action, In my opinion its great strength is not in its legislative, but in its local action. It is in the local action of its Peers individually—certainly not of all of its Peers; there are a part of them who are abandoned to the tender mercies of my hon. Friend or of anybody else by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the clever, able, and ingenious champion of the House of Lords to-night—but it is impossible to deny that in a multitude of local circles in this country there are many Members of the House of Lords—many eminent Members of the House of Lords—who do not draw their chief eminence from conspicuous political action, but from useful services rendered, along with great capacity and opportunity for such services, to their neighbours and to the community in which they live. These men have driven deep roots into the soil, and these men are the strength of the order to which they belong, just as the idle Peer and the worthless Peer are both the disgrace and the weakness of their order; and much, Sir, will have to be done before you can arrive, I will say, at a rational conclusion on the question when you come to deal seriously with the constitution of the House of Lords, and what course should be taken with respect to the hereditary principle as to either its extinction—which I for one am not prepared to affirm—or as to a limitation of its range. But the general conclusion which I draw from this view of the case is that this is not a question to be dealt with piecemeal. I certainly cannot vote for a Motion to which I could not give effect even if I accepted the terms of the Resolution of my hon. Friend. These terms appear to me to be far too wide and sweeping, and to tend not to an increase, but to a diminution, of our future means of action. When I say our future means of action, the question which I put just now may be retorted upon me, and I may be asked—"Whose future means of action?" Certainly, Sir, it will not be mine. I speak in the presence of those around me and in trust for those who are to come; but I think the House will do well, while reserving this great subject for a time when its whole power, its whole attention, and its whole freedom can be concentrated upon it—and I am quite certain that when that time does arrive all your means and all your resources will be required in order to deal with it worthily—the House will do well to decline to deal with it in a manner which I think would not be worthy either of the dignity or of the high character of this House, or of the greatness of the subject itself, by laying down a particular opinion in respect of a particular point in the future—perhaps distant—discussion of a great public subject as to which we might find, when the time came, that the only effect had been that such a declaration had fettered us in our freedom of action and made still more difficult a practical solution of a question which, under all circumstances, when it arrives, will in itself be difficult enough.

CAPTAIN VERNEY

, who rose amidst loud cries of "Divide!" said, he only wished to reply to a remark which had been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with regard to himself. They had all listened with great pleasure to the hon. Member's speech; but that speech lacked one thing—it lacked that courtesy towards Members who disagreed with him which young Members expected from older Members. The hon. Member was not entitled to say that those who differed from him were necessarily humbugs, or that they advocated upon the hustings principles which they were afraid to advocate in this House. When the hon. Member for Northampton knew him better, he would not repeat that charge. He regretted to have obtruded upon the House, and would not have done so except to repudiate the unworthy observation of the hon. Member.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 166: Majority 36.

AYES.
Acland, rt. hn. Sir T. D.	Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.
Acland, C. T. D.
Addison, J. E. W.	Clarke, E.
Agg-Gardner, J. T.	Commerell, Adml. Sir J.
Allsopp, hon. C.	Compton, F.
Allsopp, hon. G.	Cooke, C. W. R.
Ambrose, W.	Corry, Sir J. P.
Amherat, W. A. T.	Cotton, Capt. E. T. D.
Asher, A.	Cranborne, Viscount
Ashmead-Bartlett, E.	Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.
Baden-Powell, G. S.	Cross, H. S.
Baily, L. R.	Currie, Sir D.
Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.	Curzon, Viscount
Balfour, G. W.	Dawson, R.
Barnes, A.	De Cobain, E. S. W.
Barttelot, Sir W. B.	Dimsdale, Baron R.
Baumann, A. A.	Duckham, T.
Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-	Duff, R. W.
	Duncombe, A.
Beadel, W. J.	Dyke, rt. hon. Sir W. H.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.
Bethell, Commander	Eaton, H. W.
Bigwood, J.	Edwardes-Moss, T. C.
Birkbeck, Sir E.	Egerton, hon. A. de T.
Blundell, Col. H. B. H.	Egerton, hn. A. J. F.
Bourke, right hon. R.	Elliot, hon. H. F. H.
Brand, hon. H. R.	Ellis, Sir J. W.
Brassey, Sir T.	Evelyn, W. J.
Bridgeman, Col. hon. F. C.	Ewing, Sir A. O.
	Farquharson, H. R.
Brinton, J.	Feilden, Lt-Gen. R. J.
Bristowe, T. L.	Ferguson, R.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.	Fergusson, rt. hn. Sir J.
	Field, Captain E.
Brookfield, Col. A. M.	Finlayson, J.
Bryce, J.	Fitzgerald, R. U. P.
Bullard, H.	Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.
Burdett-Coutts, W. L. Ash.-B.
	Fletcher, Sir H.
Campbell, Sir A.	Folkestone, Viscount
Campbell, J. A.	Forwood, A. B.
Cavendish, Lord E.	Fowler, Sir R. N.
Charrington, S.	Fraser, General C. C.
Childers, rt. hon. H. C. E.	Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

Gibson, J. G.	Mulholland, H. L.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.	Muncaster, Lord
Gorst, Sir J. E.	Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.
Gower, G. G. L.	Murdoch, C. T.
Grant, Sir G. M.	Norton, R.
Green, H.	Paget, Sir H. H.
Gregory, G. B.	Parker, C. S.
Grenfell, W. H.	Pease, Sir J. W.
Grimston, Viscount	Pease, A. E.
Gunter, Colonel R.	Pelly, Sir L.
Hall, A. W.	Pitt-Lewis, G.
Halsey, T. F.	Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.	Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.
	Portman, hon. E. B.
Hamilton, Col. C. E.	Powell, F. S.
Hanbury, R. W.	Price, Captain G. E
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.	Pugh, D.
	Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.
Hardcastle, E.	Reed, Sir E. J.
Harker, W.	Richardson, T.
Haslett, J. H.	Ritchie, C. T.
Heaton, J. H.	Roscoe, Sir H. E.
Heneage, right hon. E.	Ross, A. H.
Herbert, hon. S.	Round, J.
Hickman, A.	Russell, Sir G.
Hill, Lord A. W.	St. Aubyn, Sir J.
Hill, A. S.	Saunderson, Maj. E. J.
Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.	Selwin - Ibbetson, rt. hon. Sir H. J.
Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.	Seton-Karr, H.
	Sidebottom, T. H.
Houldsworth, W. H.	Sitwell, Sir G. R.
Howard, J.	Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Howard, J. M.	Smith, A.
Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.	Smith, D.
	Spencer, hon. C. R.
Hunt, F. S.	Stanhope, rt. hon. E.
Jackson, W. L.	Stanley, rt. hn. Col. Sir F.
Johnston, W.
Jones-Parry, L.	Stanley, E. J.
Kennaway, Sir J. H.	Stewart, M.
Kenny, C. S.	Sturgis, H. P.
Kilcoursie, right hon. Viscount	Sturrock, P.
	Talbot, J. G.
Kimber, H.	Temple, Sir R.
King, H. S.	Thomas, A.
Knatchbull-Hugessen, hon. H. T.	Tollemache, H. J.
	Tomlinson, W. E. M.
Knightley, Sir R.	Tottenham, A. L.
Lawrence, Sir T.	Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.	Trotter, H. J.
Llewellyn, E. H.	Tyler, Sir H. W.
Long, W. H.	Verney, Captain E. H.
Lowther, hon. W.	Vincent, C. E. H.
Lubbock, Sir J.	Walrond, Col. W. H.
Macartney, W. G. E.	Walsh, hon. A. H. J.
Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.	Watson, J.
	West, Colonel W. C.
Maclean, F. W.	West, H. W.
M'Calmont, Captain J.	Whitbread, S.
M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.	Wodehouse, E. R.
M'Lagan, P.	Wortley, C. B. Stuart
March, Earl of	Wroughton, P.
More, R. J.	Young, C. E. B.
Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.
Morgan, hon. F.	TELLERS.
Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.	Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.
	Morley, A.

NOES.
Abraham, W. (Glam.)	Allison, R. A.
Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)	Armitage, B.
	Ashton, T. G.

Baker, L. J.	Jacoby, J. A.
Barbour, W. B.	James, hon. W. H.
Barclay, J. W.	Jenkins, D. J.
Beamont, H. F.	Johns, J. W.
Blades, J. H.	Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.
Blaine, A.
Blake, T.	Jordan, J.
Bolton, J. C.	Kelly, B.
Bolton, T. H.	Kenny, J. E.
Boyd-Kinnear, J.	Lalor, R.
Bradlaugh, C.	Lane, W. J.
Brocklehurst, W. C.	Lawson, H. L. W.
Brown, A. H.	Leahy, J.
Bruce, hon. R. P.	Leatham, E. A.
Brunner, J. T.	Lockwood, F.
Byrne, G. M.	M'Arthur, A.
Campbell, H.	M'Culloch, J.
Carew, J. L.	M'Donald, P.
Chance, P. A.	Marum, E. M.
Channing, F. A.	Mather, W.
Clancy, J. J.	Morgan, O. V.
Cobb, H. P.	Murphy, W. M.
Cobbold, F. T.	Nolan, Colonel J. P.
Coleridge, hon. B.	Nolan, J.
Colman, J. J.	O'Brien, J. F. X.
Compton, Lord W. G.	O'Brien, P.
Condon, T. J.	O'Brien, P. J.
Connolly, L.	O'Brien, W.
Conway, M.	O'Connor, A.
Conybeare, C. A. V.	O'Connor, J.
Cook, E. R.	O'Connor, T. P.
Cook, W.	O'Doherty, J. E.
Corbet, W. J.	O'Hea, P.
Cossham, H.	O'Kelly, J.
Cowen, J.	O'Mara, S.
Cox, J. R.	O'Shea, W. H.
Craven, J.	Peacock, R.
Cremer, W. R.	Pickersgill, E. H.
Crilly, D.	Picton, J. A.
Crompton, C.	Pilkington, G. A.
Crossley, E.	Powell, W. R. H.
Crossman, Gen. Sir W.	Power, P. J.
Davies, W.	Power, R.
Dillon, J.	Price, T. P.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Priestly, B.
Ellis, J. E.	Pulley, J.
Esslemont, P.	Pyne, J. D.
Fenwick, C.	Reid, H. G.
Finucane, J.	Richard, H.
Fletcher, B.	Rigby, J.
Flynn, J. C.	Roberts, J. B.
Foster, Dr. B.	Roberts, J.
Fuller, G. P.	Roe, T.
Gilhooly, J.	Russell, E. R.
Gill, H. J.	Rylands, P.
Gill, T. P.	Salis-Schwabe, Col, G.
Goldsmid, Sir J.	Saunders, W.
Gourley, E. T.	Shaw, T.
Gray, E. D.	Sheehan, J. D.
Grey, Sir E.	Sheehy, D.
Harrington, E.	Sheil, E.
Havelock - Allan, Sir H. M.	Sheridan, H. B.
	Shirley, W. S.
Hayden, L. P.	Simon, Serjeant J.
Hayne, C. Seale-	Small, J. F.
Healy, M.	Spensley, H.
Hingley, B.	Spicer, H.
Holden, A.	Stack, J.
Holden, I.	Stevenson, F. S.
Howell, G.	Sullivan, D.
Illingworth, A.	Tanner, C. K.
Ingram, W. J.	Tuite J.
Jacks, W.	Vanderbyl, P.

Vivian, Sir H. H.	Williams, P.
Wardle, H.	Wilson, H. J.
Warmington, C. M.	Wilson, I.
Wason, E.	Wilson, J. (Ednbgh.)
Watson, T,	Wolmer, Viscount
Watt, H.	Wright, C.
Wayman, T.
Westlake, J.	TELLERS.
Will, J. S.	Labouchere, H.
Williams, A. J.	Stuart, J.
Williams, J. C.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," again proposed.