Lords Sitting of 11 July 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—First Report—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod [No. 187].
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Building Societies Acts Amendment (188); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (189).
Second Reading—Licensing Act (1872) Amendment* (160).
Report—Post Office Protection* (185).
Third Reading—Indian Marine* (170); Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act (1883) Amendment* (180), and passed.

BUILDING SOCIETIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in presenting a Bill to amend the Building Societies Act, 1874, said, that he did not do so as a Member of the Government, but in accordance with a request which had been made to him by the Building Societies' Protection Association.
  796
  A decision had been lately pronounced in their Lordships' House that all questions connected with Building Societies, not only under their rules, but also under mortgages and other contracts between a Society and any of its members, must be determined by arbitration, and that they were excluded from ordinary remedies in Courts of Law and Equity. He had not himself agreed in that decision; but of course he accepted it as conclusive with respect to the present state of the law. It had been a surprise to those Societies; and they were unanimous in their desire to be restored to the position which, in this respect, they occupied before the Act of 1874. The Bill he now introduced had been prepared for the Societies; and as the matter was one of some urgency, he asked that the Bill should be read a first time at that late period of the Session. Of course, if it should turn out that there was any disagreement with regard to the Bill it would not be pressed forward; but as it had the unanimous support of the Societies he did not apprehend any opposition in either House of Parliament.
  Bill to amend the Building Societies Act, 1874—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR.)
  Bill read 1a. (No. 188.)

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—SPEECH OF THE PRIME MINISTER.

  EXPLANATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have some observations of a personal character to make with respect to a very remarkable speech which was delivered by the Prime Minister at the Foreign Office yesterday, of which a report appears in this morning's papers. The Prime Minister there stated that certain offers were made to the Tory Party in the House of Lords and were rejected; and some observation has been made on the fact that no notice of that circumstance occurred. As far as I know, what took place was this—I had no communication by word, or by writing, with any Member of Her Majesty's Government; but just before the dinner hour on Tuesday, my noble and learned Friend who sits by me (Earl Cairns) asked me to come out, and informed me

  797
  that some communication had been made to him verbally by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville); that, in the course of conversation, the noble Earl had peremptorily refused anything in the nature of Colonel Stanley's Amendment, but had suggested a more emphatic and formal promise—made emphatic by the process of special Resolution—on the part of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill next year. My noble and learned Friend, at the same time, informed me that he had obtained leave from the noble Earl to communicate the matter to me, and asked my opinion. I gave him the opinion that it made no change in the circumstances, because we did not suspect—we had never professed to suspect—the absolute sincerity of Her Majesty's Government—of noble Lords opposite, I should say—in their intention to propose to introduce a Bill of Redistribution next year. A simply more emphatic and solemn reiteration of that intention, however solemn and emphatic it might be, was simply superfluous; it was labouring a point that was not contested; it was giving us no security on the points on which we felt anxiety. The points on which we felt anxiety were two—first, that Her Majesty's Government, however sincere their intention of bringing in a Redistribution Bill, might not be in a condition to pass it before a Dissolution; and, secondly, that if they did, that Redistribution Bill might be of such a character as, in our judgment, to be so inequitable as not to form a reasonable basis for the settlement of the question, and that if the Franchise Bill were passed without a measure of Redistribution, we should not be so free as we otherwise should be to deal with that Redistribution Bill next year. I understood, however, and my noble and learned Friend understood, that the communication was absolutely informal and confidential. I felt myself absolutely precluded from making any allusion to it; and, indeed, when I was speaking in your Lordships' House, and referring to the indisposition of Her Majesty's Government to give us Colonel Stanley's clause, I was very careful to frame my words so that there should be no suspicion that anything had passed between us—so absolutely confidential did I believe the communication to be. But I have something further to say. Not satisfied
  798
  with thus bringing forward and relating communications which, to our minds, were absolutely confidential, the Prime Minister goes further, and states a reason why these offers were rejected; and the reason he gives is this—that the offer was rejected because the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords said he could not discuss redistribution "with a rope round his neck;" and he went on to dwell upon this, and to make capital out of it; and he preaches a sermon, if I may say so, about the rope round the neck. It was, he said, a penalty inflicted in certain ancient Republics for innovators who failed; and he described it as being a "monstrous statement" on my part. He inferred from it that I considered the franchise as "a poison," and that I considered that the persons to be enfranchised were "a set of wild beasts;" and he goes on through a great number of sentences enlarging on all the enormities to be deduced from the circumstance of my having refused the proposal, as, he says, because of "the rope round my nock." Will your Lordships believe that this statement is an utter fabrication, and has not a vestige of foundation? I have made no communication to Her Majesty's Government by word or by letter. My noble and learned Friend is prepared to state to you that he made no communication of such a kind on my part; and there is not the faintest basis for the extraordinary statement which the Prime Minister has put forward. I will not dwell on the matter further; but I shall only ask, are these the poisoned weapons by which the Prime Minister is about to fight this battle? Is he not only going to use for controversial purposes the results of purely confidential communications, but to thrust into the mouth of his opponent statements which he never made, pretending that they were made at an interview at which the Prime Minister was not present, and with regard to which he could not have any certain information whatever? I think such a policy on his part not only shows but little confidence in the justice of his cause, but it is a sufficient indication to us that that misunderstanding of our actions, which it is essential for the Government to produce, will be compassed by the familiar and easy process of misrepresentation.
  Earl CAIRNS and the Earl GRANVILLE rose at the same time to address the House.
  Both noble Lords being called upon, after a short time it was
  Moved, "That the Earl Cairns be heard."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Amendment moved to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("the Earl Granville be heard.")
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 27: Majority 1.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Amendment agreed to.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not feel any triumph on winning the Division. I regret very much interposing between the noble and learned Earl and the House; but I think that your Lordships will see that the vote of your Lordships' House just now is not a very unreasonable one. Here is a question raised, partly with regard to my conduct, and partly with regard to another person, for having done something in "another place;" and this without the slightest Notice having been given to me of the intention on the part of the noble Marquess, or of the noble and learned Earl—of the one to begin, and of the other to follow up an accusation against Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I apprehend that after what has passed, the noble and learned Earl has no objection to my stating what I believe passed between us. I will read to your Lordships a short memorandum of the interview that I had with him; and he will correct me, I am perfectly sure, if there is any inaccuracy contained in it. The memorandum is as follows:—
  "On Tuesday I called on Lord Cairns in his private room at the House of Lords before the Orders of the Day were read. I said that, notwithstanding former success in averting differences between the two Houses, I did not feel sanguine now, and was only induced to trouble him because it had been suggested by a Conservative Peer that I should do so, and also by the assurance which he (Lord Cairns) gave in his speech that a special provision offered by the Government might settle the whole matter. I asked him whether he could make any suggestion. Lord Cairns made a suggestion, which, though not in similar words, was the same in
  800
  substance as Colonel Stanley's Clause. I stated that such an arrangement was impossible for the Government to accept. I then suggested for his consideration that the Government should pledge themselves, if the House of Lords passed the present Bill, to propose an identical Resolution in both Houses, reciting that they have passed the Representation of the People Bill in reliance on the enagement tendered by Her Majesty's Ministers that they will, so far as depends on them, introduce and use every effort in their power to pass in the ensuing Session a Bill for the redistribution of seats in the United Kingdom, and a joint Address by both Houses, laying the same Resolution at the foot of the Throne. Lord Cairns asked whether I could give my words in writing, and, after my having done so, whether he might show them to Lord Salisbury. Later in the evening he returned my paper with the observations that—'This does not appear to give any higher security than that which is already given by the assurance of the Government. If the Government admitted an Amendment, either (1) that the Bill should come into operation on a day to be named in a subsequent Act of Parliament, or (2) should come into operation on January 1, 1886, unless an earlier day was named in an Act to be passed next Session, it would be sufficient.'"
  Now, that is all that passed between us. The memorandum goes on—
  "I communicated this result to Mr. Gladstone, and we agreed that the refusal of the Leaders of the Opposition was not decisive against our making the proposal to the House of Lords. But I had received an appeal for an adjustment from a Conservative Peer, not on the Front Bench, who expressed a desire, on the part of himself and some other Peers, to find a means of avoiding a vote against the Bill. I therefore sent him the proposal, which he returned with an intimation that it was not sufficient. Under these circumstances, the Lord Chancellor and I were of opinion that it was not desirable to make a proposal in the House of a somewhat novel character, as it was sure to be rejected by those to whom it was addressed."
  Now, my Lords, I should decline any explanation to-day without any Notice had I not got this morning a letter from Mr. Gladstone himself on the subject. Mr. Gladstone says—
  "10, Downing Street, Whitehall,
  "July 11, 1884.
  "My dear Granville,—I see that in the report of my speech at the Foreign Office I appear to say that the offer made by you on Tuesday was rejected because the Leader of the Opposition said he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. The report appears to me very careful, and I certainly cannot undertake to correct it from memory; but I had no intention of conveying that Lord Salisbury used those words in declining the offer. I understood that he had used the phrase in dealing with the subject. It appeared to me to be an apposite,

  801
  concise, and summary statement of his view, and to be the ground of his refusal of our offer. My intention could have been more fully conveyed had I said the offer was rejected, as it appeared to mo, because Lord Salisbury considered that he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. This idea was fully expressed in the first of two suggestions which were indicated to you (without, however, being tendered in a binding way) in the reply to our proposal. The second I could not regard as serious, since (in my view) it required the Government to agree to a proposal fully discussed in the House of Commons, and rejected on both sides of the House for reasons on which I need not now enter. I need hardly add that the purpose of my speech was not to give a history of the proceedings, but only to mark with exactitude the point up to which we had been willing to go.
  "Sincerely yours,
  "W. E. GLADSTONE."
  My Lords, with regard to these two proposals I think it may be satisfactory to your Lordships to know the reasons why we objected to the first alternative. It was tantamount to Colonel Stanley's proposal, which was rejected by an enormous majority in the House of Commons, and was quite inconsistent with the lines which the Government had laid down for themselves. The second alternative was practically the same as that proposed by Mr. Albert Grey; and the objection to it appears obvious. It was repudiated not only by Sir Stafford Northcote, but by Mr. Gladstone. The addition of the words about the possibility of inserting an earlier date in the Redistribution Bill does not pledge anybody to anything, and it was always possible to introduce at any time such an earlier date. That addition would practically make it impossible to dissolve Parliament until the seventh year of its existence—a most inconvenient arrangement in itself, and which would practically interfere with the Royal Prerogative to fix a date. It would necessitate a second Dissolution almost immediately after the first. At all events, from the Government point of view, the argument against the alternative offered to us was such that we could not accept it. Well, my Lords, I excessively regret anything that has occurred between me and my noble and learned Friend, whom, I must say, I have always found one of the fairest of men possible in discussions of this kind; but I thought it better to state the facts exactly as they happened.
  EARL CAIRNS: My Lords, when I proposed to follow my noble Friend be
  802
  hind me I thought that it was more convenient and more courteous to the noble Earl that he should hear all that was to be said on this side with regard to a transaction which was divided between two persons, and should not only hear one part of the statement. I had no intention when I came into the House to say anything; but, without finding any fault with the version of what took place as given by my noble Friend, I thought it was incumbent on me to rise immediately and supplement what he had said. I do not think that the noble Earl can fairly complain of want of Notice. It is for me to complain of want of Notice. He comes down here completely furnished with his materials. He has even reduced to writing what passed at a private and confidential interview between himself and me.
  EARL GRANVILLE: It was reduced to writing before.
  EARL CAIRNS: Before the meeting?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Not before the meeting; but before this morning.
  EARL CAIRNS: I do not say it was reduced to writing for this special purpose. It is quite new to me. And he is also prepared with a letter from Mr. Gladstone, a letter which, I think, ought rather to have been sent to my noble Friend behind me, and not sent to the noble Earl. I am very sorry to have to speak of what passed at the interview, which I considered to be entirely private and confidential, and as to which I should sooner have cut off my hand than spoken of it to anyone without permission. It is a lesson at my age to be more careful in future of entering into those communications which are frequently very useful, but which experience of the last 24 hours shows may be turned to a dangerous purpose. If communications of this kind between men who are engaged in public life lead to a good result, so much the better; if they do not, I have always understood that they were swept out of the way, because that is the only way business can be transacted as between public men. What occurred is simply this. There is no material point of controversy between me and the noble Earl as to what occurred; but I must remind your Lordships what my noble Friend complains of. I do not understand that anything approaching to an explana

  803
  tion can be given of Mr. Gladstone's statement. Here is the statement—
  "We were so anxious that solemnity should be given to these pledges, and that they should be placed beyond all possibility of evasion, that even at the last moment a mode was devised for giving them additional solemnity, and an offer was made to the Tory Party in the House of Lords the night before last, but was rejected. It was an offer that both Houses should, on the responsibility of the Government, be invited to pass identical Resolutions, in which it should be set forth that each House had passed the Franchise Bill in reliance on the pledges of Her Majesty's Advisers to introduce the Redistribution Bill next year, and to make the passing of that Redistribution Bill the great object of their efforts, and that this Resolution, as so passed, should be presented by a Joint Address to the Crown, by which the matter could be formally accepted, so that there would be the concurrence of the three Bodies which gave the authority of law; and although it would not have the form it would yet have all the moral authority of law, and make certain, if anything future can be, the devotion of the next Session of Parliament to the settlement of this question of redistribution. That offer was rejected, because the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords said he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck. A rope round his neck! That used to be a penalty inflicted on innovators who failed. At least it was a warning applied to innovators who failed in certain ancient Republics, and the warning was sometimes applied in a manner more effective than agreeable. But what is this rope round his neck? It is the prospect of a large addition to the franchise. I utterly deny that that large addition to the franchise ought to be regarded as a rope round the neck of Lord Salisbury."
  Mr. Gladstone then went on to explain that all contentious business would be abandoned, with a view of bringing the Session to a speedy close. Now, my Lords, that is a statement as exact, as categorical, as precise, as even a master of words, which the Prime Minister is, could make it. It goes out this morning all over the country; it is the key-note of the agitation. It is this which every man, woman, and child in the country is to hear from the lips of the Prime Minister and by his authority—namely, that my noble Friend refused an offer which was made to him for the reasons which are here described in these words. My Lords, that is what the noble Earl had to meet, and how has he met it? The noble Earl on Tuesday evening, before the resumption of the debate, was good enough to come to my room; and I understood him to say to me that he had come to speak confidentially on the subject of the Bill, and about what the Government would do. The noble
  804
  Earl said—"What would you think if the Government were to propose accepting something in the way of a Resolution?" I said—"I do not exactly understand what that means; put it more precisely." Then the noble Earl took a piece of paper, on which was the writing which he has read, and handed it to me. I read it, and said—"Would you have any objection to my showing it to Lord Salisbury?"
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; that is quite correct.
  EARL CAIRNS: That is all that passed. I am searching for "the rope round my neck," and that is why I go into those details. I was not able to speak to my noble Friend until between 7 and 8 o'clock. I then showed him the paper. Our communication was of a very brief kind. I am quite certain that my noble Friend said nothing to me about "a rope round his neck." I am very glad my communication with the noble Earl opposite was not by work of mouth, lest there should be any words about it. The noble Earl sent the paper across the Table, saying he should be glad to have it back with any observations I had to make. Thereupon I sent back the paper, and said—"This does not appear to be any greater security than we have in the promises of the Government;" and here terminated the whole of this mysterious and wicked communication. I do not know where the "rope round his neck" came from. I am bound to say that it is the purest imagination. I should not care about it, for anyone may make mistakes, if it were not for this—that this speech of the Primo Minister is almost a State Paper sent out to the country to instruct the mind of the country. Is that to be met by a private note from the Prime Minister to the noble Earl opposite, and saying—"Well, I do not recollect; but perhaps Lord Salisbury said something to justify it?" Now, is that the way to deal with your opponents?" The question is not whether the terms offered ought to have been accepted; but whether the Prime Minister was justified, when addressing a meeting confined to Members of the House of Commons, which was reported for the instruction of the whole country, in making a statement with regard to my noble Friend which has not a shadow of foundation? Now, my Lords, I will go a little further.

  805
  In this speech of the Prime Minister I do not find any justification for the expression with regard to "a rope round his neck;" but I do find an idea of the Prime Minister's which is quite new to me, and which seems to me to be a view of the Prime Minister's own, which is very like in substance to the metaphor which "a rope round his neck" would come to. I have hitherto been under the impression that the case of the Government was, that redistribution could not be accompanied with enfranchisement by reason of the great delay and complexity consequent on joining the two; but there is a flood of new light thrown on this matter by the speech of the Prime Minister. There is another reason, not given before, for this disconnection of the two subjects, and it is that this disconnection seems now, from the statement of the Prime Minister, to be a matter of careful and deliberate strategy and policy, and not to be connected in any way with time or delay. This is the strategy of the Government. The whole thing is now unveiled. Let this go to the country, too, and let the country know what it means when the Government say that redistribution cannot be joined with enfranchisement. His remarks, I am glad to see, do not apply to the House of Lords alone, but to the House of Commons. Nothing can be more grave or more deliberate than the Prime Minister's words. He says—
  "I can only say—and I say it firmly—that with the view I have of the conditions under which alone Business can be managed in the House of Commons, and with the experience, not inconsiderable, that I have had for now more than half-a-century, I affirm to you, positively and absolutely, that you will not and cannot pass a Redistribution Bill unless the Opposition have some motive for allowing it to pass."
  Now, what is the motive?
  "The good-will on the part of the Opposition, which we require in order to give redistribution a chance, cannot be had unless they know"
  —that is, the Opposition in the House of Commons—
  "that the extension of the franchise is to take place, and that if they will not have it with redistribution they must have it without."
  The result of this disseverance would be that practically both Houses of Parliament would be legislation as to redistribution under duress. That has all along
  806
  been my opinion. But I did not know that it was designed. This design is now openly avowed and revealed by Mr. Gladstone to his supporters.
  "I tell you," he says, "that we must get the Franchise Bill passed first, so as to get that momentum and motive power which alone is to put the wicked Opposition into motion; because, if it does not like the redistribution which we offer, it will have to take this large extension of the franchise without any redistribution at all."
  All these references, therefore, to the delay and toil of attempting to deal with the franchise and redistribution at the same time are nothing short of what many people would call hypocrisy.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are two things to which I wish to address myself separately in a few words. First, as to the actual facts with respect to Mr. Gladstone; and, secondly, to the latter part of the noble and learned Earl's speech. With regard to Mr. Gladstone, I am quite sure that, whatever may be the influence of political differences on the mind of any of your Lordships, you do not want the facts to be misstated or misunderstood. Mr. Gladstone wrote a letter, which my noble Friend has read to your Lordships—wrote it spontaneously, and without having been challenged on the subject, for the express purpose of calling my noble Friend's attention to an impression which he conceived would arise from the report of the speech which he made at the Foreign Office yesterday. This letter, so spontaneously written, expressly disclaims any intention of conveying the idea that the noble Marquess used those words about the rope round his neck as the motive for refusing the overture of the Government. Mr. Gladstone, before any explanation was asked for, wrote this letter spontaneously, in which he says—
  "I had no intention of conveying that Lord Salisbury used these words in declining the offer. I understood that he had used the phrase in dealing with the subject; it appeared to me to be an apposite, concise, and summary statement of his view, and to be the ground of his refusal of our offer. My intention would have been more fully conveyed had I said the offer was rejected, as it appeared to me, because Lord Salisbury considered that he could not discuss redistribution with a rope round his neck."
  The noble Marquess had made a great many speeches on this subject before the debate took place in this House. I

  807
  cannot profess to have read all those speeches, and I cannot verify the impression on Mr. Gladstone's mind from any recollection of my own; but the noble Marquess might have used that expression. Of course, if he states that he did not—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot carry all my speeches in my mind. What I deny is, having used it as it is quoted here.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Upon that point there is no difference between us. Mr. Gladstone in this letter, spontaneously written, expressly says that he did not intend to represent the noble Marquess as having so used it. Mr. Gladstone does not challenge the accuracy of the report, but he says he is quite sure that if the words he used were faithfully reported they did not convey his intention. I must say that in the course of the debate there was an expression used, if not by the noble Marquess, certainly by others, to the effect that the course taken by the Government would lead to the House having to discuss redistribution under duress. I think it was the noble and learned Earl who used that phrase, or something equivalent to it; the other phrase about the rope is a stronger and more picturesque way of putting the same thing. But the material thing is this—that Mr. Gladstone did not represent the noble Marquess as having used that expression, because Mr. Gladstone spontaneously disclaims having done so. In whatever words he may have expressed himself, I do not think that there is any man in this House who believes that Mr. Gladstone did intend to convey that idea. Mr. Gladstone has done everything he could to make this correction known to the noble Earl (Earl Granville); and, beyond all doubt, your Lordships may assume that if Mr. Gladstone had had any intention of conveying that meaning he would not have written this letter. But now I must make a few observations upon what the noble and learned Earl has said as to another part of Mr. Gladstone's speech. I believe none of the noble Lords who addressed your Lordships in support of the Government in the late debate dwelt more than I did upon the difficulties of doing that which was urged upon your Lordships and upon its impracticability. But I greatly failed to convey my own meaning if I did not put before your
  808
  Lordships the very same view which the noble and learned Earl now represents as a new discovery and as a new light thrown by Mr. Gladstone upon the matter. I have over and over again urged that among the practical reasons against the attempt to combine the two questions was this—that the sure and certain effect would be that the one would be played off against the other—redistribution against franchise; franchise against redistribution—and that common sense dictated to those who really wanted an enlargement of the franchise this course—to do first what you can, and when you can, so as to settle first the natural basis for redistribution, and that then you would get out of the difficulty which would arise from the reaction of the two questions against each other when not separated. Those who wanted to go forward with redistribution would begin, if they could, with settling the franchise. I endeavoured to press that argument upon your Lordships; and I also said that I could see no reason whatever why 2,000,000 of our fellow-countrymen, who we are all agreed are fit to be enfranchised, should be refused the privilege until redistribution is passed; and that if redistribution is a matter of difficulty, it is far better that they should have the vote with the present distribution of power than that the vote should be refused to them until the question of redistribution is settled. I can see nothing whatever in that speech of Mr. Gladstone which I myself did not endeavour to impress on your Lordships in the course of the debate.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): My Lords, I would ask the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) or the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to answer this question. How can anyone form any opinion whatever, until he knows what the redistribution is to be, as to what effect the extension of the franchise will have upon the constitution of the House of Commons?
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYasked why Mr. Gladstone had made public what was understood to be a private communication?
  LORD WAVENEYgave it as his opinion that when a Redistribution Bill was brought in by the Government they should have had and received from the country such an indication of the opinion of the constituencies as would guide them

  809
  in the principles of redistribution. No doubt, that would take the form of a very large disfranchisement of the small boroughs, and he would limit the retention of Irish boroughs to the maritime ports, including Dublin.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think I ought to say, in answer to what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns), that his statement of what occurred is exactly the same as mine, except that he has introduced the word "confidential," and I do not think I used that word.
  EARL CAIRNS: Nor "private?"
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not think I used that word, either. I do not think the words "private" or "confidential" passed; but, at all events, the written record which Mr. Gladstone read does not contain them.
  EARL CAIRNS: Does the noble Earl mean to say that our conversation was not "private or confidential?" My own impression is that it was confidential.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not think I used the word "private," but I considered it as such.
  EARL CAIRNS: I should be sorry to differ from the noble Earl.

ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY, WOOLWICH—THE EDUCATIONAL COURSE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state the reasons why Latin and Greek have been withdrawn from the voluntary educational course at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich; and whether the Lieutenant Governor of the Royal Military Academy has expressed his strong dissent from this alteration?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY, in reply, said, it was perfectly true that the Lieutenant Governor of the Royal Military Academy had expressed his dissent, as stated in the Question. It was necessary to explain that this change had nothing at all to do with the examination for admission to the Royal Military Academy, but only affected the course of study pursued there, and the final examination. It appeared to the Secretary of State for War that these subjects were not strictly useful professionally to the soldier. At Woolwich all the obligatory subjects of study were subjects bearing directly on the student's profession. He quite agreed
  810
  that it would be extremely undesirable to discourage classics at the entrance examination; but he thought it was, at the same time, undesirable that the study should be continued when once a young man was in the Academy. The course at the Academy had been reduced from two and a-half years to two years, and in these two years a great deal of technical and professional work had to be learnt; and he thought it very desirable that that time should be spent on technical subjects, or, at any rate, on subjects that would be of direct advantage to a young man in his military career.
  Viscount HARDINGEIn reply to Viscount HARDINGE,
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the course at Sandhurst was purely professional.

LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART—THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF ANNESLEY, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they would take into their consideration the necessity for providing proper and fireproof accommodation for the National Portrait Gallery? said, that the general opinion was that, in its present condition, this Gallery was in imminent danger of being totally burnt down. It was not built originally for the purpose of a National Portrait Gallery, and was so flimsy a structure that the pictures were receiving great damage. A short time ago he was in the Gallery with a very distinguished authority on Art, whom he asked to look at one of the pictures by Lawrence. He examined it with great care, and said that it was crumbling away, and directed his attention to several spots where the paint was dropping off the canvas. On inquiry he found that that was the case with many other pictures. As he had said, the building was flimsily constructed, and when a number of people were walking in it the whole shook, and the motion affected the pictures. That there was imminent danger of fire was manifest. The approach from Exhibition Road was a long, narrow structure of wood, inside of which was a collection of desks and chairs. In the Report of the Trustees of 1880 was this paragraph—
  "The Trustees think it their duty to point out that the temporary entrance which constitutes

  811
  at present the only approach to the Gallery leaves much to be desired in regard both to convenience and safety. It consists of a low, narrow passage leading from Exhibition Road, constructed entirely of wood, with weather-hoarding for the sides, raised on piles of wood which are exposed to all kinds of mischief from the outside. Among these piles rubbish and broken packing cases, paper, and straw have been allowed to accumulate. These passages are not only unsightly themselves, but placed in dangerous contiguity with other wooden buildings close below certain apertures in the walls of the National Portrait Gallery. A single spark struck by one of the crowd of visitors passing through these passages to evening concerts at the Albert Hall, might, in a few moments, reduce the Gallery and its contents to a heap of ruins."
  And the Trustees added, in concluding the Report—
  "Should any accident ever occur from the above causes, they trust that they would, by having drawn attention to them, be freed from all responsibility in the matter."
  That was in 1880, and since then nothing had been done. He would quote a few lines from the Report of 1881 to show, not only that there was danger, but that a fire had actually occurred there. The Report said—
  "Early on the morning of Friday the 28th of January, after a continuance of very cold weather, when a considerable accession of heat had been required, the flue became red hot and set fire to inflammable materials accumulated round the base of it in communication with a wooden platform that extended to the flooring of the lower western gallery and the foot of the spiral staircase before mentioned. Happily the watchman at the moment of perceiving a dense smoke gave alarm, and by the prompt assistance of the Museum officials the fire was checked."
  He believed it was by a mere accident that the Gallery had not been burnt down. He would read a short extract from a letter he had received from the Curator of the Gallery, whom he had asked as to some of the facts he had mentioned. The Curator said—
  "While I was writing to you yesterday afternoon, a huge deposit of planks, shavings, and empty wooden boxes, ready to burn at the smallest spark and fly through the air, was shot down out of carts in the corner of the grounds just under the Board Room windows."
  The Trustees who were responsible if a conflagration broke out were Viscount Hardinge (Chairman), the Lord President of the Council for the time being, the Marquess of Bath, the Earl of Derby, Lord Ronald Gower, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Lord do L'Isle and Dudley,
  812
  Lord Lamington, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Beresford Hope, Sir Coutts Lindsay, Sir Richard Wallace, the Dean of Westminster, and the President of the Royal Academy for the time being. He very much doubted whether it was of advantage to the Gallery that a large number of the Trustees should be gentlemen with an enormous amount of business to attend to, and, as he should imagine, with very little time to devote to the affairs of the Gallery. How was it to be expected that the Prime Minister, or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for instance, would have time to attend to their duties as Trustees? Speaking in the House of Commons on March 5, 1878, Mr. Beresford Hope had said—
  "These refreshment sheds, these temporary ebullitions of the Exhibition of 1862, were constructed—cheap, nasty, and rapidly—of the most inflammable materials possible. … The floor is made of rough wood—so rough that it never can be washed down or cleaned; and the consequence is that there is a perpetual cloud of insidious dust rising from it, to the very great detriment of the pictures, which are plainly suffering from it. Not one of those arrangements which modern science has, with eager emulation, being following in the Galleries of London, Vienna, Dresden, and all over the world—not one of those appliances can in the most rude, rough, rudimental way be applied to our Gallery. … So far as mere arrangements go, they are very inconvenient. But beyond that inconvenience, there is this risk—which really is almost too painful to dwell on—of immediate and perfectly helpless destruction."—(3 Hansard, [238] 766–7–9.)
  That was six years ago, and perhaps his noble Friend opposite, when he came to reply, would use the argument that as they had lasted for those six years, there was no reason why they should not go on. He would, however, put it to their Lordships whether it was not a disgrace to Her Majesty's Government and to this great and wealthy nation that this collection of portraits, which, if destroyed, could never be replaced, should remain in their present condition? Without any intention of going into statistics he would like to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that since the opening of the National Portrait Gallery, upwards of 1,000,000 people had visited it, which showed that an interest was felt in it by the country. Probably the noble Lord would tell them that there was no money for the purpose; but he maintained that it was the duty of the country to find money for such a purpose. If the

  813
  Trustees were to follow the example of distinguished agitators across the water and make themselves disagreeable to the Government, they might be able to get something done. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Question of which he had given Notice.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEagreed with the noble Earl that the buildings of the National Portrait Gallery were utterly unsuitable for the exhibition of pictures. With the exception of the top galleries, all the lights were side lights. While he was quite prepared to admit that there was great risk of fire, the Trustees did not hold themselves responsible, because they had from time to time called the attention of the Board of Works to the different risks that might occur to the building. He was bound to say that on every occasion upon which they had made recommendations to the Board, the Board had readily and promptly come forward, and, as far as they could, attended to the wishes of the Trustees. The noble Earl was in error when he said that nothing had been done. When they had called the attention of the Board of Works to the danger of the entrance corridor, the Board had taken steps to provide against the risk of fire by building a brick wall, presumably fireproof, which would shut out the National Portrait Gallery from the Health Exhibition, and also constructing iron doors to prevent fire from spreading from the entrance corridor, which was made of wood. As to the eastern end, a solid brick wall had been built up, so that there was no chance of another fire occurring. They had called the attention of the authorities to the cooking, and to the heaps of boxes near the building; but all they had achieved was that there was to be nothing of the kind within 60 yards of the building. Having drawn the attention of the authorities to the matter, they did not hold themselves responsible for any accident that might occur. With regard to the wooden corridor from Exhibition Road to the principal entrance of the Gallery, he thought that it was high time that it should be abolished, if they could not get a better Gallery altogether. The present was one entirely unworthy of the nation. The present First Commissioner of Works was not indisposed to comply with their wishes as far as he could; but they all knew the difficulty in regard to funds in
  814
  which officials were placed. With regard to the circumstances of the Board of the Gallery, he could assure the noble Earl that he was mistaken in supposing that the members of the Board were not able to spare some time for their duties upon the Board. The attendance was very good, the Prime Minister himself taking a great interest in the Gallery. In conclusion, he hoped that at no very distant date the Government would see their way to providing buildings for the accommodation of this national and interesting Collection.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, that, as one of the Trustees of the Gallery, he had several times called attention to the matter; and it had always surprised him that, with the taste for Art which was conspicuous in the Leader of that House and in the Prime Minister, nothing had been done to remedy the defects in this National Portrait Gallery.
  LORD SUDELEY: In reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that there can be no doubt that the building in which the splendid collection of national portraits is now placed is not one which would be chosen for a permanency, and there are many objections both to the building and to the site. The noble Earl urges that it is not fireproof, and that there is great danger from fire. In saying this I believe he rather exaggerates the danger. The building is not actually fireproof; but it must be remembered that there are very few of the great Picture Galleries, either here or on the Continent, which are fireproof; even the National Gallery is only partly so, and that to a very limited extent. On the other hand, every precaution has been taken in the National Portrait Gallery to prevent danger from fire. The Report quoted by the noble Earl is a very old ono—1880—and since that time, as stated by the noble Viscount the Chairman of the Trustees (Viscount Hardinge) nearly all the recommendations of the Trustees have been carried out. Brick fireproof walls have been put at each end, isolating the galleries. Solid iron doors have been substituted for the wooden doors, and these, are shut, I believe, at 4 o'clock. The building is heated by hot water, except the Board Room, which has a fireplace, and the furnaces and flues are removed away from the building. There is also no gas. All fear of fire arising in the

  815
  building itself is, therefore, removed. The noble Viscount the Chairman of the Trustees has referred to the entrance-passage being of wood, which certainly is to some extent an element of risk, though it is considered doubtful even if it caught fire if the flames could penetrate the iron fireproof doors. The cooking buildings of the Health Exhibition are kept at a distance of 85 feet, and are themselves erected in fireproof buildings. The First Commissioner will be very happy to consider any suggestion which the Trustees may wish to make, and is at the present time considering how far it might be desirable, if there is really any danger, to substitute a corrugated iron passage for the present wooden entrance. The noble Earl has stated that the pictures are getting damaged by the walls shaking. I can only say that I believe no mention of this has been made by the Trustees; and if it is the case, it is clearly a matter for the Trustees to take active steps about. The Government would very much like to erect suitable fireproof buildings and in a more convenient position nearer to Parliament Street; but, unfortunately, owing to the large number of public buildings now being built, they do not see their way at present to incur the large expense which would be necessary.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it had been assumed on both sides during the discussion that there was such a thing as a fireproof building. He had a great idea there was no such thing.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEremarked that the National Gallery could hardly be said to be fireproof. He had been told that the flooring in the new portion now to be erected was fireproof.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.