Lords Sitting of 18 November 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Representation of the People (5).
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—(No. 6.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.—(No. 6.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said: As there is, I believe, now a very general agreement in favour of the principles of this Bill, and the extension of the franchise which it proposes, it is quite unnecessary that I
  2
  should trouble the House with any advocacy of those principles; and with regard to the measure itself, I may say it is precisely the same as that measure which was before the House during the last Session. It comes before your Lordships in precisely the same shape; and if the Bill should pass into law it will come into effect on the 1st of January, 1886, as regards the admission of new voters to the exercise of the franchise—that is to say, the Bill would apply to the registration of the coming year, and the voters will be qualified, under that registration, from the 1st of January, 1886. I feel on this occasion that I am the less called on to make any observations, because no Notice has been given of opposition to the second reading of this Bill, and we have every reason to believe that no opposition will be offered to it. With regard to another very important question connected with

  3
  the subject, as to when and how the Bill should pass into law, and the question of the Redistribution Bill, which has engaged so much of the attention of noble Lords, both in and out of this House, I need scarcely say that I have nothing whatever to add to the declaration made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) last night, and I certainly shall not say anything to detract from that declaration. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will think that it is not needful that I should detain you any longer, but that I should now content myself with moving the second reading of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I entirely concur with the noble Earl who has just sat down that there is no need to enter into any long discussion of the principles of this Bill. As a general rule, a Bill that is unopposed does not require any long discussion; and this Bill has had the advantage of not only such discussion as both Houses of Parliament have been able to give to it during a considerable period, but also of going through a longer period of platform discussion than probably any other measure has ever had the advantage of obtaining before. Under these circumstances, I shall not, any more than the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), dwell for a moment upon the principles of this Bill. They are generally accepted by political men on both sides of Parliament; and any question that has arisen, or any impediment to the full perfection of legislation that has been created, has resulted from matters extraneous to the questions treated within the four corners of the Bill, though connected with them by very important relations. But, my Lords, I think I may pass at once from the second reading of the Bill to the questions that are raised by the very important statement that was made by the noble Earl the Leader of this House (Earl Granville) yesterday evening. In doing so, I cannot avoid noticing or refrain from congratulating the noble Earl upon the very conciliatory tone which he employed during the whole of his speech—a tone which is, I think, eminently calculated to aid us in arriving at a harmonious
  4
  conclusion. With respect to the matter of his speech, I was not at first so well satisfied. I drew—no doubt erroneously—from the language the noble Earl used, that before any consultation or communication could take place with respect to the Redistribution Bill for the purpose of coming to an agreement, it was an indispensable condition precedent in the eyes of the Government that we should undertake that the Bill should pass into law before the close of the year. I need not dwell now upon the objections—the fatal objections—that there lay in our eyes to any condition of that kind. It seemed to us that we might be parting with our liberty altogether, and find at the last, through no fault of ours or of the Government, that we had obtained nothing in return. I felt the force of these objections so strongly that I expressed it afterwards to some Friends of mine; and I was informed that they did not understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government (Mr. Gladstone) in "another place" to be of the character which I attributed to the remarks of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville). I requested an hon. Gentleman—a relative of mine, Mr. Balfour—to communicate with Members of Her Majesty's Government in "another place," in order to ascertain whether my interpretation of the noble Earl's language was correct, and whether an entire surrender of our liberty with respect to the Franchise Bill was a condition precedent to any consultation as to the details of the Redistribution Bill. The papers that passed on the occasion are so important to a right understanding of this case that your Lordships will, perhaps, pardon me if I read them. I am authorized to do so. This was the question that was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—
  "An essential part of the arrangement proposed by the Government is that the Leaders of the Conservative Party should pledge themselves to pass the Reform Bill through the House of Lords this Session. Before arriving at any opinion on the merits of this proposal, it is necessary to have it clearly determined whether the pledge is or is not to precede an agreement in regard to the provisions of the Redistribution Bill—in other words, would the Government's proposal, if accepted, render it possible for the House of Lords to be committed to the Reform Bill, and subsequently to find that no common understanding with regard to

  5
  redistribution could be arrived at between the two Parties?"
  That was the question submitted to the Government. This was the answer written by Lord Harrington from Mr. Gladstone's words—
  "We should receive a request for consultation in a spirit of trust, and, assuming that the intention was to come to an agreement, should not ask for an adequate assurance beforehand."
  Of course, the importance of that statement it is impossible to exaggerate. According to it, it is now possible for us to go into communication with Her Majesty's Government with respect to the details of the Redistribution Bill. If, as we have every reason to hope from the language that they employ, and from the intentions which we know animate ourselves, we come to an agreement, the Franchise Bill then may pass. If not, we shall be at the end unbound by any pledge, and stand precisely in the position in which we stand now. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) says that he will receive the request in a spirit of trust, and I think it is right to say that that spirit is entirely reciprocated on our side, and that we enter into these communications with the sincere and earnest desire of finding a common ground between the two Parties, and we have no arriére pensée—no reserve feeling of any kind—which would hinder that desire from being brought to a fortunate issue. Under these circumstances, I yesterday asked my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack (Lord Selborne) a question with respect to time; and he answered that the Government, he was sure, would make no opposition to such time as, within the limit of their proposals, would be reasonable for that purpose. I shall propose, on Thursday, that the Committee on the Franchise Bill be adjourned for a fortnight. But there is another part of the question on which I must say a word or two. If the House carries its mind back to the controversies of last July, they will remember that our objections to the course which the Government then took were that we feared there might be no redistribution, or that there might not be a good redistribution, that would accompany the Franchise Bill. The Government met us with the assurance that they fully intended to legislate—a very emphatic assurance. We replied—"That answers for your goodwill; we entirely
  6
  believe you; but that does not answer for your power, or for the quality of the Bill you may produce." I may now dismiss the question of the quality of the Bill, because we are to enter into communications, from which it is hoped that there may issue a Bill of a character to which we shall not demur; and if, which I do not in the least believe, by any misfortune, we should not come to any agreement, we shall stand in the same position—precisely the same position—for acting as we do now. But there is the further question as to the power of the Government to carry this Redistribution Bill, which we regard as an essential complement of the Franchise Bill, into law. Now, the security which the Government give us is of a very important kind; and I think—I have been thinking it over carefully—and my noble Friends near me think, that it is an adequate security, if we understand it rightly. Their security is this—that they will press the Redistribution Bill forward, when it has been agreed upon, with all possible speed. I think the noble Earl said last night de die in diem; but it is not in the published reports.
  EARL GRANVILLE: No; I did not use those words.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl says he did not use those words. Well, I thought the noble Earl did; but that does not matter. He said the Government would push forward the Bill "with all possible speed," and—this is the important matter—that they would regard the Bill as vital to their Government. Now, that is the keystone of the arch. If that falls away, there is no common ground for us to meet upon at all, and it is with respect to that that I earnestly ask for information and explanations from Her Majesty's Government. My understanding of the promise, on the part of the Government to its opponents, is that they will regard the Bill as vital, involving these two things—that they will not only regard the second reading as vital, but also that they regard all the provisions to which both Parties are agreed, and which their opponents consider essential, as vital, and that they will make it a question of the existence of the Government that they shall not, by any chance combination of atoms in the House of Commons, be driven off from the provisions considered by us as important, and to which

  7
  both sides are agreed. That is the first condition, and it is a most essential one. The other condition is that they should consider the passing of the Bill during the Session of 1885 to be vital to their existence—that is, that they will not only not endure defeat, but that they will not endure indefinite delay, and that they will not allow the Bill to be put off, so that by mere efflux of time it will not become law in 1885. That becomes a very important condition, because of a little misunderstanding which appears to have occurred in "another place" last night. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) asked the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether the undertaking of the Government to regard the Bill as vital extended to a vote in the House of Lords as well as to a vote in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) was reported as replying that he understood it to extend to the House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons; but I have since received an intimation from the right hon. Gentleman that he requires to reconsider that answer—that he misunderstood the question, and was not to be held bound by it as it appears. Now, it is not my business here to press noble Lords opposite to hold to pledges which have been given in answer to a Radical Member in "another place;" but the alteration is exceedingly important, and it does make me press with all the more earnestness on the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) to include in his definition of failures which shall be vital to the Government the failure of the Bill to pass in the year 1885. I hold that these two conditions are essential to the definition of the word "vital" in a sense which can produce an agreement between the two Parties. I do not think that in doing so I am urging any exaggerated claim, for I feel convinced that that is the interpretation of the word which would naturally occur to most persons if it were used. Now, my Lords, I have nothing further at this present moment to say, except that I have welcomed with very great satisfaction the disposition which Her Majesty's Government have shown to meet this House in a manner which they justly conceive as agreeable to the position which they have taken up, and yet which fully satisfies the requirements which we
  8
  have made. I only earnestly hope that our communications may commence at a sufficiently early period, and that in conducting them the Government will remember and act up to the full spirit of that which they said last night—namely, that the difficulty, if it arose, would not arise from their side. I believe that it will not arise from our side; and that, reserving always the essential principles for which we have contended—reserving always the great interests which we have sought to protect—there is yet penetrating the minds of both Parties in both Houses of Parliament an earnest desire that this controversy may be brought to a harmonious and successful issue.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Marquess has been good enough to express satisfaction at the conciliatory tone and the sense in which I addressed your Lordships last night. I hope your Lordships will not consider it a mere phrase if I, in return, most fully acknowledge the spirit in which the noble Marquess has made his remarks on this occasion. I trust that it was not only last night, but, as your Lordships are aware, ever since this discussion was introduced, I have always sought to avoid doing anything that would at all separate the two Houses on a question of which we have always been anxious for a settlement honourable to both Houses; and therefore I am rather anxious to say one word as to a point raised by the noble Marquess. In making the declaration yesterday of what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do with a view to meeting the objections of noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, I naturally used almost exactly the same language which had been settled upon by my Colleagues should be used in both Houses of Parliament. The noble Marquess, very naturally and very properly, asked me with regard to a condition, what that condition was; and I answered in the affirmative as meaning the words which I had already used, and which certainly bore the character that I attributed to them. I believe the noble Marquess is perfectly correct with regard to the communications which subsequently passed between Lord Hartington and Mr. Gladstone and some Members of the Conservative Party; and I am authorized to state that Mr. Gladstone most willingly

  9
  —being almost instinctively aware of the favourable reception which the statements have met with in both Houses—puts the most favourable construction upon the declarations we both made; and I am bound to say that the willingness and capacity of Mr. Gladstone to accept that favourable construction have been more than justified by the assurances which the noble Marquess has given as to the spirit in which he and his Friends will come to any communication on the subject. I think the other point the noble Marquess mentioned was with regard to the passing of the Bill and the endeavours we should make to pass the Bill early next year. I do not know that there is anything I can add to the words which were used in both Houses last night with regard to our being engaged to use every possible effort to push the Bill through at an early period of next year; aad I would further remark, with regard to our power of doing so, that there cannot be the slightest doubt of it in my mind if we are really seconded—as I am sure we shall be after what has fallen from the noble Marquess—by the Conservative Party. With regard to the answer which I have given to the noble Marquess, I cannot help thinking of the justice of the doctrine which I have laid down frequently in your Lordships' House—that it is always better on important subjects to have some little Notice of a Question about to be put; but I am authorized by Mr. Gladstone to say that nothing he uttered last night was intended at all to widen the assurances given to your Lordships' and to the other House. I earnestly hope, and I really do anticipate, from what has passed already, and what has passed in this House this evening, that we shall come to a final and satisfactory settlement of this great question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is still necessary to ask a question as to the meaning of the words—"We shall make it a vital question." I understand that to apply to the details of the Bill as well as to the principle of the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not like answering questions on my own responsibility without any consultation with my Colleagues; but if you ask my personal view of it, I have not the slightest doubt that we mean to make a vital question
  10
  of the passing of the Bill with regard to all its general principles and characteristics which may be settled upon. Of course, your Lordships would not expect Her Majesty's Government to pledge themselves not to admit any Amendment which may appear to be good to Parliament and agreed upon by both sides.
  THE MARQUESS OP SALISBURY: It is always well at the beginning of these proceedings to be perfectly clear. I understand that it is to be a vital question to pass the Bill in the next Session of Parliament—a vital question not only as against defeat, but also as against protracted delay.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think mistrust sometimes has its limits. I really think we ought not to be suspected, after giving these solemn declarations involving our personal and political honour, of not wishing to do everything in our power to give effect to them. With regard to the day for Committee, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to communicate to the House on Thursday as to the course proposed to be taken.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that we shall not go into Committee on Thursday, but that the Committee will be adjourned. I give Notice that I shall move to adjourn it for a fortnight.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— GENERAL GORDON.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN,in asking Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is true, as stated in the public journals, that a letter has been received by Lord Wolseley from General Gordon, dated on or about the 4th of November; and, if so, whether the Government, having regard to the intense anxiety which prevails on this subject, will communicate the contents thereof to this House, said, that some surprise had been felt at the shortness of the period that had elapsed between the despatch of General Gordon's letter and its arrival at head-quarters. The letter, it was understood, contained 800 words; but all that had been made known of its contents up to the present was that it

  11
  said that the writer was still holding out, and was aware of Colonel Stewart's most melancholy fate. It was said that the rest of the contents of the letter could not be published for military reasons. Of course, he did not wish Her Majesty's Government to disclose information which, if made public, might aid the Mahdi in his operations against General Gordon. If, however, the Government could, consistently with their duty, reveal more of the contents of the letter than had been disclosed up to that time, he felt sure that the House and the country would be glad.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY,in reply, said, that such a letter as that described by the noble Earl, dated the 4th November, had been received by Lord Wolseley from General Gordon, an abstract of which had reached Her Majesty's Government. The contents of that letter, so far as they had been made public, had been, with fair accuracy, published in the daily papers. In addition to the information already given there, he might add to what was said on the previous night in "another place"—namely, that Lord Wolseley had received a letter from General Gordon, stating that the Greek and Austrian Consuls were safe, and also that he had received three letters—one from Sir Samuel Baker, one from his sister, and one from Mr. Stanley from the Congo. General Gordon requested that no further private letters should be sent to him. He stated that the Mahdi was quite aware of everything that was going on; and, therefore, he (the Earl of Morley) thought it would, be clear to the House that it would be extremely undesirable to publish any confidential letters coming from General Gordon which might be of assistance to his enemies. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the House would support Her Majesty's Government in refusing to give any further information of such a character.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.