Lords Sitting of 20 July 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Land Charges Registration and Searches (221).
Report—Coroners (216–229); Solicitors (226).
Third Reading—Limited Partnerships (213); Archdeaconry of Cornwall (219); Lloyd's Signal Stations (220), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Committee—Commons Regulation (Therfield Heath)* (209–228).

THE CLYDE—POLLUTION OF LOCH GOIL AND LOCH LONG.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the Reports to the Secretary for Scotland on the pol-
  2
  lution of the waters of Loch Goil and Loch Long, and to ask a Question of which he had given Notice, it was necessary to make a short statement in regard to it. The Question as it appeared on the Paper might seem to affect a particular locality alone, and though there was no doubt that it did in the first instance, yet it involved a question of the greatest importance all over the Kingdom—namely, the increasing pollution of the waters around our shores. As was well known, these lochs were arms of the sea, and upon their shores a number of villa residences had been erected. For several years it had been perceived by those who resorted to these villas that in these arms of the sea the water was getting less and less pure than formerly. Not so many years ago he remembered that the water in these lochs was as pure almost as the water of the Island of Arran; but those who went

  3
  there to bathe had found that the water was getting dirtier and less fit for bathing every year, and likewise that it was less conducive to health. Under these circumstances, a Memorial was presented to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland last year, who very properly nominated a Commission, consisting of Dr. Littlejohn, medical officer of the Board of Supervision of Scotland, and Mr. Fletcher, a naval expert, to inquire into the whole matter. The Report of that Inquiry had now been presented to Parliament, and it was a very remarkable document. If the water was kept pure there was no city in the world that would possess such remarkable facilities in the way of a health resort as the great City of Glasgow, which was growing enormously in wealth and population. The result of the Medical and Naval Report was entirely to confirm the complaints of the dwellers by the shores of the sea lochs. The Medical Commission reported that there were three sources of pollution of these waters. The first was the sewage of Glasgow; (2) the discharge into the Clyde of the refuse of chemical works; and (3) the dredging of the river. With regard to the first, he was perfectly aware that his noble Friend had no power; but in regard to this matter he would not trouble their Lordships with any details. That was a question that involved immense engineering operations which as yet had not been fully considered. He thought the time was coming, however, when the inhabitants of Glasgow would see that it was absolutely necessary to provide some such scheme as that applied to the sewage of London. Those of their Lordships who had not been down the Clyde at this period of the year had no idea of the horrible condition of the River Clyde. For some 10 miles below Glasgow the odour was overpowering, and was almost like navigating a sewer. He believed that the City of Glasgow had not taken any steps whatever for utilizing the sewage or discharging it into any more open sea. He would not dwell upon that, however, as he was aware it involved engineering works of enormous magnitude. But there were two other sources of pollution. One was the discharge into the Clyde of the refuse from the chemical works along its banks, and the other was the dredging of the river. With regard to the refuse from the
  4
  chemical works, he believed his noble Friend with the aid of the Local Government Board had power to check this source of pollution, and he hoped that, so far as that source of the pollution was concerned, the remedy was already applied. The third source was one connected with some very curious statistics. Their Lordships were aware that our principal navigable rivers all round the country had been made navigable chiefly by the exertions of man. Originally very small streams, admitting only vessels of very small draught, by means of steam dredging they had been made great channels of commerce. The Clyde had been made a channel that ships of very large burden could ascend all the way to Glasgow. It would give some idea of the enormous magnitude of the operations if he told them that he was informed by an eminent engineer that in 40 years the dredging of the Clyde had resulted in the removal of 40,000,000 tons of material, which if piled up would make a pile 500 feet high, and a mile and a-half in circumference. These operations were carried out by a Trust called the Clyde Trustees, who were empowered by Act of Parliament to dredge the river. Up to the year 1862 the dredgings were applied to the soil by agreement with the various proprietors, being used on the marshy soil to raise the level of the neighbouring land, the result of which had been to produce some most valuable property. About the year 1862 the Clyde Trustees took it into their heads that this was a most expensive operation for them, and they, therefore, determined that, instead of applying the material to raising the neighbouring land, and destroying the marshes along the Clyde, they would pitch it all into the sea lochs, which were the resorts of the public for bathing. A friend of his at the time warned him that the result would be deleterious to the health of the neighbouring shores. He argued against this friend on the ground that the dredgings consisted of sand and gravel, and would sink to the bottom, and do no harm to anyone. His friend, however, was right. During the last 20 years 26,000,000 tons of dredgings had been thrown into these lochs for the purpose of filling up certain deep holes. It turned out, however, that, notwithstanding this enormous mass of material had been poured

  5
  in, there was no apparent filling up of the holes, and the result obviously was that all this deleterious stuff had been diffused over a wide surface, and had deposited itself along the shores, fouling and rendering them unfit for bathing purposes. This was clearly ascertained by the Report just presented. He simply wanted his noble Friend to stop this operation, and in his opinion it was in his power to do so; because, so far as he could read the Act under which the Clyde Trustees acted, they had no power whatever to pitch this material into the open sea to the detriment of their neighbours down the Clyde, though they were empowered to deposit the dredgings for the purpose of making embankments, and improving the river. He did not know whether the Executive Government had the right to suspend an Act of Parliament, and give these powers to the Clyde Trustees; but if the noble Lord was able, by the mere withdrawal of a permission, to put a stop to this depositing the dredging, the Trustees would have to dispose of it according to the Act of Parliament. He took a deep interest in the prosperity of the City of Glasgow; but it was clear that the Clyde Trustees could not be allowed to pollute these lochs to the detriment of thousands of people on the shores. Nothing could be stronger than the words of the Report as to the nuisance caused, and also as to the fact that the soundings in the lochs had not been materially altered. With regard to the burden that would be thrown on the City of Glasgow if this practice was stopped, if any difficulty was made on the part of the landed proprietors, there was an enormous amount of land left dry at low water upon which the material dredged up might be deposited. It was perfectly feasible and easy to dispose of it in this manner. Great injury was being done to the public, and serious damage was caused to those who lived on the shores in the neighbourhood by the present state of affairs. He trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend would take immediate steps to inquire into the legality of the present method adopted by Trustees, and, if possible, to put an end to it.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Marquess of LOTHIAN)observed that the question raised by the noble Duke was one of very great importance,
  6
  affecting, as it did, the whole rivers of the United Kingdom. He did not, however, think it necessary to go into the general question of river pollution, but would confine himself to the point of the River Clyde, because the enormous and rapidly increasing population on the banks of the Clyde made it a matter of the greatest importance that that river should be purified from its present insanitary state. The noble Duke had said that the City of Glasgow had never taken any steps whatever to improve the state of the Clyde; but his own impression was that in 1876 the City of Glasgow expended £11,000, upon the Report of Sir John Hawkshaw, for introducing a different system of drainage. The city introduced a Bill into Parliament in regard to it, and only withdrew it in consequence of the very strong opposition brought to bear against the scheme. That showed that the City of Glasgow had done something in the matter. Last year he had received strong representations upon the subject of the pollution of the Clyde from the inhabitants on the shores, and he had considered himself justified in directing that a Report should be drawn up. He had given directions to Mr. Fletcher and Dr. Littlejohn to inquire into the matter, and report to him; and he had also requested the Admiralty to give what assistance was in their power. The result of the Report had entirely justified the complaints made by the residents on the shores of the Clyde as to the insanitary condition of the river and the evil results of the dredging and the want of proper drainage. The noble Duke had said that there were three causes of the pollution. The Report specified six; but he thought the noble Duke had acted wisely in confining himself to the first three—namely, the sewage pollution, the refuse from alkali works, and the dredging. With regard to the first, he was afraid that his power did not go so far as to prevent the evil; with regard to the chemical pollution, he believed that new discoveries had shown that the waste which now polluted the lochs could be made use of, and might become a source of wealth. With regard to the dredging, he would make a point of inquiring by what authority this practice of getting rid of the results had been continued. He had always understood that the Clyde Trustees were

  7
  acting strictly within their legal rights in acting as they had done; but as the noble Duke had raised the question, he would seek the advice of the competent authorities upon the matter. He was firmly convinced of the necessity of making some change, in order to purify the Clyde, and he should not hesitate to take all the means in his power to that end.

IRELAND—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  RESOLUTION OF CONFIDENCE.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP,in rising to move—
  "That the names of the Lords present in the House on Thursday, the 12th of July, and assenting to the Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers passed nemine contradicente, be printed and circulated with the Minutes,"
  said, their Lordships on Thursday last week had assembled in considerable numbers; the Cross Benches had been crowded, and the only part of the House not amply filled had been the Bench immediately behind those who had been formerly Ministers of the Crown. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had brought forward a Motion, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government deserved the support of Parliament in their conduct of affairs in Ireland, in a speech distinguished by the clearness of thought and beauty of language which always marked the oratory of the noble Duke. That Motion had been carried nemine contradicente, notwithstanding the fact that the speech had contained observations reflecting very severely upon many politicians in that House. It must be a great staisfaction to Her Majesty's Government to be assured by their Lordships that they unanimously approved the action of the Government; but in politics votes ought to be weighed as well as counted, and it was very desirable to know what had been the constituent elements of their Lordships' House upon that occasion. If there had been a Division a list would have been published, and they would have known the exact amount of support which Her Majesty's Ministers had received; but though no Division List would on this occasion show who were the Peers who extended their confidence to Ministers, it was the duty of some of the officials of the House to record the names of all Peers
  8
  present, and therefore it was in their power to have the names reproduced of those who had been present when the Vote of Confidence was passed nemine contradicente. What he asked their Lordships to do was to order that the list of Peers attending on Thursday of last week should be printed and circulated with the Minutes. They would then have the moans of knowing what were the elements in the House of Lords which gave their support to the Motion. He denied that the list of Peers present would not furnish an adequate test of the opinion of those who were present, because every Peer present was bound to make himself acquainted with the Business on the Paper, and those who were in the House in the early part of the proceedings and did not think it worth while to record their votes were not entitled to say that they did not concur in the Resolution. Some persons had perpetrated what were called "extra-Parliamentary utterances," and animadversions were made upon their conduct which none of their political allies were able or willing to justify, and in the present juncture of affairs it was right that the public should know how to estimate the significance of the remarkable vote which their Lordships arrived at on the Thursday of last week. It was for that reason that he moved the Resolution.
  Moved, "That the names of the Lords present in the House on Thursday, the 12th of July, and assenting to the Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers passed nemine contradicente, be printed and circulated with the Minutes."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble Friend and Relative has found this Motion a little more troublesome than he anticipated; but I may state, with regard to myself, that I have not the least objection to have put on the Minutes and circulated that I was present and did not dissent when the Question was put on the Motion of my noble Friend the noble Duke. But apart from absolute want of precedent which the noble Earl acknowledged, there seems to be another practical difficulty. Your Lordships, no doubt, remember the reply which a certain French Minister made to an application of a great lady. He said—"If it be possible, the thing is done; if it be impossible, it shall be done." That was very gallant

  9
  of the French Minister, but it is not quite a principle upon which your Lordships can act; you cannot bind yourselves to do that which is impossible. In the original notice which the Noble Earl gave he spoke of a Motion on the Votes which passed on the 10th of July. I referred to the record of our proceedings on the 10th, and I found that we were principally occupied more or less seriously on that day with a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords, on the assurance of the Prime Minister that it might pass this Session, while, as I was informed, the Leader of the Government in "another place" had, by anticipation, abandoned the Bill. I did not find any Vote of Confidence on that point. I see, however, my noble Friend corrected that error. I have not the slightest objection to my name appearing on the Minutes as being present when the Question was put, and I should not object if it was also accompanied by a coloured plan pointing out the distribution of the forces in this House. But there is one excellent reason against this—it, unfortunately, cannot be done. The Clerks make a list of the entrées of Peers to the House, and of the Peers who take part in a Division; but they make no list of the Peers present when a Motion is put and carried without a Division, and I demur to the proposition of the noble Earl, that a Peer who enters the House assents to what is done in the House during the whole of that day. My noble Friend animadverted with considerable severity, but with the courtesy which he always exhibits, on the action or inaction of the Front Opposition Bench. But it appears from a letter which was published in The Times that my noble Friend the noble Duke was annoyed much more acutely, for he charged us with being in a conspiracy of silence which gave pain to all sincere and manly politicians. Well, now, I freely admit that a conspiracy to maintain silence, whether manly or unmanly, on any occasion is an offence of which my noble Friend is unlikely to be guilty. But we are by no means open to a charge of that kind. We are placed in some difficulty with regard to the line we should take. The noble Duke made a long, a very able, and a very carefully prepared speech. It was magnificently delivered, it was enlivened with illustrations both interesting and amusing, and it made unex-
  10
  pected reference to certain proper names. In my ignorance, until I heard the noble Duke, I had believed that the policy of Henry VIII. in Ireland was not absolutely beneficent. But there were no arguments which my noble Friend used which did not appear to us in the guise of very old friends indeed. My Colleagues and myself came down to the House intending to take part in the debate, and prepared to do so; but towards the end of the noble Duke's speech we came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that that brilliant speech, so acceptable to those in this House who agreed with the speaker, was not likely to affect public opinion much, or to check that flow which again, rightly or wrongly, we believe is moving in favour of the views which we hold. We thought, in these circumstances, that it was desirable to wait. The noble Earl has defined the Motion made by the noble Duke as a Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers. There is nothing more usual than Votes of Confidence in an existing Government. We have all known several which have saved the existence of a Government for a longer or shorter period. They are sometimes directly or indirectly solicited by Government. Sometimes they are used as a balm in one House for a blow inflicted in another. Sometimes they are forced upon a Government determined to resign. But I do not recollect any Vote of Confidence in a Government except for a heavy blow inflicted, or with a view to one impending. It is not my business to prove that Her Majesty's Government were in no such difficulty last Thursday week. Possibly, considering the almost complete collapse of their legislation, the lesson which successive bye-elections have taught, or possibly from the present state of Ireland, it was so; but we are perfectly ignorant whether this Motion of the noble Duke's was a Vote of Confidence, whether it had been solicited by Her Majesty's Government desiring to have the shield of the noble Duke thrown over them, or whether he himself was acting with the advice of the leaders of the section of the Party to which he belongs, who thought that the Government were in such a miserable plight that they could not be saved except by his strong arm or still stronger tongue. The noble Duke care-

  11
  fully abstained from saying whether his Motion was one of Confidence or not. I do not remember his having said one single word in defence of the conduct of the Government and the mode in which they apply the repressive legislation passed last year for Ireland. But most certainly he did not base his arguments on approval of the conduct of the Government in Ireland. My Lords, I have always thought that my noble Friend the noble Duke is one of the most straightforward and crystal characters that I know; but it seems, after all, that there is a slight flavour of Machiavellianism in his disposition. My noble Friend having decided that the Government were in this miserable plight and required his help, he framed a Motion, but in doing so he constructed a cunningly designed trap for his old Colleagues to fall into. If we had said "Not-Content" to his Resolution, it would have enabled him to say that we were against protecting the liberties of the public; while, if we had said "Content," it would have enabled him to say that we approved the particular mode Her Majesty's Government had adopted for protecting the liberty of the public in Ireland. My Lords, I think these are circumstances in which we had a right to take the course we took. I cannot see that any harm was done to the noble Duke himself. He had the opportunity of delivering his speech, and he carried a perfectly harmless Resolution, to which, I can honestly and conscientiously say, whatever my views of the administration of Her Majesty's Government may be, I have not the slightest objection. If any noble Lord was suffering from the disagreeable complaint of speeches driven inwards, I can only express my very great regret and hope that he may speedily recover. But I do wish emphatically to repudiate the idea that I am an insincere and unmanly conspirator because I did not say "Not-Content" to a Motion which, if it does contain anything of Confidence, is a merely quasi-Vote of semi-Confidence in Her Majesty's Government of a perfectly innocuous character, and that I cannot do what I did on Thursday last without such an accusation being launched against me and my Friends, although I am more firmly convinced than I ever was that Her Majesty's Government are following a course
  12
  which does not secure and is not calculated to succeed in securing the objects of this political truism.
  EARL COWPER: I am glad, my Lords, that we have had some explanation of the extraordinary scene of the other night, although I cannot say that I think the explanation altogether satisfactory. It appears now that there was no conspiracy of silence on that occasion. I am glad, my Lords, that there was no conspiracy; but anything more like one I confess I never saw. I think, however, that if there had been a conspiracy, there might, from one point of view, have been some excuse, because the impression created in my mind by the Front Bench here is that people will very often do, when acting in a body, things which you would hardly expect them to do when acting individually. I think that for men to go about stumping the country and making strong and violent speeches, and then when challenged in their own places in this House not to get up and defend what they have said or to apologize for their mistakes, constitutes conduct which I am surprised to see, though possibly it might be accounted for by a general understanding arrived at before hand. If the noble Duke had been an unknown man, a young Member of your Lordships' House, or even a well-known man not much thought of, I think it might have been a snub to him that his remarks called forth no attention; but being, as every candid man must admit, one of the greatest speakers of the day, and having been a Cabinet Minister longer almost than any man living, and holding a very high position before the country, it could not have that effect. But I think, my Lords, that it was rather a slur on this House, seeing that it seemed to convey the impression that it does not very much matter what the House of Lords says—the country does not care for it. It will give some Liberal newspapers an opportunity of pointing out the insignificance of the House of Lords, and for men holding so high a position in the House to assist in bringing it into discredit is eminently unsatisfactory.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I have only a very few words to say in answer to the somewhat extraordinary explanation of my noble Friend (Earl Granville). In so far as that speech

  13
  afforded any information, it was that my noble Friend could not vote against the Motion because it might be said that he was against protecting the liberties of the public. All I can say is that I should have been very glad if he had got up a week ago and said so; but his present course is to me wholly unintelligible. My noble Friend rather hinted that I was capable sometimes of Machiavellianism, and he also rather hinted that my Motion was brought forward at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government. I can assure my noble Friend on my word of honour that the responsibility for the Motion rested entirely and absolutely with myself. I thought the time had come when this House should step forward out of the ordinary line of casual debate on this great subject, and take part with the House of Commons in passing a Resolution which should explain not only its support of the Government, but also the ground on which that support was given. I did make known my intention to a considerable number of my noble Friends who are in the same position as myself, that is to say, Members of this House who maintain, as we think, the true traditions of Liberal policy with regard to the union of the Three Kingdoms, and I received the assent of the noble Lords to whom I then appealed. That was the only step I took in the matter, and I can state with absolute certainty that there was no suggestion whatever with regard to this Motion which emanated from my noble Friends on the Front Bench opposite. Now, my Lords, my noble Friend spoke of this proceeding as having given some annoyance to myself. I can assure him I was not annoyed in the least—on the contrary, I felt it to be a very great triumph—I felt that my noble Friends could not answer the accusation I made. And my noble Friend has virtually admitted the fact. He said the object of speaking in this House was to influence opinion. In that I quite agree. There is no use in human speech except for the purpose of influencing public opinion, and all of us who speak in this House speak with the view of influencing public opinion. Then my noble Friend said he thought he would do no good to his side if he took part in the debate, and that therefore he thought it better to refrain from speaking; but the great part of my speech consisted of facts and not of arguments, and of quo-
  14
  tations from my noble Friend himself and his Friends. My noble Friend referred to the letter I published in The Times the other day, and said it indicated annoyance on my part. I wrote that letter in answer to a letter from Sir George Trevelyan containing very great misrepresentations, and so far from showing annoyance, I expressed sympathy with his annoyance. He told the public he was standing at the Bar, and would have given £100 to answer that speech. Why did my noble Friends on that Bench desert him? It seems to me an extraordinary act of desertion. I should say it was a base act of desertion. It was certainly a great exhibition, I think, of moral and political cowardice. My noble Friend and some of his Colleagues have been talking lately of bringing in a Bill to reform this House. I hope they will bring in a Bill to reform Her Majesty's Opposition, and to give them a little back bone and a little more courage to state in the face of educated men what they state to the shilling galleries outside, where they know they cannot be contradicted, because most of those whom they address are not acquainted with the facts. I think the House has some reason to complain of the action of noble Lords. There was no discourtesy to me; but I think it was not a worthy course to take in either House of Parliament. That is the only thing I have to say on this matter. I am not conceited enough to suppose that I can influence public opinion more than other men, but facts do influence public opinion, and unless these facts can be contradicted they will influence it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, It will be the feeling of your Lordships that we are placed in a somewhat unprecedented position by the Motion of the noble Earl opposite. He moves that a record shall be printed and circulated of all the Peers present in this House on a day which was first fixed as Tuesday, the 10th, and was subsequently altered to Thursday, the 12th. For all intents and purposes, one day is just as good as the other. I should have been glad if the noble Lord had included in his Motion a list of the names of the brilliant assembly of Peeresses who were present in the Gallery, when the noble Duke delivered his speech, as I think that would have been more interesting than the list of Peers. The noble Earl supports his contention by this extra-

  15
  ordinary argument. He says that everybody who enters the House gives a blank cheque to the House of Lords as regards his political opinions for the remainder of that sitting, and that he is to be bound by any Resolution that is adopted and from which he does not in words dissent. I do not think that is an argument which can be seriously sustained, and I am sure that the noble Earl who has brought forward this Motion would be the last to support it. Then I come to the speech of my noble Friend behind me (Earl Cowper), who apparently was suffering from those symptoms which have been so vivaciously described by my noble Friend near me, and who has accused us of doing that collectively which we would not do individually. In using language of that kind the noble Earl was bound to establish his assertion. I have never considered it the duty of an individual to speak who has nothing particular to say. As far as I am concerned I can say most conscientiously that after listening to the speech of the noble Duke, I had nothing whatever to say. I come now to the speech of the noble Duke himself, which is, of course, the marrow of his whole discussion. The noble Duke occupies a somewhat exceptional position in this House. I do not dissent from the words of eulogy in which three noble Lords have to-night indulged with regard to the noble Duke, and when the Bill of the noble Marquess again comes before your Lordships, which is to deal with the exclusion of black sheep from this House, I shall be prepared to move an Amendment providing for the appointment of a Member of your Lordships' House as censor to deal with this matter. The name of the Member of this House most fitted for this Office will naturally occur to your Lordships. By appointing the noble Duke to that Office we shall have its functions exercised in an unsparing manner, and we shall also legitimatize those functions which he has long and innocently filled. The noble Duke never comes down to this House but to open an Assize. We do not always know who the culprit will be, but we know that he has the judgment in one pocket and the black cap in the other. We know that condemnation is pretty sure to be pronounced on some Member of your Lordships' House. The noble
  16
  Duke has pursued this course for a considerable number of years. He began with the late Lord Derby, then he went on to the late Lord Beaconsfield, then came the turn of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), when the noble Duke used to declare that it was absolute insanity to suppose that the Russians would ever occupy Merv. [A noble LORD: "Question!"] I am showing how it is that the Motion of the noble Duke did not receive all the attention it might otherwise have deserved. Of late years the noble Duke has reserved all his judicial eloquence [Renewed cries of "Question!"] for those whom he by some inexplicable mental process brings himself to call his "noble Friends." We may date this action of the noble Duke from the time when he left Mr. Gladstone's Administration. That is the Hegira from which his present action dates. From that period everything that we have done has been wrong; from the day we lost his guidance we have never been right. I may point out to the noble Lord who calls "Question" that these repeated rebukes have made us rather callous, and that if the lash had been wielded with a little more discrimination by the noble Duke his action the other evening might have had more effect upon our hardened consciences. As to the speech which the noble Duke delivered upon that occasion, we have heard it styled as powerful. I have no doubt that it was powerful, and its delivery was certainly powerful. The noble Duke says that speech consisted of facts. I am far from denying that. There were facts concerning Henry VIII., Ireland in the time of the introduction of Christianity, the annals of the Four Masters, certain doings of Garibaldi, and the Character of Mr. Lacaita; but it was not until the last 10 minutes of his impassioned harangue that the noble Duke even remotely approached the subject of his Motion. In that speech the noble Duke did make a charge against Sir George Trevelyan, and said that Sir George Trevelyan had not always been courteous to the Irish Members. But that was not an issue on which to raise a great debate, and it has been since adequately dealt with by Sir George Trevelyan himself at a subsequent picnic. I do not see that we were bound to involve the House in a long debate for

  17
  the purpose of vindicating the courtesy of my right hon. Friend. It must also be remembered that we had had a discussion of this very question a week before, when the Lord Chief Justice of England animadverted on the taste of having such a debate at that time. Upon that occasion, however, the noble Duke delivered his mind, or part of his mind, and one of the late Lord Lieutenants of Ireland (Earl Spencer) had the opportunity of making a speech, which I read, and which I venture to think was one of the most dignified and masterly speeches over made by him in this House. It does not, therefore, very clearly appear what was the object of the noble Duke's Motion. But there must have been some object. We know something of the inception of that Motion. We know that there was a meeting, limited in number but distinguished by opulence, at the private residence of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in St. James's Square. We received the official account of that meeting, and at the end of that official account there came the remarkable announcement that the noble Duke had given Notice of this Motion. That meeting apparently entered into a conspiracy of silence, such as we are charged with. The announcement was received with gloomy taciturnity. Therefore the Motion was apparently not called for by that section which is termed Liberal Unionist. Was it called for by Her Majesty's Government? We are distinctly told that it was not. I did not need that assurance to be convinced of this. Why should the Government need the Resolution of the noble Duke? Had they intended to take part in the debate? Rumours reached me, from a source for which I have a great respect, that the Government intended to take no part in the debate, and that they had resolved to be mere spectators of the controversy between the different sections of the Liberal Party, looking on at the melancholy schism which devoured the Liberal Party. Let me ask what object the Government could have gained by this Motion? Did they need any assurance of confidence from this House? Did they need any counterblast to a Vote of Want of Confidence in the other House? Why, shortly before a Vote of Want of Confidence was negatived in the House of Commons by an enormous majority. Did they want to assure the
  18
  country that they had the confidence of this House? I venture to say that no one on this Bench has ever denied that the Government possesses the almost unlimited confidence of this House. Therefore we have to seek for some other motive for the Motion? I venture to say that the motive stares us in the face. The noble Duke had a speech to deliver and he must deliver it; whether it dealt with Henry VIII. or the annals of the Four Masters, or whatever subjects, it must be got rid of. The practical object in fact would have been attained by a Motion in the ordinary form, "That the Lord Sundridge be now heard." The speech was delivered and the object was attained. We saw nothing in that speech to be answered, and we remained silent. The noble Lord taunts us with being ready enough to address "the shilling gallery." We do sometimes address public audiences. I believe this to be part of the modern system of politics, and I think I have even read speeches of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) delivered elsewhere than in the select atmosphere of this House. The noble Duke, however, I regret to say, is not much given to haranguing what he styles "the shilling gallery." If he did he might produce some effect upon his countrymen, instead of preaching in this House to the converted. From "the shilling gallery," too, he would not be likely to have to complain of that apathy in regard to his utterances which he now laments to find on this Bench. I am willing to stand by every word I have uttered on public platforms; and, if necessary, to repeat it in this House; but you would be setting up a rather alarming precedent if you were to preach that repetition was the only course to take. Is everybody who has made a speech in the country bound to deliver it over again in this House? Such a custom, I venture to say, would have even a greater effect in diminishing the attendance in this House than the revolutionary doctrine of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp). But the question really in issue between us was never touched by the speech of the noble Duke. I believe that we had the same end in view with regard to the government of Ireland—for I am willing to give my opponents credit for generous motives; I believe that we both wish to secure the peace

  19
  and contentment of that unhappy country; I believe that we, on this side of the House are not one whit less anxious than the noble Duke and his Friends to establish the law and order of which he spoke. The difference between us is as to the means by which to secure that end. We believe that you are pursuing a path on which every omen is sinister, and against which all experience should warn you. We believe that the only safe, permanent, and high-minded way to secure the maintenance of law and order in Ireland is to rest it on the sympathy and co-operation of the Irish people.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that the greater part of the remarks of the noble Earl who had just sat down had, as usual, been spoken lightly and jestingly. The noble Earl had thought fit to make fun of everybody and everything. If the censor of whom the noble Earl had spoken were ever appointed he should expect the appointment of a jester also, and he should be very glad to subscribe towards the cap and bells with which the noble Earl should be invested in that capacity. The noble Duke whom the noble Earl had lectured was a man of far greater eminence and was held in much more respect than the noble Earl himself, and could afford to treat his gibes with contempt. The noble Earl had said that there was nothing in the noble Duke's speech which deserved answer. He took leave to tell the noble Earl that he was under a very great misapprehension if he thought that the unfounded assertions which his friends made throughout the country were not going to be contradicted. There were statements in the speech of the noble Duke which could not be contradicted, and those were the statements which the noble Earl tried in his airy manner to put aside as unimportant matters of ancient history. The noble Earl and those who sat near him were deeply responsible to the people of this country, and especially to the people of Ireland, for their perversions of history, and for the way in which, having possibly deceived themselves in the first instance, they were constantly deceiving and misleading the people. Anyone who read Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet in which he explained his conversion to Home Rule would find important statements which had been contradicted, and which, al-
  20
  though untrue, had been again and again repeated, to the disgrace of speakers whom he would not name. Mr. Gladstone in his pamphlet talked about our having robbed Ireland of her old national Parliament when there never was a Parliament in the early years of the history of Ireland, except the Parliament of the English settlers. The so-called Irish Parliament, after many changes and vicissitudes, finally appeared in the shape in which it was popularly known as Grattan's Parliament, and in that shape it was a miserable travesty of representation, inasmuch as Catholics were excluded from the Parliament of a nation of which four-fifths of the people belonged to the Catholic Church. The noble Duke in his speech last week repeated some of these historical truths and showed the inconsistency and inaccuracy of certain of the speeches delivered in the country by noble Lords who sat in that House. At the silence of the noble Earl who had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer) he was especially astonished, because he knew the noble Earl to be the soul of honour, a man who would never be inaccurate intentionally. He was much surprised, therefore, that the noble Earl did not emancipate himself last week from the thraldom under which he appeared to be, and reply to the charges of inconsistency and inaccuracy which had been made against him. They had heard that Sir George Trevelyan, the trusted Colleague of noble Lords on the front Opposition Bench, had said at one of those political picnics, at which the Members of the Opposition delivered their harangues, that he would have given £100 to answer the noble Duke. How, then, was it that not one of the six or seven trusted Colleagues of Sir George Trevelyan who heard the noble Duke's speech attempted to answer it? No pecuniary obligation would have been incurred by them, and yet not one of them rose in his place. There were different ways in which men met charges against their honour. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) was not addicted to caution or accuracy in his statements. On a recent occasion, he had spoken of him (Lord Brabourne) in a way in which he would not have dared to speak some years ago when the old mode of meeting unfounded charges still existed. He

  21
  cared but little, however, what the noble Earl said of him either in or out of that House. It was sufficient for him to know that the noble Earl's statements could be easily answered; and, when they were directed against himself, he treated them with cordial contempt. In his opinion, the speech of the noble Duke deserved to be answered, if only for the honour and reputation of the House. At present certain grave charges of inconsistency and inaccuracy had been made against the Leaders of a certain Party, and no answer had been given, except such as was contained in the gibes and jeers of the noble Earl who had just sat down. As to the Motion before the House, he thought that no Peer who was present yesterday week could complain of it. Every Peer who entered the House that day must have known what was the Business on the Paper, and Peers who did not think it worth while to oppose the Resolution of the noble Duke could have no ground of complaint if their names were taken down as joining in the passing of it nemine contradicente.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I almost dread to remain silent, lest I should be accused by the noble Earl opposite of having come down to the House merely to see the schisms of the Liberal Party devouring each other, although I confess I would go a very long distance to see a schism devouring anything. I am afraid, too, that the noble Earl at the head of the Opposition might think that I was suffering from the painful malady of suppressed speech if I were to remain silent. On the whole, therefore, it appears to me right that I should make one or two observations in this interesting conversation. I have listened to this debate with great attention, to try and ascertain what has exercised my mind ever since last week—namely, what was the real reason for which noble Lords then performed that remarkable feat of silence. I confess I could not easily come to any other conclusion than that it was due to one of those sudden changes of opinion for which noble Lords opposite are so celebrated. Though we did not know it, we had their entire assent to Mr. Balfour's policy, and that it had been ger-
  22
  minating in their brains for some time—that we were the witnesses of the genesis of an idea, and that now they came forward with a great act of contrition and humiliation. I welcomed the Motion of my noble Friend because I thought it would give them an opportunity of lending emphasis to their display of patriotic feeling; but I understood from the noble Earl and from the noble Earl who has just sat down that it was really because they had nothing to say. Well, of course, the first remark that occurred to me was that they might have made the speeches then which they have made to-night. But, on hearing those speeches, I was not surprised that they preferred to take the other opportunity. I think they are quite justified in saying that they have nothing to say. Then the noble Earl who leads the Opposition went on to speak of the Motion as a truism and one in which he entirely concurred. He must have been recently studying casuistry; for it requires the strongest powers of non-natural interpretation to be able to extract from this Motion the sense which the noble Earl puts upon it. The Motion was—
  "That in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government deserves the support of Parliament in securing for the subjects of the Queen in Ireland the full enjoyment of personal freedom in all their lawful transactions, and in protecting them from the coercion of unlawful combination."
  Now, I understand the contention of the noble Earl to be that though we are deserving the support of Parliament in doing these things, yet, as a matter of fact, we did not do them. He thinks that we deserve the support of Parliament in securing the personal freedom of the subjects of the Queen in Ireland; but, as a matter of fact, that we do not secure personal freedom of the subjects of the Queen. We have heard from the noble Earl who has just sat down that this policy of ours, which was the subject of their unanimous approval on Thursday last, is beset with sinister omens, and that it really leads to all kinds of catastrophes and terrors. Well, then, it is very surprising that the noble Earl should be one of those who unanimously approved the Motion a week ago.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think I had better explain that which the noble

  23
  Marquess does not seem to see—namely, that we approve the object of protecting all peaceful persons; but we do not approve the means which the noble Marquess adopts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When you say you support a man in doing a thing you usually mean that he is doing it; but the noble Earl tells me that he has a special vocabulary and system of interpretation of his own. The only remark these proceedings call for is that they throw light upon the method of controversy which is pursued by those who lead Her Majesty's Opposition. The noble Earl told us that he thought silence was not likely to do his cause any harm. He prefers the speeches which have been made as to the flowing tide being in his favour. Now, if silence was the uniform policy of the Leaders of the Opposition I could understand his contention, but silence is not their uniform policy. Their uniform policy is not even confined to addressing the shilling galleries to which my noble Friend the noble Duke referred. They do not regard the advice of the noble Earl to address numerous and crowded audiences. On the contrary, the manner in which the controversy is now carried on by the noble Lords and by the right hon. Gentlemen of the Party opposite is that here, where they are capable of being answered, where their every argument can be dissected, where misrepresentations, if they are made, can be refuted, where mis-statements of history, if they are stated, can be exposed—here they observe the most absolute and careful silence. But outside this House there is no hole or corner in which we do not find a Leader of the Opposition making a speech. He gets behind Mr. Biggar and Dr. Tanner at a picnic in order to make a speech, or he is invited to a cheerful dinner given by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, and in the presence of eight or 10 guests, himself at one end of the table and a reporter at the other, he makes a speech, not only impugning the motives and attacking the characters of his opponents, but a speech replete with the most unfounded statements, replete with the most distorted law, full of attacks upon the judicial officers of the Crown, and reaching to that pitch of indecency that he did not shrink from commenting upon evidence that is now being given in a
  24
  case before a Court of Law. These are the two opposite sides of the medal. These are the two opposite poles of the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition. Wherever they can be answered, wherever their statements can be exposed, there they cultivate silence; but wherever it is possible to insinuate unfounded aspersions upon their adversaries, without any immediate chance of an answer, there they shrink from no assertion and let pass no opportunity of a speech. We have had displayed before us a singular difference of temperament between the late Viceroy of Ireland (Earl Spencer) and the Chief Secretary who served under him (Sir George Trevelyan). While the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was at boiling temperature, the late Viceroy was at the opposite end of the thermometric scale. While the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have given £100 to be able to make a speech, the late Viceroy would have given twice as much to be secured from all chance of it. And yet the curious thing is, nothing had been said against the late Chief Secretary for Ireland which he really need have minded to hear, but imputations had been made against the late Viceroy which few men would have liked to pass with silence. Of course, I mean of a public character. I do not wish to import any insinuation of private acrimony into the debate, but as regards his public proceedings, as regards the consistency of his present conduct with the conduct he pursued in past times, as regards the compatibility of the reproaches which he has addressed to his opponents with the conduct which he himself pursued, I confess that when these things were set forth in clear, lucid, and powerful language by the noble Duke the other night, I did wonder that the noble Earl did not bound to his feet and repel an imputation as heavy as any ever cast on a public man.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not desire to prolong this conversation, but as I am one of those who sit on this Bench, I suppose I am included in the censure which has been cast upon us. I will make this remark. I am not aware that I ever shrunk from advancing my views in this House. Only a week before the Motion I did not shrink from expressing my opinions. Possibly I am not much practised in

  25
  platform oratory, but whatever I say on a platform I am ready to say here. Does the noble Marquess suppose that any one of us ever shrinks from expressing our views that we think it one of the primary objects of any Government to secure the personal freedom of the subjects of the Queen, and to protect them from unlawful combinations? If we said "No" to such a proposal, we should put ourselves in the position of saying that the Government was not deserving the support of Parliament in doing what is the elementary duty of any Government whatever. The difference between us and my noble Friend behind me is very simple. If he had said that we approved the means by which the Government attained their ends, then we should have divided against the Motion. Those who know the course of the political history of the men to whom the noble Marquess refers, must know that they are just as ready as the noble Marquess to meet their opponents face to face, wherever they may be; but at the present day it has become the practice to make a large
  LIST OF LORDS PRESENT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON THURSDAY THE 12TH OF JULY 1888, on which day a Resolution of Confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers was passed nemine contradicente.

  Cambridge, D.

  Ripon, M.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Mount-Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

  York, L. Archp.

  Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Amherst, E.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Beaufort, D.

  Aylesford, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Bathurst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Bradford, E.

  Cleveland, D.

  Brownlow, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Caledon, E.

  Leeds, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Portland, D.

  Clonmell, E.

  St. Albans, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Cowley, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Cowper, E.

  Bath, M.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Bristol, M.

  De La Warr, E.

  Exeter, M.

  de Montalt, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Dundonald, E.

  Morley, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Essex, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Feversham, E.

  Orkney, E.

  Fife, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Powis, E.

  Harrowby, E.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Howe, E.

  Romney, E.

  Ilchester, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Rosslyn, E.

  Russell, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Scarborough, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Selborne, E.

  Kingston, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Lanesborough, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lindsay, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Lindsey, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Lovelace, E.

  Strange, E. (D. Athole.)

  Lucan, E.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Sydney, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Milltown, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Minto, E.

  Zetland, E.

  number of speeches out of Parliament. It may or may not be a convenient practice, but it has become a portion of our system of polities that does not apply to one side only; it occurs continually on the other side. It frequently happens that on such occasions the colouring is much higher than would be the case if political opponents were present. To that extent I agree there is a danger, but it is unavoidable in platform oratory. I agree with my noble Friend that no answer was necessary the other night. We have a right to our own judgment, and not to be guided by the judgment of others, and we shall always be ready to defend our Party in this House, without fear or favour, or any shrinking from expressing our opinions.
  Motion amended, by leaving out ("and assenting to the,") and inserting ("on which day a").
  Resolved, That the names of the Lords present in the House on Thursday, the 12th of July, on which day a resolution of confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers was passed nemine contradicente, be printed and circulated with the Minutes.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Cross, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Gough, V.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Churchill, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Hardinge, V.

  Hood, V.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinstar.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Torrington, V.

  Clinton, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Colchester, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Lichfield, L. Bp.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Congleton, L.

  Crewe, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Abinger, L.

  De Ramsey, L.

  Addington, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Alcester, L.

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

  Armstrong, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Digby, L.

  Donington, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Aveland, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Basing, L.

  Esher, L.

  Bateman, L.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Forbes, L.

  Botreaux, L. (E. Loudoun.)

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Grantley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Greville, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Bramwell, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Brassey, L.

  Harlech, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Harris, L.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Herries, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Hillingdon, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Hothfield, L.

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Houghton, L.

  Rossmore, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Keane, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  St. Oswald, L.

  Sandhurst, L

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Kensington, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Knutsford, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Langford, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Lawrence, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Leigh, L.

  Lingen, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Lurgan, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Magheramorne, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Manners, L.

  Suffeld, L.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Methuen, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Thring, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Moore, L. (M. Drogheda.)

  Tyrone L. (M. Waterford.)

  Mostyn, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Napier, L.

  Wantage, L.

  North, L.

  Watson, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

  Norton, L.

  Windsor, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Plunket, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Poltimore, L.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—WEST LAVINGTON AND HORSHAM ENDOWED SCHOOLS—QUESTION.
LORD COLCHESTERasked the Lord President of the Council, Whether the Education Department are of opinion that any question remains to be determined as to the obligations of the Mercers' Company towards the school endowments of West Lavington and Horsham; whether any scheme under the Endowed School Acts is in progress with reference to Dauntsay's School at West Lavington; and whether any such scheme has been submitted to the Education Department relative to the Horsham Grammar School?
THE LORD PRESIDENT (Viscount CRANBROOK), in reply, said, that the original scheme with regard to West Lavington had been abandoned, but the Mercers' Company had behaved with great liberality in the matter, and it was hoped that a satisfactory scheme would soon be carried out. With regard to Horsham Grammar School, a Report had been presented to the Education Department. He did not know whether it had reference to the Mercers' Company, but, at all events, no conclusion had yet been come to, but it was under consideration.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.