ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTYS MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

HL Deb 05 February 1895 vol 30 cc14-50

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

delivered the Report of HER MAJESTYS GRACIOUS SPEECH from the Throne.

*LORD WELBY rose to move:—"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in reply to the Speech from the Throne." He said that he knew he might rely oil the Houses friendly forbearance when he pleaded that his life had been spent in the public service, and in that branch of the public service of which it was the watchword that its members, serving both parties in the State, should hold their tongues. Since Parliament rose a great power for peace had passed away; but the influence of the late Tsar still survived. The empires of Russia and Great Britain were on most friendly terms. The prospects of peace throughout the world among the great Powers were good; and Her Majesty was able to assure Parliament that her relations with all foreign Powers were friendly. He believed that it was the policy of the noble Marquessopposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to anticipate in friendly negotiations points in relation to Africa which might arise between England. France, and other Powers, and so to obviate difficulties which in times of excitement might lead to great anxiety. It must, therefore, be a subject of congratulation, not only to Her Majestys Government, but to the noble Marquess also, that Her Majestys Government had been able to conclude an agreement for marking out the boundaries of Sierra Leone and the adjacent territories of France. Might not this be taken as a sample of that happy continuity of foreign policy winch had marked the administrations of the noble Marquess, the present Prime Minister, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? He believed that when the papers were laid before their Lordships they would find that security had been taken for the maintenance of a reasonable tariff between the possessions of Her Majestys Government and France, and also that security had been taken for free intercourse between the subjects of all Powers. From one quarter there came "steaming up a lamentation and an ancient tale of wrong," coupled with stories of events which had deeply moved the public mind. But those stories were at present unconfirmed, and he thought it would be agreed that in equity we must wait to hear more about them. At all events, the Porte had promised and instituted an inquiry, and Her Majestys Government, under the powers conferred upon them by the Treaty of Berlin, in concert with other Powers, had appointed delegates to watch the progress of the inquiry. By that means he thought the country might rest assured that due precautions had been taken for eliciting the truth, and that when the truth had been elicited justice would be done. It must be gratifying to all that Her Majesty was able to announce a decrease of crime in Ireland. It was a striking fact that the outrages reported in 1894 were fewer than in any year since Her Majesty ascended the Throne; and that with respect to agrarian outrages alone, they were lower than in any year for the last 18 years. Might he not express the hope that this was in some degree owing to the legislation of past years in which both Parties in the State had shared; and, speaking from the Government side of the House, might he not also attribute it in some degree to the fact that a large section of Great Britain desired legislation in accordance with Irish ideas? Their Lordships were aware that in 1896 15 years would have elapsed since the passing of the Act of 1881; and it would be necessary to make provision for the proceedings after the expiry of that statutory period in cases as they arose. Her Majestys Government would ask Parliament at the same time to remedy certain defects which were deemed to have occurred in the working of the Land Act. It had been found that there was a certain want of uniformity in the decision of the Courts. Also, that there was a question whether the tenants always got full allowance for the improvements which they had created. There was further question whether, under Town Parks, land really used for agricultural purposes was not included; and there was a defect in the definitions of the Act of 1881 which, at all events, ought to be remedied. He was aware that there was a considerable difference of opinion upon this subject; and that a large body of opinion in Ireland was opposed to the proposed legislation. At the same time, there were, among the high authorities in Ireland, men quite as opposed to the general policy of the present Government as any noble Lord opposite, who thought that these questions ought to be settled, and that it was desirable to settle them without delay. Might it not be possible, if that were the case, that some arrangement should be found by which a measure should be passed into law settling these questions, and not leaving them to clog for an indefinite time the legislation of future Sessions? It was proposed, also, to reintroduce a Bill which did not pass into law the last Session—a Bill for the reinstating of the evicted tenants. He thought that on this point there was not a real difference of principle between the two sides of the House; because, if he remembered aright, the principle enunciated in the Evicted Tenants Bill was also enunciated in Mr. Balfours Act of 1891. At all events, last year, the attitude of the two Parties made many people think that an agreement between them was not impossible. Might it not be hoped that a happier issue would attend the bringing in of the Bill this year than it was possible to achieve last year? Her Majesty further recommended a measure for the amalgamation of the City and County of London on the basis of the Report of the Royal Commission, presided over by Mr. Courtney. The Act of 1888 in reality conferred a new charter, though, perhaps, an imperfect one, on London; and there was no greater proof of the value of that charter than the amount of Municipal feeling which it had elicited. If he were asked to adduce a further proof of that feeling, he should only refer to the lists published day by day, of the candidates for the coming County Council election. But the Act of 1888 was, to a certain exent, imperfect. It created a central body outside the City, but it did not create local bodies. The consequence was that, without any fault of the London County Council, the weight of all the details of administration devolved on the Council; and, moreover, in consequence of the absence of those local bodies, Parliament had been obliged in the interval to impose still further duties upon the Council. All parties were agreed that these district bodies should be created, and that the work of development should begin; but he was afraid that here the agreement ceased. The scheme of the Royal Commission on the basis of which Her Majesty s Government proposed to act, contemplated a full development of the principle of Local Government. It proposed to create district bodies directly elected, to transfer to and to invest in them all powers not necessarily reserved to the Central Authority. The Central Authority would inherit the privileges and the associations of the City, but would enjoy a greater authority, inasmuch as it would represent London in its entirety. On the other side, an alternative scheme and been sketched out by an authority well entitled to speak on London government. Under that scheme the City of London would be unreformed. It would continue, though only a fragment of London, to represent London as a whole; but the real London would have no part in the body which so represented it. The City would be surrounded by a number of small municipalities independent of each other, with no inducement to common action and no controlling power able to enforce common action; for the scheme of the noble Lord spoke of the central body as the servant of the municipalities, and it was difficult to see how the servant could possess a controlling power. Had not this scheme, however, somewhat of a punitive appearance? It was an old custom in the case of objectionable persons to hang, draw, and quarter them as a warning to other objectionable persons. Was the Capital of the Empire to be quartered and its sections put up in districts of the Metropolis not as a type but as a warning to other municipalities? He was afraid that this belittling of London was due to a distrust of the County Council not altogether justified. During the short time he had been connected with the County Council he had been struck by the amount and goodness of the work undertaken as well as by the excellent manner in which it had been done. It was said that the County Council under the impulse of extreme men entered upon rash and dangerous experiments and wasted the ratepayers money. Take the wages question as an example. As far as he could see the County Council did not differ in principle from Parliament itself. He had looked at the programmes of the Progressive and Moderate Parties, and he scarcely saw any difference between them. Undoubtedly the County Council had undertaken and executed a number of works as an experiment; and this was represented as a very dangerous experiment. But in this policy was the County Council doing more than following the example of many bodies throughout the country, including that, very revolutionary body the London and North-Western. Railway Company? He admitted that it was an experiment, but it was an experiment conducted under such keen criticism and watched by such experts that its weak points would be found out and would be duly reported to the country. The increase in the rate was admitted, but he asked whether it was more, at all events on one point, than the natural consequences of the extended demands of the public necessitated? If their Lordships were to judge by the rate alone, what would be the verdict passed on the Imperial Parliament judged by the increase in the national rate in the last few years? It might, again, be urged that in carrying out this experimental policy the County Council entertained schemes emanating from the Labour Party. Did it stand alone in this? Had Parliament never made a leap in the dark? Were there no projects of experimental finance afloat and spoken of as not unacceptable to high authority; and were there not signs that retreat to Toynbee Hall was becoming an exercise of religion in Conservative politics? With reference to the passage of Her Majestys speech referring to the depression in the agricultural interest, their Lordships were aware that a Royal Commission was now sitting to examine the question; but the example of other similar inquiries which marked their history like milestones since the Peace did not give lively promise of any immediate or heroic remedy. He passed by empirical measures intended to raise prices as not coming within the domain of practical politics. The complaint was that the value of agricultural produce was so low that it did not pay the producers. Produce is so abundant in our ports that supply well-nigh outstrips demand. He said that an eminent American economist not long ago observed that the American farmer sold his wheat in the early seventies in Europe at 54s. a quarter; in 1890 the price was 32s. a quarter, but he still sold at a profit, thanks to labour-saving appliances and to the reduction in the rate of transport. But the downward stream did not stop there, and the American farmer complained as loudly as the English farmer that when wheat was 20s. or less per quarter he could not grow his wheat at a profit. The reason for those low prices was due to new railroads being constructed every year and to new fields of supply being opened up, as well as to swifter ships and keener competition, and the shipowner complained as loudly as the farmer that he could not get a profit. Wheat was now carried from New York to Liverpool for 5s. a ton, and wheat, which in 1873 was carried from California to Europe for 70s. to 75s. a ton, was carried in December last at 28s. 6d. a ton. But it was not private competition alone that was at work. Governments throughout the world co-operated with the farmer in reducing cost of transport, and in making the world into one big market, and they must not be surprised at the natural consequence—low prices. Any idea, therefore, of a speedy or perhaps eventual rise in prices must be rejected by those suffering from agricultural depression. Government is powerless to raise prices, even if it wished to do so. But ought they to wish for a rise in prices? Surely the object of Government was the greatest good of the greatest number, and was there a greater good for the mass of the people than cheap food. Would any one dare to assert the converse and say that cheap food was an evil. But were their Lordships satisfied that our farmers made full use of their markets? He spoke with diffidence, but might perhaps offer an illustration of his meaning. In 1861 Denmark sent butter to this country worth £105,000; in 1894 it sent butter worth £5,850,000. He understood that in this interval the Danish farmers had taken largely to co-operative farming, and that their butter practically commanded the market as compared with our own. Was it not possible for something to be done to regain that butter trade for English farmers? The past year had been a bad one owing to slack trade and agricultural depression, but he thought they might say that the mass of the working population had done fairly well. Pauperism had not increased. As far as he could learn, the numbers of the unemployed had not grown, and wages had been very fairly maintained. In certain fluctuating trades they had no doubt gone down, but the Customs and Inland Revenue returns showed that the working classes had been able to avail themselves of the cheap prices of articles of consumption. The Revenue was keeping fairly well up; the Customs Revenue was good; and the item of stamps, which marked commercial transactions, was also doing well. As far as he could learn, the Beer Duty was increasing, though, on the other hand, the Spirit Duties were not quite so good. He did not know the reason for the falling oil. Perhaps it was due in part to the uncertainty as to spirit legislation in the future. The Income Tax had been of late more or less stationary. Had noble Lords thought of the ever-progressing expenditure on armaments and the sources out, of which that expenditure would he met? Parliament would not give any Chancellor of the Exchequer the confidence which George I. placed in his Chancellor, when he said that Walpole could turn stones into gold. Perhaps when Statesmen were embarassed in devising new taxes, recourse would be had to an old implement of finance which Parliament had relegated to the museum of Treasury antiquities—he meant economy. He begged to move— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:— Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majestys most dutiful and loyal subjects the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the, Most Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

*LORD BATTERSEA,

in seconding the address, said, that he was sure that whatever opinion they might have of the merits or demerits of the Bills shadowed out in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, they would agree that the Government deserved to be congratulated on seizing the first opportunity of placing measures of great importance before Parliament measures to which they had pledged themselves at and before the last General Election—measures which, if they came into law, would do much to improve the, social, political, and religious condition of all classes in the country. At the commencement of his political career he sat for a Welsh constituency, and he seized that opportunity to thank the Government, in the name, of his old constituents, and in the name of the bulk of the Welsh people, for the promise of a Bill dealing with the Establishment of the English Church in Wales. He was aware that the question bristled with difficulties, that it, would be hotly contested on both sides, that it was one which deserved their most serious consideration, and it ought to be justly dealt with. He gave full credit to those who differed from him for the noblest motives and the highest resolves, but he claimed for himself and those who agreed with him the same tolerance and the same mutual spirit of fairplay. It had been admitted by the noble Marquess and by the noble Duke over and over again that under our Representative system if on any given question the opinion of the people was clearly defined and made out, that opinion should prevail. There could be no shadow of doubt as to the opinion of the Welsh people on this subject. It was clearly defined and made out. In 1880, after the last Reform Bill, there were four Members returned for Wales who have opposed this Bill. It was a test measure then as it was now. That minority had been raised as high as five, but at the present moment it was only three. Of these three two were returned by majorities under 100, and it was only in the other instance that the majority was considerable. On the other hand, those who had been returned to support this Bill were returned in every case by a majority of over 2,000. He claimed for the, Welsh people that they were not surpassed by any other as courageous, loyal, a law-abiding and Bible-loving community. The fact was, whether they liked it or not, the Welsh people were a people of the Nonconformist faith, and this was with them the outward and visible, sign of an inward and a spiritual conviction. There was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government or of the Welsh people, or of those who supported the Bill, to in any way injure or "desecrate" the fabric of the Church. They did not want to belittle Its Ministers, or those who, like themselves, worshipped within the walls of the Church, still less to diminish its spiritual authority. They wished to remove certain evils which hampered its progress, and at the same time to remove a national grievance, and so open up new paths for religious advance. It was in that spirit that the Bill was proposed by the Government, with the desire to set up and strengthen in the Principality a united religion worthy of the peoples love and respect, which would not require the support of a privileged minority against the wills and inclinations of a vastly preponderating majority of the people. He passed to another subject. They were constantly being twitted with proposing great constitutional changes to the neglect of social reforms. When he read in the Gracious Speech from the Throne the reference to the great question of the liquor traffic, he thought the argument could no longer be fairly used. If there was one subject which was more than another a social question it was the liquor traffic, which lay at the root of all their social grievances and problems. He trusted when that Bill came before them it would not be treated from a Party, but from a national, point of view. He knew something of the Prime Minister, and a good deal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they were not, in his opinion, fanatics, idealists, or "dreamers of dreams." Certainly he (the noble Lord) was not one of their "young men who saw visions," nor did he believe that any legislation would, with one sweep, do away with vice, misery, poverty, hunger, dirt, or crime; but legislation should do something, and he believed the Government would make a great attempt to master the difficulties of this question. He thought the change in the Bill of last year giving the power to localities to diminish the number of public-house licences was a distinct improvement. They were proposing to give to localities the same right which every one of their Lordships exercised on their estates—the right to say how many public-houses they should have in the district in which the people lived. He did not know what the opinions of the House might be, but he was certain that out of doors there was a very strong feeling that some drastic method should be adopted in dealing with the drink traffic, which was allowed on all sides to be a national danger and a national disgrace. He was aware that the vested interests they would have to consider in this case were of great importance, but, after all, it was not the vested interests of a particular class they had to consider, but the interests of the people at large. When they were told by the Judges and Magistrates of the country, by the police authorities, by those who watched over the lunatic asylums, the gaols, and the workhouses, that drink was the cause of a large proportion of the crime in the country, he thought it became the duty of Her Majestys Government to see whether something could not be done to remove the temptations, at all events to some extent, which led to those evils. He supported this measure because he believed it would be a just measure, he believed it was brought forward in a good cause, and for a noble end. With respect to the other questions mentioned in the Speech, he would refer only to the Bills relating to the question of One man One Vote and to that of Registration. These subjects, however, had been so much discussed inside and outside Parliament that it was unnecessary to say much about them, but it was essential, in his opinion, to satisfy the more democratic age in which they now lived, that plural voting should be abolished, and that, as to Registration, the burden which was now borne by individuals ought to be borne by the rates. With those few observations he begged to second the Address.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, it is a time-honoured custom in this House that we should compliment the Mover and Seconder of the Address on the speeches they have made, and that custom would seem to argue an assumption, on the part of the speaker who utters the praise, that it was founded on the idea that, generally speaking, the Mover and Seconder of the Address are young and bashful members of the House. I do not know whether that is absolutely the case in the present instance. But the noble Lord who has just sat down relieves me of any difficulty on that point, for he has assured us that he is not one of the Prime Ministers young men. I am glad to hear it, but notwithstanding that it may seem some what of an assumption in me to compliment a noble Lord, whose words I have listened to with deep submission when we both occupied seats together in the Treasury, still, I can say, with the most perfect confidence, that I have seldom heard a more energetic and vigorous defence of the special subjects of the Gracious Speech which were to the taste of each noble Lord, or speeches so vigorous, so exhaustive, that I should think they would spare, them the necessity of making second speeches when the particular measures are brought before the House. My Lords, the Speech itself, to which I think comparatively little attention was paid by the Mover and Seconder, deals with many interesting subjects, but it cannot be said to be extravagantly lengthy. I can only express my satisfaction that the lengthy and troublesome negotiations with respect to Sierra Leone have been brought to a conclusion. Whether it be a satisfactory conclusion it is impossible for me to judge until we have seen the Treaty, but I think there can be very little doubt that Her Majestys Government have exercised a wise discretion in doing their utmost to come to an arrangement; because, as long as an arrangement was not in existence, it was almost impossible to prevent the collisions which we have so much lamented in these parts. With respect to the atrocities that have been committed in Armenia, I should be sorry to make any definite assertion now, and for this simple reason—that the paragraph in the Speech informs us that the subject-matter to which it alludes is sub judice at the present moment, and it would be clearly improper—nay, almost indecent—to express any opinion on the matters on which the Commissioner is to examine and report. I am a little puzzled, however, at the language of the paragraph. Why the inhabitants of Armenia are called "Armenians in a district of Asia Minor" I am unable to imagine. My impression is, that they are not in Asia Minor at all, according to any definition that existed of Asia Minor in former times; and certainly I should have thought it would have been simpler to call these people inhabitants of Armenia. I should also observe, that I doubt very much whether the inquiry will be sufficiently exhaustive if it only deals with the supposed offences of the officers and soldiers of the Sultan. If statements which we have seen are correct, there have been outrages committed by many persons who are not officers or soldiers of the Sultan, and it is, at all events, asserted—I do not for a moment say it is true—that these outrages are not confined to one or the other of the two religious communities among whom they have, happened. Whether that is true or not I do not know. I have nothing to say in challenge of the action which Her Majestys Government have taken, but with respect to the future I will, in as cautious words as I can use, venture humbly to submit one recommendation to them. It is to remember that they are dealing with the most thorny of all problems, with the most irritable of all subjects—a community divided to its base by difference of race and of religion; and if they give to either side of that community an impression that their particular claims are to receive support from outside, they must remember that they will incur an immense responsibility if they hold out any hopes which they have not made up their minds to fulfil. There are many policies which may be pursued in respect to these unhappy cases, but the worst policy of all is to give any section of those Eastern populations the impression that a great support is to be given to their particular prejudices and aspirations and then to leave, them when the crisis comes with a few consolatory phrases to meet as best they can the excited irritation of their opponents. My Lords, I have necessarily used very vague language, because I am impressed in all these matters with the considerable danger that may arise, when we are dealing with the principal Powers of the world, from language that is used either in this or the other House of Parliament. The electric telegraphs and the railways have largely diminished our freedom of debate. Our grandfathers were able to discuss with absolute freedom and unfettered language the action of their Governments and the action of Foreign Powers, and they had little, cause to fear that any language they might use, however much it might be misunderstood, would injure the public interest or produce results that might be deplored, because then many days, or even weeks, must have elapsed before the report of it could reach those whom it might have been supposed to interest. If we have abstained, as I think we have carefully abstained, from commenting on matters connected with the Foreign Office in which we may take a deep interest—I do not mean commenting in an adverse sense, but merely commenting—I claim that we are justified in doing so by the peculiar position in which we stand, and by the danger which such discussions might carry with them. At the same time, I beg to disavow any supposition that therefore we necessarily assent—the supposition has been made before and it may be made again—to the matters which we have abstained from criticising. We might criticise them if we had a committee on foreign relations as they have in the United States—we might have criticised them if we lived in another age when communication was less rapid, but unless there is an imperious demand of public policy we hold that in dealing with the Great Powers of the world it is a better policy to abstain from that criticism, even when we do not entirely agree, believing, as we do, that Her Majestys Government have, as much as we ourselves have, an earnest desire to advance the power and the interests of this country. I do not think it is an expedient thing; though we might have been encouraged to it by a recent example, that Members even of the Opposition should use language in a deliberative assembly expressing jealousy and hatred of the subjects of an allied Power. Let others do these things if they will; we will not follow such an example. The Speech goes on to observe that all offences against; the law in Ireland have sunk to the lowest level upon record, and this is intimated as due to the administration of Mr. Morley. I could understand this if it had been agricultural offences, though I should then have differed from the inference; but that all offences of all kinds should yield under the sunshine of his presence seems to me to be claiming more for his proximity than any reasonable probability justifies. I would only say that such a contention is capable of two interpretations. I saw recently that a distinguished Irish leader in addressing the Ulster farmers warned them that they, the people in the south of Ireland, unless they were ousted from the north of Ireland, did not intend to go on committing outrages for the purpose of lowering their rents. No doubt that gentleman spoke with a full acquaintance with the machinery that had been at work during the last 15 years. If that machinery is quiescent now, and if no offences are thrust on the attention of the Irish Secretary, it is just possible that it is because those who direct such operations are his well-wishers, and have a notion that as long as he retains office they have a chance of getting as much as they can desire without the use of the dangerous methods which they resort to under other Governments. It is part of that general appeal for the help of the criminal classes in Ireland which has been made more than once by this Government during our experience of it. With regard to other matters in the Speech, I will not go into them in any detail. I have seen them before, and, if I live, I shall probably see them again. I would only regret the peculiar view of Her Majestys Government in relation to the relief of Agriculture. There is one thing that might be done to some extent for Agriculture, and that is, to relieve the burden of the rates, which presses so heavily upon it. So Her Majestys Government, being confronted with a state of Agriculture more appalling than we have ever seen before, propose to place upon it a new burden in order to pay the expenses of Members of Parliament, and also to place upon, it the burden of certain Light Railways, which are supposed to be a panacea for all its ills. Now, agriculturists cannot find money for the most necessary operations of Agriculture. They cannot find money to clean the land or to manure the land; and to tell them that if they are in distress their way is to levy a rate to make a Light Railway, seems to me nothing better than illusory. It reminds me almost of the princess who, when she heard the people wanted bread, wondered why they did not eat buns. This is a very interesting Speech, but it is more interesting by what it omits than by what it inserts. I am very much struck by the conciseness of the appeal to the House of Commons— Gentlemen of the House of Commons,—The Estimates for the year will be laid before you without delay. Almost every Speech I can remember promised the House of Commons that both efficiency and economy—as to which the noble Lord opposite addressed a timely appeal—should be observed in the Estimates that were forthcoming. But there is not a word of that in this Speech. I can only construe that curious omission by supposing that the party for economy and the party for efficiency were equally balanced in the Cabinet; and that, after lengthened conflict, they determined to say nothing about it. Of course, if there is to be anything done for the Navy, if there is to be a large loan raised, it is a very odd thing that no hint of the necessity of such a strengthening of the Navy was laid before the House of Commons in this Speech. In fact, I regard that blank as an eloquent proof of the vigour and the success of the noble Lord whom I am glad to see opposite, the First Lord of the Admiralty. There is a very much more, remarkable omission in the Speech. We have led an agitated autumn. We have heard that a revolution of the most portentous kind was intended. It was not from our side that such a description of the revolution intended came. Ministers generally represent the measures which they are bringing in, especially if they are of a destructive kind, as something much milder than the Opposition suppose; but the noble Lord the Prime Minister took great pains that we should not underrate the magnitude of the revolution he was introducing. He told us it was the supreme question of the time. He told us it was "terrible," and that if he could imagine any greater word than "terrible" he would use it in respect of that issue. He told us that nothing greater had been before the country since they had rebelled against Charles I. and James II. Where is it? I understand from rumours that go about that it is a kind of birch-rod which the noble Earl hangs against the wall, and which he will take down when he sees a favourable opportunity of employing it. But surely that is a novel, and not a very admirable, way of dealing with revolutions in this country. I think if you have got a revolution on your programme it ought to come first in the list. People have initiated wars who have said they did it with a light heart, but I never knew a person initiate a revolution who thought so little of it that he did not think it worth while to mention it to Parliament. Well, the strange lightness of estimate which this mode of proceeding betrays extends through the general policy observed by the Government in this juncture. I will use the Saxon rather than the Latin word—there is a doubleness in all they do which implies either that there are two Leaders or that the single Leader, if there is one, is a man of singularly changeable mind. We have all of us studied the accounts which in successive speeches the noble Lord has given us of his Resolution, and nobody has been able to make out the precise nature of the action which he contemplated. At first he denounced in very vigorous terms the composition of this House, and dwelt with piteous lamentations on the fact that he had only 30 peers—or 29 I believe it is now—behind him. Of course, after that observation I suppose he thought it inconsistent with his principles to add any more to the Liberal Peers of the House, and that we have seen the last of that interesting creation. The noble Lord who spoke first to-night has many claims upon our respect and admiration, but he has a special claim upon our interest, that he is like the dodo—the last of the creation to which he belongs, and the political geologist of the future will reconstruct his remains with infinite interest. But the Prime Minister began with lamenting the possession of only 30 Peers, and made all kinds of references to the noble Lords on this side which I characterised at the time and which I will not repeat. But we concluded, of course, that he meant to reform the House. Oh no! that was the, last, of his intentions. When he was a private Member he made some propositions for the reform of the House; and, as they were not received with enthusiasm, he held that any proposition to reform the House on the part of the Government was a matter from which he was entirely precluded. I will observe that when it is said, as I see it is sometimes, that the House of Lords dislikes, like a certain Scriptural character, to be reformed, the House of Lords is very hardly treated by that observation. A reform of the House of Lords has never once been proposed in a Bill by a Liberal Government. It was once proposed by a Conservative Government, and whether the proposal was good or bad, the House of Lords accepted it. During the last 50 years Liberal Governments have been in power for 33 years, and they have never once proposed a reform of the House of Lords; so I hardly think it lies in their mouths to reproach the House of Lords because no reform has been adopted. But the remarkable feature of all this campaign has been the doubleness of the advocacy that has been employed. All the argument has turned upon the composition of the House. All the intentions of the Government, so far as we can divine them, imply that the Government wish, if they have the power, to diminish the authority of this House in respect to the House of Commons. Now these two propositions stand upon a very different footing. As I have said, reforms have always been very freely discussed in this House, and I do not think the divisions of opinion upon them have borne a party character. There are a great many gentlemen on this side who have views of one sort or another upon the subject; but, of course, this is a matter that can only be accepted from the Government of the day. But, though I may keep an open mind, as I have in the past, on the subject of modifying the constitution of this House, when we go to the question of limiting its powers my impression is, that a very different state of feeling will be found to exist in the House. I have met many Peers who were in favour of modifying the constitution of this House; I have never met one—I mean, of course, on the Conservative side—[a Ministerial laugh] who would support the limitation of its powers in respect to the House of Commons. Yes, the noble Lord laughs at that, but he tells us he will not reform the House of Lords; he will not destroy the Veto of the House of Lords because he cannot overbear the Conservative majority. Well, I tell him that the alternative to which it appears he intends to have resort—that of diminishing the powers of the House of Lords in respect to the House of Commons—will meet with a far more determined resistance from that which he well knows is a majority in the House; and that it is, from the point of view of practicability, a far more hopeless scheme than any other that has been mentioned. I can understand the people who wish to reform the House—I can understand—though I am very, very deeply against them—the people who wish to sweep away the House; but the proposal to keep the House as a sham and to destroy it as a reality, to erect a protection which is no protection, but will mislead and destroy all who trust to it—that is a proposal which would at once be ridiculous and contemptible for your Lordships to accept, and would be the most pernicious course which it was possible for any Government to pursue. But, my Lords, that is not the only strange inconsistency and uncertainty and, if I may say so, the levity of the mode in which the Government have treated the present crisis of affairs. They say they cannot get the measures they desire passed. Well, they know perfectly well why that is. They know the House of Lords represents an overwhelming majority of England in its objections to these measures, and it is only by a very scanty majority, swept us from various other places—especially from the south and west of Ireland—that the noble Lord is able to carry his measures through the House of Commons. I do not think that a greater amount of agreement between the two Houses is probable so long as that state of things exists. The noble Lord admits that we must appeal to the people; yet, instead of appealing to the people on a clear issue, distinctly drawn, instead of appealing when the Home Rule Bill was thrown out, when the nature of the appeal would have been unmistakable and clear, he is now merely engaged in multiplying the matters which will be brought before the people for their consent, and so confusing the decision which will be given. How can a man give you a clear answer if he has only one answer to give and you ask him ten questions at the same moment? Yet, that is the problem which, by the course they are now pursuing, the Government propose to submit to the constituencies of this country. My Lords, the truth is, that the Government have ceased to look upon legislative measures as things intended to modify the existing legal state of things in this country. They are not intended to pass. They are intended merely as missiles to be directed against the House of Lords; and the result of such a policy must be to injure the chance of their being properly considered in the other House or in this. In the other House everything will be dealt with, with the knowledge that it is not likely to be passed into law. In this House, naturally, the fact that the measures are directed against this House, and are not merely confined to the matters with which they affect to deal, will injure the measures in the consideration of your Lordships. A snowball is a very beautiful thing if you examine it merely with reference to its constitution; but if it is directed against you by an unduly aggressive companion you forget the character of its constitution and you think only of it as a missile. I am afraid that this succession of snowballs, which Her Majestys Government are directing against the House of Lords, will injure the true and just consideration of the measures which they intend to submit to us. My Lords, I regret deeply, in the public interest, that Her Majestys Government have not thought fit to follow the precedent of Lord Palmerston. He, like they, had a very decided state of opinion to deal with and a very small majority in the House of Commons. But he did not take the opportunity of introducing a crowd of revolutionary measures. He devoted himself rather to that class of measures which did not appeal to the antagonism of class or creed, and was, therefore, able to fulfil, with credit and with great utility to his country, the term of the Office that he held. Her Majestys Government have taken exactly the opposite course, and because their majority is trivial, because it is uncertain, because it appears to be going away every day, therefore they have addressed themselves to all the questions that divide our community the most and that can excite the greatest antipathy between classes. I regret that in the interest of the public welfare: I do not regret it as a Party man. I can remember that Lord Melbourne clung to Office with a trivial majority, and declined to appeal to the people when an appeal to the people had obviously become necessary, and the result was that Sir Robert Peel came back with a majority of 90. I can remember Mr. Gladstone unwisely refusing to dissolve immediately after the loss of the University Bill. He clung on for a year; the people became more and more against him, and Mr. Disraeli came in with a considerable majority. And if I could wish for any object-lesson to the people of the danger that a system of Single Chambers would bring upon them, I could wish for nothing better than that course which the noble Lord is trying to prescribe to the House of Commons. A House of Commons divided into sections, maintaining a majority by mere log-rolling, in which a variety of interests has perpetually to be consulted in order to maintain the scanty preponderance—a House of Commons which, while it professes to appeal to the people, in reality defies the people and insists upon continuing its course, though the moment has come when the decision of the people upon the controversies that exist ought obviously to be taken, though the relations of the two Houses in consequence of the state of things has reached a condition which is unfavourable to sound legislation, the spectacle of such a use of his majority as the noble Lord is making is the best warning of any that I could desire of the dangers that would happen to public liberties and the public safety if, in name or in effect, a single Chamber had uncontrolled power in this country. My Lords, I regret for other reasons that the time of Parliament is spent on these matters. I regret that these violently antagonistic Measures which can come to nothing should be all that the energy of Parliament can do. It seems as though we thought there were no dangers and troubles outside that required our attention, as though we were blind and deaf to the misery through which large portions of our countrymen are passing. What is the cause of this great depression? We cannot tell. Is it the difficulties of the currency? Is it the difficulties of fiscal legislation? Does it come from want of confidence? Has the peculiar legislation which is being perpetually threatened by the supporters of the Government anything to do with the unwillingness of capital to venture forth and risk itself? All these are doubtful and difficult questions; they require our deepest attention; all the intellect and wisdom Parliament could give ought to be directed to attempting to mitigate the sufferings under which our fellow-countrymen are labouring, and I cannot believe you will increase their love for Parliamentary Institutions if they see that now, as for so many years in the past, you are simply engaged in the sterile contest between class and class and creed and creed and one House against the other, and you are forgetting those vital interests of the poorest and the most undefended, which it is your first and noblest office in this building to fulfil.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, I am sure that with the general tone of the noble Marquesss remarks, when we make deductions for that agreeable flow of irony and sarcasm to which we are accustomed, we have, on the whole, no particular reason to complain. Not even the somewhat sub-acid compliments that he addressed to my noble Friend the Mover and my noble Friend the Seconder were entirely free from that taint. He compared my noble Friend to the dodo, and expressed the hope that at no remote period he might have the opportunity of examining his remains. I am not so sanguine. I listened with delight to his speech, and I am glad to find that, though in the Civil Service he says his tongue was tied, we may hope that he will find ample and fruitful use for it in the Debates of this House. And as for my noble Friend the Seconder, who has had what is called a much larger sphere of usefulness for his eloquence, I am quite sure that we see in him one who on one or two of the great questions mentioned in the Queens Speech will be prepared to take an eloquent and an efficient part. My Lords, I cannot help remembering that the Seconder of the Queens Speech last year, Lord Swansea, was looking forward with an almost enthusiastical keenness to the opportunity of discussing the disestablishment of the Welsh Church in this House. I deeply deplore his loss, but I feel that in Lord Battersea we have one who will approach that subject with almost equal knowledge and with equal zeal whenever that Bill shall come before your Lordships. My Lords, with the tenour of the noble Marquesss remarks about foreign politics, I need not say that I am in cordial accord. I think he will do me the justice to say that when I was in Opposition I practised a not less reticence and caution than himself, and if he feels caution and reticence in dealing with the question of Armenia, how much more must that responsibility lay on me who speak in the name of the Government of this country? What I will say is this—that we have been able to act in this matter with the cordial acquiescence of the Great Powers most immediately interested; that Russia, France, and Italy—those powers, as they may be described, most interested in this question—have acted, in my opinion, with a single-minded anxiety that the full force of European public opinion should be brought to bear to elicit the truth of these melancholy rumours; and though the Porte has declined the concurrence of Italy as not possessing a Consul at Erzeroum, I am of opinion that the three Powers which are so represented will be able to watch the Commission of Inquiry with such vigilance and such power, that that Commission must, in effect, ascertain the truth. What we have all felt in hearing of these rumours is this—that if they are true our warmest sympathy must go out to our fellow Christians in Asia Minor under the unspeakable sufferings to which they are alleged to have been exposed. In the second place, if those rumours were true—and I wish I could say any official information at my disposal enabled me to give them an authoritative contradiction—it is not possible that the condition of those Christians shall remain in its present state, for otherwise they would be subject to reprisals which would make their last state worse than their first. My Lords, when I pass from foreign politics I find myself in less harmony with the noble Marquess. He was good enough to touch on Ireland—what, in a subsequent part of his speech, he called one of the various other places who contributed to the formation of the majority of Her Majestys Government. Whether that is Unionist language in speaking of the United Kingdom I do not know. Whether it is to be the message of peace that the noble Marquess is prepared to bring to Scotland, Wales, and Ireland if he should again be entrusted with power I do not know; but, at any rate, it struck me as hardly a happy term to use. But what was still more extraordinary was this, that in specifying what he described as the too meagre language of the Queens Speech he was pleased to import into the Speech language which did not exist there, and on which he founded an edifying homily. He says that Her Majesty is made to declare in the gracious Speech that the reduction of crime in Ireland is due to the benevolent administration and proximity of Mr. Morley. He must either have invented those words or have been supplied with a garbled copy of the Speech, for I can find none of them in the authorised edition. The noble Marquess was good enough to say that he did not believe it was due to the administration of Mr. Morley, but rather to the sympathy of those criminal classes to which Her Majestys Government had so often appealed for support. He did not instance the occasions on which we had so appealed for support. It would, I confess, have been more satisfactory to us; but, if he likes, I will give him the reasons which do make me think that cause and effect are to some extent to be found in the reduction of all crime in Ireland and the existence of Her Majestys present Administration. In the first place, by the admission even of our political foes, the administration of Mr. John Morley has been wise and kindly and firm, and if we had thought it meet, as the noble Marquess seems to have thought it meet, to introduce in the Speech a statement to that effect, we should not have hesitated, so far as the interests of accuracy are concerned, to do so. In the next place, I believe that the reduction of crime is due to another cause, which is the knowledge that the policy of an Irish Legislature for distinctively Irish concerns, satisfying the just aspirations of the Irish people and consistent with Imperial unity, remains in the forefront of the Liberal programme; and I do believe that what elements of disturbance there may be in Ireland are not encouraged to rise against a Government which holds out, when the time should be propitious, so great a promise to that people. The noble Marquess then turned to the subject of Agriculture, and he was extremely facetious on that subject. I regret I cannot altogether imitate his playful wit on a subject which is so distressing, because I honestly consider that there is scarcely a subject before your Lordships, or before the country at this moment, so imminent, so pressing, and so grave, as the state of Agriculture in this country. If I thought that it depended on certain easily removable causes, or certain promptly removable causes; if I thought it represented a state of things singular and unique confined to this island alone; I should be inclined to agree with the noble Marquess, and put it in the very forefront of the subjects with which legislation should deal. But it is not confined to this island. It is so little confined to this island that it is universal, and in place of asking noble Lords opposite to state a country where Agriculture is better than it is in Great Britain, I would rather ask them to state a single spot in the whole civilized world where Agriculture is in a flourishing state at this moment. I would go even further and ask them to name a country where, melancholy as the depression in Agriculture is in this country, Agriculture flourishes more than it does here. But when you have stated the evil you have not necessarily found a remedy. My noble Friend who moved the Address pointed out that artificial means for raising the price of agricultural commodities was out of the question. The noble Marquess, indeed, urged that there should be further subvention towards the local rates. Well, it is true that in some cases subventions towards the local rates have tended to lower the rates, but in most cases I believe they have not had that effect; they have tended to larger local expenditure—in many cases where those subventions have been given the last state of the locality has been worse than the first. The noble Marquess makes light of Light Railways. Well, I do not say Light Railways are an unfailing specific, but I will say this that, after a very careful conference which was held under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, it was felt that Light Railways did offer a prospect of relief for Agriculture, not, merely in England, but in Scotland, and that on that ground alone we might make an immediate step in that direction, which, even if it were not largely operative, could not fail, to some extent, to be beneficial. But I must go a little further than that. We appointed a Royal Commission the year before last to inquire into the state of Agriculture. It was not appointed before it was time, but I may mention it was appointed in our first year of existence, and I do not think that in the six years in which the noble Marquess presided over the councils of the country any such measure was deemed to be necessary. Was Agriculture so flourishing then? [The MARQUESS of SALISBURY: Better.] Better; I do not deny it was better, but I think the noble Marquess will hardly say it was nourishing. But that is beside the point. The Commission is sitting, and it is extremely difficult while it is sitting, when we had some hopes of a prompt Report from that Commission, to come down before the Report and override it and present our own remedies to Parliament. I say we had hopes of a prompt Report. Those hopes have been overclouded through the action of one of the noble Marquesss late colleagues. The Report which was about to be presented has been considerably postponed. I do not know his motives, I am sure they were high-minded; but as the motives of Party politicians on both sides of the House are always open to question and to suspicion. I could wish that in the exercise of his high discretion he had thought it well to hasten and not to retard the Report of that Commission. I will say this further, that when that Report is presented, neither I nor the Government will restrict ourselves to the Light Railways that are mentioned in the Queens Speech for the relief of Agriculture. We will not be fettered by the measure so announced, but reserve full freedom of action to adopt and to recommend to Parliament any such recommendations of that Report as we shall deem to be expedient. I now come to the last topic which was dealt with by the noble Marquess, and it was by far the most interesting. The noble Marquess rated us severely for the omission of one prominent topic from the Queens Speech; I mean that which might have laid down the policy of Her Majestys Government with regard to your Lordships House. My Lords, I am, I confess, at a loss to know on what precedent the noble Marquess based himself in anticipating a paragraph in the Queens Speech would announce a resolution at some time or another to be introduced into the House of Commons with reference to the relations of that House to this. Therefore, I am unable to argue the point; but I am inclined to think that, heavily as he laid the scourge on my shoulders this evening, it would have been nothing to the severity with which he would have dealt with me if I had recommended the Queen to take so unusual and unprecedented a step as to mention in the gracious Speech from the Throne a resolution relating to the relative position between estates of the Realm to be introduced in the House of Commons. The noble Marquis has said that in the speeches which I have been compelled to deliver in the country—I frankly confess that the delivery of speeches either here or in the country is never an act of spontaneous willingness on my part—that in the speeches I have been compelled to deliver in the country there has been constant variety and vacillation. I should have been grateful if he had given me some instances of that variety and vacillation, because I should have been able in that case to deal with them. What I have said from the first speech I have delivered on this question to the last is this, that the relation of this House to the other House, and the position of this House as regards one of the great parties of the State, constitutes a grave danger to the future of this country. I have further said this, that, in our opinion, the constitutional method of dealing with that situation is by a resolution in the House of Commons, and I also said this, that, in my opinion, it was not necessary or even expedient that that resolution should be introduced at once, for the obvious reason, amongst others, that a resolution must almost necessarily be followed by a dissolution, and that we saw no necessity for an immediate dissolution of Parliament. I then fail to see what the inconsistency is. I am quite aware that many minute political examiners—and I think the noble Duke below the gangway is the best of them—have thought it their duty to scan and scrutinize these speeches, not for the purpose of finding out what was in them, but what was not in them—that is the text and substance of the Resolution which Her Majestys Government will propose to submit to the House of Commons. You may scan and scrutinise one more speech, that is the speech which I am delivering now, without, I hope, obtaining any clue to that Resolution; because it would be, in my opinion, an act of disrespect in the first and highest degree to the House in which it is to be introduced—and I hope that even the noble Marquess will admit that the House of Commons is entitled to some contemptuous consideration—it would be an act of disrespect to that House if we were to forestall the introduction of the Resolution in that House by previously describing it in this. The noble Marquess has described my attitude in this House as one of disappointment because, first, the number of my followers in this House is so small, and because consequently my attempts at reforming this House were not received with enthusiasm. I will deal with each separately. As regards my disappointment that the number of my followers is not greater, it is genuine and it is deep-seated. I admit that with regard to the House of Commons as much as with regard to the House of Lords. But what cannot be said in regard to the House of Commons can be said in regard to the House of Lords—that that minority is permanent and stereotyped in the House of Lords, while in the House of Commons it is subject to modification. As to my attempts to reform this House, they were of a modest and unambitious character. They were not, I admit, received with enthusiasm; but, I hope your Lordships will pardon me when I say that I have never known of any proposition that was received in this House with enthusiasm. The noble Marquess says that I ought not to be daunted in those endeavours, but as head of the Government now it is my duty to persevere with them. My Lords, I really cannot detain the House by pointing out why, with nine-and-twenty followers, I could not induce the House to accept these drastic proposals of reform—and I confess they will be drastic—which only I could induce the Government to recommend. But there have been other attempts by other persons in a position to make such attempts to reform the House of Lords. I remember that in the Debate on the Home Rule Bill here I said, and I said it from the bottom of my heart, and shall reiterate it to the end of my life, that there was no greater reproach on the acknowledged statesmanship of the noble Marquess than his failure to deal with the question of the reform of the House, as he might have done with ease and impunity, in the six years between the passing of the Reform Bill of 1884 to the advent of the Liberals to power in 1892. But on one occasion, as he has boasted this evening, he did make the attempt. I observed that he passed very lightly over it. He said it was accepted by this House; but that is not my recollection.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The Second Reading was passed.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I do not think the Second Reading was passed. But let me narrate the circumstances of the deathbed of that measure. The noble Marquess taunted us genially about the duality of our leaders. There is a leader, he said, in the House of Commons—a very powerful man; there is a leader in the House of Lords, whom the noble Marquess hinted was a very impotent or a very irresolute man; that he had to give way to his taskmasters elsewhere, and hence his melancholy vacillations at which the noble Marquess hinted, but which he did not support by quotation. But I remember another duality of leaders on this very question of reforming the House of Lords. We had an animated and discursive debate on the proposals of the noble Marquess, which, if I remember aright, consisted of the introduction of six military and six naval veterans as life Peers—the salt and leaven which lend savour and consistency to this House, and would have done away, I have no doubt, with all the objections that have been urged against its constitution. The noble Marquess was rising to reply to the animadversions made in a feeble spirit from the Opposition Benches, when at that moment a paper was placed in his hands, which he hurriedly read out, announcing that his brother leader in the House of Commons had withdrawn the Bill in that House, and that, therefore, it was unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with any further observations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No, no.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Oh yes. If you refer to "The Parliamentary Debates" you will find that I am correct. That was the beginning and end of the last effort of the noble Marquess to attempt a great constitutional reform of the House of Lords. I think it throws some light on the question of duality of leadership. Now, my Lords, the noble Marquess ended with an impassioned appeal to this House. He said, in language which I think ought to have some justification before being used, that we were not introducing an honest Bill into this House, but merely flying kites—or snowballs I think he called them—with which we pelted the House of Lords without the slightest idea or a hope that we could pass the Bills. What are the Bills to which the noble Marquess alluded? The only Bill he dealt with was the Bill about Light Railways. He has not dealt with the substantial measures indicated in the Queens Speech. He is not prepared to consider the Bill for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, because he says it is not seriously intended. It is simply a missile sent by the House of Commons to harass the repose of the House of Lords. He is not prepared to consider the Measure for Amending the Irish Land Act of 1882. That, I suppose, is not a serious Measure either. It does not respond in any degree to the desires of the agricultural population of Ireland, not merely in the three provinces from which he says our supporters are mainly drawn, but also in the province of Ulster, to which he looks for Irish light and guidance. Is the Bill dealing with the liquor traffic a Bill the noble Marquess is not prepared to consider on its merits, because it is simply a missile intended to annoy this House? Is the Bill for the abolition of plural voting, which would take away from some constituencies 3,000, and from one at least 4,000 outside voters, a mere playful act of burlesque on the part of the Government, and not seriously meant? Is the provision for the payment of the expenses of returning officers at elections—the removal of one of the great bars to that democratic representation of the working classes which, I believe, the noble Marquess claims to desire as much as I do—is that Bill a playful effort of fancy on the part of the Government? We know what the noble Marquess thinks of the Bill for the unification of London, because he told us about the Report of the Commission, when he gave some thickness and consistency to that "thin partition" which was demolished a week ago by some Members of the Party below the Gangway, and which since has been so laboriously resuscitated by the noble Duke. The noble Marquess addressed words of reprobation to the Chairman of the Commission; and he treated the whole of the Report as a practical joke; but it is a practical joke to which the Government are prepared to give effect. I will not refer further to the measures in the Queens Speech, but I ask the House—divesting our minds of Party feelings, which, after all, are not unnatural, and which I do not deprecate—whether the noble Marquess is justified in treating these Bills as mere acts of a drama, not meant for serious consideration, but merely introduced for debate in the House of Commons to be flung back by your Lordships in the month of August. I can only say that that is not our idea in presenting them. Our idea is to give an honest and honourable fulfilment to the pledges which we gave in Opposition. I quite acknowledge that the programme that was drawn up by us in Opposition was by no means a brief one. It was adopted at a Congress at which I had not the honour to be present, because I was not then taking part in public life. But it was adopted with the assent of the Liberal Party then in Opposition, and I cannot think it is a discredit to that Party that when it returns to power it should endeavour to fulfil those pledges. I am quite conscious that our majority in the House of Commons is small. I am quite conscious that it is made up of various sections, whose interests the noble Marquess thinks it is extraordinary that we should deem it necessary to consult. But as long as that majority exists it is a majority. It is something to which the noble Marquess, with all his power in this House, can lay no claim, and so long as we possess that majority we intend to use it for the redemption of the pledges which we gave in Opposition.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, in the few observations with with I shall venture to trouble your Lordships it will not, fortunately, be necessary for me, because of my position in the House, to follow the course necessarily taken by the previous speakers, in dealing at some length with the whole or portions of the subjects referred to in the Queens Speech. I propose to refer briefly to one matter only. My noble Friend who has just sat down has protested with some warmth that the proposals enumerated in the Queens Speech have been brought forward in a serious spirit. Well, some of the declarations which my noble Friend has been compelled to make in the country has left the views of the Government as to the probable work of the Session in a position of considerable obscurity, which, I venture to say, his present observations have not altogether dispelled. We have heard from my noble Friend that on one occasion he felt he was trifling with his hearers in speaking to them about measures which he knew, and they knew could by no possibility pass into law in the face of the obstacle presented to them by this House. The Home Secretary also has been speaking about ploughing the sands of the seashore, and I do not think it would be difficult to find abundant references of a similar character in speeches by other Ministers. On the other hand, we have been told that this Session is to be a business Session, and that the measures contained in the Queens Speech are strictly limited to those which, in the opinion of the Government, can be and ought to be passed into law within a single Session. Well, I admit that I find a very considerable difficulty in reconciling these declarations, and in ascertaining, from the distinctions which have been made by my noble Friend, with what views the great proportion of those measures have been introduced into the Speech. I quite admit that there are some of them which the Government are fully entitled to consider necessary and practical subjects of legislation. There is the measure, to which calm and temperate reference was made by the noble Lord, dealing with the subject of Irish land. That is a subject upon which it is quite possible that Parliament may be called upon to legislate successfully. It is admitted by all, I believe, that as the time approaches for the expiration of the first period for which judicial rents have been fixed, some revision of the existing law will be found necessary; and I have not the smallest doubt that in this House, as well as in the House of Commons, every disposition will be felt to approach the consideration of this question, and of any new principle which it may be found necessary to adopt for the settlement of the relations between the landlord and tenant. I am sure that any proposals of Her Majestys Government on that subject will be met in a perfectly fair and temperate spirit. But when we come to such other measures, as that for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, the Local Veto Bill, the establishment of the principle of "One Man One Vote," I inquire whether these Bills are introduced with any intention or object of being passed into law. The position of matters has altered very considerably since the Session of 1893; and with it has altered the light in which we are entitled to regard any Ministerial declarations such as are contained in the Queens Speech. The noble Lord has told us that the legislative programme entrusted to the present Government by the election of 1892 was the largest that has ever been entrusted to any Government; and that under any circumstances it would have occupied many Sessions, and probably more than one Parliament; but that, if it had been possible for Her Majestys Ministers to pass these measures in the order in which they were submitted to Parliament, there was no reason in the nature of things why they should not, if not in one Parliament, still in a succession of Parliaments, complete that programme. But the Government have discovered that the very first measure—the measure upon which they appealed in the first instance to the country—they are unable to pass. They have not been able to pass the Home Rule Bill. Well, my Lords, if the House of Lords, holding the opinion which he did, that the Government had received no such mandate from the country as would justify them in accepting that Bill, passed by a very small majority through the House of Commons—if the House of Lords thought that they were justified in rejecting that Bill, and if the Government afterwards calmly acquiesced in that rejection, what reason can they have for supposing that the House of Lords is likely to take a different view of the large number of equally controversial matters, of which the Government themselves protest that they have even a less mandate and less popular opinion behind them? I think we are justified in saying that these Bills are not introduced for the purpose of being passed. They are introduced because, for some reason or other, good or bad, it is thought desirable that they should be brought into the House of Commons, discussed in the House of Commons, and perhaps forced through the House of Commons, and brought up to this House. But that they are intended to pass into law is a contention which is not seriously made even by Her Majestys Government themselves. I do not deny that there may be advantages in obtaining a full Parliamentary discussion of measures which there is no probability of passing in the same Session. Arguments may be met, difficulties may be smoothed away, objections may be removed. That is a process which has been over and over again resorted to; and by full discussion it has come about that measures, which, at their introduction, have been violently opposed, have ultimately received the Assent of Parliament. But has the experience of the Government with reference to the measures introduced during the present Parliament been of that description? Is it possible to contend that any argument, which was conclusive in the minds of those opposed to Home Rule, has been met in the course of the Debates on the Home Rule measure? Is it the fact that a single difficulty or obstacle in the way of Home Rule has been smoothed away or removed? I think the most conclusive proof that that is not the opinion of the Government themselves or of their supporters is given by the action of the Irish Members. I will do the Irish Nationalist Members the justice to believe that they desire ardently to see the establishment of a Legislature in Dublin some day. I believe they consider that to be the main object of their political existence. Well, if they thought that the Debates of the Home Rule Bill in this country and in these Houses had been such as to exercise any favourable effect upon the mind of the people of England, and to induce them to give a verdict in favour of Home Rule, should they hereafter be separately consulted on that subject, is it conceivable for one moment that these Irish Members, by whose support the present Government exists, would acquiesce in the shelving of Home Rule by that Government, not only for a single Session, but as we see now, for a second Session, and perhaps even for a second Parliament? It seems to me evident that, in the opinion of the Government, and in the opinion of their supporters, the Irish members, no such useful purpose has been served by the discussions in Parliament of this measure as in the slightest degree to advance its position as a Parliamentary question. Then, I ask whether the Government are going to introduce these equally contentious and unimportant matters with any hope that they will lead to any other result? No, my Lords. The object with which these measures are introduced is, that they may be of certain benefit to the Government. The majority which they know they cannot obtain in favour of any one of them they hope they may be able to obtain by combinations and management. If the Irish Members, if those who are in favour of Welsh Disestablishment, if those who are in favour of the Local Veto Bill, can each be induced to believe that their own measures—those in which they take an interest themselves—can only obtain a majority in support of them by the assistance of all those interested in the others, then that Parliamentary majority in the House of Commons may be obtained which they know cannot be obtained in support of any of those measures individually and separately presented. This policy has already been tried, and tried with a partial success. It is true that Her Majestys Government have not been able to pass any of their measures or to redeem any of their pledges. There is not a single one of those measures which were referred to by my noble Friend, as having been agreed to at the Newcastle Conference, which has been passed into law. But the policy which has been pursued of forcing those measures through the House of Commons has had the effect of securing and retaining for the Government the small, but at the same time adequate, majority which secures to the country the inestimable advantage of their administrative services. So long as Her Majestys advisers are content with this humble, if not brilliant, measure of success, I do not know that the Unionist Party have any great cause to complain. I think, however, that it is probably not a Parliamentary position which can be indefinitely continued with any advantage to the country; and I think it probable that the country will, before very long, become tired of an Administration which, apparently, does not possess the courage or conviction which is required to stake its existence upon any of the legislative proposals, by the support and advocacy of which it came into power. But, my Lords, as has been stated by the noble Marquess opposite, I think that it is rather with something which is not contained in the Speech, than with anything which is contained in the Speech, that the mind of the country is at present chiefly occupied. The declarations which have been made in the speech of my noble Friend, the Prime Minister, will chiefly be examined and scrutinised in the country with a view to obtaining some light as to the time and manner in which their policy as regards the relations of the two Houses is to be disclosed. My noble Friend has told us that he has no intention of divulging before the time the Resolution which is to be the first act of this revolution; but his reticence extends even beyond an unwillingness to give us the terms of the Resolution, for we have not heard from him an intimation as to the period of the Session in which this momentous Resolution is to be moved. We know from the public declarations of my noble Friend that, in his opinion, the time has come, or nearly come, for a free popular reference to the people which shall settle the Constitution once for all. We know that, in his opinion, the issue which is thus raised is a tremendous one; we know that it is to be accomplished by a Resolution submitted to the House of Commons. I submit to your Lordships, and to the Government, that scarcely too much time, notice, or information can be given to the country which is to be called upon to decide upon an issue so presented and so described. It is scarcely conceivable that it is the intention of the Government to raise an issue of this description by a Resolution brought forward at the fag-end of a Session in a House of Commons exhausted by a discussion of multifarious and important questions which are to be submitted to its consideration. It is scarcely conceivable that these proposals are going to be submitted to Parliament at a time when your Lordships House is occupied in the consideration of some other measures which are to be sent up from the other House, and when it will be impossible for it to be heard in its own defence. It is impossible to conceive that the country is going to be asked to decide upon this tremendous issue with no information before it except such as it is able to obtain from a hurried Debate in a dying Parliament. It is almost impossible to conceive that such a course of procedure should enter into the minds of responsible statesmen; but I think it is less conceivable that such a course of procedure will recommend itself to the sense of justice and of fairplay of the nation. It is not in our power to force the hands of the Government or compel them to make any disclosure of their policy which they may consider premature. It is a curious commentary on the imaginary claim which this House is supposed to make on behalf of its statutory or equal authority with that of the House of Commons, when it is not even in the power of this House to extract from Her Majestys Ministers a declaration of the time or the terms in which the question, so vital to themselves, is to be brought forward. I think we may rest assured that, whenever and however, this measure is brought forward and submitted to the House of Commons or to the country, no apprehension or misgiving need be felt by this House as to an attack which is being conducted apparently with so much hesitation, so much doubt, so much vacillation, as that which is at present threatened on the privileges of this House.

Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.